New "Big" "Ten" divisions

[Buckeye Devil]

I unearthed this thread because the Big Ten will re-realign to East and West divisions once Maryland and Rutgers begin play:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...st-sources-say

Pertinent quote: "Just take a ruler and a map [and split the 14 teams]," a source said.

Geography is sacred, and I am often at odds with college sports conferences for failing to acknowledge that. However, lost in the shuffle of the Legends/Leaders disaster is just how unbalanced the Big Ten becomes when you make this most logical separation.

EAST: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
WEST: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin

From what I can tell, the divisions are for football and do not apply to basketball. Otherwise we'd all be cheering Chris Collins' newfound good fortune.

The league has absolutely no idea how to create competitive balance in football and it would be even worse if the divisions applied to basketball. The west is laughable at best. If OSU, MSU, or UM has a crossover game with Wisconsin or Nebraska, it makes it worse for those teams. But it is difficult to imagine that the schedule for the west Big 2 won't include matchups with the better teams in the east.

This is the price the league will pay for not sticking with teams in the central part of the U.S. Personally, I would have preferred Missouri in the league-a respectable football, basketball, and academic school-and Kansas, a traditional basketball powerhouse with a mystique filled arena. Nothing against Rutgers or Maryland but they were grafted in for pure exposure purposes.

[hurleyfor3]

Geography is sacred, and I am often at odds with college sports conferences for failing to acknowledge that.

So is the set of positive integers, but that ship sailed a long time ago too.

[Deslok]

So is the set of positive integers, but that ship sailed a long time ago too.

Well, aren't you just the nattering nabob of negativity. Or were you just trying to be rational? I don't know, but be real, most folks don't really see the whole picture and just try to make imaginary points about this whole conference business, its just not natural, but all the conference should have stayed whole.

Sorry, couldn't resist the math jokes.

[ForkFondler]

The league has absolutely no idea how to create competitive balance in football and it would be even worse if the divisions applied to basketball. The west is laughable at best. If OSU, MSU, or UM has a crossover game with Wisconsin or Nebraska, it makes it worse for those teams. But it is difficult to imagine that the schedule for the west Big 2 won't include matchups with the better teams in the east.

This is the price the league will pay for not sticking with teams in the central part of the U.S. Personally, I would have preferred Missouri in the league-a respectable football, basketball, and academic school-and Kansas, a traditional basketball powerhouse with a mystique filled arena. Nothing against Rutgers or Maryland but they were grafted in for pure exposure purposes.

Actually, Rutgers and Maryland makes sense now. The B1G needed some weaker eastern teams to balance the weakness of the western teams. But, passing on Missouri is hard to figure -- AAU and cable boxes in two major cites.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well, aren't you just the nattering nabob of negativity. Or were you just trying to be rational? I don't know, but be real, most folks don't really see the whole picture and just try to make imaginary points about this whole conference business, its just not natural, but all the conference should have stayed whole.

Sorry, couldn't resist the math jokes.

Ladies and gentleman, THAT is how you post in the off-season. With posts like this, the next seven months will fly by.

Well done, my friend.

As far as divisions go... I guess the only level of interest conceivable on this board is that a soon-to-be-former ACC member will be competing with these squads in a sport other than basketball two seasons from now. Personally, I stopped listening about five minutes ago.

Go Duke!

[Here is a Turtle]

I unearthed this thread because the Big Ten will re-realign to East and West divisions once Maryland and Rutgers begin play:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...st-sources-say

Pertinent quote: "Just take a ruler and a map [and split the 14 teams]," a source said.

Geography is sacred, and I am often at odds with college sports conferences for failing to acknowledge that. However, lost in the shuffle of the Legends/Leaders disaster is just how unbalanced the Big Ten becomes when you make this most logical separation.

EAST: Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
WEST: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin

From what I can tell, the divisions are for football and do not apply to basketball. Otherwise we'd all be cheering Chris Collins' newfound good fortune.

I guess all this talk keeping Ohio State and Michigan in two separate divisions is just that, talk.
Move Michigan and Michigan state over west and Illinois and Purdue east and they're a lot more even.

[BD80]

... Move Michigan and Michigan state over west ...

To hear wolverines tell it via their fight song, they's already "champions of the west"

[Mal]

One good thing for Ohio State and Michigan in this is that they get to play annually without the threat of playing two weeks in a row if they make it to the conference championship game. If they'd been in separate divisions they'd either need a protected rivalry game with that threat of playing twice, or they'd have the possibility of not playing each other some years.

I think the bigger issue from a competitiveness standpoint isn't going to be a complete lack of good teams in the West and just a cakewalk to the title game every year for Nebraska. It'll be that the West comprises most of the middle of the conference and the East the top tier and the basement. I firmly believe that Maryland and Rutgers are going to both fall to the bottom of their new conference, and having to play Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State every season isn't going to help matters. They're joined by Indiana, which has clearly been the weakest B1G team of the last two decades. Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa have all had good times before and have the capability of returning to good times. They'll never challenge the powers that be, but they're a threat to break into the second tier and stay there for awhile, and Wisconsin could knock Nebraska down in any given season recently. I just don't see a sustained notch or two above mediocrity as quite as likely for IU, Maryland and Rutgers. This will create (a) a warzone scenario in the West, where multiple teams struggle to differentiate themselves from each other, and (b) three easy wins every year for the powers in the East, perpetuating the perception that the East is even stronger, relative to the West, than it actually is.

As a former Minnesotan, however, I love this. The Little Brown Jug hasn't been competitive for decades, so losing that, while retaining annual games with Iowa and Wisconsin, having a geographically logical structure, ditching the "Leaders" and "Legends" idiocy, and getting to play football in the weaker half of the conference, works just fine for me. Hopefully the timing works well for Minnesota, too, as Iowa seems to be backsliding with Ferentz, Purdue's sort of stuck in place, Wisconsin's unexpectedly had to get a new coach, Illinois is at rock bottom, and the Gophers seem to be on an upward trajectory in year 3 of a new coaching regime.

[blazindw]

One good thing for Ohio State and Michigan in this is that they get to play annually without the threat of playing two weeks in a row if they make it to the conference championship game. If they'd been in separate divisions they'd either need a protected rivalry game with that threat of playing twice, or they'd have the possibility of not playing each other some years.

I think the bigger issue from a competitiveness standpoint isn't going to be a complete lack of good teams in the West and just a cakewalk to the title game every year for Nebraska. It'll be that the West comprises most of the middle of the conference and the East the top tier and the basement. I firmly believe that Maryland and Rutgers are going to both fall to the bottom of their new conference, and having to play Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State every season isn't going to help matters. They're joined by Indiana, which has clearly been the weakest B1G team of the last two decades. Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa have all had good times before and have the capability of returning to good times. They'll never challenge the powers that be, but they're a threat to break into the second tier and stay there for awhile, and Wisconsin could knock Nebraska down in any given season recently. I just don't see a sustained notch or two above mediocrity as quite as likely for IU, Maryland and Rutgers. This will create (a) a warzone scenario in the West, where multiple teams struggle to differentiate themselves from each other, and (b) three easy wins every year for the powers in the East, perpetuating the perception that the East is even stronger, relative to the West, than it actually is.

As a former Minnesotan, however, I love this. The Little Brown Jug hasn't been competitive for decades, so losing that, while retaining annual games with Iowa and Wisconsin, having a geographically logical structure, ditching the "Leaders" and "Legends" idiocy, and getting to play football in the weaker half of the conference, works just fine for me. Hopefully the timing works well for Minnesota, too, as Iowa seems to be backsliding with Ferentz, Purdue's sort of stuck in place, Wisconsin's unexpectedly had to get a new coach, Illinois is at rock bottom, and the Gophers seem to be on an upward trajectory in year 3 of a new coaching regime.

As a Michigan fan, I'm sad that the Little Brown Jug is not going to be every year (and not because it was fun for the Wolverines most of the past decade). It's one of the oldest trophies in college football. But, I do think that not playing every year could up its importance between the two fan bases going forward.

And I'm sure Mike Corey can speak to this on the other side, but IMO The Game should only be played once a year. I hated Michigan and Ohio being in separate divisions...it had the potential to make The Game less important when played twice. Now, The Game can continue to be the last week of the regular season and the two teams can potentially play for division titles and not worry that those bragging rights could only last a week. East/West is pretty lopsided in football, but it works better than Leaders and Legends did.

[blazindw]

One good thing for Ohio State and Michigan in this is that they get to play annually without the threat of playing two weeks in a row if they make it to the conference championship game. If they'd been in separate divisions they'd either need a protected rivalry game with that threat of playing twice, or they'd have the possibility of not playing each other some years.

I think the bigger issue from a competitiveness standpoint isn't going to be a complete lack of good teams in the West and just a cakewalk to the title game every year for Nebraska. It'll be that the West comprises most of the middle of the conference and the East the top tier and the basement. I firmly believe that Maryland and Rutgers are going to both fall to the bottom of their new conference, and having to play Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State every season isn't going to help matters. They're joined by Indiana, which has clearly been the weakest B1G team of the last two decades. Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, Iowa have all had good times before and have the capability of returning to good times. They'll never challenge the powers that be, but they're a threat to break into the second tier and stay there for awhile, and Wisconsin could knock Nebraska down in any given season recently. I just don't see a sustained notch or two above mediocrity as quite as likely for IU, Maryland and Rutgers. This will create (a) a warzone scenario in the West, where multiple teams struggle to differentiate themselves from each other, and (b) three easy wins every year for the powers in the East, perpetuating the perception that the East is even stronger, relative to the West, than it actually is.

As a former Minnesotan, however, I love this. The Little Brown Jug hasn't been competitive for decades, so losing that, while retaining annual games with Iowa and Wisconsin, having a geographically logical structure, ditching the "Leaders" and "Legends" idiocy, and getting to play football in the weaker half of the conference, works just fine for me. Hopefully the timing works well for Minnesota, too, as Iowa seems to be backsliding with Ferentz, Purdue's sort of stuck in place, Wisconsin's unexpectedly had to get a new coach, Illinois is at rock bottom, and the Gophers seem to be on an upward trajectory in year 3 of a new coaching regime.

As a Michigan fan, I'm sad that the Little Brown Jug is not going to be every year (and not because it was fun for the Wolverines most of the past decade). It's one of the oldest trophies in college football. But, I do think that not playing every year could up its importance between the two fan bases going forward.

And I'm sure Mike Corey can speak to this on the other side, but IMO The Game should only be played once a year. I hated Michigan and Ohio being in separate divisions...it had the potential to make The Game less important when played twice. Now, The Game can continue to be the last week of the regular season and the two teams can potentially play for division titles and not worry that those bragging rights could only last a week. Michigan and MSU are also protected by being in the same division and most of the other rivalries of the B1G are protected, the lone exception being IU/Purdue. East/West is pretty lopsided in football, but it works better than Leaders and Legends did.

[Mal]

it was fun for the Wolverines most of the past decade

Agreed with your sentiment, although I'd substitute "half century" for "decade" in the above. Unfortunately, it's just not a legitimate rivalry today, despite the great history of the trophy itself and the first 75 years of contests. To put it in perspective, since the year in which the current season of Mad Men is set, Minnesota's held the Jug all of three times. Everyone in Minnesota still reveres Rickey Foggie and Chip Lohmiller for the upset at the Big House in 1986, and we've only won once since then, although there were some close calls at the end of the Glen Mason years, while Michigan was starting its downcycle. It's just equalled a guaranteed "L" for the Gophers for so long, that losing the annual playing of it has a silver lining so large it almost overwhelms the rest of the cloud.

[blazindw]

Agreed with your sentiment, although I'd substitute "half century" for "decade" in the above. Unfortunately, it's just not a legitimate rivalry today, despite the great history of the trophy itself and the first 75 years of contests. To put it in perspective, since the year in which the current season of Mad Men is set, Minnesota's held the Jug all of three times. Everyone in Minnesota still reveres Rickey Foggie and Chip Lohmiller for the upset at the Big House in 1986, and we've only won once since then, although there were some close calls at the end of the Glen Mason years, while Michigan was starting its downcycle. It's just equalled a guaranteed "L" for the Gophers for so long, that losing the annual playing of it has a silver lining so large it almost overwhelms the rest of the cloud.

Very true. But among many Michigan fans, the LBJ is still a revered trophy, one we enjoy winning (almost) every year. Both teams have other trophies that are for more important rivalries though (Wisconsin for Minnesota, MSU for Michigan).

[Mike Corey]

And I'm sure Mike Corey can speak to this on the other side, but IMO The Game should only be played once a year.

I can't speak for all or most OSU alums, but I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

The rest of the conference has a lot of catching up to do with OSU and M*chigan, and The Game will remain the de facto championship in most seasons--no need for it to be duplicated and cheapened accordingly.

It will be interesting to see how long this lasts. The announcement out of ACC land re: its latest attempt to prevent additional programs from leaving the conference certainly would appear to dampen the Big Ten's purported desire to raid UNC/UVa, etc., from the league. But we'll see what happens.

Either way, glad to see the Bucks and Wolverines will still be able to duke it annually on the gridiron.

[Duvall]

The announcement out of ACC land re: its latest attempt to prevent additional programs from leaving the conference certainly would appear to dampen the Big Ten's purported desire to raid UNC/UVa, etc., from the league. But we'll see what happens.

It would seem that the bigger obstacle to any Big Ten desire to add more ACC teams would be the fact that no ACC team other than Maryland appears interested in leaving in the next fifteen years.

[Mal]

The rest of the conference has a lot of catching up to do with OSU and M*chigan, and The Game will remain the de facto championship in most seasons--no need for it to be duplicated and cheapened accordingly.

Insert obligatory note that in two seasons of the B1G Football Championship, neither Michigan nor Ohio State have yet to appear. Undefeated seasons played under sanction duly noted, of course.

[-bdbd]

Very true. But among many Michigan fans, the LBJ is still a revered trophy, one we enjoy winning (almost) every year. Both teams have other trophies that are for more important rivalries though (Wisconsin for Minnesota, MSU for Michigan).

So, do the Michigan fans chant, "NOT OUR RIVALS!" or what?

As an ACC advocate, I have taken great pleasure in ribbing my Big10 friends, who have generally long lorded their "superior" football over me/us, that they have "improved" themselves by taking two of the lesser FB schools (historically) from the ACC and the Big East.

I will also take great pleasure in seeing MD go winless in their new conference in 1.5 years...
Being in the DC area, I hear many Terp fans expecting a PACKED HOUSE going forward as droves of Buckeye and Big Blue fans fill Byrd Stadium. Maybe so, but it'll be mostly empty by then end of the third quarter with the margins at 30+ over and over again. Ha!

[-bdbd]

It would seem that the bigger obstacle to any Big Ten desire to add more ACC teams would be the fact that no ACC team other than Maryland appears interested in leaving in the next fifteen years.

I saw John Feinstein's commentary regarding the "Grant of Rights" announcement on CSN last night. His sentiment was pretty direct: This won't stop anything. It'll just mean that the route to departing the ACC will simply have to run through a courtroom next time. Sigh. He's probably right, but I do suspect that very fact WILL discourage the activity some.

[Mal]

So, do the Michigan fans chant, "NOT OUR RIVALS!" or what?

Nah. That would just seem mean. They're aware that Minnesota fans are generally well aware of reality and where their program stacks in the hierarchy, and do not (a) spend an inordinate amount of time whining about how Michigan ignores them in their singular focus on Ohio State, or (b) riot on those rare occasions they manage to get the Jug out of Ann Arbor. Maryland fans, on the other hand, have deserved our ridicule, and need to be
put in their place. Even after they leave the ACC.

I'd say Michigan State is a closer analogue to Maryland in terms of its relationship to Michigan than Minnesota is. It's more like Minnesota:Michigan::UVauke.

[Here is a Turtle]

All I'm going to say about Maryland going winless in the Big Ten is this: if Vanderbilt can make headway in the SEC over a few years, Maryland can in the Big Ten.

[Duvall]

All I'm going to say about Maryland going winless in the Big Ten is this: if Vanderbilt can make headway in the SEC over a few years, Maryland can in the Big Ten.

Then again, Vanderbilt joined the SEC in 1932. It's been more than a few years...