I think this is the solution to the "divisons" problem facing the BIg 10

M

Mesaclone

Banned
Western Division
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Michigan State

Eastern Division
Illinois
Northwestern
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Indiana


Guaranteed cross division rivalry games:
OSU v Michigan
Iowa v Illinois
Nebraska v Penn State
Minnesota v Indiana
Michigan State v Purdue
Wisconsin v Northwestern


This ensures VERY balanced regional divisions. Guarantees that OSU plays MU every year. Allows for the possibility of an OSU v MU championship game. It also maintains nearly all of the traditional "trophy" games and sets up a nice "out of division" rivalry for NU against Penn State. Finally, I think the potential for OSU meeting Michigan in a championship game outweighs any concerns about them playing each other twice in a season.
 
Mesaclone, the alignment where OSU and Michigan are in different divisions but still hold their end of the regular season game cheapens the rivalry if both have their division titles locked down and will face each other the following week in the Big Ten Championship game. Everyone, including Michigan and OSU fans, will tell you that they will have to remain in the same division.
 
In that very rare possibility, bhawks, its hard to see how a matchup in a CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP game could cheapen any rivalry. Further, I doubt that OSU and MU would prefer that potentiality to the exclusion of ever being able to meet in a championship game...which is what putting them in the same division causes.
 
I like what you drew up, though I do think they keep Mich and tOSU together. For some reason I think that's a game that should only be played once a year.
 
There are 924 different ways to divide into two divisions. I do not believe the Big Ten will separate tOSU and U of Mi. That leaves 206 ways to divide into two divisions. Penn State wants to play Ohio State every year. It can either be in the same division with tOSU or be granted a protected game with the Bucks. If the Lions can get the tOSU game I'm pretty sure they will go for being paired with Nebraska. That leaves 126 division combinations. We can then deduce that Nebraska is not with tOSU/MI division. That leaves just 70 possibilities.

I do not feel Iowa has any inclination to play Illinois annually. Minnesota or Wisconsin would be a protected rival. Minnesota or Wisconsin are going to be in the same division as Iowa, maybe both. If one isn't, then the one that isn't will be the protected game.

The problem I see with across division protected games is that it leaves an odd number of teams for rotation. How do you rotate 5 teams?
 
Very rare possibility ... the Michigan-OSU champion has decided the Big Ten Champion 22 times out of the last 75 seasons (once every 3.4 seasons) and 17 times out of the last 45 seasons (once every 2.6 seasons). If history holds (Michigan gets back to where it was), then about once every 3 years there would be a repeat of the Michigan-OSU game the following week in the Big Ten Championship game. It cheapens the rivalry if neither team has to win the regular season game to make it to the championship. Also, does any football fan really want to see these teams play twice in 7 days? Instead, if you keep them in the same division, almost ever year they would play the equivalent of a semi-final game to get into the Big Ten Championship. That sounds a lot more compelling of a game to me.

Talk to Michigan and OSU fans (I know many) and you will see that they would much rather play each other once a year in a game that decides a division championship then to have a scenario where they play each other in a conference championship that would make the regular season game often meaningless.
 
bhawks, that rate of OSU vs Michigan to win the conference is based on their dominance up through the 90's. Nothing remotely like that is likely in the future. Further, this alignment assures MU and OSU of two important things: First, that they play each other each and every year; Second, that they could conceivably play each other in the Big Ten championship game. Thus it eliminates any negatives of being in different divisions while providing some nice benefits to playing opposite each other. It truly is a win-win situation for both schools. Any other regionally feasible alignment would put MU, OSU, and PSU in the same division...which is absurdly unbalanced.

Further, this alignment guarantees nearly all of the "trophy" games are played every year for all the schools, creates balanced divisions, and sets the schools up in regional alignments. I just don't see any downside to it with the one, very small, exception that MU and OSU might play twice perhaps once a decade...and even that negative is pretty positive as it would mean both are in the conference championship game...which would be duly hyped as a rematch/grudge match.
 
Mesaclone said:
bhawks, that rate of OSU vs Michigan to win the conference is based on their dominance up through the 90's. Nothing remotely like that is likely in the future.
Click to expand...


Oh ... to have your crystal ball which makes everything so clear.
 
Nobody needs a crystal ball to surmise what is "likely". Only for proclaiming certainties...which is your thing to do on the politics side of the board. I stick to probabilities based on recent performance. Feel free to disagree, of course...don't feel free to be condescending, especially considering your own behavior Pooker.
 
Mesaclone said:
Nobody needs a crystal ball to surmise what is "likely". Only for proclaiming certainties...which is your thing to do on the politics side of the board. I stick to probabilities based on recent performance. Feel free to disagree, of course...don't feel free to be condescending, especially considering your own behavior Pooker.
Click to expand...

"Recent performance" dictates that Michigan won't be a factor in the Big 10 title race.
 
Why is there zero chance? It would be a great benefit to both schools to be in separate divisions while still guaranteed to play each other every year. What are you basing the assessment of "zero" chance upon?
 
As for being "absurdly unbalanced", I'd argue that your divisions are more unbalanced than you realize.

You have Ohio State, Penn State, an average program (NW) and 3 struggling programs in one division, while the other division has 3 very good programs in Nebby, Wisky, and Iowa, along with a good program in MSU, plus a historically good but down program now in Michigan (whom you obviously believe is still a giant, otherwise why would Michigan/OSU/PSU be "absurdly balanced"?). Only Minny is a poor program of the 6 teams in that group.

So while OSU and PSU would be on top of their group nearly every season, there would be brutal competition on the other side. So how is that balanced at all?

It seems obvious to me that you want to make sure that Iowa is in the worst position/toughest division possible. That's your motivation.
 
Mesaclone said:
Why is there zero chance? It would be a great benefit to both schools to be in separate divisions while still guaranteed to play each other every year. What are you basing the assessment of "zero" chance upon?
Click to expand...

It's been said ad nauseum mesa...it cheapens the OSU/UM rivalry to have the opportunity for them to play back to back games. Those schools will insist that they play in the same division, and that will happen.

Why didn't they split up Texas and Oklahoma when the Big 12 was formed? Why didn't they have cross-divisional guaranteed games?
 
Mesaclone said:
Nobody needs a crystal ball to surmise what is "likely". Only for proclaiming certainties...which is your thing to do on the politics side of the board. I stick to probabilities based on recent performance. Feel free to disagree, of course...don't feel free to be condescending, especially considering your own behavior Pooker.
Click to expand...

Probabilities now ... not certitude. Kinda changing your mind in the middle of the stream ... again.
 
"Why didn't they split up Texas and Oklahoma when the Big 12 was formed?"
Because it didn't make sense regionally.


As for Pooker:
"Probabilities now ... not certitude..."
Dude. Can you read. What part of the word "likely" in the original post didn't you understand? Does "likely" mean "certainty" to you...are you really that illiterate?
 
Last edited:
Mesaclone said:
"Why didn't they split up Texas and Oklahoma when the Big 12 was formed?"
Because it didn't make sense regionally.
Click to expand...

OK...so explain how it makes sense regionally to place Michigan and Michigan State in the WEST and Illinois and Northwestern in the EAST, as your scenario does?

Sorry, that's a fail.

Texas and OU were kept in the same division for the exact same reasons that OSU and Michigan will be in the same division.
 
Because, unlike most scenarios that pull PSU into a division with western teams, the states in the above scenario are contiguous and traditional rivals. Balance is also factor, along with some regional flavor. This scenario works for both. And no, this isn't some plot to make it harder for Iowa. It simply makes sense regionally, rivalry wise, and benefits two key schools in MU and OSU.
 
Mesaclone, I understand your points and actually like the looks of your divisions. I just don't see OSU and Michigan agreeing to potentially (even if it was only once every 3 decades) jeopardize the tradition of their game together. Now if they had a system where they played early in the see (ex: Oklahoma v Texas) then I could see where you could argue that the game would still hold competitive weight, but OSU and Michigan will won't to keep this game the last regular of the season.

Also, when you make claims about skewed statistics, please check your facts. OSU and Michigan actually played for the title only once in the 1990s (1997). It has in fact happened 3 times this past decade (2003, 2006 & 2007).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top