CharlestonHawkeye
Well-Known Member
Which division ideas do you prefer? « Big Ten Network
East West was my first choice.
Inner Outer was my second choice
East West was my first choice.
Inner Outer was my second choice
Vote for East West Divisions in Football
- Thread starter CharlestonHawkeye
- Start date
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
Looking at it, I'm thinking the inner/out option is a serious possibility(not that I want it). ILL/NW/Pur/Ind all want to be together Mich wants to be with MSU and OSU. Also I've heard osu and mich want to keep footprint in Illinois and Indiana which this clearly does and then some. PSU/Mary/Rut all want to be together and Iowa/Minn/Wisc/Neb all want to be together.
It really does eliminate all needs for crossover games completely. The inner/out option I don't like, but I hate to say it the bigger player schools in the conference may go for it and as far as the west goes it does answer what the 4 west schools really want(iowa/minn/Wisc/neb in division). Not one trophy game that I'd see would be sacraficed(that I see).
Edit: Little brown jug trophy game Minn/Mich but that wasn't even a protected rivalry when michigan and minn could protect 2 so not sure why that matters and MSU/PSU which isn't a rivalry either and not currently protected now.
The big one I see would be OSU/PSU which is a border rivalry, but not sure if Ohio state cares about that game at all. And not sure if Penn state gets much of voice right now and they'd gain their rut/mary games they want. I kind of feel like we gave a beaten down dog a bone by adding them anyways.
It really does eliminate all needs for crossover games completely. The inner/out option I don't like, but I hate to say it the bigger player schools in the conference may go for it and as far as the west goes it does answer what the 4 west schools really want(iowa/minn/Wisc/neb in division). Not one trophy game that I'd see would be sacraficed(that I see).
Edit: Little brown jug trophy game Minn/Mich but that wasn't even a protected rivalry when michigan and minn could protect 2 so not sure why that matters and MSU/PSU which isn't a rivalry either and not currently protected now.
The big one I see would be OSU/PSU which is a border rivalry, but not sure if Ohio state cares about that game at all. And not sure if Penn state gets much of voice right now and they'd gain their rut/mary games they want. I kind of feel like we gave a beaten down dog a bone by adding them anyways.
Last edited:
TecmoSuperHawk
Well-Known Member
I like the Inner/Outer because it keeps all schools with their main rivals and like Whit said pretty much eliminates the need for cross rivalry protection. This means you play 2 games against teams from the other division each year, which would amount to 2 games every 7 years against each team in the opposite division. Better than once every 6 years like the 1st option on the BTN poll would likely give you.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
This is very true tecmo and I think the elimination of crossover games is a really big deal! Especially with most of the other proposals your going to have teams like Iowa/maryland nw/Rut to protect games like Indy/Purdue it makes no sense. If you had the inner/outer with no crossover games and you expanded to 9 games you would play 3 non division games. which would mean playing 6 games against non divisions every 14 years. Slightly less then we actually play them now.
Eda
Well-Known Member
A couple reasons I don't like the in/out...
1) Remembering whose in what division. This is a problem with a majority of college football fans right now (prolly not with many if us here-but more so the rest of the nation). How would this make it easier for casual fans to remember who's in what division?
2) Traveling. It makes traveling to away games much easier for the inner division. All the teams are very close together; most within a days drive (or wkend trip). Away games would be a greater and more expensive trip for Iowa/minny/Nebby/Wiscy traveling to PSU/Rutgers/Maryland.
1) Remembering whose in what division. This is a problem with a majority of college football fans right now (prolly not with many if us here-but more so the rest of the nation). How would this make it easier for casual fans to remember who's in what division?
2) Traveling. It makes traveling to away games much easier for the inner division. All the teams are very close together; most within a days drive (or wkend trip). Away games would be a greater and more expensive trip for Iowa/minny/Nebby/Wiscy traveling to PSU/Rutgers/Maryland.
WhitUp
Well-Known Member
Problem with the east/west is once PSU comes back it's really east heavy. If you put Michigan state in West instead of Purdue it make it more competitive.(Look at map Pur is just slightly more west then MSU). With MSU you got Iowa/Neb/Wisc/MSU going to always have one descent power and NW and Ill popping up every now and then too.
But problem is would MSU/Mich allow to be in separate divisions, and if they are you would have to have crossovers no way they agree not to play every year. If you have the straight east/west you split ind/pur and same problem they don't want to split and we'd have to keep crossovers so they could play.
But problem is would MSU/Mich allow to be in separate divisions, and if they are you would have to have crossovers no way they agree not to play every year. If you have the straight east/west you split ind/pur and same problem they don't want to split and we'd have to keep crossovers so they could play.
tubahawk
Well-Known Member
If Iowa really wants to see the recruiting benefit of this expansion into the New York/NJ/DC markets we have to play those guys regularly. Otherwise I think it gives OSU/MICH/MSU a recruiting advantage in those areas. I don't the like the inny/outy option because it's confusing and a pain for visitors traveling, but I think Iowa would want either that or the plus one option.
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
Inner and outer is an awful plan.
