Ding Dong, The Divisions Are Dead (Again) Comment Count

Brian

ikea_instructions[1]

HOW IS CAN DO I MAKE NAMES SWEDISHES

After months and months of leaks to the effect that the Big Ten would use the opportunity presented by their (nonsensical) expansion to ditch the current divisions and go with a straight East-West breakdown, the Big Ten… actually, wait.

The proposed Big Ten West includes the six teams located in the Central time zone -- Illinois,Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern andWisconsin -- plus Purdue, sources said.

The proposed Big Ten East includes Indiana,Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State,Penn State and Rutgers.

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

A source? Didn't we just do this last month? ESPN?

ESPN.com reported last month that the divisions debate was down to whether Purdue or Indiana would go to the West. Purdue's campus is located west of Indiana's.

Yes. We did. Every Big Ten blog has a post on this today. The news: Purdue and Indiana have been situated. This came out in the middle of a surreal terrorist manhunt, and we still care. News is weird, but let's get swept away in the tide of history.

Competitive upshot

Big_12_North_Venn_medium[1]

cowboys ride for free wait, seriously, Kansas?

Anyone with a keyboard to tap at is making a Big Ten West == Big 12 North comparison, and… yeah, down to the school that'll probably be making the conference's last stand against the dual hegemony in the other division. The best team out of Iowa/Illinois*/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Purdue/Northwestern will probably be pretty good. They'll be a dog in most every championship game, but this is what happens when you expand with absolutely nothing other than the rapidly-fading cable television model in mind. More like NONsense and NONsensibility and zombies, amirite?

Meanwhile, the other division is Michigan, Ohio State, and Also Ran until such time as Penn State gets off the deck from their NCAA sanctions. Michigan State's trying to puff their chest out, but it's over for them. State's recent run of quasi-relevancy (still no BCS bowls… ever) coincided with a three-year period in which

  1. Michigan was busy punching itself during the brief Rodriguez era
  2. Ohio State was off the schedule (2009 and 2010) or having their one-year tatgate implosion.

MSU has one win over a good OSU team since 1974, and four total. While they've been a little less futile against Michigan, before the Rodriguez run their record the previous 20 years was 5-15. With Michigan and Ohio State poised for decade-plus long runs of coaching stability and recruiting dominance, there aren't going to be a lot of opportunities to pick off easy wins against teams struggling to .500 records or worse. It's over.

More interesting is Rutgers. New Jersey is fertile recruiting ground. With Penn State down, eastern Pennsylvania should be easier to get into. They've been recruiting on a level commensurate with a middling Big Ten team despite being stuck in the Big East. If the financial and prestige boost from their move bumps them up a notch, they could become the most annoying ankle-biter in the division.

Penn State has to dig out, obviously, and then who knows what they're like without Joe Paterno? Early returns are good, as they managed to acquire some serious talent despite the sanctions. Christian Hackenberg and Adam Breneman signed up for a team with three more bowl ban years upcoming—that says something about PSU's enduring pull with Pennsylvania recruits.

They still have no chance to keep pace. They have to be down to 65 players this year and are currently on track to have a recruiting class of eight guys this year even with some attrition that's 10 to 12 players. Doom awaits. By the time they're good the Big Ten will probably be at 84 teams. Short term thinking, that's our motto.

Indiana and Maryland enjoy basketball.

*[Yeah, Illinois. Every ten years they have a good team and then implode.]

Should we be thinking long term?

The ACC is trumpeting a very long "grant of rights" deal that hypothetically locks the TV revenue from the 15 member teams—ND included minus football—to the conference they're currently in until 2027. This will save the conference unless something totally improbable happens. That thing: lawyers!

Unless a league member decides to go to litigation to escape this down the road, the ACC believes a Grant of Rights will protect it from conference realignment poachers.

Because lawyers never get involved in these things. While the GOR provides an extra hurdle, it's a deterrent designed to look super scary. Just how effective it'll be in the event of a departure is unknown. See: Maryland, currently involved in that litigation stuff over a $50 million exit fee the ACC voted in just before they left. Maryland will likely pay something less than that in a settlement.

People in charge of things are just in charge of them

Goodbye, Successories Conference.

leadership[1]

leadership is more about not being clueless than eyebrows

Let us pour out some gasoline for our dead homie division names, and light them on fire. Burning is the most terrible way to die, but as the wisps arise from the charred notions that were "Legends" and "Leaders" it seems far too kind. If that debacle doesn't prove to you once and for all that our tendency to worship any bushy-eyebrowed dim bulb who manages to ascend to the talky bit of any enterprise is destructive, I don't know what to tell you.

Whenever someone cocks their eyebrow at you and condescendingly says that you don't have the vast amounts of information and knowledge they do about complicated geopolitical processes like conference realignment, just remember that those guys are the ones who made the conference a national laughingstock for years. They did this by doing something that was such a bad idea from the start that they promised they'd reconsider after literally every person who heard it laughed in their face.

Therefore their projections that media markets are still going to matter in 10 years…

Nine games

At least there's that. Starting in 2016, Big Ten teams will play nine conference games each. It looks like there's an easy way around the unbalanced schedule issue: have all the teams in one division have four one year, five the other.

I'd rather play more Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa than any nonconference opponent you care to name save Notre Dame—RIP, ND series—so I look on this as no downside. With Michigan buying home games from the Oregon States and Cincinnatis of the world, they can have their seventh home game with a nonconference schedule that consists of one cupcake, one interesting guarantee game against a midlevel foe, and one marquee matchup. Well, most of the time. The 2016 nonconference schedule is now locked in: Hawaii, Ball State, and Colorado. Er.

Complicated solution to problem time

Time to re-iterated my desired solution for the basketball situation: everyone plays round-robin, and then the conference is split into a top seven and bottom seven, whereupon another round-robin commences. 19 total games, best overall record wins. Pros:

  • Conference championship is almost entirely fair. Home-road is unbalanced in the first half, but none of this "you didn't play team X" business. The regular season championship is a really big deal right now; this would make it bigger.
  • No divisions. Divisions kill the importance of the regular season title.
  • The last six games for the top half are a must-see all-out war. Dude, take this year's league and do this to it and imagine a stretch run where IU-OSU-M-MSU-Wisconsin-Iowa-Minnesota OR Illinois OR Maryland only play each other. That would be nuts.
  • Doesn't require you to expand the conference schedule too much to get coverage. No 20, 22 game conference schedules but you don't get all that discussion about how team X doesn't play team Y.

Cons are obvious and large: potentially problematic ticket sales since you don't know who you're playing or when, a potential for teams near the bubble to get blasted off it (if you're #7 in the top half) or have little opportunity to climb out of it (for #8 stuck with the little people). I stole the RR-split-RR system from Scottish soccer, which has a compelling narrative at the bottom as teams try to avoid relegation that doesn't exist in college sports.

In any case, they could at least try it and see if the upside outweighs the downside.

Comments

gwkrlghl

April 22nd, 2013 at 6:06 PM ^

They're only taking eight guys this year and they already have five who are all pretty much non-descript 3 stars. They are going to be awful in a few years. With how Indiana is recruiting, I think IU has a great shot to beatdown PSU in like 3-4 years. DOOOOOM

Seriously, they're f'd

MGoRossGrad

April 22nd, 2013 at 6:07 PM ^

A lot of people are worried about the competitive balance between the two new divisions, but I'll have to echo those who have pointed out that the balance is pretty well-distributed.

Michigan, Ohio, Penn State, and MSU v. Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern.  As of the results from last two years that's a pretty even-handed distribution.

It's so difficult to predict who is going to be the "powers" even with the strengths of Michigan, Ohio, Penn State and Nebraska's programs.  Tell me who thought Northwestern was going to have a 10-win season?  Tell me who thought MSU would nearly win the B1G ?  Tell me who thought Penn State would undergo the Sandusky scandal and lose a huge chunk of its competitive advantage?  Anyone actually think Ferentz's team would be reduced to the laughing stock of the B1G?

Hell, we could turn out just like the Big 12.  Minnesota and Purdue could all of a sudden turn out a couple great classes and MSU and Penn State could fall off the map and we could be looking at an imbalance in the opposite direction.

As of right now, competitively, these divisions make sense.

M-Dog

April 22nd, 2013 at 8:01 PM ^

This^^^.  Chasing competitive balance is a fool's errand.  The East Division has not won the SEC in a long time.  But before that, it was the West Division that wasn't winning.  Yet to their credit, the SEC never broke it by trying to "fix" it.  

Things even out.  We may someday see a South Carolina vs. Ole Miss SEC championship game.  Who would have thought that was possible?  The future is never just a straight line interpolation of the past.

   

 

wustl wolverine

April 22nd, 2013 at 11:47 PM ^

While there are always major fluctuations in team strength over time, there are a number of teams that have been consistently better. The SEC has a number of those teams in each division so it is not a problem for them.

The big problem with the Big 12 north was that you had so many teams together that did not have a history of success. While it was likely that they would have decent runs (like Colorado and Kansas State in the late 90's and early 2000's) the division is going to lack depth. 

In the final 7 years, the Big 12 North had 7 total top 4 conference finishes. 
 

Rank 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
1 OU UT OU OU OU UT OU
2 UT TTU UT Mizz UT Neb OSU
3 TTU OU Neb KU TTU OSU Neb
4 TAMU CU TAMU UT OSU TTU Mizz
5 CU ISU Mizz TTU Mizz OU TAMU
6 ISU Neb TTU TAMU Neb Mizz BU
7 OSU Mizz KSU OSU KU KSU KSU


With the way OSU and Michigan have been recruiting, this allignment seems to have a lot of potential for a repeat of this kind of split. We need sustained success from several teams in the west for this to work. Otherwise the Big 10 West will definitely be a repeat of the Big 12 North.

BlueDragon

April 23rd, 2013 at 1:04 AM ^

The 2016 9-game schedule is essential to make the 14-team conference schedule anywhere near reasonable.

Michigan must be in Ohio's division, along with State. A Northwestern or Minnesota would be welcome always. This is future planning for further expansion which will inevitably happen.