Archive

Is there really any other way to align the new big ten divisions other than this?

  • redfalcon
    Assuming they do a geographical alignment like everyone else has

    East
    Penn State
    Ohio State
    Michigan
    Michigan State
    Indiana
    Purdue

    West
    Illinois
    Iowa
    Nebraska
    Wisconsin
    Northwestern
    Minnesota


    I just don't see how else it would work unless you just randomly jumbled them up. Only three teams in the north, so that won't really fly. Lake Michigan just seems to create a natural break, and assuming Notre Dame eventually joins, you could plug them in to either division, depending on who the 14th team would be.
  • Classyposter58
    Nope its the best way while preserving all the rivalries
  • redfalcon
    Exactly. The only one that isn't accomodated is Indiana-Illinois, and that one isn't even that big.
  • vball10set
    looks good,and the powers-that-be could always make sure that Indiana-Illinois play each other every year as part of the crossover schedule--I like it
  • krambman
    Are you new? Yes, obviously there are other ways to split up the divisions. No, not geographically, but unlike you incorrectly stated, not everyone divides their conference by geography (the ACC divided their divisions to try and create balance instead of by geography). Yes, I think that this makes the most sense to everyone, but it makes the East much more difficult than the West (assuming Michigan recovers once RichRod craws back into the cesspool he came out of), and we've seen with the Big XII that having a dominant division isn't really a good thing.

    And as far as rivalries go, the Big Ten has already said that a nine game conference schedule is likely. That would mean that everyone has seven teams they would play every year (the other five in their division and two permanent cross-overs). This means that every traditional rivalry would be assured to be played every year either as a divisional game or as a permanent cross-over.

    Folks, it's time that we accept the fact the geography is about the fifth most important thing the conference is considering when deciding divisions and that in all likelihood we won't get the seemingly logical East/West split down the Indiana/Illinois boarder.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    As mentioned above, the ACC doesn't do a geographical alignment.

    As for the proposed structure, it is ok, but I don't see why Penn St. can't switch with either Illinois or Northwestern to make the divisions more historically even.
  • redfalcon
    krambman;458822 wrote:Are you new? Yes, obviously there are other ways to split up the divisions. No, not geographically, but unlike you incorrectly stated, not everyone divides their conference by geography (the ACC divided their divisions to try and create balance instead of by geography). Yes, I think that this makes the most sense to everyone, but it makes the East much more difficult than the West (assuming Michigan recovers once RichRod craws back into the cesspool he came out of), and we've seen with the Big XII that having a dominant division isn't really a good thing.

    And as far as rivalries go, the Big Ten has already said that a nine game conference schedule is likely. That would mean that everyone has seven teams they would play every year (the other five in their division and two permanent cross-overs). This means that every traditional rivalry would be assured to be played every year either as a divisional game or as a permanent cross-over.

    Folks, it's time that we accept the fact the geography is about the fifth most important thing the conference is considering when deciding divisions and that in all likelihood we won't get the seemingly logical East/West split down the Indiana/Illinois boarder.


    So, in short, yes.

    And I have been huddling/chattering since 2003, so no.

    I have to point out that while the ACC doesn't, and yes, I missed that one, the Big 12, the SEC, the MAC, the old WAC, pretty much everyone else does.
  • Big Gain
    The ACC has always been clueless when it comes to football.
  • sjmvsfscs08
    Whatever the ACC does the Big Ten should do the opposite of. :)

    And the goal of the Conference Championship is to find the best team, and the best team would make it through the tougher division. Personally I find people who want Penn State on the other division to be pussies. All we are doing is adding Nebraska, will Nebraska be in our division? No. So with that said nothing is really changing for those in the hypothetical East. I just think it's ridiculous for teams and fans to want to spread it out when it wasn't before and we still dominated the decade.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    It isn't about pussification, but rather spreading the wealth. There are 4 "new Big 10 teams" that will consistently fill up 80,000+ seat stadiums and have the travel following and name recognition to fill the other stadiums (Wisconsin is close but doesn't quite make it IMO). If I'm Nebraska I'd insist on one of OSU/UM/PSU to be in the same division and at least another one to be a yearly rival.
  • redfalcon
    I get the feeling that we are going to have a real rivalry develop between Nebraska and Iowa, perhaps Nebraska-Minnesota
  • sjmvsfscs08
    The West Division has Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. The East Division has Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. Now people like to assume that Michigan will get better instantly, but even top programs have lost decades (USC 1990s, Notre Dame 2000s, etc.) Michigan might not get back into the swing of things for some time. Fact of the matter is none of us know the future. Nebraska may complete their ascension to elite status, but they may falter. Iowa was looking good until a slew of injuries in the middle of the decade, but they are a top Big Ten team have have been throughout the decade. Wisconsin is typically tough and has been for a while. Shit even Northwestern made a few Rose Bowls in the 1990s.

    Move Penn State over to that division, and not only are they traveling one thousand miles to go to Nebraska, but you could argue Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Penn State is tougher than Ohio State/Michigan, even if Michigan State gets rolling with Dantonio.

    There is just no way to know what will happen, so teams should quit bitching because from 19XX-1992 you had to play everyone to win the conference, and from 1993-2010 the best teams didn't avoid each other typically. Iowa and Ohio State in 2002 comes to mind though. Yes, I'm talking to you Michigan Athletic Director. :D Fucking pussy.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "so quit bitching because from 19XX-1992 you had to play everyone to win the conference,"

    Erroneous.
  • redfalcon
    sjmvsfscs08,

    Very rarely do I like what I hear from ND fans, but you have hit the nail on the head. Well said, I completely agree.
  • sjmvsfscs08
    Damn it manhattan quit proving me wrong, I'm in the library studying psych and don't have time for this madness! :D

    But I admit, they only played eight Big Ten opponents, the point still stands. They didn't dodge teams back then on purpose.

    Why should Nebraska care if a team can't fill up their stadium? They have sold out all of their games since 1962. If Illinois doesn't bring the fans for a home-field advantage, doesn't that behoove Nebraska? Furthermore Iowa sold out all of their games except one (they played Arkansas State or some FCS school) and Wisconsin fans show up.
  • Ghmothwdwhso
    How about a North-South division:

    I know its not geograhically correct......but what the hell.......

    North

    Wisc
    Minn
    MSU
    UM
    Northwestern
    Iowa


    South

    Neb
    OSU
    PSU
    IND
    ILL
    PUR
  • redfalcon
    It seems difficult and akward to have a north south division when your conference stretches from The new Jersey border to the Wyoming border, but is only two states tall.
  • Big Gain
    redfalcon;459027 wrote:I get the feeling that we are going to have a real rivalry develop between Nebraska and Iowa, perhaps Nebraska-Minnesota

    That is EXACTLY what Tom Osborne has said. Nebraska coming into the Big Ten as quickly as they did was on a condition that they get put in the same Division with Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa.
  • vball10set
    sjmvsfscs08;459049 wrote:The West Division has Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. The East Division has Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. Now people like to assume that Michigan will get better instantly, but even top programs have lost decades (USC 1990s, Notre Dame 2000s, etc.) Michigan might not get back into the swing of things for some time. Fact of the matter is none of us know the future. Nebraska may complete their ascension to elite status, but they may falter. Iowa was looking good until a slew of injuries in the middle of the decade, but they are a top Big Ten team have have been throughout the decade. Wisconsin is typically tough and has been for a while. Shit even Northwestern made a few Rose Bowls in the 1990s.

    Move Penn State over to that division, and not only are they traveling one thousand miles to go to Nebraska, but you could argue Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Penn State is tougher than Ohio State/Michigan, even if Michigan State gets rolling with Dantonio.

    There is just no way to know what will happen, so teams should quit bitching because from 19XX-1992 you had to play everyone to win the conference, and from 1993-2010 the best teams didn't avoid each other typically. Iowa and Ohio State in 2002 comes to mind though. Yes, I'm talking to you Michigan Athletic Director. :D Fucking pussy.
    sonofabitch--I agree with you too...wonders never cease--good post ;)
  • krambman
    redfalcon;459168 wrote:It seems difficult and akward to have a north south division when your conference stretches from The new Jersey border to the Wyoming border, but is only two states tall.

    Three states tall: Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
  • BigAppleBuckeye
    I posted this a long time ago, but I think it is worth discussing again: what if we broke it out by conference seniority? Check it out, here is the breakdown, with the year they joined the Big 10 in Parentheses:

    SENIOR DIVISION

    Illinois (1896)
    Michigan (1896)
    Minnesota (1896)
    Northwestern (1896)
    Purdue (1896)
    Wisconsin (1896)

    JUNIOR DIVISION

    Indiana (1899)
    Iowa (1899)
    Ohio State (1912)
    Michigan State (1950)
    Penn State (1990)
    Nebraska (2010)
  • OneBuckeye
    ^ I like that except switch Michigan for Iowa or Nebraska. You have to have OSU and UM in the same division IMO. If they aren't the game as we know it will no longer be what it is. It will most likely be moved into october.
  • darbypitcher22
    I think the 1st alignment posted provides not only geographical considerations but also has a fair amount of competitive balance.

    You have Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan in one division, and then you have Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin in the other. The Big 6 are divided pretty evenly and then the other 3 bottom feeders are also divided pretty evenly
  • TheMightyGators
    BigAppleBuckeye;459370 wrote:I posted this a long time ago, but I think it is worth discussing again: what if we broke it out by conference seniority? Check it out, here is the breakdown, with the year they joined the Big 10 in Parentheses:

    SENIOR DIVISION

    Illinois (1896)
    Michigan (1896)
    Minnesota (1896)
    Northwestern (1896)
    Purdue (1896)
    Wisconsin (1896)

    JUNIOR DIVISION

    Indiana (1899)
    Iowa (1899)
    Ohio State (1912)
    Michigan State (1950)
    Penn State (1990)
    Nebraska (2010)

    The Junior division would completely dominate the Seniors.
  • sjmvsfscs08
    While I agree that you with--that is a horrendous breakdown, it's not like everyone in the division plays against the other division in some sort of A vs. B match up a la ACC-Big Ten in basketball. You're taking #1 A vs. #1 B, how bad or awesome #2 A or B is is rather irrelevant and only really relevant when discussing which road is easier.