B1G Divisions

[chrisfromnyc]

Up front: I know that as a Rutgers fan I have a particular perspective, which is about how hard it is to get off the mat in this division. But I think that MD, IU, MSU fans might see the wisdom here as well.

Competitively, the conference is too skewed. The quartet of MICH, PSU, OSU and MSU is met with WISC, NEB, IOWA, and I guess NW? It's not even close. And if you had to bet on the long term futures of the weak sisters of each division, MD/RU/IU is probably a stronger trio than MINN/PUR/ILL. Even if you don't accept my previous sentence, there is a real competitive imbalance.

I think if you moved Michigan and Michigan State over, switching places with Nebraska and Northwestern, it would go a long way. Divisions would be:

1 - OSU, PSU, NEB, NW, MD, RU, IU
2 - MICH, WISC, MSU, IOWA, MINN, ILL, PUR

You stick with a 9 game schedule, with a fixed rivalry slate as follows: MICH vs OSU, WISC vs PSU, NEB vs IOWA, NW vs MSU, MD vs MINN, RU vs ILL, IU vs PUR. The other two cross-division games are basically one hard, one easy, i.e. for RU -- MICH/PUR as a pair, WISC/MINN, and MSU/IOWA.

The big game of the conference, OSU vs MICH, is maintained. MICH vs MSU stays. MINN vs WISC stays. PUR vs IU (in-state for the Old Oaken Bucket) comes back. NEB, who is the geographic loser of this switch, gets to keep IOWA as a fixed rival (though strictly competitively they should maybe get MSU) and adds OSU and PSU every year, which softens the blow.

This would reduce the savagery of the East schedule and make a top Western team work harder to get to the title game. Both divisions will still have a couple of weaklings. Everybody will still play a lot of hard games. Thoughts?

 

[e5fdny]

Go to a 10 game sked and leave it as it is. But figure out a way you end up playing everybody at least once over 13(?) years.

It's up to those individual schools to right the competitive imbalance.

Everybody before us at one point or another has been to the Rose Bowl. So it can be done.

 

[koleszar]

Up front: I know that as a Rutgers fan I have a particular perspective, which is about how hard it is to get off the mat in this division. But I think that MD, IU, MSU fans might see the wisdom here as well.

Competitively, the conference is too skewed. The quartet of MICH, PSU, OSU and MSU is met with WISC, NEB, IOWA, and I guess NW? It's not even close. And if you had to bet on the long term futures of the weak sisters of each division, MD/RU/IU is probably a stronger trio than MINN/PUR/ILL. Even if you don't accept my previous sentence, there is a real competitive imbalance.

I think if you moved Michigan and Michigan State over, switching places with Nebraska and Northwestern, it would go a long way. Divisions would be:

1 - OSU, PSU, NEB, NW, MD, RU, IU
2 - MICH, WISC, MSU, IOWA, MINN, ILL, PUR

You stick with a 9 game schedule, with a fixed rivalry slate as follows: MICH vs OSU, WISC vs PSU, NEB vs IOWA, NW vs MSU, MD vs MINN, RU vs ILL, IU vs PUR. The other two cross-division games are basically one hard, one easy, i.e. for RU -- MICH/PUR as a pair, WISC/MINN, and MSU/IOWA.

The big game of the conference, OSU vs MICH, is maintained. MICH vs MSU stays. MINN vs WISC stays. PUR vs IU (in-state for the Old Oaken Bucket) comes back. NEB, who is the geographic loser of this switch, gets to keep IOWA as a fixed rival (though strictly competitively they should maybe get MSU) and adds OSU and PSU every year, which softens the blow.

This would reduce the savagery of the East schedule and make a top Western team work harder to get to the title game. Both divisions will still have a couple of weaklings. Everybody will still play a lot of hard games. Thoughts?

Northwestern will never move over. They're one of the pricks who were against our entrance. I do agree the divisions are quite lopsided. In time the B1G championship is going to bare that out. Just last year the 3rd best team in the East beat the undisputed best in the West. The East continues to get stronger and the West simply can't keep up recruiting wise.

People say college football moves in cycles, however when you have two blue bloods in your division they may take a step back for a year or two then they'll be right back on top. No team in the West has that staying power. It's going to be lopsided for a long, long time.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Up front: I know that as a Rutgers fan I have a particular perspective, which is about how hard it is to get off the mat in this division. But I think that MD, IU, MSU fans might see the wisdom here as well.

Competitively, the conference is too skewed. The quartet of MICH, PSU, OSU and MSU is met with WISC, NEB, IOWA, and I guess NW? It's not even close. And if you had to bet on the long term futures of the weak sisters of each division, MD/RU/IU is probably a stronger trio than MINN/PUR/ILL. Even if you don't accept my previous sentence, there is a real competitive imbalance.

I think if you moved Michigan and Michigan State over, switching places with Nebraska and Northwestern, it would go a long way. Divisions would be:

1 - OSU, PSU, NEB, NW, MD, RU, IU
2 - MICH, WISC, MSU, IOWA, MINN, ILL, PUR

You stick with a 9 game schedule, with a fixed rivalry slate as follows: MICH vs OSU, WISC vs PSU, NEB vs IOWA, NW vs MSU, MD vs MINN, RU vs ILL, IU vs PUR. The other two cross-division games are basically one hard, one easy, i.e. for RU -- MICH/PUR as a pair, WISC/MINN, and MSU/IOWA.

The big game of the conference, OSU vs MICH, is maintained. MICH vs MSU stays. MINN vs WISC stays. PUR vs IU (in-state for the Old Oaken Bucket) comes back. NEB, who is the geographic loser of this switch, gets to keep IOWA as a fixed rival (though strictly competitively they should maybe get MSU) and adds OSU and PSU every year, which softens the blow.

This would reduce the savagery of the East schedule and make a top Western team work harder to get to the title game. Both divisions will still have a couple of weaklings. Everybody will still play a lot of hard games. Thoughts?

IU guy here,

you're looking at it all wrong.

we get to play OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU, EVERY YEAR.

that's like getting 2,3,4 New Year's day bowl level opponents every yr, half the time at your place.

embrace it.

 

[Plum Street]

You made some good points in the original post, but Michigan and Ohio state need to be in the same division. They will never move Michigan and Ohio state to separate divisions because they don't want to blow up that rivalry game. And that's exactly what would happen if they are in separate divisions, because you have the very strong possibility of the them playing a regular season game followed by the same exact game the next week in the BIG championship. That would render the regular season game a meaningless walk through in some years.
You would need for the schools to agree to play that game in October.

 

[wheezer]

call me crazy, but for decades I dreamed of being in the big 10, imagining getting to play Michigan and Ohio state at home....... if we have Michigan in our division, you probably keep Mich state as they come as a pair

I would never want to mess with that..... also embrace the fact that no matter what, PU will be in our division, as will Maryland

I try to look at Michigan state as an example of what RU can do, and hopefully will do..... they were not, always a big 10 power, but have gotten to very respectable in the conference

we can do that here.

 

[NorthernKnight_rivals]

I like it just as it is...a competitive mountain for RU to climb.

We will climb it and will challenge for the 2/3 slot before Lewis graduates.

We will beat OSU by 2025. It may wind up that we lose 7or 8 of 10 to OSU starting in 2025, but it won't stay at 10 of 10.

Penn State will cycle up & down. Michigan State always has cycled up and down. Michigan will have a down cycle again when Harbaugh leaves...and he will. He's not built for the long term.

 

[RUaMoose_rivals]

Divisional balance will shift over time. Most teams not named Ohio State will have their ups and downs. Look at PSU and Michigan. They were mediocre just a few years ago. Michigan State was in the final 4 but are now just ok.So right now the East is dominant but in 2 or 3 years that may change

 

[macdad90]

Add UVA and UNC (I expect them to go untouched from their current issues) then move the Michigans to the West and put in place some the rivalry maintaining ideas of the OP - geography is important to Delaney, don't see moving Nebraska to the East as an option - i suspect, long term, this is what Delaney has in mind

 

[chrisfromnyc]

You made some good points in the original post, but Michigan and Ohio state need to be in the same division. They will never move Michigan and Ohio state to separate divisions because they don't want to blow up that rivalry game. And that's exactly what would happen if they are in separate divisions, because you have the very strong possibility of the them playing a regular season game followed by the same exact game the next week in the BIG championship. That would render the regular season game a meaningless walk through in some years.
You would need for the schools to agree to play that game in October.

Good point. I was thinking in terms of just their still just getting to keep playing the game.

 

[chrisfromnyc]

IU guy here,

you're looking at it all wrong.

we get to play OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU, EVERY YEAR.

that's like getting 2,3,4 New Year's day bowl level opponents every yr, half the time at your place.

embrace it.

No choice really but to embrace it, but IU is a perfect example of how hard it is to have a good year.

Two seasons ago, when RU had that crazy win at your place (which must have been beyond maddening to experience as a fan), you guys started 4-0 and then just got murdered. You almost beat OSU, you lost in 2OT at Michigan, you lost tough to that great Iowa team. But also in that midyear stretch you got clubbed by MSU and lost badly at PSU.

IU had been (and still is) on the upswing, but that was a year where things really could have gone differently. Were you great? No. You blew a game against RU and lost a bowl game to Duke. But a really promising start got ground under the wheels of that midseason schedule.

No crying - it is great to have tough opponents for sure. And any realignment would still leave a schedule full of tough opponents. And of course this is all idle speculation for the offseason.

 

[seels2662]

I actually think the next two teams we add will be Texas/Oklahoma, who both go to the west and move Purdue to the east to join Indiana (which is really the only thing they have publicly said they would like to change). Once that happens Texas/Oklahoma/Nebraska/Wisconsin is comparable to OSU/Michigan/PSU/Michigan State.

 

[koleszar]

I actually think the next two teams we add will be Texas/Oklahoma, who both go to the west and move Purdue to the east to join Indiana (which is really the only thing they have publicly said they would like to change). Once that happens Texas/Oklahoma/Nebraska/Wisconsin is comparable to OSU/Michigan/PSU/Michigan State.

Yes I've heard Purdue and Indiana were none too happy about the split, with them being in the same state and all their history. If your move plays out, then yes those divisions would be as balanced as you could possibly have. But right now, I'm still shaking my head at how they came to this current determination. I mean somebody in that room had to say, hey guys, don't ya think this is kind of unbalance.

 

[BoogieKnight]

The problem is Nebraska. People forget how good they were for so long. They just haven't cycled back up to that national powerhouse level and honestly they may never. But if they ever became the Nebraska of the Osborne Era again people wouldn't be complaining too much about "lopsided" divisions. Or say there's expansion and Texas and OU join the Big Ten. Again, I don't think the divisions will be so lopsided then.

 

[wheezer]

Add UVA and UNC (I expect them to go untouched from their current issues) then move the Michigans to the West and put in place some the rivalry maintaining ideas of the OP - geography is important to Delaney, don't see moving Nebraska to the East as an option - i suspect, long term, this is what Delaney has in mind

----
no offense, but I hate this expansion..... we have debated this exact one several times.... bring in Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame.... pick two of those and put them in the west..... now that would be a move!

 

[e5fdny]

Add UVA and UNC (I expect them to go untouched from their current issues) then move the Michigans to the West and put in place some the rivalry maintaining ideas of the OP - geography is important to Delaney, don't see moving Nebraska to the East as an option - i suspect, long term, this is what Delaney has in mind

----
no offense, but I hate this expansion..... we have debated this exact one several times.... bring in Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame.... pick two of those and put them in the west..... now that would be a move!

Me too.

Go West young man!

1. The two mentioned (Oklahoma/Texas) bring so much more than the ACC pair.

2. Would make the present West Division schools happy.

 

[greenpeach]

When Rutgers & Maryland joined the Big Ten 4 years ago, the decision was made to realign the divisions along strictly geographical lines. It was understood that one eastern time zone team would have to be in the West. Michigan State volunteered to be that team. MSU has a huge alumni base in Chicago & the prospect of a "home game" every other year was very appealing. However, Michigan & Wisconsin blocked the proposed move. Purdue then became the compromise choice.

 

[UMRU]

IU guy here,

you're looking at it all wrong.

we get to play OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU, EVERY YEAR.

that's like getting 2,3,4 New Year's day bowl level opponents every yr, half the time at your place.

embrace it.

Very true. But until we are competitive in those games again, it feels like a New Year's Day hangover rather than a New Year's Day celebration. So we all whine about it.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

----
no offense, but I hate this expansion..... we have debated this exact one several times.... bring in Oklahoma, Texas, Notre Dame.... pick two of those and put them in the west..... now that would be a move!

Don't forget the Dallas cowboys and NE pratriots...gonna be one hell of a conference![winking]

 

[wheezer]

Don't forget the Dallas cowboys and NE pratriots...gonna be one hell of a conference![winking]

---
lol ... I guess I am a glutton for punishment.

 

[chrisfromnyc]

Me too.

Go West young man!

1. The two mentioned (Oklahoma/Texas) bring so much more than the ACC pair.

2. Would make the present West Division schools happy.

That would be a heck of a conference for sure. And that move would finalize the move toward a P4 scenario.

Maybe Kansas and Kansas State go Pac-16, West Virginia pulls into ACC with ND forced to go all in. SEC takes Okie State and TCU. Four 16 team conferences.

Texas Tech and Baylor join the Mountain West or AAC, Iowa State goes to wherever will take them.

 

[Western PA_rivals103496]

Some Tweets from CBS Sports Dennis Dodd. Delaney seems to say 14 is it.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account@dennisdoddcbs
More and more administrators telling me really hard to go beyond 14. We may have reached peak expansion, super conferences.

Dennis Dodd‏Verified account@dennisdoddcbs 55m55 minutes ago
"If you go much beyond where we are, it's more like an association," Delany on further expansion. Hearing this more and more.

1. Dennis Dodd‏Verified account@dennisdoddcbs 58m58 minutes ago
   Delany: ACC expansion made B10 feel "cramped." "More risk in staying where we were." Maryland, Rutgers "sleeping giants."
   
   17 replies11 retweets16 likes
   

Pat Forde‏Verified account@YahooForde
Replying to @dennisdoddcbs
Sound asleep.

 

[SJScarlet]

Pat Forde - Professional Troll

 

[e5fdny]

Only love the #14 because we are one of the 14. Would rather have been one of the 12 back when it was just 12 and leave it at that.

So I agree with the idea of 16 getting away from the idea of a conference.

And +1 on the Pat Forde comment. He must think (or heard) the idea of 16 is good for the SEC.

 

[chrisfromnyc]

Only love the #14 because we are one of the 14. Would rather have been one of the 12 and leave it at that.

So I agree with the idea of 16 getting away from the idea of a conference.

As do I. Don't love the super conference idea at all. I just think that the UT/OK addition would mean that. I hope it doesn't happen and I don't think it will.

 

[fbc1866]

The league needs for Ohio State, Mich, and Penn State to play each other every year. We need to improve and be mentioned in the same group. Things need to be done but I think the school is moving in the right direction. With our recruiting location, it is possible to build a nice program here at Rutgers.

 

[e5fdny]

As do I. Don't love the super conference idea at all. I just think that the UT/OK addition would mean that. I hope it doesn't happen and I don't think it will.

If that opportunity was available guess you'd have to say yes. Because that would just close the door and make the B1G the winner IMO.

 

[e5fdny]

Very true. But until we are competitive in those games again, it feels like a New Year's Day hangover rather than a New Year's Day celebration. So we all whine about it.

Well to use a NYD analogy...

In the B1G bowl lineup you can still get to have a party on NYD even without have a "great" year. I know the playoffs have changed that up a bit. But still a good deal.

 

[MADHAT1]

Up front: I know that as a Rutgers fan I have a particular perspective, which is about how hard it is to get off the mat in this division. But I think that MD, IU, MSU fans might see the wisdom here as well.

Competitively, the conference is too skewed. The quartet of MICH, PSU, OSU and MSU is met with WISC, NEB, IOWA, and I guess NW? It's not even close. And if you had to bet on the long term futures of the weak sisters of each division, MD/RU/IU is probably a stronger trio than MINN/PUR/ILL. Even if you don't accept my previous sentence, there is a real competitive imbalance.

I think if you moved Michigan and Michigan State over, switching places with Nebraska and Northwestern, it would go a long way. Divisions would be:

1 - OSU, PSU, NEB, NW, MD, RU, IU
2 - MICH, WISC, MSU, IOWA, MINN, ILL, PUR

You stick with a 9 game schedule, with a fixed rivalry slate as follows: MICH vs OSU, WISC vs PSU, NEB vs IOWA, NW vs MSU, MD vs MINN, RU vs ILL, IU vs PUR. The other two cross-division games are basically one hard, one easy, i.e. for RU -- MICH/PUR as a pair, WISC/MINN, and MSU/IOWA.

The big game of the conference, OSU vs MICH, is maintained. MICH vs MSU stays. MINN vs WISC stays. PUR vs IU (in-state for the Old Oaken Bucket) comes back. NEB, who is the geographic loser of this switch, gets to keep IOWA as a fixed rival (though strictly competitively they should maybe get MSU) and adds OSU and PSU every year, which softens the blow.

This would reduce the savagery of the East schedule and make a top Western team work harder to get to the title game. Both divisions will still have a couple of weaklings. Everybody will still play a lot of hard games. Thoughts?

My thought :
The schools based furthest east: RU-PSU & Maryland stay in the Eastern Division permanently
The schools that are the furthest west: Minnesota-Iowa and Nebraska always stay in the Western Division
Indiana-Purdue- Illinois – Northwestern –Michigan-MSU and OSU –Wisconsin move from division to division
Indiana-Purdue -Michigan-MSU go east the first 4 then west
Illinois – Northwestern -OSU –Wisconsin go west the first 4 then east
After 8 years a new combination of 4 ( but OSU & Wisconsin never in same division so the schools in the same state always play each other every year..
Michigan-OSU the same even when in different divisions.
Wisconsin –Minnesota Paul Bunyan Trophy game could stay a yearly affair as well.