Big Ten divisions...looks like my prediction wasn't so wild after all.

Mesaclone said:
Not worried about the Big Twelve...nobody has any real incentive to leave at this point. Texas and its cabal have what they want...and the rest will not find a better monetary deal than they have now with the Big Twelve.

As for divisions, again, its not about what will happen...as it is about what should happen. There SHOULD be competitively balanced divisions. There SHOULD be a chance for MU and OSU to play for the championship. There SHOULD be no way in which a team like PSU jumps cross country to be in a division with Iowa.

These are all "shoulds"...what WILL happen is anyone's guess. I suppose its just as likely that something ridiculous....such as the Big 3 (MU, OSU, PSU) being in one division OR Penn State being in a division with the westernmost schools....will happen. But Dodd's scenario would be the most rational one in terms of competitive balance, preservation of rivalries, and regional integrity. Unfortunately, rational does not always win out.
Click to expand...

As usual, you are wrong on almost all counts. The only thing you are right on is to have competitive balance. Dodds' (and I presume this includes you) proposed alignment fails miserably on that point. It is nowhere near the most rational scenario.

There are other scenarios that can preserve rivalries.

Penn State has to travel pretty far now....and with air travel being common now...this is probably the LEAST important factor.
 
Last edited:
Mesaclone said:
Because, cuinkirk, one of the stated goals of the conference's divisional alignment is to maintain a semblance of regional integrity. That goal was tertiary to competitiveness...and Dodd's plan also provides a better setup in that regard.
Click to expand...

Below is a piece from an article by Teddy Greenstein.

But on the day the league added Nebraska, he did spell out his priorities for dividing the Big Ten into divisions. Traditional emphasis of geography is third. Maintaining rivalries is second. And first, he said, is "competitive fairness."

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/07/greenstein-making-sense-of-big-ten-divisions.html

Both competitive balance and maintaining rivalries (and we both know tOSU and Michigan is the #1 rivalry in the conference) rank ahead of geography. Even with that said, I don't think it's a certainty that PSU plays in the 'west' division, but I feel that there is a good chance, especially given the first two items.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/07/greenstein-making-sense-of-big-ten-divisions.html
 
cuinknk said:
Below is a piece from an article by Teddy Greenstein.

But on the day the league added Nebraska, he did spell out his priorities for dividing the Big Ten into divisions. Traditional emphasis of geography is third. Maintaining rivalries is second. And first, he said, is "competitive fairness."

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/07/greenstein-making-sense-of-big-ten-divisions.html

Both competitive balance and maintaining rivalries (and we both know tOSU and Michigan is the #1 rivalry in the conference) rank ahead of geography. Even with that said, I don't think it's a certainty that PSU plays in the 'west' division, but I feel that there is a good chance, especially given the first two items.
Click to expand...

I linked that article earlier in the thread, but Mesa either ignored it or doesn't have a response to it.
 
You state: "Traditional emphasis of geography is third"

I state: "That goal was tertiary to competitiveness"

So what I said is correct, geographic proximity IS one of the 3 criteria and is tertiary to the other two criteria.

As for balance: Dodd's system creates to very equal divisions. So on competitiveness...check. On maintaining all the old rivalries...check. On the geographical issue...check.

Please tell me which other scenario meets ALL of those criteria?
 
Mesaclone said:
You state: "Traditional emphasis of geography is third"

I state: "That goal was tertiary to competitiveness"

So what I said is correct, geographic proximity IS one of the 3 criteria and is tertiary to the other two criteria.

As for balance: Dodd's system creates to very equal divisions. So on competitiveness...check. On maintaining all the old rivalries...check. On the geographical issue...check.

Please tell me which other scenario meets ALL of those criteria?
Click to expand...

Dodd's system is blatantly UNFAIR. In the West you have 4 teams likely to finish upper-division: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska and Wisconsin. In the East....2: Ohio State and Penn State.

Maintaining rivalries: there are any number of division alignments that can/will maintain rivalries.

As for geography: Penn State is going to be doing a lot of traveling no matter where they are.

I like the Cleveland writer's idea:

Black............... Blue

Ohio State............... Nebraska
Michigan............... Penn State
Michigan St................ Iowa
Wisconsin ............... Minnesota
Purdue ............... Illinois
Indiana................ Northwestern



Here you have an EQUAL mix of the stronger and weaker teams.

You also have rivalries: OSU/Michigan, Iowa/Minnesota, Michigan/MSU, Purdue/Indiana, etc. Any cross-division rivalries can easily be permanent parts of a yearly schedule.

Competitiveness...check!
Maintain rivalries...double check!
Geography....triple check! (at least it as good as any other...Penn St. will always be the oddball in this regard).

This proposal is vastly superior to yours and Dodds'.

So Mesa....you have been trumped again. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
Last edited:
I hear you Mesa and I agree with you. We seem to be in the minority...Dodds too. I been looking at the expansion problem and have taken into consideration all the variables and the split proposed in this thread seems to be the most logical. PSU is an elite program with clout. Do you think they'll stand for being pushed into the western division (as MANY have proposed) like some redheaded stepchild...I don't think so. As for Mich/OSU game as being huge, I agree. What is more fun than the HUGE rivalry game: the chance to play it again, and it would be for all the Big1T2en Marbles!! Protect the key outside division rivalries and rotate the rest on a 2 out of 3 basis or whatever the math works out to be.
 
83Hawk.

You stated..."Geography...triple check" What????

Having PSU cross over to a Western division completely violates the principle of geographically coherent divisions. So your setup is more like this:

Competitiveness...check!
Maintain rivalries...double check!
Geography....big FAIL!



Talkhawks...its nice to see someone with their objective thinking cap on:

"Do you think they'll stand for being pushed into the western division (as MANY have proposed) like some redheaded stepchild...I don't think so. As for Mich/OSU game as being huge, I agree. What is more fun than the HUGE rivalry game: the chance to play it again, and it would be for all the Big1T2en Marbles!!"
 
Mesaclone said:
You state: "Traditional emphasis of geography is third"

I state: "That goal was tertiary to competitiveness"

So what I said is correct, geographic proximity IS one of the 3 criteria and is tertiary to the other two criteria.

As for balance: Dodd's system creates to very equal divisions. So on competitiveness...check. On maintaining all the old rivalries...check. On the geographical issue...check.

Please tell me which other scenario meets ALL of those criteria?
Click to expand...

As defined by Merriam-Webster:

: of third rank, importance, or value.

Tertiary - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
Don't argue with MesaClone. He has one objective, even though he denies it...he wants to make Iowa's life as difficult as humanly possible. It's just that simple.
 
talkhawks said:
I hear you Mesa and I agree with you. We seem to be in the minority...Dodds too. I been looking at the expansion problem and have taken into consideration all the variables and the split proposed in this thread seems to be the most logical. PSU is an elite program with clout. Do you think they'll stand for being pushed into the western division (as MANY have proposed) like some redheaded stepchild...I don't think so. As for Mich/OSU game as being huge, I agree. What is more fun than the HUGE rivalry game: the chance to play it again, and it would be for all the Big1T2en Marbles!! Protect the key outside division rivalries and rotate the rest on a 2 out of 3 basis or whatever the math works out to be.
Click to expand...

How will being in the west division force them to travel to the western schools any more than they currently are? There would only be five division games, 2 or 3 would be in Happy Valley, and the rest of the conference games would be against east teams.
 
Mesaclone said:
Because, cuinkirk, one of the stated goals of the conference's divisional alignment is to maintain a semblance of regional integrity. That goal was tertiary to competitiveness...and Dodd's plan also provides a better setup in that regard.
Click to expand...

Keep repeating your right ... you have yourself convinced.
 
Mesaclone said:
Because, cuinkirk, one of the stated goals of the conference's divisional alignment is to maintain a semblance of regional integrity. That goal was tertiary to competitiveness...and Dodd's plan also provides a better setup in that regard.
Click to expand...

That's right, it was. It was also the third of three goals, the first of which was competetive fairness. Some people might see Penn State being lumped into the east as being unfair. Doesn't necessarily make it so.
 
Mesaclone said:
83Hawk.

You stated..."Geography...triple check" What????

Having PSU cross over to a Western division completely violates the principle of geographically coherent divisions. So your setup is more like this:

Competitiveness...check!
Maintain rivalries...double check!
Geography....big FAIL!



Talkhawks...its nice to see someone with their objective thinking cap on:

"Do you think they'll stand for being pushed into the western division (as MANY have proposed) like some redheaded stepchild...I don't think so. As for Mich/OSU game as being huge, I agree. What is more fun than the HUGE rivalry game: the chance to play it again, and it would be for all the Big1T2en Marbles!!"
Click to expand...

See cuinknk's response re: geography. It doesn't matter which division Penn State plays in...they are going to be doing a lot of traveling...JUST LIKE THEY DO RIGHT NOW.

Thank you for agreeing with my first two points.

Honestly....how ANYONE can see a set up with 4 upper-tier teams in one division and only 2 upper-tier teams in the other as being anything remotely competitive or equal just baffles me. Sacrifice fairness just so Penn State can travel a little less? I don't think so.

And....Michigan-Ohio State potentially playing twice:

1. I'd bet the majority of fans from both teams wouldn't want that.
2. It will dilute and lessen the rivalry by making the "first" game less important.
3. It will lose its marquee luster among FB fans in general if they play multiple times.

I have to wonder if Mesa is really this dense or if he is just trying to get a rise out of people.
 
Shada...why would you quote a definition from Webster that supports what I stated, and contradicts your earlier point?

Odd.

Anyway, my objective, Ibanker, is to figure out the most equally balanced, regionally rational, configuration for the Big Ten. I realize you approach it ONLY from Iowa's perspective, but I try to look at in a comprehensive way..as in what's best for the conference rather than just Iowa.


And you got me, 83. I'm just not as bright as you.
 
Last edited:
Mesaclone said:
Shada...why would you quote a definition from Webster that supports what I stated, and contradicts your earlier point?

Odd.

Anyway, my objective, Ibanker, is to figure out the most equally balanced, regionally rational, configuration for the Big Ten. I realize you approach it ONLY from Iowa's perspective, but I try to look at in a comprehensive way..as in what's best for the conference rather than just Iowa.


And you got me, 83. I'm just not as bright as you.
Click to expand...

Delany did say that that geography would play a role, but depending on how interpreted his statement, the role it would play is minimal. But really, I wasn't sure what tertiary meant, so I decided to look it up. It's also used to describe an era of the dinosaurs.

And it would make sense that an Iowa fan approaches thing from an Iowa fan perspective, wouldn't it?

Also, maybe you could address some of the points that 83 and I -along with everyone else who has disagreed with you, which is just about everyone - has tried to make, instead of making snide remarks about that posters intelligence. 83 made some good points in his post, and you either didn't read them or have just chosen to ignore them.
 
Last edited:
Where did I ever question 83's intelligence?

If anyone questioned anyone else's intelligence...it was 83 questioning mine...so I'll wait while you critique him for that.
 
Looking at these various scenarios what I don't see is much discussion of fixed inter-divisional rivalries. In the SEC, for example, the UT/Alabama rivalry was preserved despite the teams being in separate divisions. They play every year. Yes, the possibility does exist that there would be a rematch in the championship game, but it is inevitable with the establishment of divisions that there will be some sacred cows that are sacrificed.

While it is possible that 'the game' be played twice in a year, it is by no means a given or even likely. If it is, who cares? The stakes are immeasurably larger for the rematch which makes for great drama and $ for all involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top