big ten divisions

With the addition of Rutgers and Maryland, it seems more or less inevitable that eventually the Big Ten will grow to 16 schools.  Given the NCAA's rule that championship game participants must come from separate divisions that play an internal round robin, dividing into two permanent divisions of eight teams each would ensure that a school plays schools in the other division almost never.

The answer that no one seems to be touting?

4 "pods."  2 non-permanent divisions.  Pods are B1G North, South, East, and West.

Let's assume for the sake of needing to pick two more teams for this discussion that Notre Dame finally sees what pretty much everyone else sees and finally decides to hitch its wagon to the Big Ten rather than the relative uncertainty of the ACC, and brings Georgia Tech with them.

We've then got 16 teams, which divide into four pods of four teams each.

We'll also assume that we're going to 9 conference games, because with 15 other teams to play on a somewhat regular basis, how could you really not?

Here's how the schedule works.  Every two years the pods rotate with each other to combine into divisions, like so:

• Years 1 and 2:  North/South vs. East/West
• Years 3 and 4:  North/East vs. South/West
• Years 5 and 6:  North/West vs. East/South

Like the current set up, each division sends its champion to the B1G championship game.  There's no four-team playoff... just the championship game.

Whom do you play?

Every year a team will play everyone in its own pod, everyone in its division partner pod, and a fixed opponent from each other pod in the other division.  So every year a team will have essentially 6 fixed annual opponents; the other 3 games are played against the non-fixed annual opponents in the division partner pod.  So as the pods rotate to combine with each other, the nine teams that are not annually fixed on a team's schedule will rotate onto the schedule for 2 games in every six-year division cycle.  That allows for the maximum protection of rivalries while also ensuring that you'll play everyone in the league on average once every three years... that's a far better rate than what proposals for fixed divisions are giving us.

So each team's nine conference games are scheduled thus:

• 3 games: play everyone in your own pod
• 4 games: play everyone in your pod's division partner pod (these first two bullets create the necessary divisional round robin)
• 2 games: play your fixed annual opponent in each of the other division's pods

The four pods are divided as follows, and numbered according to fixed annual opponents in each pod (1s play all other 1s each year, 2s play all 2s, etc.):

NORTH:

1. Michigan
2. Notre Dame
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue

SOUTH:

1. Ohio State
2. Northwestern
3. Rutgers
4. Illinois

EAST:

1. Maryland
2. Georgia Tech
3. Penn State
4. Indiana

WEST:

1. Minnesota
2. Nebraska
3. Iowa
4. Wisconsin

Fixed annual final week games:

• Michigan – Ohio State
• Michigan State – Penn State
• Maryland – Georgia Tech
• Notre Dame – Purdue
• Iowa – Nebraska
• Minnesota – Wisconsin
• Illinois – Indiana
• Northwestern – Rutgers

Traditional, renewed, or natural rivalries preserved on an annual basis:

• Michigan – Ohio State
• Michigan – Minnesota
• Michigan – Notre Dame
• Michigan – Michigan State
• Notre Dame – Northwestern
• Notre Dame – Georgia Tech
• Notre Dame – Michigan State
• Notre Dame – Purdue
• Michigan State – Penn State
• Purdue – Illinois
• Purdue – Indiana
• Ohio State – Illinois
• Northwestern – Illinois
• Illinois – Indiana
• Maryland – Georgia Tech
• Maryland – Penn State
• Rutgers – Penn State
• Penn State – Nebraska
• Minnesota – Iowa
• Minnesota – Wisconsin
• Iowa – Nebraska
• Iowa – Wisconsin

Unimportant or "fake" rivalries lost on an annual basis:

• Minnesota – Penn State
• Ohio State – Penn State
• Michigan State – Indiana

Initial reactions:

• The North and West pods appear to be complete no-brainers... ND's traditional rivalries with U-M, MSU, and Purdue, and the U-M & MSU rivalry make the North a pretty natural fit.  The West is the traditional triangle of hate, plus Nebraska.  That leaves the South and East to be sorted out.
• Michigan's fixed opponents each year would be Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Maryland, and Minnesota.  In years 1 and 2 we'd also see Northwestern, Rutgers, and Illinois.  In years 3 and 4 we'd get Georgia Tech, Penn State, and Indiana.  In years 5 and 6 we'd get Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin (for a murderer's row schedule, but come on, deal with it).
• Impermanence of divisions is a concern, though a minor one; would be tough to remember on a year-to-year basis who's in what division.
• There'd be no more "Legends" champ or "Leaders" champ.  A team would simply claim a "Division" championship each year, due to the rotating natures of the divisions.
• Luckily for rivalry maintenance and flexibility, Rutgers seems to have no natural football rivals.  I've lumped them with Penn State for a start.  The three "lost" rivalry games listed above could potentially be annually preserved by tweaking the membership of the South and East, or the numbers assigned in them.
• Schedule strength?  Each team's fixed annual opponents include some tough games and some cake walks.  And as the pods pair up to form divisions, teams will gain tough games and easy games.  As we've seen the past few years, strength of schedule is very fickle anyways as teams rise and fall in quality; in the end it's probably all a crapshoot, but the two years in which the South/East team up against the North/West will likely be the most unbalanced.
• Rivalries?  As I've said above, all important rivalries are preserved.  And ND would start getting GT and Northwestern again.  Penn State would start playing teams from the east coast again.  And the old ACC teams play each other.
• ND, GT: Yes, I know.  Who knows if this will happen?  But I needed to pick another two teams to get us to 16.  Chill out.

Is it just me, or does this make too much sense?  I think rotating pods is the only way to see every team in the conference on a somewhat regular basis without going to an eleventy-billion-game conference schedule.

[Edited to clean up some formatting.]

I know this happened a couple weeks ago, but I suppose it's still on point given all the wailing and gnashing of teeth it caused.  (Really, it just took me a lot longer than I thought to make it.)

Enjoy and let me know what you think.  Who am I kidding?  This is mgoblog; of course you're gonna let me know what you think.

http://www.maizenblueballs.com/comics/2010-09-09-shock-and-awesome.jpg

Bonus:

Dave Brandon was on WJR this morning on the Frank Beckmann show.  Happened a few hours ago, but I haven't seen it posted yet, and not everyone on this board can get AM 760.

Here's the highlights that I remember:

1. DB DOES want MSU and OSU to play UM each year.
2. DB does NOT want Michigan to play OSU at the end of the year going into a championship game.  He said no coach or TV person wants to see the same two teams match up in consecutive weeks.
3. The conference's primary means for determining which schools go into which divisions is based on each programs performance.... # of wins, conference titles, bowl appearances, etc.  Geography is NOT a consideration.
4. The year that Penn State came into the conference is as far back as the conference is looking when evaluating programs.
5. The top 4 teams are OSU, UM, Nebraska, and PSU.
6. UM and OSU are NOT going to be in the same division.

Reading into what he said, it looks like MSU will probably be in our division and OSU will be a protected match-up scheduled some time before the last regular season game.  He said he's fighting very hard to have us play those two schools each year and I can't see them giving UM two protected teams on the schedule, thus MSU in the same division.

He did stress several times that the divisions will be formed based on past performance (dating back to PSU's entry into the conference) more than anything else; and he reiterated that geography is a non-factor.

Dave Brandon's a straight shooter and doesn't mince words.  He did add that Coach Rod's future is not determined by a "number" (of wins).  He's the AD and he has access to far more metrics than win / loss stats.  Those metrics (and he listed a bunch) are what DB looks at.