Interesting thoughts on Division Alignment

W

WeDomn8

Well-Known Member
Just sitting here thinking today, so I decided to put together a couple divisional alignment modules based strictly on Geography to see if I could get it to work out without many problems. I took my data from the past decade only. I find that gives a picture of the state of a program. If you go too much farther back, you are running into data that becomes muddied based on coaching changes, system changes, etc. Agree or disagree? I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Anyway, based on the past 10 years (2000 - 2009) the Big ten standings, with Nebraska included, overall would look like this. NOTE: Yes I realize that Nebraska data is subject based on their schedule in the Big XII north, but it is what it is.

Team Avg Wins Avg. Losses
1. OSU 10.3 2.5
2. Wisconsin 8.6 4.3
3. Nebraska 8.4 4.4
4. Michigan 8.1 4.3
5. Iowa 8 4.5
6. PSU 7.7 4.6
7. Purdue 6.7 5.7
8. Minnesota 6.2 6.2
9. Northwestern 6.1 6.1
10. MSU 6 6.2
11. Illinois 4.5 7.3
12. Indiana 3.9 7.8

Module 1 (North - South Alignment)

North South
Wisky OSU
Michigan Nebraska
Iowa PSU
Minnesota Purdue
Northwestern Illinois
MSU Indiana

Again this is strictly based on Geography looking at a map. Based on this module, the Avg win/loss of each division is as follows:

North 7.1 - 5.3
South 6.9 - 5.4

I think that shows a competative balance in my opinion. Also in this module, you are allowed to keep a protected rival from the opposite division. I like that most natural rivals are kept within the division, and this allows Mich - OSU to be a protected.

protected rivals would be:

OSU - MIch
Neb - Iowa
PSU - MSU
Purdue - Wisky (lack of a better rival I guess)
Indy - Minny (again a lack of a better rival)

These are subject though.

Now Module 2

Again strictly based on geography here

West East
Wisky OSU
Nebraska Michigan
Iowa PSU
Minnesota Purdue
Northwestern MSU
Illinois Indiana

Average win/loss per division over the past decade:

West: 7 - 5.5
East: 7.1 - 5.2

Again, we have achieved balance and kept virtually every rivalry together. I realize everyone wants to keep the "big" 4 separated, but really, the big 4 is a matter of historical perception, not current trend. Think about it, PSU is considered a "big" 4 member, but they come in 6th overall in the past decade. One other thing about this alignment, they are time Zone specific as well. All the East teams are in the east coast time zone. They could play in the earlier games and the game start times could be better managed. We could maybe get away from all those 11 am starts.

I don't know, I was just thinking about it and why they say going strictly by geography wouldn't work, and I can make it work. What do you all think?
 
beaverdaleguy said:
WISKY-PURDUE AND INDY-MINNESOTA?? try wisky-minn and purd-indy...even then. false.
Click to expand...


That is why I clarified it with the (for lack of a better rival). Didn't know how to assign those guys without ripping apart other, more important rivals. Also, the rival needs to be from the opposite division not from the same. Your suggestion is already played out within the division.
 
Good report. I think the East-West Division makes the most sense. The data certainly supports this division. Hopefully Delaney and the others will be reasonable and sensible when they divide up their kingdom. Who knows exactly what the next 10 years holds for any of the programs (with maybe the exception of OSU). I bet no one in 2005 predicted Michigan to win 1 conference game in 2009. Keep it geographical. I just have an uneasy sense that they're going to divide it up in some quirky way.
 
Module 2 clearly works better. The biggest problem you run into will be Conference Championships over this time period.
 
Hopefully, Delaney doesn't blow this as the East/West makes the most sense (keeps all the main rivalries intact). And for some saying the west is the weakling, the west would have kicked the crap out of the east last year with 5 (including Nebraska) bowl teams to only 3 for the east. Looks to be more of the same this season.

To further what was said what would people think of splitting the two divisions up further for scheduling purposes?

Match up the 1&6,2&5,3&4 teams in each division possibly based on the win percentage by the OP.

The west: WI/IL, NE/NW, IA/MN
East: OSU/IN, MI/MSU, PSU/PU

Teams from each division would play two of the other three groups in the oppsite division each year. That would ensure that each team would play 5 of the top 6 heavyweights each season. Should be an attractive schedule.
 
Bowlhawk said:
Hopefully, Delaney doesn't blow this as the East/West makes the most sense (keeps all the main rivalries intact). And for some saying the west is the weakling, the west would have kicked the crap out of the east last year with 5 (including Nebraska) bowl teams to only 3 for the east. Looks to be more of the same this season.

To further what was said what would people think of splitting the two divisions up further for scheduling purposes?

Match up the 1&6,2&5,3&4 teams in each division possibly based on the win percentage by the OP.

The west: WI/IL, NE/NW, IA/MN
East: OSU/IN, MI/MSU, PSU/PU

Teams from each division would play two of the other three groups in the oppsite division each year. That would ensure that each team would play 5 of the top 6 heavyweights each season. Should be an attractive schedule.
Click to expand...


So then with this system, with teams paired, you could have a decent schedule no matter what. Basically, looking at the East for this, Iowa would lose OSU and INdy for 2 years, but would have the other 4 which still gives us PSU and Mich on the schedule. Then further breaking that down, you could have the higher "seed" of the pair at home in year 1, and the lower seed of the second pair at home.

For example an Iowa schedule would look like this:
No conference Home
Iowa State Home
Non conference Away
Wisconsin Home
Minnesota Away
Northwestern Away
Illinois Home
Nebraska Home
Mich Home
MSU Away
PSU Away
Purdue Home

OSU and Indy not on schedule first 2 years

The next year, reverse the Home and away, with the exception of the first non conference game which is always a Home game against the sisters of the poor or whatever.

Now granted, this is based on a 9 game conference schedule.

The pairing of same division teams would have to be set in stone now though for it to work.

Is that kind of what you are thinking Bowlhawk?
 
I think your module two is one of the better options out there. The more I think about it, I think splitting the divisions by geography makes the most sense. I used to think bringing PSU to the West was a good option, but it would be unfair to them to have to travel that far even if they do have to fly everywhere anyway. Its a long trip to MN, NU, and UI especially if they have to do it in consecutive weeks.

Also you never know where the power is going to fall as long as there arent other factors moving power to certain schools. The Big12 was formed and setup to punish the northern schools to even the playing field, now we have seen the power shift to the South because of different outside factors. If the Big10 splits the divisions geographically and doesnt meddle in trying to help certain schools over others then there shouldnt be any issue. From what I have seen so far I dont think there will be.
 
CAARHawk said:
Did you really title your own random thoughts "interesting?"
Click to expand...


Forgive me, I am an amatuer :D. I thought about that after I submitted. Let's say it was interesting to me, how's that? It got you to open it didn't it?
 
Last edited:
Yes WeDomn8 that was my thinking, and excellent breakdown you have provided.

It still drives me crazy that there are years that we don't play either Ohio State or Michigan. My thoughts are that the more butts we put in seats = more money for the Big 10 coffers = more money back to the schools. In order to do that we need a consistent attractive schedule for all big ten schools. This is particularly important to schools like Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern that don't usually sell out.

By grouping three sets of two teams in each division 6 teams would be guaranteed playing 4 of the other 5 heavyweights each season (OSU,MI,PSU,NE,IA,WI) and the other 6 teams would play 5 of the 6. The other thing that needs to happen is to ensure that at least 2 of the heavyweights would be played at home each year.

For example Iowa's future schedule against eastern division teams:

Years 1-2 MI/MSU, PSU/PU
Years 3-4 OSU/IN, MI/MSU
Years 5-6 PSU/PU, OSU/IN

We would rotate every two years the groups we play in the eastern division. In a 4 year period this would guarantee every team would play a home and away with every other team in the Big 10. In fact, 9 of the 11 other teams would be played all 4 years.
 
Brother, at least for me, I don't like the idea of breaking up Mich-OSU I like them in the same division. Why do you ask? Because since it's THE rivalry they will most likely play their game at the end of the season like always. I enjoy that game very much.
If you put them in opposite divisions, you stand the chance they will play the last game of the season (the RIVALRY game) and then again in the championship game. At that point seeing them play 2 games in succession doesn't appeal to me. I think also the big ten fans would be considerably less interested in round two.

In some years the last game of the reg season Mich-OSU would perhaps be for the "Eastern" Division championship, so that in itself would add a "Championship" style feel to their game.
Right now Michigan is somewhat down, but nobody expects they will stay sdown long. Nebraska a perennial Big 12 North contender will come in and do some damage, but to what degree for the first several years until they become familiar with the other 11 schools. It will indeed be interesting to see which alignment comes to fruition.
Either way we all are going to enjoy the new conference.
 
Nice article and I think East and West is what will happen and should be exciting for sure. Don't see a change is b-ball will stay the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top