B10 Divisions - OSU and UM in the same division?

H

Hawkeye101

Well-Known Member
Conventional thought would be that Ohio State and Michigan would of course have to be in the same division to ensure they play that rivalry game each and every year.

If they are in the same division, that would ensure that there would be absolutely NO possibility of OSU-UM playing for the B10 championship. My thought is that there will be a significant amount of pressure from those two factions to ensure that the possibility at least exists for them to play that rivalry game for all the marbles.

Putting them in separate divisions and including that game as one of their protected games meets both needs.

Thoughts?
 
My guess, because of that factor, is the divisions will look like this:

Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa

Penn State
Ohio State
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana
 
I don't think they would put them in opposite divisions because I don't think either school wants to play the other one twice during the year. This would be possible if they were in seperate divisions. It also makes it possible that they would not play each other during a given year. Neither of these options would work for the schools or the fans. Playing twice would lessen the importance of either game and not playing one of the biggest games in sports just isn't a good option for the schools or the conference.
 
OSU/UM is the biggest rivalry in the Big Ten. I think they stay in the same division to not cheapen it by risking the possibility of a rematch.

The Big 12 ruined NU/OU, the Big Ten is run too well to make the same mistake.
 
Hawkeye101 said:
Conventional thought would be that Ohio State and Michigan would of course have to be in the same division to ensure they play that rivalry game each and every year.

If they are in the same division, that would ensure that there would be absolutely NO possibility of OSU-UM playing for the B10 championship. My thought is that there will be a significant amount of pressure from those two factions to ensure that the possibility at least exists for them to play that rivalry game for all the marbles.

Putting them in separate divisions and including that game as one of their protected games meets both needs.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
This is one of the problems with a championship game. Put them in the same division so play each other every year, then it guarantees they won't play for a "championship". Put them in different divisions, but still guarantee they play each other every year, then they could meet twice in the same year - thereby neutering the impact of the rivalry - beating your rival and then having to play them again in the same year is not good for the rivalry.

I know they'll play a championship game - too much money to pass up on, but I think they'd be better off playing in one conference, and playing 10 games a year in conference.

Of course, going into divisions now will make it easier to add new teams down the road.

In this respect, the Big Ten is no different than the SEC, the new Big 12 or any other conference. The quaint notions of integrity and tradition are gone - they should just be honest about it.
 
There is absolutely no way that they put Michigan and OSU in different divisions. If they did, they could play back to back weeks! Not happening. ''The Game'' is the single most valuable product in the Big Ten inventory and they are not going to do anything to erode that property.

East: OSU,Mich,PSU,PU,IU,MSU
West: Iowa,Neb,Wisc,Minn,NW,Ill.

They will buzz around with other possibilties but in the end,sanity will prevail with this geographical balanced approach.
 
I don't think the divisions will be split by geographic region (east/west). I could see the following:

Big Ten Heartland Division:
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Penn State

Big Ten Great Lakes Division:
Michigan
Ohio State
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue

In most years, Michigan and Ohio State will play to decide who is going to the conference championship game for that division. It'll heighten the rivalry. Nebraska will want another National powerhouse (PSU) in it's division, so it doesn't go the way of the Big 12 North.

Just a thought.
 
Not sure I understand how playing twice can potentially cheapen the rivalry. Protecting the rivalry while having them in separate divisions makes good sense to me. The few times they play twice would be worth it for splitting up the divisions in a way that makes sense competitively and geographically. Other than OSU fans, I don't think too many people would have not liked seeing a rematch for the Big Ten Championship in 2006 on a neutral field. Put Michigan in the western divsion. PSU being in a western division instead of UM would be terrible.
 
shon said:
I don't think the divisions will be split by geographic region (east/west). I could see the following:

Big Ten Heartland Division:
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Penn State

Big Ten Great Lakes Division:
Michigan
Ohio State
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue

In most years, Michigan and Ohio State will play to decide who is going to the conference championship game for that division. It'll heighten the rivalry. Nebraska will want another National powerhouse (PSU) in it's division, so it doesn't go the way of the Big 12 North.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

With these divisions you have the four historically worst programs in the B10 all in the same division, and you have four of the current five best programs in the other. And why would Nebraska want another powerhouse in their division? Iowa and Wisconsin are better than any schools in the B12 North. The B12 North also dominated the B12 south in the early part of that conference. They need to just divide the division based on geography.

West:
Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, N'westen, Ill

East:
Ohio St, Mich, Mich St Purdue, Indiana, Penn St
 
I understand the 800 win idea (Nebby/PSU in one conference and Michigan/OSU in teh other), but this is a new era of Big Ten football.

New teams, split divisions, championship games...

A West Division of Iowa, Wisky, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illannoy is at least equal to if not tougher than an East Division of OSU, PSU, Michigan, MSU, Indiana, Purdue.

It also sets up well to add a historic program like ND to the West while a lesser school like Rutgers or Maryland will be added to East.
 
It would be bad if they put them in opposite divisions. especially if they protect the rivalry game and keep that game the final game. If they want to make it interesting the final 3 games should be against division opponents. that way you dont risk playing a team within 3 weeks of playing them once.
 
wdmhawk said:
Not sure I understand how playing twice can potentially cheapen the rivalry. Protecting the rivalry while having them in separate divisions makes good sense to me. The few times they play twice would be worth it for splitting up the divisions in a way that makes sense competitively and geographically. Other than OSU fans, I don't think too many people would have not liked seeing a rematch for the Big Ten Championship in 2006 on a neutral field. Put Michigan in the western divsion. PSU being in a western division instead of UM would be terrible.
Click to expand...


As a rebuttal, how would you like to be undefeated as UM or OSU going into "The Game" and lose, only to turn around and play them again the next weekend or so for the Big 10 Championship and lose again? Your BCS bid ruined because you just weren't as good as the other team (which the first game showed).. but had to play them twice. I don't think either of these 2 historic powers would want that.
 
I really like the guy from clevelands black and blue divisions.

OSU/UM/MSU/Wisc/Ind/Pur
PSU/UN/Iowa/Minn/Ill/NW

those are balanced both historically and presently.
 
That's a good point Churlish. Though the same scenario could play out for other teams as well, not just UM and OSU no matter how you spit the divisions. Another scenario would be they both know they are going to meet in the championship game regardless, so game is not as intense. I don't know, just don't see making PSU travel out west for most of their road games as being fair. Also, the odds of our two scenarios playing out are fairly slim, especially if UM continues their recent decline.
 
I think they will avoid ''protected rivalries'' across divisional lines at all costs.
If OSU and Michigan are in opposite divisions and are in protected rivalry game annually, then OSU will have 6 of 8 Big Ten games locked in every year. That means they will only play 2 of the remaining 5 other division teams annually...leaving 3 teams not playing OSU...except in a rotation.
If you keep OSU and Mich together, then OSU plays 5 locked in game, leaving them to play 3 of the 6 teams in the other division every year..so they would end up playing every one at least every other year. In other words, Nebraska vs OSU would happen every other year instead of possibly every third year.

That is why in the end with the West being Minny,Iowa,NW,Wisc,Neb and Ill,none of those teams would have a protected rivalry game with the other division,and likewise with the East having OSU,MSU,MICH,PSU,IU and PU...you also have not protected rivalry games in the opposite division, which frees up teams to rotate other division opponents every other year and maintain some semblance of a true conference where teams play regularly.

Having protected rivalries across divisional lines creates a nightmare for scheduling.
 
However it gets divvied up, the following teams should stay together in the same division:

1. Michigan - OSU.
2. Michigan - MSU.
3. Indiana - Purdue.
4. Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin.

After that you can divide them up any way you wish.
 
The way I see it, either Michigan or PSU has to come over to the "West". Having Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division would be ridiculous.

Personally, I think it should be:

Michigan, Neb, Iowa, Minn, Ill, Purdue

and

OSU, PSU, Wisc, Mich St, NW, Ind


With protected rivalries of:

Michigan - OSU
Nebraska - PSU
Iowa - Wisc
Minn - Mich St
Purdue - Ind
Ill - NW

(of course, you can mix around the rivalries as needed)

If you play the rivalry game at the middle of the Big10 season, then, in the case of a re-match, it won't be back-to-back...
 
Illinois (2)
Iowa (3)
Michigan State (1)
Michigan (8)
Northwestern (3)
Ohio State (9)
Penn State (3)
Purdue (1)
Wisconsin (3)

That is a list of the teams that have won or had a share of the Big Ten Championship since 1990. Michigan and Ohio State top the conference, but my point is to show how many teams have been good and fought for the top spot in the conference. I know there was a year in there where Minnesota ended the season in the top 15 too, even though they didn't make the list above.

I may not being making it very clear, but my point is that you can't shape a conference based on two teams (OSU & Mich) especially as bad as Michigan has been the past few years. I think the Big Ten needs to be split geographically, like many of you have stated.

Either way, I can't wait for it to play out, and I'm even less patient for college football season to start. September can't come fast enough...
 
JHHawk said:
I think they will avoid ''protected rivalries'' across divisional lines at all costs.
If OSU and Michigan are in opposite divisions and are in protected rivalry game annually, then OSU will have 6 of 8 Big Ten games locked in every year. That means they will only play 2 of the remaining 5 other division teams annually...leaving 3 teams not playing OSU...except in a rotation.
If you keep OSU and Mich together, then OSU plays 5 locked in game, leaving them to play 3 of the 6 teams in the other division every year..so they would end up playing every one at least every other year. In other words, Nebraska vs OSU would happen every other year instead of possibly every third year.

That is why in the end with the West being Minny,Iowa,NW,Wisc,Neb and Ill,none of those teams would have a protected rivalry game with the other division,and likewise with the East having OSU,MSU,MICH,PSU,IU and PU...you also have not protected rivalry games in the opposite division, which frees up teams to rotate other division opponents every other year and maintain some semblance of a true conference where teams play regularly.

Having protected rivalries across divisional lines creates a nightmare for scheduling.
Click to expand...

Very good point about scheduling a cross-over rivalry game every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top