Hokepoints Wants Divisions Consensus

I kinda like the "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling" division names. ALL HAIL SETH, SOLVER OF PROBLEMS. I do think, however, that this wouldn't happen simply because it makes GREAT sense.

I like those divisions.  Someone forward this to Jim Delaney. 

Despite the lack of trophies, NU has palpable rivalries with Iowa and Wisconsin. We often play a spoiler role when they are having good seasons and I would see this continuing as NU continues to be a solid 8-9 win team. I could expound on all the ways this is a thing but will spare you.

the toughest thing is the eyeball test. You've got to get the person staring at your divisions over the hump of seeing Nebraska and Rutgers in the same division (and their ADs, too). Assemble all good explanations and keep them at the ready.

And you've got to anticipate two more schools to come.

One thing this proves (to me, anyway), is that the geodistribution of the conference, or midwestern integrity, ceases to be a big deal pretty quickly. Twenty years from now, no kid will suffer pangs because all the B1G schools were once adjacent to billowing corn or wheat (NB). Geographic contiguity, strong academics, and--finally--a strong conference will be meaningful. North Carolina and Kansas would work. For those things you have to be willing to look down the road a little, not just at your current prejudices against Rutgers, and you have to be able to see things like soccer and lacrosse. Oh, hockey. 

P.S. Could the U of Toronto be a consideration? Just dreamin'.

...apparently quite the wuss when it comes to long distance driving. 9 hrs is too long for a weekend trip? Lame!

Since this makes sense, Delaney will never do it. Instead, when the new divisions are announced, one of the divisions will have five teams, the other will have nine, Illinois will be forgotten and Rutgers will be listed twice in the division with five teams in it.

Rutgers will have a 3-year losing streak in its rivalry with itself.

is being made here. Obviously, Delaney will never allow something so logical to take place

Obligatory:

I would hate to see these two playing this game to decide who goes to the Big Ten championship every year.  Most years these will be the best two teams in the BIg Ten. I would risk them not playing every year unless they both go the the Big Ten Championship game.  As Hoke says the goal is to be Big Ten Champions, and if that goal gets decided at the Big Ten Championship game, I am okay with it.

I'd prefer UM, MSU, Maryland, Northwestern, Nebraska, Minny, and Iowa in one division, though, so I can keep using the "Ms, Ns, and Iowa" to remember D:

While this arrangement passes the eyeball test in Michigan's division, I don't think it does in the other one. Fans of those teams will see a division that makes no geographical sense -- Nebraska and Maryland -- and is probably the tougher of the two divisions. Plus, the traditional powers in that division -- Nebraska, PSU -- will be pissed that they won't get yearly match-ups against the big-ticket teams. I think this arrangement is pie-in-the-sky and won't fly.

go to 20 by taking over (merging with) the bulk of the ACC (BC, UVA, Duke, UNC, GT, and one other), create a Big Ten Division and an ACC Division (sending Purdue or IU east with Penn State), and be done with it already?

The Pac 12 and ND have had their chances. If we go this way, we anchor the TV lucrative North East, and the demographic growth lucrative corridor between DC and Atlanta, not to mention making BTN basketball must see TV.

..looking at the map and struggling with the geographical inaccuracies?  I get that it's not intended to replace Google Maps, but it's not even close.  Purdue and Illinois are essentially in need of being swapped; I'm not sure why MSU is south of Ann Arbor; Rutgers is actually south of State College, not North; and Nebraska is nearly due West of Iowa, not South.

/insane rant

Good job. I'm down with this. I'd also be down with East-West.

Therefore, neither will be the final divisional alignment.

I think these are great.  I don't mind the east/west split, and it's kind of cool to basically have two sub-divisions there.  There would be slightly more travel involved for teams, but this is football only and any given team will only have three divisional road games per year (with at least one very close to home).

Consider this the Turd Ferguson stamp of approval.  Nicely done.

I live in the state of Michigan, and where I live, it takes longer than 5 hours to drive to Ann Arbor. Don't let driving distance play a factor. There's some places in Michigan that would take 10 hours to make it to Ann Arbor.

that flexibility in terms of when Ohio and Michigan play is key to any reallignment if they are not going to be in the same division.  Look at recruiting over the next two years.  Michigan and Ohio State are going to play often in the Big Ten title game absent a complete division makeover like Seth has proposed, and I think proactively it would enhance the rivarly to play the initial meeting earlier in the year if they are going to stay in the same division.  Let them play in October, let them play at night (If Auburn and Alabama can I don't want to hear about it being to intense of a rivarly for night games, get off it already, fans will adjust and behave themselves), let them play the first game of the Big Ten season if need be.  Some of the most intense Miami v. Florida State games that I have seen have been the first game of the season (!) let alone conference play.  Flexibility with the timing of The Game is key to fixing the conference slate and how future season will play out and I think it is time for the needle to move in that direction.  Something has to give and I think that may be it.  (All in all if I could have more Ohio v. Michigan per year I would support that result)

Asgardian's post above, stick UVA and UNC with the east coast boys and start building all the teams up. Preserve the core rivalries, yes, but the unceasing assumption that these teams and their football value and prowess are set in amber grow a little bit tiresome--and too football-centric. ADs and Presidents are forced to see this thing from a wider perspective. 

I know the general concensus is that Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division, but is that the best for the conference (or each school?).  Looking back through the 1960s, Michigan and Ohio State each would've won 20+ division titles if the divisions looked like it does now, with most schools struggling to even reach double digits in terms of division titles.  If you put both in the same division, you're going to severely limit the number of Big Ten titles either Michigan or Ohio State can win.

Is there a counter-argument to this?

Some schools are far more likely to sacrifice academic for athletic achievement.  Why should a selective school compete with one that cuts corners?  Why not group schools by their values and intelligence?*

Dumb Division
Ohio, RTG, Pur, IU, MSU, IA, NEB

Smart Division
M, N, WI, IL, PSU, MD, MN

I know it will never happen.  I am being a little facetious (but not completely)
 

*roughly according to multiple ranks in different systems like the two below:

http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2010/03/15/athletic-conference-...
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html

Looks like our division is the original B1G minus Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, and the other division is those 3 and the noobs.

I think the practical outcomes of "competitive balance" makes it an overrated value.  I'd rather see good matchups every week, every year than have "balanced" divisions resulting in lots of games I don't care about every year.  So, taking your four clusters, I'd rather see Michigan-MSU-OSU paired with Nebraska-Wisconsin-Minnesota-Iowa than Northwestern-Illinios-Purdue-Indiana.  That's four boring conference games every year counterbalance with two interesting ones every year.  Wouldn't it be better to see MSU, OSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin every year?

Well done sir!

has nothing to do with the topic, I just wanted to say LOL at the Sparty Halo guy with ski mask included!

I drive 9-10 hours from Harrisburg PA., (75 miles south of Happy Valley)to A2 twice a year. Spring game and one actual game. It would be nice to have games on this side of the country that mean something. I hope they get it right.

Let's all keep in mind that the addition of Maryland and Rutgers was designed and executed by businessmen with more interest in deepening their collective pockets than deepening the traditions of the Big Ten, a Midwestern football conference.  That said, I'm going to posit that the divisions end up like this:

Winning:  Michigan, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio.

Trying:  Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue.

Only significant "rivalry" (arguably) not respected here is Indiana Purdue (could be scheduled against one another anyway).. Otherwise, it also makes sense from a geographical standpoint.  

This way, the teams that stand to benefit from the expansion the most (i.e., the teams with the best chance at recruiting east coast players away from other conferences --> UofM and OSU) will get the exposure they desire on the coast, and still only have to go out there once a year.  Added travel expenses for teams like Michigan and Ohio are necessary evils to gain the recruiting advantage that this move seeks to encourage.  

Indiana is really the only traditional Big Ten team that will be able to gripe about the distance, but certainly can't complain ahead of either/both Maryland and Rutgers, whose average travel time (according to the chart above) would be about 7 hours. Unfortunately, when you add two teams that have no geographic relation to the other 12, there are going to be some negative side effects.  Sorry, Hoosiers; stick to basketball and all will be well. 

Western portion of the conference can't complain at all.  They maintain all their traditional rivalries, and ultimately remains the same 3-way power struggle between Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa (when they're good). 

No matter how it all comes out, you can bet that they'll screw it up in some nonsensical fashion.  

Go Blue. 

Unfortunately, this won't happen.  Makes too much sense from every aspect save geography. This is important because the cost of travel for the schools in the less filling division would be astronomical.  Only way this happens is if the conference works out a deal to subsidize travel for the in the community division.

I hope that happens, but doubt it.

n00bz:

PSU

Maryland

Rutgers

Syracuse

UVA

Duke

UNC

Ga. Tech

Nebraska

MSU

Oldz:

Michigan

UChicago

Ohio

Illinois

Indiana

Minnesota

Iowa

Purdue

Wisconsin

Northwestern

Big division:

M, OSU, Nebraska, PSU

Ten division:

The other 10 teams.

M, MSU, OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and...let's say Northwestern go in one division.

Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue in the other division. 

Division names "Good" and "Bad"

Problem solved.

Weren't they 7-5? Is that "weathering" by USC standards? Did anyone think scholarship reductions was going to cause them to lose to Hawaii, Syracuse, Cal, Utah, Washington, Colorado, or ASU?

I think they could have lost 74 scholarships and still beat the Buffs.