What's so wrong with using the damn map

BSpringsteen

BSpringsteen

Well-Known Member
Big 10 West:

Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
N'Western

Big 10 East:

Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State

The fact of the matter is that Indiana is totally irrelevant and will continue to be. Illinois and N'Western at least have won the conference in recent memory.

The west may not have traditional powers but I think Nebraska-Iowa-Wisconsin is pretty competitive compared to Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.

The other fact is that Ohio State is far and away the best team in the conference since Tressel came to C-Bus. Whichever division they are in is going to be the best division.

I just don't see this geographically correct divisions that protect all rivalries being unbalanced competitively.

Each division will have three teams who year in and year out can compete for the division championship.
 
The big argument is that you cant consolidate Penn State, fOSU, and scUM in the same division, or to put it another way, we don't want to end up like the B12 with a ****** North division.

However the reality is over the last 20 years a you could make the argument that Neb, Iowa, and Wisky has been just as good as the afore mentioned teams. Then there is the fact that if the divisions were drawn up as you propose last year the West would have been the MUCH stronger division.
 
In a geographically correct division of the BIG 10 scenario, the argument that the West would end up like a BIG 12 North, is basically implying that neither IOWA or Wisconsin are better than Nebraska. And that is where it falters.
 
exactly what I have been saying:

Ohio State’s Jim Tressel put it best when he said and East-West lineup provided a logical choice and gerrymandering things around would be the illogical choice.
Click to expand...
 
Agree with everything you said Mr. Springsteen. That is exactly how I have always felt. I never really understood all the confusion/concern with setting up the divisions this way. I, for one, don't want to see Michigan and Ohio St. play the last week of the season, then watch it again a week later for the conference championship. Actually, you could say this about any of the protected season ending rivalries, including ours with Minnesota. Not that Minnesota would ever make the championship game or anything.
 
DuffMan said:
However the reality is over the last 20 years a you could make the argument that Neb, Iowa, and Wisky has been just as good as the afore mentioned teams.
Click to expand...
You could make that argument only because Nebraska would have done the heavy lifting with their run in the mid to late 90's. Since '93 when PSU joined the B10 standings are pretty lopsided, OSU, UM, and PSU had a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisconsin.
 
fufred said:
You could make that argument only because Nebraska would have done the heavy lifting with their run in the mid to late 90's. Since '93 when PSU joined the B10 standings are pretty lopsided, OSU, UM, and PSU had a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Over the last 10 years, this doesn't hold water. A statistic they showed during the press conference yesterday indicated that since 2000, the Big 10 has pretty much been Ohio State, then Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Penn St., then everyone else. I just don't see things returning to the way they were before Michigan fell from grace. The days of Ohio St. and Michigan throttling the rest of the conference are over. Just ask Purdue. Parity is becoming more apparent in every conference and the Big 10 is no wexception.
 
fufred said:
You could make that argument only because Nebraska would have done the heavy lifting with their run in the mid to late 90's. Since '93 when PSU joined the B10 standings are pretty lopsided, OSU, UM, and PSU had a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

and Iowa and Wisc have significantly higher winning % than the other 6 teams

the argument isn't that Iowa = Michigan, etc ... the argument is that the sums of the parts (E/W) is not dissimilar enough to merit jerry-rigging the divisions
 
fufred said:
You could make that argument only because Nebraska would have done the heavy lifting with their run in the mid to late 90's. Since '93 when PSU joined the B10 standings are pretty lopsided, OSU, UM, and PSU had a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...


What are these winning percentages since '93? Does PSU really have a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisc? I know during the 2000s it was significant.
 
imported_joshmott said:
Over the last 10 years, this doesn't hold water. A statistic they showed during the press conference yesterday indicated that since 2000, the Big 10 has pretty much been Ohio State, then Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Penn St., then everyone else. I just don't see things returning to the way they were before Michigan fell from grace. The days of Ohio St. and Michigan throttling the rest of the conference are over. Just ask Purdue. Parity is becoming more apparent in every conference and the Big 10 is no wexception.
Click to expand...
If parity is winning 5 straight conference titles I'm all for it......lol.
 
When the B12 started the North was the better division. K-State, Colorado and Nebraska all were top ten teams, and Oklahoma and Texas were both down. A couple of bad coaching hires later and all three of the North teams are down. Right now Rodriguez looks like a bad hire for Michigan, who knows they might not bounce back for 10 years. If that's the case and you move Penn St to the West then the B10 is just handing the East to Ohio St for the foreseeable future.
 
fufred said:
If parity is winning 5 straight conference titles I'm all for it......lol.
Click to expand...

It has pretty much just been you guys, then everyone else. I was more referencing the "everyone else" since you guys have been winning the confernce so often. A conference championship game is going to make championships more difficult to come by going forward though, as the best team doesn't always win. This alone is going to cause more parity, even at the top.
 
Big 10 Win % since '93...PSU-.632 UW-.592 Iowa-.526....overall winning % since '93...PSU-.703 UW-.682 Iowa-.580
 
Chris MArtin said yesterday....the fact is we live in the now and the division with Iowa, WI, and Nebby is as tough or tougher than the other division
 
I like the east-west format. No question that Iowa-Wisconsin-Nebraska is just as competive as the big three out east and a border war like Iowa & Nebraska, two traditionaly good programs, will be an easy sell for TV ad execs.

The concern i've seen from some Nebraska fans is that Penn St should be in the West Division to ensure you get a dream matchup every year that will have TV execs foaming at the mouth to sell advertisting for. IMO, you can still achieve this by having teams desginate a cross divisional opponent who you will play every year regardless of schedule rotation, which should've happened from day 1 in the Big 12.
 
HawkinGoferLand said:
What are these winning percentages since '93? Does PSU really have a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisc? I know during the 2000s it was significant.
Click to expand...

Iowa- Yes, Wisc.- No

Since 1993:

Here's winning percentages and (national ranking)
Ohio State - .79673 (2)
Nebraska - .76037 (5)
Penn State - .70335 (11)
Michigan - .69524 (14)
Wisconsin - .68692 (15)
Iowa - .58010 (36)
Purdue - .51951 (55)
Michigan State - .49512 (66)
Northwestern - .48030 (73)
Minnesota - .45320 (80)
Illinois - .38325 (96)
Indiana - .35385 (101)
 
Just split it geogrphically.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak as far as the #'s go that it wouldnt be very lopsidded.
 
I think they will do it geographically for this first dry run. Then it will be reviewed in three years or sooner if more expansion happens. KISS...keep it simple,stupids.

Clearly, as JoePa implied, further expansion will include at least one more eastern school,and maybe two. If that happens, it would be stupid to have PSU stuck in the West. If it is Rutgers and ND...simple...just add ND to the west. If it is Rutgers and Mo....add Mo. to the west.

If they jerry-rig this deal to put PSU in the West,it will clutter the identity of the divisions. Doing it the natural way will lead to easier marketing and identification by fans nation-wide. NW,Iowa,Wis. and Ill have all won the league in the last decade.
Nebraska is a power. That leaves Minny...who match IU in futility. Even steven.
 
fufred said:
You could make that argument only because Nebraska would have done the heavy lifting with their run in the mid to late 90's. Since '93 when PSU joined the B10 standings are pretty lopsided, OSU, UM, and PSU had a significantly higher winning % than Iowa and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

If you set the divisions as proposed above you have 3 teams in the East that have won a share of the B10 title in the last 20 years, and those 3 teams account for 19 titles. The West division has four teams that have won at least a share of the B10 title and those teams account for 10 titles.

If you account for scUM not being the scUM of 1990 to 2005, the rise of Iowa, and the addition of Nebraska the West is WITHOUT QUESTION the most difficult of the two divisions in the present day.

If I were an fOSU fan I would be on my knees every day PRAYING that the divisions lay out the way they do because it practically guarantees me being the B10 title game every year provided I get by Penn State.

Of course on this board you are going to be all about "separating the 3 power schools from each other in the name of parity", that is of course only if the school going to the West is Penn State. Cause if we were talking about moving fOSU to the West in exchange for Illanoy you'd be whining to everyone you can find that life isn't fair and the West is now just too damn tough.

I think everyone here realizes why you'd rather see Penn State moved out of your division.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top