Stewart Mandel's Big Ten division proposal

This is my favorite so far. Probably just because Iowa/MN/WI are in the same division which is the only way all 3 will play each other every year.
 
I think you'll see Wisconsin flipped with Northwestern in this scenario and then we can protect Wisconsin as our one rival in the other division.
 
I guess I'm less concerned with regional rivalries. To flourish as a program we need nationally relevant games. If PSU, OSU, and MI are all on the other side we are not going to be having many.
 
nationalchamps said:
I think you'll see Wisconsin flipped with Northwestern in this scenario and then we can protect Wisconsin as our one rival in the other division.
Click to expand...


Either scenario will work for me as long as Iowa is in the same division as both Nebby and PSU and has it's rival games with Whisky and Minny.
 
I don't understand how people can separate the Big 4 for competitive reasons, but then throw both Iowa and Wisky in the same division with two of the Big 4.
 
I think it's the best balance I've seen to date. Note that Northwestern is a recent success story, and will arguably decent for awhile. Michigan will certainly not be donwn forever. Purdue may be on their way back up. MSU always has some talent.

I think it's pretty balanced, actually.
 
drew003 said:
I guess I'm less concerned with regional rivalries. To flourish as a program we need nationally relevant games. If PSU, OSU, and MI are all on the other side we are not going to be having many.
Click to expand...

And where have you seen it that PSU, OSU and Mich are on the other side. Every scenario so far has Mich and OSU in one division and PSU, Neb, and Iowa in another which is what I think will happen.
 
hawkeyescott said:
And where have you seen it that PSU, OSU and Mich are on the other side. Every scenario so far has Mich and OSU in one division and PSU, Neb, and Iowa in another which is what I think will happen.
Click to expand...

Well, apparently I didn't see it in this SI article. Next time I'll read more carefully.
 
It is stupid, stupid, stupid to create divisions based on anything but geography. There is no reason good enough to justify putting the eastern-most school in a west division. Setting divisions for perceived power and balance will likely result in the opposite effect.
 
GravyJones said:
It is stupid, stupid, stupid to create divisions based on anything but geography. There is no reason good enough to justify putting the eastern-most school in a west division. Setting divisions for perceived power and balance will likely result in the opposite effect.
Click to expand...

Maybe if ND was coming in I could see PSU with OSU and Mich.... without ND there is no way those 3 will EVER be in the same division.
 
JehovahShalom said:
Maybe if ND was coming in I could see PSU with OSU and Mich.... without ND there is no way those 3 will EVER be in the same division.
Click to expand...
Why not? College football now vs college football 10-15+ years ago is a completely different game. Setting up divisions based on ancient history not likely to be repeated is insanely foolish.
 
Are divisions really necessary? With divisions, you play everyone in your division plus about 1/2 of the other division on some type of rotational basis.

How is that supremely different that just having a rotating schedule like what exists today, have 1 or 2 protected rivalries and just play it out. You can still have a championship game pitting #1 against #2 at the end of the season.

Just looking to understand what the driving force is here....:confused:
 
Hawkeye101 said:
Are divisions really necessary? With divisions, you play everyone in your division plus about 1/2 of the other division on some type of rotational basis.

How is that supremely different that just having a rotating schedule like what exists today, have 1 or 2 protected rivalries and just play it out. You can still have a championship game pitting #1 against #2 at the end of the season.

Just looking to understand what the driving force is here....:confused:
Click to expand...

You could do that, however without divisions you could potentially have two teams playing eachother twice in the same season. Once during the regular season and then once in the championship game. I think the Big10 will try to avoid that.

There are going to be arguments made any way this thing gets broken up. I can see both sides, football is cyclical and if this gets broken up to reflect competitive balance in 10 years it might not be that way. Split it up by geography and there is one side of the conference that is way top heavy of the get go. Someone is going to be left out, just be glad your not Indiana, NW, or Minn. Those teams are going to have zero pull in where they land.
 
I really hope we don't go to divisions. They should just keep the current system and go to a 9 game schedule. The last week would be rival week, with the same teams playing every year, kinda like a mini-playoff. The two teams with the best records that win during rivals week would then play in the championship game.
 
Understood, but absolutely NOTHING about having divisions keeps two teams from playing twice in a season.

With divisions, you're going to play 3 of the 6 teams from the other division. If you're the winner of your division, then there is a 50% chance from the start that the conference championship game will involve a team that you've already played.

billdozer15 said:
You could do that, however without divisions you could potentially have two teams playing eachother twice in the same season. Once during the regular season and then once in the championship game. I think the Big10 will try to avoid that.

There are going to be arguments made any way this thing gets broken up. I can see both sides, football is cyclical and if this gets broken up to reflect competitive balance in 10 years it might not be that way. Split it up by geography and there is one side of the conference that is way top heavy of the get go. Someone is going to be left out, just be glad your not Indiana, NW, or Minn. Those teams are going to have zero pull in where they land.
Click to expand...
 
Hawkeye101 said:
Understood, but absolutely NOTHING about having divisions keeps two teams from playing twice in a season.

With divisions, you're going to play 3 of the 6 teams from the other division. If you're the winner of your division, then there is a 50% chance from the start that the conference championship game will involve a team that you've already played.
Click to expand...

Gotcha, I didnt think about that. This whole thing makes my head hurt. I suppose you could do the whole thing without divisions and just play a rotating schedule. It just looks much neater on paper with two 6 team divisions. LOL
 
The worse-case scenario for me is when the winner from one division is sitting there at 5-3 and the winner of the other division is 8-0, with the runner-up sitting there at 7-1. The poor 7-1 guy is out and the 5-3 guy is in.

Divisions really are nothing more than sub-conferences. If the B10 is a conference, I personally don't see the need for divisions.

Anyone remember the Padres getting into the NL playoffs when their records was worse than about 1/2 the teams in baseball? That ****** me off, but remember, they won their division and that's all that mattered.

billdozer15 said:
Gotcha, I didnt think about that. This whole thing makes my head hurt. I suppose you could do the whole thing without divisions and just play a rotating schedule. It just looks much neater on paper with two 6 team divisions. LOL
Click to expand...
 
As much as I love playing Wisc every year I think they need to be in the other division with tOSU and Mich, if they are going to have Nebby, PSU, and Iowa in the other.
 
Hawkeye101 said:
The worse-case scenario for me is when the winner from one division is sitting there at 5-3 and the winner of the other division is 8-0, with the runner-up sitting there at 7-1. The poor 7-1 guy is out and the 5-3 guy is in.

Divisions really are nothing more than sub-conferences. If the B10 is a conference, I personally don't see the need for divisions.

Anyone remember the Padres getting into the NL playoffs when their records was worse than about 1/2 the teams in baseball? That ****** me off, but remember, they won their division and that's all that mattered.
Click to expand...

At least in your scenario the 7-1 team would have lost head to head to the 8-0 team. If you don't have divisions, you could end up with three teams with the same record who may have not all played each other. There's no perfect way to divide the conference up, but at least with divisions it makes for easy tiebreakers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top