Well, now, that was fun, right?

For the duration of the next 10 minutes that the Big Ten is a 12-team conference, I thought I (as with everyone else on the board) would jump in with another divisional proposal.

Why should you take this divisional alignment more seriously than other divisional alignments?

Why, because:

• Mine has statistics that show exactly how difficult each team's schedule will be for the next 10 years.
• Mine has that exact schedule for the next 10 years.
• Mine makes sure every real rivalry is played every year, except Illinois-Ohio State.
• State groups (except Illinois/NW) and rival groups (Wis/Iowa/Minn) are preserved.
• Mine makes sure you never go more than two seasons without seeing any conference opponent, and never see any opponent less than six times in 10 years.
• Preserves "Rivalry Week" Week 13 games: Purdue-Indiana, Michigan-Ohio State, Iowa-Minnesota, Penn State-Michigan State (six years out of 10), and Illinois-Northwestern, and leaves Nebraska free that week to keep the Colorado rivalry going.
• Kicks off the Big Ten season with minor rivalries like Nebraska-Iowa, Indiana-Michigan State, and Penn State-Minnesota.
• Preserves opportunities to play Notre Dame early in the season for Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue (although in years they don't play Penn State, Michigan State will probably bump Michigan's game to Week 4).
• You won't know this reading it, but unlike most divisional alignments, mine was written with an English accent.
• This cool graphic:

A Ninth Conference Game

Adding a ninth game as a protected cross-divisional rivalry was the key in my mind to making a 12-team (if that's where it ends) conference work as a conference, rather than a loose partnership between two divisions. It freed me up to put rivals in separate divisions yet preserve their annual game, and to make the divisions split evenly (relatively) in talent.

The upside of a ninth conference game is it keeps the schools closely tied, and gives BTN better programming early in the season (better to show Michigan/Nebraska than one or a split of Michigan/MACrifice and Nebraska/NE-Omaha).

The downside is it necessarily decreases the number of wins in the conference overall -- 12 games against non-conf. foes will likely be like 10-2 or 9-3 for the Big Ten, whereas another conference game will total exactly 6-6 -- thus hurting the conference's overall BCS rating.

The Pac11Ten currently plays nine conference games. They are a separate case entirely, but it's well to point out that, despite what it may say in the record books, USC went to a lot of BCS championship games playing nine conference opponents. The extra losses probably cost them some bowl eligibility at the bottom, which fans won't mourn an erstwhile 6-6 team that finishes 5-7 but the conference certainly will.

How It Was Made

I broke my conferences up exactly how Delany described, starting by listing competitive balance on a tier level, then protecting rivalries, then geography. Before shouting, wait to see the protected rivalries in the ninth game.

First, I split the entire conference up into six Competitive Balance tiers. These tiers will serve as a value for calculating the expected difficulty of playing any of these teams over a 10-year span. They were assigned tier levels by recent and historical success, and duh -- if you want to dispute duh you are welcome to do so. The tiers as follows:

Tier 1: Michigan, Ohio State
Tier 2: Nebraska, Penn State
Tier 3: Wisconsin, Iowa
Tier 4: Purdue, Mich St.
Tier 5: Minnesota, Illinois
Tier 6: Northwestern, Indiana

So splitting those up we get:

What I hate about his is Iowa is separated from Wisconsin, Nebraska and Minnesota. So lets do some trading, but keep things fair: trade Nebraska (T2) and Indiana (T6) to the Woody division for Illinois (T5) and Iowa (T3):

I then decided on protected cross-divisional rivalries for each team, to be played the final week of the season (or rescheduled to an off-week if desired):

Michigan-Ohio St
Iowa-Nebraska
MSU-Indiana
Minn-PSU
Ill-NW

We end up with three of the top four programs in one division, but they get the return benefit of playing the conference's two weakest programs. Ultimately, though the rivals play each other every year, they do not come from the same schedules, and therefore the games are little harder to predict.

While different (the Woody, split between three haves and three have-nots will likely be a three-horse race every year, the Bo, with one power team and plenty of strong teams, will be more unpredictable)

This means there are five divisional opponents plus one static rival that each team plays every year, for a static schedule as follows:

Bo Division:

Woody Division:

This gives each school a six-game annual conference schedule from between 3.00 to 4.00, meaning the max difference between regular schedules is that between playing nine Iowas instead of nine Purdues every year.

Considering the effect that the ups and downs of each program has, I would say this is a pretty acceptable level. Michigan's schedule is just as hard as Ohio State's; Penn State's locked-in schedule is the easiest:

Remember, this isn't the final word on schedule strength, just the difficulty of the schedule that will be locked in every year. It doesn't say how hard each year will be, just that Penn State, for example, should not complain that their division contains Nebraska and OSU because those may be the only tough games they play all year. Minnesota can complain, but since when did people from Minnesota ever complain?

Adding Cross-Divisional Games

The way to finish this is to make sure the rest of the conference schedule will not undo all of this parity by, for example, giving Michigan Nebraska, Penn State and Purdue the same year that Iowa gets to skip Ohio State and Penn State. In this, we make sure the teams are spaced evenly in the rotation (something the Big Ten originally did when it added Penn State but it backfired when Northwestern got hard and Iowa tanked in the late '90s). Then it follows the same 10-year cycle that the Big Ten currently uses.

In this system, every conference rival is assigned an opponent number. So for Michigan, opponents are as follows:

X1: Northwestern
X2: Nebraska
X3: Indiana
X4: Penn State
X5: Purdue
Divisional 1: Illinois
Divisional 2: Iowa
Divisional 3: Wisconsin
Divisional 4: Mich St.
Divisional 5: Minnesota
X-Rivalry: Ohio State

This is basically your annual schedule, with two of the X games being absent, and the cross-divisional rivalry being played either in Week 4 or Week 13.

The X games are the opposite divisional games that switch off, so that in 2011 and 2012, we don't play our X4 and X5, in 2013-14 we don't play X1 and X2, in 2015-16 we skip X3 and X4, in 2017-18 it's X5 and X1, and in 2019-20 it's X2 and X3.

This way you will face every opponent at least six times in a decade, and never go more than two seasons without seeing a conference rival. For divisional rivals, it also establishes set weeks each season that you will face a certain team, which I think gives the schedule a bit more traditionalist feel if, e.g., Michigan and Michigan State always meet the first weekend of November, or the Little Brown Jug game is always played the week before Thanksgiving.

The way I have the schedules worked out, the full conference schedules end up varying year by year, but ultimately the variance is within one level: The hardest a schedule ever gets is 3.00 (for Northwestern in 2015-16, and Iowa and Minnesota in 2017-18), and the easiest it ever gets is 4.00 (for Nebraska in 2018-19, Wisconsin in 2017-18, and Penn State in 2011-12).

All told, the difficulty of each members' 10-year conference schedule is more affected by how good that team is more than anything else (Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, and Ohio State are bunched at the easy end because they can't have to play themselves).

Most years, the schedules are fairly equivalent. Furthermore, the teams who tend to get outlyingly hard or easy schedules are those who have been historically worse at football. To those who care about schedule strength (Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State) the most, they have the least to complain about or be complained about. For those who get screwed the most (Indiana) they have the most to gain from having the bigger conference opponents visit more often.

To see how this plays out, follow the charts (higher is easier):

Bo Division:

Woody Division:

When We Play

In ordering the schedule, I put the three cross-divisional games first, followed by the divisional lineup, and then finally the Rivalry Week game. Other things preserved are Iowa and Wisconsin playing the 2nd to last week of the Big Ten season, IU/ILL at the end of the year, and several rivalry trophies.

I built the schedule originally into a 12-week program, then expanded by one week at the beginning of the season (the conference season is played in approximately the same time period today). Some of the cross-divisional static rivalries were moved to Week 4 to accomodate other rivalry games that week. This ended up pretty cool, since it allowed the Big Ten season to kick off with some trophies (Indiana-MSU) and foster new early-season rivalries (Iowa-Nebraska) that won't have to replace or interfere with more classic end-of-year matchups like Indiana-Purdue, Iowa-Minnesota, or Nebraska-Colorado.

Also, a few notes on Notre Dame scheduling: the 9th conference game means ND will have to accomodate teams when they are available, but there's really little that will change about the Irish's Michigan/MSU/Purdue lineup, except for when they play Purdue. Michigan fits nicely as Week 2 each year as is tradition. Michigan State can be Week 5 (I don't think they'll mind having Indiana as an annual tuneup first) on the six years they play Penn State; otherwise they will need to be Week 3 (their normal spot). For those four seasons that MSU doesn't play Penn State, there are several options: Purdue can play Notre Dame Week 8 (in the middle of the Big Ten schedule) or Week 1, or else convince Michigan to move their game to Week 4.

As such, I give to you your next decade of Big Ten scheduling:*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Except 3 seconds after this is posted there will be four more Big Ten teams, and the conference will have an entirely different name, and Delany will have superpowers. But it was fun while it lasted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2011-12 Bo Division:

2011-12 Woody Division:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2013-14 Bo Division:

2013-14 Woody Division:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2015-16 Bo Division:

2015-16 Woody Division:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2017-18 Bo Division:

2017-18 Woody Division:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2019-20 Bo Division:

2019-20 Woody Division:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the end of the season, they can play a game at a neutral site (Ford Field or similar) between the two divisional champs to decide the conference champion.

Lets Think Inside The Box Now

I Just posted a diary on having a 2-way divisional setup, after reading it realized i want to design a setup that may actually be adopted. So i studied. A 4 way geographical divisional split, keeping each division competitively sound with the next, and maintaining the chance for a UM-OSU Big Ten Championship Game was hard to come up with, but i think i just did. You have 2 major divisions, and 4 sub-divisions.

 These are the two major divisions. The winners from the subdivisions of each will play in the Big Ten Championship Game.

The Sub-divisions are listed Below

 If you look at the geographical layout of the big ten schools. This makes sense. All of the teams are in the relative location of the divisions.

This setup is the closest i came to having each division as competitive as the next. I took the records from the previous year and added them together for every division.

 As you can see each division is pretty close to the 22.5 wins that would even out each division.

How Will This Work?

Every team will play the other two teams in there division, along with the other 3 teams from either their Major Division. (ex. UM plays all teams in NE and NW, and OSU plays all teams in SW and SE) That gives you 5 conference games. Assuming they stick with 8, That leaves 3 conference games the teams can schedule with any 3 teams from the other major division. Giving you the OSU-UM finale at the end of the year.

What If Each Team Goes 1-1 In Sub-Divisional Play?

If two or more teams have the same Sub-Divisional record you then look at Major Division record, there are only 5 games so the possibility of both (or all 3) teams going 3-2 are there.

If there is still a tie after that, look at how many points each team averagely won. Whoever won by more points wins that division.

Big Ten Playoffs?

The winner of the two sub-divisions in each Major Division will play in the Semi-Finals. (ex. NW-NE and SW-SE) The winner of those two games play in The Big Ten Championship Game. This way rivalries are all still there (Iowa would have to schedule there 2 big Rivalries as there Out-of-Divisioin games but they could make it happen if they wanted it bad enough), and UM-OSU Championship could still happen.

Pros

• Traditional rivalries still kept
• Not too complicated
• Big Ten Playoff / Big Ten Championship Game
• UM-OSU Championship game a possibility
• Keep 8 Game Conference play
• About as fair as you can get for each division

Cons

• People will argue about fairness and easy schedules
• Iowa will have to take ALL of there out of division games to schedule rivals

Thinking Outside the Vertical Split

So I'm sitting here reading how the Big Ten is going to split up the conferences and I'm noticing something. The way that most people have it set up is for a east-west alignment. Which makes sense. Its a lot easier to split up. I personally like the 4 division set ups better. But that does get complicated and if the Big Ten will not use a 4 division set up. Why not go North-South? This way, you get to keep the Michigan-OSU rivalry and have a chance at having a UM-OSU Big Ten Championship Game. We all know that would bring in the most money and definitely the most T.V. air time. The way i look at it, we could split the divisions up like this.

Now with this setup, the first thing you will notice is that this is not at all even. North has Arguably 1 mediocre team while the south has 2-3. The only way i can think of to make sure that this evens out is to make each division play the other division. This is very different but could completely even things out.  ALL the teams in the North would play ALL the teams in the south, and vice versa.

 How Will This Work?

Whoever has the Best record against the other division, is the winner of the division, and will get to play in the Big Ten Championship Game. This way. OSU and Nebraska (the presumable winners of the South) have to play the exact same teams, and you can compare the records equally and will have no dispute over who had a weaker schedule. Now this only leaves 6 games, which means we have 3 left. 3 divisional games, 3 random teams within the division. (Assuming that we move to 9 conference games for this setup)

What If They Both Go 5-1?

 If two or more teams have the exact same record against the other division, then we look at record within the division. If that is the same, then we look at if the two teams played each other. If they did, then the winner of that game goes to the Big Ten Championship Game. If they didn't, then we see what the average points that the teams won by was(against the other division). Whoever won by more points is that divisions winner.

 In addition this also ensures that UM and OSU play EVERY year, and that UM-OSU Big Ten Championship Game is possible every year..

Pros

• The UM-OSU rivalry will take place every year, no matter what
• There is a chance at a UM-OSU Big Ten Championship Game every year
• There will be no reasonable argument for someone winning there division with an easier schedule
• Not too complicated

Cons

• The South will more than likely be an easier division every year (if people really want to argue about that)
• Some rivalry's may not take place every year
• People will still argue someone having an easier road to the Big Ten Championship Game
• It is out-of-the-norm for divisional splits

Why Not Have South Play Teams In The South And North Play Teams In The North?

Thats thinking in the box, not out of the box, which is the point of this post.

Rather than going with the 2 divisional alignment that has been argued quite extensively, I have a proposed solution for peer review. The main reason for peer review is that I'm not entirely sure that everything works out in every situation. Let me know if you find something that doesn't, making this whole post worthless.

In this situation, the 12 team conference will be split into 4 pods, and the four pods will rotate around who plays each other and a singular protected rivalry will happen outside of pod play.

First, for basic understanding of my pods:

Division names here are just made up for convenience, something better could be thought up. I'm just looking at how to divide and schedule.

The key to this scheduling technique is a rotation. The plan is to have a 9 game schedule, with each team playing 2 divisional games, 1 protected rivalry game, and 6 games against teams in matched divisions. If the protected rivalry game falls in one of the two matched divisions (2 games per division automatically end up this way), they'll be replaced by a team in the unlinked division.

The protected rivalries outside of the divisions:

I felt this does a good job of keeping some of the more important rivalries that may or may not exist, even if they are minor (Michigan vs Minnesota) or developing ones (Iowa vs Penn State).

By setting this divisional set up and match ups, this means that two divisions are linked every year. By linked, I mean that they will play the same divisions, but not each other, except in games replacing protected rivalry weekends. So, for example, in year one, the Central will play the West and South divisions. Also in year one, the Midwest will play the West and South divisions. The Central and Midwest won't play each other except replacing protected rivalry games, and the West and South won't play each other except in games replacing protected rivalries.

To describe this in chart form, the team in the top would play inter-divisional against the teams in the chart in each of the three rotating years:

Looking above, you can see that the Central would play the same inter-divisional opponents as the Midwest in year one of the rotation. In year two, they'd play the same opponents as the South. In year three, they'd play the same inter-divisional opponents as the West. Having played the same opponents, I think this makes them best suited for "linking" them for who makes the Big Ten Championship game. The best record emerging from the "linked" groups will face off in the Big Ten.

So in year one, the best Big Ten record of the Central and Midwest would face the best Big Ten record of the West and South. This helps eliminate some of the problem the Big XII faced as a 2 division, 12 team conference. One half of the conference cannot dominate the other half as quarters of the conference much mix yearly.

Will it work?

I'm not entirely sure. The protected rivalries may hurt the system, but some I think are near necessities. The thing I'm least sure about is if replacing protected rivalries will work out. Say Michigan is in year one of the rotation, they'll play Minnesota in the inter-divisional round, therefore, they'll need to play a team out of the Midwest to make up for the lost conference game. Will that work out all the time? I'm not sure. I tried to space it out where no team in the same pod had a protected rivalry in the same division as another team in their rivalry, so theoretically, there should always be two teams from each pod that must play a team from their linked pod.

That even number in each pod should make it possible. I'm interested to see if those with a sharper attention span can confirm this.

Positives

• It eliminates the need to split the conference in two parts.
• Geography is still pretty well grouped. Penn State does jump the Central schools, but that was to keep Michigan with it's two geographic rivals.
• The quarters provide a pretty solid balance between groups,
• It keeps many if not all major conference rivalries together.
• You never go more than one year without facing an opponent.

Negatives

• Only 85% sure it will work.
• You're probably slightly confused just thinking about it.
• One less cream puff game per year, resulting in half the conference gaining an extra loss (price of a 9-game conference season)

Conclusion

I like it, but I'm interested in your thoughts. I don't see much in the way of 4 divisions being thrown around for much outside of the 16 team conference, which I'd prefer something similar in that case as well.

James Elliott

6'4, 285 lbs.

Offensive Tackle

Pensacola, Forida

Elliott has started to see his recruitment take off. With around 14 offers so far, he is hoping for and expecting a few more offers to roll in. James was offered by Michigan this past Tuesday, and was very excited that the Wolverines have chosen him for a scholarship offer. He told me that Michigan is in his top five even if he gets those offers that he's hoping for.

He will most likely have to use an official visit to come see Ann Arbor since it's an expensive trip from Florida. Elliott has a very close relationship with his offensive line coach, and it just so happens that Elliott's line coach played at FSU with Michigan offensive line coach Greg Frey. They have that instant connection and trust that's needed during recruiting, so we'll see how this plays out. Distance won't be a factor for Elliot.

Prince Holloway

5'10, 165 lbs.

Athlete

Cape Coral, Florida

Holloway is an interesting prospect who only holds a few offers from Indiana, Michigan, West Virginia, and Western Kentucky. Although the local schools haven't offered they've had their eye on Holloway, and at least one of them should jump into the mix soon.

Holloway told me that Michigan is in his top two with West Virginia. He said that even if one of the local schools does offer, Michigan will still be up there in the top group. Just because they're a local school doesn't mean he would pick them. He's looking for the right fit, and the right school for him. Holloway doesn't know the exact date yet but he will be visiting Michigan sometime either this month, or next.

One complicating factor for Holloway and Michigan is that, like his former teammate Spencer Boyd, Holloway has a child. Boyd recently transferred from Notre Dame to be closer to his family. You have to think that would have an effect on Prince, too.

A look at Prince's spring game this year:

Kris Frost

6'3, 210 lbs.

Linebacker/Wide Receiver

Matthews, North Carolina

Kris Frost will be in Ann Arbor this coming weekend for camp with his family. This is a huge visit for Michigan, as it will be the first time his family will be seeing Michigan. Frost recently took an impromptu visit to Auburn and enjoyed himself. He's been to Auburn quite a few times now, and the proximity to his home is a plus in the eyes of his mom and dad.

Michigan needs to roll out the red carpet for his family. If Michigan can impress them, then it would be safe to say that Michigan will be the clear front-runner. I sent Kris a text the other day, and said, "You're still coming up to Michigan for camp right?" His reply was, "THAAATTTT'SSS RIIIIIIGGGHHTT!!!!!!!!" So… he's a little excited.

[Editor's note: Camp will be critical in Frost's recruitment. The frequent visits to Auburn have Tiger fans feeling optimistic; Michigan's main chance to sway him back will be this weekend.]

Ed Davis

6'4, 215 lbs.

Outside Linebacker

Detroit, Michigan

Ed was offered by Michigan this past weekend. I spoke with him afterwards, and he said he's going to get together with his family and talk about what's next. "What's next"  could be an quick commitment. I'm expecting that Ed's commitment will come sooner rather than later, once he has all of his questions answered. He said he will be ready to make his decision once he feels right about a school.

Michigan is in good shape here.

Extra:

• There was an article brought to my attention in which Andre Yruretagoyena (I don't even need to look that up anymore) said he didn't think it was fair that USC's new coaches were being punished for what the old staff did. The sanctions against USC are coming from 2004, and you have to remember, Andre was only 10 or 11 years old at that time. He didn't know that Lane Kiffin was part of that staff. He does now, and he doesn't feel as strongly about it. Yruretagoyena said he "want[s] to say it doesn't affect me, but it does."
• MD ATH Brandon Phelps has a Michigan offer, plans a visit, and lists Michigan in a list of five schools that are recruiting him hard.
• OH LB Sean Duggan's visit to Michigan was "awesome" and Michigan is now solidly in his top three.

Nebraska will begin Big Ten play in the fall of 2011, and the Internets are full of proposals for splitting the twelve-team conference into two divisions. Many of those proposals are fundamentally flawed, either because they are parochial (obviously to one school’s advantage), or because they ignore what Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delaney has already said about the conference’s priorities.

In the press conference welcoming Nebraska to the Big Ten, Delaney said that divisional alignment would be based on competitive balance, protecting rivalries, and geography, in that order. He also said that some rivalries are more important than others.

By putting geography third, Delaney sent a clear signal that an east–west split is highly unlikely. As many commenters have noted, that arrangement would put three of the conference's four traditional powers—Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State—in the same division.

A north–south alignment seems equally unlikely. There isn't a huge difference in latitude between the northernmost and southernmost schools in the conference. No one in Illinois thinks of a trip to Michigan as “going north,” even if that’s literally true. It would be an awfully odd way to split up, if geography is the commissioner’s bottom priority.

Last year, three BCS leagues had twelve teams in two six-team divisions: the SEC, the ACC, and the Big XII. All three used the same scheduling formula: teams play all five members of their own division annually, plus three of six in the opposite division on a rotating basis, for a total of eight conference games. This is the most straightforward scheduling plan. It preserves the same number of league games that Big Ten teams play today, and it also ensures that every team plays all of the others reasonably often.

If we assume this format for the Big Ten in 2011, then Michigan and Ohio State will probably be in one division, Nebraska and Penn State in the other. This is the only arrangement that ensures the Wolverines and Buckeyes will play The Game every year. Putting the two in opposite divisions would either eliminate The Game as an annual affair, or create other scheduling headaches. There is simply no good reason to put Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions. Penn State and Nebraska may be at opposite geographic poles, but the commissioner has already said that geography is his last priority.

With the traditional powers evenly divided and geography a minimal concern, the remaining eight teams will probably be divided up based on rivalries, and the commissioner said that some are more important than others. Let us consider, then, how the rivalries might be ranked.

Two groups of rivalries are probably at the bottom of the heap: those that are not contested annually, and those involving Penn State. The Little Brown Jug, involving Michigan and Minnesota, is in the first category. Even the current Big Ten scheduling system does not ensure that these two meet every year. If that’s acceptable today, then surely it is acceptable in the future.

Before Penn State joined the conference in the 1990s, it did not have a notable rivalry with any Big Ten team. Several rivalries were more-or-less invented for the Nittany Lions. They play for two named trophies—the Governor’s Victory Bell with Minnesota and the Land Grand Trophy with Michigan State—plus an annual unnamed tilt with Ohio State. As none of these rivalries is long-standing, they are presumably dispensable.

We move on to the Big Ten’s current protected rivalries—those that are contested every year, under the current system, minus those involving Penn State. Here they are:

Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota

We have already concluded that Michigan and Ohio State will be in the same division, so that rivalry is taken care of. We can assume that the conference would seek to preserve the same-state rivalries, such as Michigan vs. Michigan State, as most Division I football schools have an opponent in their own state that they play annually.

The adjoining-state rivalries require a bit of discussion. Michigan fans wax poetic about past Ohio State games, but many haven’t a clue about the games that matter to other teams in the conference. I am astonished when I see proposed line-ups that put Wisconsin and Minnesota in separate divisions. Amazingly enough, these two schools have the oldest annually contested rivalry in Division I football. There is no way Wisconsin and Minnesota would give that up. They’ve played every year since 1892. In contrast, Michigan didn’t play MSU until 1898, and it wasn’t an annual meeting until 1902.

The annual Minnesota–Wisconsin game is for a trophy called Paul Bunyon’s axe. There are named trophies for these two schools’ annual games with Iowa too—the Floyd of Rosedale and the Heartland Trophy respectively. In contrast, the annual Illinois–Indiana and Northwestern–Purdue tilts are of no special significance, beyond their longstanding membership in the Big Ten, a fact they share with other teams.

With our background on rivalries complete, we can now try to slot the new twelve-team Big Ten into divisions. It is obviously sensible to put Iowa into the same division as Nebraska, given that they occupy adjoining states. Nebraska does not have a long-standing rivalry with any Big Ten team, but if they were going to develop one, Iowa would be an obvious candidate. As the Hawkeyes and the Wisconsin Badgers are routinely strong football programs, it makes sense to split them, for competitive balance reasons. And given the background recited above, where the Badgers go, the Minnesota Golden Gophers go too.

(Incidentally, Nebraska has played Minnesota 51 times, more than any other team in the conference. But as the two have not met since 1990, this is not likely to be a factor in setting up the divisions.)

We therefore have the following start:

Plains: Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State
Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin

The Illinois and Indiana schools cannot be slotted into this arrangement without splitting one of the in-state rivalries. Fortunately, there is a straightforward solution. Although Illinois and Northwestern have played every year within living memory, the game was not annual until 1927. They played many times before that, but with numerous gaps. Indiana and Purdue have missed only two years since 1899. The state of Indiana therefore trumps the state of Illinois.

I therefore submit the following alignment as consistent with Jim Delaney’s stated priorities of competitive balance first, rivalries second, and geography third.

Plains: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State, Purdue
Lakes: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin

This plan has reasonable competitive balance. The only named trophy rivalries that would no longer be contested annually, aside from those involving Penn State, are Iowa–Minnesota, Iowa–Wisconsin, and Illinois–Northwestern. Of course, this doesn’t mean they’d no longer play each other, only that it wouldn’t be annual.

There does not appear to be an alignment that preserves these rivalries without breaking others that are more important, or setting up divisions that are clearly unbalanced. For instance, in the alignment above, if you swap Iowa and Northwestern, then the broken rivalries would be restored, but the Lakes division would be top-heavy, with Iowa, Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin. Other re-arrangements meet with similar objections.

Obviously, with the Big Ten’s expansion study still very much alive, the conference might not have 12 teams for very long. But while it does, I think the Plains/Lakes alignment given above does the best job of meeting the Commissioner’s stated priorities of competitive balance first, rivalries second, and geography third.