DOOM for Leaders & Legends?
With "unprecedented" mentalities coming tomorrow for PSU, I can't see how Jim Delany has any other choice but to disband the 2-division set-up for football. Once PSU is banned from the post-season, in 2012 the Leaders division will have have 1/3 of its teams ineligible for the Championship game (OSU & PSU). With only 10 teams eligible and 3 of the best teams (UM, Nebraska & M$U) in the Legends division, it only makes sense to move (back) to a 10 team division where the top 2 eligible teams represent the conference in the championship.
I honestly wouldnt be shocked if they did change it a bit. The divisions were slightly imbalanced to begin with, and if the punishments are as bad as they are rumored to be, PSU wont be a challenger for a solid decade, at least. But it would be a lot of work, so I think they would only change them as a last resort. If PSU only gets a year or two off the postseason, I cant see them changing it.
Doom for the divisional structure? No, probably not.
Doom for the absurd division names "Legends" and "Leaders"? Potentially and yes please.
Besides, Wisconsin is probably winning the Leaders anyways so OSU/PSU's ineligibility could be moot.
More fitting with the Ohio and PSU scandals.
conference will be restructured to some degree. This will change the whole look of the conference. This came at the worst possible time for the conference with recent reallignments and playoff developments. I don't know how this is going to affect the conference specifically other than to say it ain't good, at all. They can either beg for Notre Dame and try to snag another of try to "change out" Penn State for a Big East immigrant, but this will certainly have an impact on the conference if the penalties are as debilitating as thought right now, and long term.
If Meyer doesn't work out at OSU, you can say hello to a decade of Wisconsin Leaders Div championships.
its not a sprint...PSU, no matter what sanctions come their way, will be able to rebound. Loyal following, large financial resources, and fertile recruiting ground
Seriously though, I doubt it will change anything. Ohio's ban is only one year. Even if PSU's ban is multiyear, there is no other team to balance out with in other division. It does mean Ohio will have a cakewalk to the championship game for the foreseeable future if PSU is hammered.
False. Teams banned from postseason play are not eligible to play in the conference championship game.
Not sure if there is an official NCAA rule that conference championship games are considered equivalent to bowls, but generally teams are banned from "post-season play," which includes the conference championship game. Look at the Pac-12 last season, for instance, UCLA went to the championship game because USC was serving their bowl ban.
A conference title game is a "postseason" game. Hence, a ban on postseason games would encompass a conference title game.
i believe that when the B1G championship game was conveived, the conference had to establish rules for tiebreaker type situations. as part of that process, they also included the rule that a Big Ten program who is banned from playing in a bowl game will not be allowed to participate in the Big Ten title game.
It's a Big Ten rule and it has already been applied to OSU.
From the Big Ten:
"A team or teams that are not eligible to participate in a postseason football bowl game as a result of NCAA and/or Big Ten sanctions shall not be eligible to participate in the Big Ten football championship game."
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html
Personally, I don't really care about the division names (they're division names), but the protected inter-divisional rivalries thing pisses me off. It creates strength-of-schedule imbalance that tends to give the same teams advantages/disadvantages every season. Realistically, the only reason that they needed those protected rivalries was because they put Michigan and OSU in opposite divisions.
I'd love to see the Big Ten swallow its pride on this, put Michigan & OSU together, and drop the protected rivalry thing. They could name the divisions "Piss" and "Shit" for all I care.
I'd be fine with the protected rivalries as long as they add a 9th conference game. That way we don't go 4 years or however long without seeing a team like Wisconsin
We're going to see Wisconsin in the B1G championship game this year.
Really, doom? You think that Delany will switch back to a single division? What does he do when Ohio comes back eligible next year? Do we switch back to the two divisions then? The divisions are staying exactly the way they currently are
I can't see how Jim Delany has any other choice but to postpone the season so we can have the necessary time to celebrate this epic thread.
I'm fairly certain PSU already exhibited some "unprecedented mentalities."
How about we actually wait until the PSU penalties are announced before discussing this?
But then what would we get all worked up about for no reason?!?!
your broken record of "I just don't see how they're going to be allowed to play this season"?
I can't imagine any of his thoughts were any more naive (read:dumber) than yours.
I disagree with everything you said but I down voted you for the $ in MSU.
Not to mention the self up-vote.
I think Wisc and Ohio and Michigan and Nebraska will be the top two contenders in each division.
Regardless, Penn State does not belong in a division called "Leaders."
it's hard seeing PSU ever becoming a doormat. They won't be Indiana. At worst they are like Illinois last year. At worst, they will probably be a decent, not great, team that you can't look past. It potentially makes that division much more mediocre and certainly without the top level teams that were expected when the divisions were set-up, but it still won't be how the Big 12 North/South were for about ten years.
1) $ in MSU
2) Lone upvote is done by the OP
3) Illogical reasoning: The B1G can't have a championship game without divisions; OSU will be able to be in it next year; PSU penalties haven't come down yet; etc.
4) DOOM (all caps)
5) the rest of the OP
Rough day for threads on the board. I wonder if "Urban Liar" is to blame for all this.
That's not even a good insult. Sparty couldn't put two cents together to pay off a player.
The negs have came and I do agree the OP was less than ideal, but the Big Ten is going to have to do something if Penn State isn't going to a bowl this season. IMO other than getting creative with the division standings formula, the best option might be to swap Nebraska for Ohio. That removes a significant competitive advantage for Wisconsin/Iowa/Purdue/Indiana and satisfies Michigan and Ohio fans.
but just move someone into the other division? Or change the schedules too? The latter seems pretty tough...
Isn't the problem that the Legends division is much tougher compared to the Leaders? Wouldn't switching OSU and Nebraska just make the Legends division tougher (assuming OSU > Nebraska)? I'm not sure I follow your logic.
If it's got something to do with OSU's ban this fall, that's only one year. They won't make any changes to anything based on the OSU sanctions.
For 2011, third place could be good enough for a championship game spot. I just can't imagine them allowing a team with four or five conference losses to play in the championship game while two of Michigan, MSU and Nebraska sit at home. It's more about evening out the banned teams, IMO.
Plus I most definitely have a dog in the race, as I want Ohio in our division.
There's no way the conference changes anything based on the potential for one lop-sided title game this season. More than likely, Wisconsin will win enough to be a deserving representative in the championship. Even if they aren't, the Big10 will take their awful title game and won't make serious changes to the conference to address a very short-term problem.
This is just a confluence of very unlikely events that have created a one-year problem that may not even ben an issue, depending on Wisconsin's performance. Having two teams from the conference banned from post-season play at the same time is unusual enough. Having it be two teams from the top of the same division is even more unlikely.
about wanting the divisions changed before any of this went down. Then again, beat Sparty and Nebraska this year and hoping for a 5-7 IU team making it to the BTCG would be fun in its own right.
"With "unprecedented" mentalities coming tomorrow for PSU, I can't see how Jim Delany has any other choice but to disband the 2-division set-up for football. "- from the OP
You could, of course, keep the alignments and send the best team from the division not in deep sh*t with the NCAA to the conference championship game. That's how a 6-6 UCLA team managed to play Oregon in the Pac-12 Championship. I am pretty sure you can't declare a concept a failure because of something which was not caused by conference realignment. It is sort like blaming the demise of UPN on solar flares.
Whether it was caused by the realignment or not (like you say, it obviously wasn't) I do think something needs to be done if Penn State isn't going to a bowl this season. Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue and IU have an insanely easy road to the title game, as they could finish third in their division and make the title game. Using the Pac last year as an example, you would have sent Arizona State to the title game if UCLA was banned, and they were below .500 in conference at 4-5.
Delany & co. will be praying that Wisconsin is dominant this year. None of those other programs seems ready, and a .500 team in the second-ever BTCG - highlighting the wrongdoing of two Big Ten heavyweights - would be ugly.
I, too, doubt that much will be done given [1] how little time there is to do it and [2] the strong likelihood that OSU will be fine after this season.
Damn solar flares. I miss my Veronica Mars.
Well said comment on why the division names are ridiculous:
If PSU gets bowl ban, 1/3 of the Big Ten's Leaders Division will be ineligible this yr due to leadership failures.