IowaBanker
Well-Known Member
And what evidence do you have from each school that says it's fine and dandy to be split up? Or is that just your intuition?
For a Clone fan, you sure spend a lot of time on Hawkeye boards.
I think this is the solution to the "divisons" problem facing the BIg 10
- Thread starter Mesaclone
- Start date
And what evidence do you have from each school that says it's fine and dandy to be split up? Or is that just your intuition?
For a Clone fan, you sure spend a lot of time on Hawkeye boards.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I remember reading a week or so ago a quote from Gene Smith where he said that OSU's rivalry with Michigan can't go the way of Oklahoma/Nebraska. The new Big 10 can't make the same mistakes that the Big 12 did. However, for the life of me I can't find that quote.
My feeling is that that game has to mean something. If they're both in command of their divisions at the end of the year, the regular season game becomes meaningless, and the Big 10 championship game is nothing more than a re-match. Before OSU hired Tressel, there were many years where Michigan ruined OSU's season. That's why John Cooper got fired.
But it's really more intuition than anything else.
From a Buckeye poster on the UM board vis-a-vis an alignment with PSU,UM,OSU:
"While it makes sense geographically, there is no way that the three top teams are put in one division."
That seems typical of how "they" see it.
"I remember reading a week or so ago a quote from Gene Smith where he said that OSU's rivalry with Michigan can't go the way of Oklahoma/Nebraska. The new Big 10 can't make the same mistakes that the Big 12 did."
The scenario I gave ensures that does not happen...unlike the Big 12 version, there is never a year in which UM and OSU don't play. That is the concern Smith is asserting...concern remedied.
"While it makes sense geographically, there is no way that the three top teams are put in one division."
That seems typical of how "they" see it.
"I remember reading a week or so ago a quote from Gene Smith where he said that OSU's rivalry with Michigan can't go the way of Oklahoma/Nebraska. The new Big 10 can't make the same mistakes that the Big 12 did."
The scenario I gave ensures that does not happen...unlike the Big 12 version, there is never a year in which UM and OSU don't play. That is the concern Smith is asserting...concern remedied.
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I understand. You either don't understand what I'm trying to say, or just refuse to acknowledge it.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
Your only "source" is another message board poster? Nobody has any inside info either way on what is going to happen.
busabus114
Well-Known Member
I think the answer to that question is also no
Like I said no one knows anything so its a never ending argument until something concrete comes out
They will do the smart thing,unlike the Big 12,and split it geographically,with the caveat that it will be reviewed upon expansion or in 4 years...nothing permanant.
It makes absolutely no sense to do some rube goldberg east is west,south is north breakout,when it will change in a couple of years anyway,when ND and Rutgers join.
ND goes into the west with Iowa,Neb,and Wis, with Rutgers joining PSU,OSU and Mich...balanced very well,with the West a bit stronger,but that could change.
It makes absolutely no sense to do some rube goldberg east is west,south is north breakout,when it will change in a couple of years anyway,when ND and Rutgers join.
ND goes into the west with Iowa,Neb,and Wis, with Rutgers joining PSU,OSU and Mich...balanced very well,with the West a bit stronger,but that could change.
bws258
Well-Known Member
ND will only join if their game with Michigan is protected, and probably their games with MSU and Purdue as well ... OSU also has to be with Michigan, and Indiana has to be with Purdue
PSU wants to be with OSU, but if we got Maryland, Virginia, and/or Rutgers, I think they'd be happy
hard to do the 4x4 pods with ND in the mix due to rivalries, so stick with 2x7 and 2x8 for 14 and 16 team leagues
A
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Purdue
B
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri/Rutgers
Nebraska
Penn State
Virginia/Rutgers
Wisconsin
PSU wants to be with OSU, but if we got Maryland, Virginia, and/or Rutgers, I think they'd be happy
hard to do the 4x4 pods with ND in the mix due to rivalries, so stick with 2x7 and 2x8 for 14 and 16 team leagues
A
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Purdue
B
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri/Rutgers
Nebraska
Penn State
Virginia/Rutgers
Wisconsin
Last edited:
PhoenixHawk
Well-Known Member
You can't have an "A" division where everyone is a short drive away, and a "B" division where you have to fly to every game.
bws258
Well-Known Member
Sure you can ... can't think of a significant hurdle here
otherwise there is no smooth 2x8 method with ND in the mix
you could go 4x4 if you allowed a protected rivalry, but with ND, NW gets thrown into the East, which isn't all bad (easy travel to/from O'Hare)
West
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin
North
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame / Northwestern
Purdue
South
Illinois
Missouri
Indiana
Ohio State
East
Maryland
Penn State
Rutgers / Northwestern
Virginia / Northwestern
otherwise there is no smooth 2x8 method with ND in the mix
you could go 4x4 if you allowed a protected rivalry, but with ND, NW gets thrown into the East, which isn't all bad (easy travel to/from O'Hare)
West
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin
North
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame / Northwestern
Purdue
South
Illinois
Missouri
Indiana
Ohio State
East
Maryland
Penn State
Rutgers / Northwestern
Virginia / Northwestern
Last edited:
herkyattack
Well-Known Member
Jim Delaney has given his three priorities on how to construct the new divisions.
Priority 1: Competitive balance. I.E., PSU, OSU, and Michigan are not all going to be in the same conference.
Priority 2: Keeping rivalries intact
Priority 3: And I quote, "And I think the 3rd factor is what factor, if any, does geography play?"
Location is not very important to them in developing these divisions. Now, are they going to put Minnesota and Iowa in an "Eastern" division? Probably not. But geography is not going to stop them from slotting Penn St. in the West.
Priority 1: Competitive balance. I.E., PSU, OSU, and Michigan are not all going to be in the same conference.
Priority 2: Keeping rivalries intact
Priority 3: And I quote, "And I think the 3rd factor is what factor, if any, does geography play?"
Location is not very important to them in developing these divisions. Now, are they going to put Minnesota and Iowa in an "Eastern" division? Probably not. But geography is not going to stop them from slotting Penn St. in the West.
bws258
Well-Known Member
I think that was all just cover so they don't get slammed for being intellectually lazy when they eventually just go E/W
If you want exact parity it all comes down to which period you choose ... I don't think they are going for exact parity, but that they just want to make sure it's not haves vs have-nots
remember who Delaney's bosses are ... he is going to do what the majority of the schools want
If you want exact parity it all comes down to which period you choose ... I don't think they are going for exact parity, but that they just want to make sure it's not haves vs have-nots
remember who Delaney's bosses are ... he is going to do what the majority of the schools want
"Priority 1: Competitive balance. I.E., PSU, OSU, and Michigan are not all going to be in the same conference."
I hope all the advocates of putting the Big 3 in one division...read that.
Further, the division I proposed meets criteria 2 perfectly...keeping all the trophy games intact. And finally, jumping PSU across the country to a Western division would violate axiom 3...whereas mine does not. In fact, the scenario I offered met everyone of these criteria perfectly.
I hope all the advocates of putting the Big 3 in one division...read that.
Further, the division I proposed meets criteria 2 perfectly...keeping all the trophy games intact. And finally, jumping PSU across the country to a Western division would violate axiom 3...whereas mine does not. In fact, the scenario I offered met everyone of these criteria perfectly.
EastLosRandy
Well-Known Member
Anyone who's been following blogs and reports about Big Ten divisions has probably read that exact argument about 50 times in the last three weeks. People like me aren't advocating geographical divisions because we've never heard someone argue that you can't have PSU/OSU/UM in the same division. A lot of us just don't agree with that argument for a combination of reasons.
Technically that's not true as MSU has trophy games with both PSU and Indy. MSU/Indy (Old Brass Spittoon) is not currently protected. MSU/PSU (Land Grant Trophy) is an annual affair since PSU joined, but is considered an artificial rivalry by most people on both sides. You've done a pretty good job juggling the complex array of Big Ten rivalries, but claiming to have met criterion 2 "pefectly" is off-base.
Michigan/Ohio State obviously needs to be handled delicately. Even the Eastern SPorts Network calls it the biggest rivalry in sports -- ranking it ahead of their beloved Yankees/Red Sox and Duke/UNC rivalries.
Yes, you've kept it an annual game, but at the expense of opening up the "protected crossover" can of worms. Also, if a year-end rivalry holds the potential to be replayed one week later in a CCG, that wouldn't go over well with anyone. I'm pretty sure it would be sacrilege to UM and OSU. And your Nebraska/Penn State "protected crossover" game would also stand a good chance of being a year-end game, too, creating another potential "one week rematch" scenario.
Well, you have Nebraska and Michigan sharing one division while Illinois and Penn State share another division. Your divisions constitute contiguous groups of states, but there's still a lot of geographical stretching involved. Once again, your claims of perfection in this regard seem to be a reach.
Last edited:
ShadasRevenge
Well-Known Member
I tried to explain that exact same thing on multiple occasions, and he didn't get it then. Maybe your post will bring a little clarity to his world.
IowaBanker
Well-Known Member
I read it...and it's another poster's opinion that I don't agree with...and several others here feel the same way.
Your scenario is far from perfect outside of your own mind.
IowaBanker
Well-Known Member
Don't hold your breath...
