Anyone else not thrilled with how these divisions are looking?

BSpringsteen

BSpringsteen

Well-Known Member
I've always thought Wisky was vastly overrated. PSU has had as many down years in the past ten as they've had great years. Yes Ohio State is the class of the conference no question, but it seems to me that is the only team they really have. Indiana and Purdue are awful and Illinois seems to be competent at best.

Meanwhile, over here...

Michigan State is a top 25 team, Michigan looks to be improving if not great, and their history says they won't be kept down. Iowa in the past ten years has been as good as anyone in the country that hasn't played for the title. Nebraska appears to be a legit national title contender this year. N'Western is now a consistant bowl team.

Yeah, we get Minnesota, but still.
 
I still like our chances better where we are. Nobody knows if Sparty will stay on this high yet. Right now Dantonio has a good group of players, particularly on offense. We'll have to see if he can parlay that into future success. Michigan, if they have another 2nd half slide, could very well be facing a coaching change (and a system change that might come with it). Nebraska looks legit, and they are Nebraska, so odds are they'll keep it up.

It was going to be tough either way. But I like some competition, too. We won't be winning the division every year, but when we do, it'll be a fair bet that we have a team playing for something bigger than the Rose Bowl.
 
With all due respect, until there's a playoff of some sort, even a plus-one, then as far as I'm concerned, there is NOTHING bigger than the Rose Bowl. After all, just because they call something a "national championship game" doesn't make it one. No, I'll take a Big Ten title and a Rose Bowl berth anytime... and it would be great to take them both this season.
 
I think we are OK. All I wanted was to avoid OSU side of the division. I think they will be in the Big Ten title game 4 out of every 5 years, regardless of who is in their division. I feel good about how we match up with everyone else. As for Nebraska, I think they are vastly overrated. They have played nobody. NOBODY! But the voters don't care.
 
iowamike21 said:
With all due respect, until there's a playoff of some sort, even a plus-one, then as far as I'm concerned, there is NOTHING bigger than the Rose Bowl. After all, just because they call something a "national championship game" doesn't make it one. No, I'll take a Big Ten title and a Rose Bowl berth anytime... and it would be great to take them both this season.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it's a mythical national championship, it's still the biggest game you can win under the current system. Whether or not it's a "true" national championship doesn't really register in the minds of recruits. And winning a national championship brings in even better recruits than winning the Rose Bowl.
 
I like the way it is set up. I think everyone will have their opinions but you cant choose the divisions on opinion. You have to take wins and split up to make it equal. That being said I think teams/fans will have different opinion on how good a team is or how good a team is against their team. I would say as an Iowa fan we see NW as a tough game for us where another team may see them way different.
 
The Dantonio situation is an interesting one for MSU. I would have said that he was going to Parlay his success into a flagship job. But the coronary might scare some programs off. Then again, post season might find him having to step away. Even if he doesn't it might affect recruiting. Then again it might just blip that goes away. Who knows?

All that being said, Joe Pa must go! That side of the bracket will be a joke until they get the stones to move that guy out.
 
Penn State is a sleeping giant and until they get rid of JoePa they will be a middle of the road team. Granted they have had a lot of injuries this year but their talent level is down across the board.
 
If we can be the best team in our division,then we are a great team.
I like it the way it is,and we will be a better team because of the competition.
 
BSpringsteen said:
I've always thought Wisky was vastly overrated. PSU has had as many down years in the past ten as they've had great years. Yes Ohio State is the class of the conference no question, but it seems to me that is the only team they really have. Indiana and Purdue are awful and Illinois seems to be competent at best.

Meanwhile, over here...

Michigan State is a top 25 team, Michigan looks to be improving if not great, and their history says they won't be kept down. Iowa in the past ten years has been as good as anyone in the country that hasn't played for the title. Nebraska appears to be a legit national title contender this year. N'Western is now a consistant bowl team.

Yeah, we get Minnesota, but still.
Click to expand...
It's cyclical. Three to five years down the road, you could very well feel completely differently. PSU will rebound, with or without Joe. Illinois could be special once the Zooker is gone.
 
bwsmoney said:
It's not set in stone

Delany said if the divisions get uneven, the can switch them up
Click to expand...

I recall that statement and it gives me a glimmer of hope that we can come up with something better down the road. I don't like this set-up and think that the Big Ten took a convoluted approach with this from the beginning. It would have made far more sense to split the conference east-west and keep it simple. That would give the divisions instant identity that people around the country would recognize and it would spread out the strong teams in the conference better than the current arrangement. It would also eliminate the need for the silly rivalry games, where some teams get a better deal than others depending on who you get for the cross-division rival.

I think this process got out of whack with not wanting to put Ohio State and Michigan in the same division. So now you sit with Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, even Northwestern in one division while Ohio State looks virtually unchallenged in the opposite division. Looking at it objectively does that really look balanced? Recall that the Big Ten stated as their first criteria competitive balance between the divisions.
 
hawkeyemark said:
I recall that statement and it gives me a glimmer of hope that we can come up with something better down the road. I don't like this set-up and think that the Big Ten took a convoluted approach with this from the beginning. It would have made far more sense to split the conference east-west and keep it simple. That would give the divisions instant identity that people around the country would recognize and it would spread out the strong teams in the conference better than the current arrangement. It would also eliminate the need for the silly rivalry games, where some teams get a better deal than others depending on who you get for the cross-division rival.

I think this process got out of whack with not wanting to put Ohio State and Michigan in the same division. So now you sit with Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, even Northwestern in one division while Ohio State looks virtually unchallenged in the opposite division. Looking at it objectively does that really look balanced? Recall that the Big Ten stated as their first criteria competitive balance between the divisions.
Click to expand...

You're making this assessment with the benefit of knowing how the first 6 weeks of the season have played out. At the time the divisions were announced, nobody had a problem with them except for the Purdue matchup. Wisconsin looked good (and on the rise), Ohio State is Ohio State, and Penn State was Penn State (they didn't see this year going so poorly, and I doubt they stay down). In the other division, Michigan State has been a surprise. When the divisions were announced it looked like Iowa and Nebraska were the only two currently legit programs, with the conference banking on Michigan getting back (they haven't yet).

It'll all balance out in the end. We aren't immune to down years, and it will probably work out that when we're down, MSU will be up, and vice versa. At least a fair amount of the time, I think that's what you'll see.
 
tm3308 said:
You're making this assessment with the benefit of knowing how the first 6 weeks of the season have played out. At the time the divisions were announced, nobody had a problem with them except for the Purdue matchup. Wisconsin looked good (and on the rise), Ohio State is Ohio State, and Penn State was Penn State (they didn't see this year going so poorly, and I doubt they stay down). In the other division, Michigan State has been a surprise. When the divisions were announced it looked like Iowa and Nebraska were the only two currently legit programs, with the conference banking on Michigan getting back (they haven't yet).

It'll all balance out in the end. We aren't immune to down years, and it will probably work out that when we're down, MSU will be up, and vice versa. At least a fair amount of the time, I think that's what you'll see.
Click to expand...


Sorry,but there were many,many fans upset with the split when it was announced. Fans wanted the simple east/west split for many reasons.

1. Preserving traditional rivalries.....Iowa-Wisconsin,Iowa-Ill both bit the dust...border rivalries like these are part of the fabric of the oldest conference in America.
2. Brand recognition. East vs West is simple,and logical. Do you know who is in what division in the ACC? Nobody does, nor do they care about the ACC in football....Big Ten should be better. We have a nation-wide tv network,so building the brand is important,but muddying the waters with this setup was a mistake.
3. As you said, it is all cyclical...and so parsing out some gerry-mandered set up like we ended up with will not mean squat over the long haul either.
Trying to ''balance'' the programs was fruitless. Michigan,Ill,IU and PSU are in dissarray with coaching and NCAA issues...MSU,Neb,NW and Iowa look stable,and long term solid. Trying to project which programs will stand the test of time is a crapshoot,so just keep it simple and logical and preserve those rivalries.

To me, it is more about losing the Wisconsin and Illinois rivalries than trying to guess about programs strength down the road. Delaney got too cute here.
 
tm3308 said:
You're making this assessment with the benefit of knowing how the first 6 weeks of the season have played out. At the time the divisions were announced, nobody had a problem with them except for the Purdue matchup. Wisconsin looked good (and on the rise), Ohio State is Ohio State, and Penn State was Penn State (they didn't see this year going so poorly, and I doubt they stay down). In the other division, Michigan State has been a surprise. When the divisions were announced it looked like Iowa and Nebraska were the only two currently legit programs, with the conference banking on Michigan getting back (they haven't yet).

It'll all balance out in the end. We aren't immune to down years, and it will probably work out that when we're down, MSU will be up, and vice versa. At least a fair amount of the time, I think that's what you'll see.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree that programs not traditionally always at the top of the conference like both Iowa and Michigan State will have their fluctuations. You could include Purdue in that group as well. I think the Big Ten got this wrong by banking on historical precedence and not wanting to load up Ohio State's division and putting all the strength of the conference in their division in the east. I don't think that would have happened with a straight east-west split and the conference ended up out-thinking themselves.

Look at the path that Michigan has to go through now to get to the Big Ten Championship Game. They have to play through Nebraska, Iowa and Michigan State in the division and face Ohio State in their rivalry game. Not matter how you feel about Michigan, what sense does that make?
 
hawkeyemark said:
I certainly agree that programs not traditionally always at the top of the conference like both Iowa and Michigan State will have their fluctuations. You could include Purdue in that group as well. I think the Big Ten got this wrong by banking on historical precedence and not wanting to load up Ohio State's division and putting all the strength of the conference in their division in the east. I don't think that would have happened with a straight east-west split and the conference ended up out-thinking themselves.

Look at the path that Michigan has to go through now to get to the Big Ten Championship Game. They have to play through Nebraska, Iowa and Michigan State in the division and face Ohio State in their rivalry game. Not matter how you feel about Michigan, what sense does that make?
Click to expand...

And Ohio State has to go through Penn State, Wisconsin, and Michigan, plus whoever they play in the rotation. The odds are not good for Iowa and MSU being on their upswings at the same time very often. So it's really more going through Nebraska, Iowa/MSU, and Ohio State, plus whoever is up in the rotation. They really aren't going to be that unbalanced in the end, they just might be for the first year or two. But realigning just to ensure that the following couple years are balanced is like trying to catch lightning in a bottle. The conferene is thinking long-term here.
 
JHHawk said:
Sorry,but there were many,many fans upset with the split when it was announced. Fans wanted the simple east/west split for many reasons.

1. Preserving traditional rivalries.....Iowa-Wisconsin,Iowa-Ill both bit the dust...border rivalries like these are part of the fabric of the oldest conference in America.
2. Brand recognition. East vs West is simple,and logical. Do you know who is in what division in the ACC? Nobody does, nor do they care about the ACC in football....Big Ten should be better. We have a nation-wide tv network,so building the brand is important,but muddying the waters with this setup was a mistake.
3. As you said, it is all cyclical...and so parsing out some gerry-mandered set up like we ended up with will not mean squat over the long haul either.
Trying to ''balance'' the programs was fruitless. Michigan,Ill,IU and PSU are in dissarray with coaching and NCAA issues...MSU,Neb,NW and Iowa look stable,and long term solid. Trying to project which programs will stand the test of time is a crapshoot,so just keep it simple and logical and preserve those rivalries.

To me, it is more about losing the Wisconsin and Illinois rivalries than trying to guess about programs strength down the road. Delaney got too cute here.
Click to expand...

Your post expresses my thoughts on this probably better than anything I have written. I think Delaney dropped the ball big-time on this. I live in the heart of SEC country and have already had somebody tell me at work that it looks like the Big Ten set up their divisions to make it easy for Ohio State. I guarantee that this will not make sense to people looking at the Big Ten in areas outside of the conference footprint and this arrangement does nothing to build the Big Ten brand.
 
hawkeyemark said:
I recall that statement and it gives me a glimmer of hope that we can come up with something better down the road. I don't like this set-up and think that the Big Ten took a convoluted approach with this from the beginning. It would have made far more sense to split the conference east-west and keep it simple. That would give the divisions instant identity that people around the country would recognize and it would spread out the strong teams in the conference better than the current arrangement. It would also eliminate the need for the silly rivalry games, where some teams get a better deal than others depending on who you get for the cross-division rival.

I think this process got out of whack with not wanting to put Ohio State and Michigan in the same division. So now you sit with Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan, even Northwestern in one division while Ohio State looks virtually unchallenged in the opposite division. Looking at it objectively does that really look balanced? Recall that the Big Ten stated as their first criteria competitive balance between the divisions.
Click to expand...

Yes because Wisconsin and Penn St have never been good and will never ever be good again. You're being way too short sighted looking at this. If you went with your scenario and looked at a season as recent as 2007, you would have had Michigan, Penn St, Illinois and Ohio St. all ranked teams that year, in the same division. And just No. 21 Wisconsin in the other division along with Nebraska and Iowa, two programs obviously on the decline at that time. What a terrible alignment that would have been.

These things even out, you need to look at more than just six games.
 
HawkeyeMike23 said:
Yes because Wisconsin and Penn St have never been good and will never ever be good again. You're being way too short sighted looking at this. If you went with your scenario and looked at a season as recent as 2007, you would have had Michigan, Penn St, Illinois and Ohio St. all ranked teams that year, in the same division. And just No. 21 Wisconsin in the other division along with Nebraska and Iowa, two programs obviously on the decline at that time. What a terrible alignment that would have been.

These things even out, you need to look at more than just six games.
Click to expand...

I don't look at this just from the perspective of six games. It becomes a guessing game trying to balance these divisions. So why try? A simple east-west split preserves all the traditional rivalries, keeps things simple and gives the divisions instant identity that the Big Ten can market effectively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top