The Hot Take: Divisions
AAAAAHHHHHH OOOHHHHHHHHH
HONORING EASTS AND BUILDING WESTS
/soulful electric guitar
IT'S BEEN A BIG TEN TRADITION FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS
WE HONOR THE EASTS WHO'VE GIVEN US MOMENTS WE'LL NEVER FORGET EVEN IF WE WEREN'T WATCHING THEM BECAUSE NO ONE WATCHES RUTGERS OR MARYLAND
AAAAAAHHHHH OOOOOOOWWWW
AND BUILDING WESTS? WELL, THAT'S ABOUT DOING SOMETHING SO CONDESCENDINGLY DUMB YOU'D HAVE TO BE A SEA ANEMONE FOR YOUR POISONOUS TENDRILS TO THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA WITH YOUR PREHISTORIC NON-BRAIN, AND LIVING A LIFE OF MAXIMUM RESOURCE EXTRACTION EVERY SINGLE DAY
AHHHHHHH OOOOOOOH
AHHHH OH WAIT
much better here's a picture of a guy graduating oohhhhhhhh
NOW GIVE ME MY HUNDRED MILLION AWWWW OHHHH
Our New Less Miserable Experience
It's not news. But it is official. Per everyone in reports going on the last six months, the Big Ten is this:
![sbn-b1g[1]](https://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/images/UV_C7DF/sbn-b1g1.png "sbn-b1g[1]")
Michigan cannot be champions of the West, because obviously.
Also yes I made a Gin Blossoms reference. Up next: flat-out Blossom references.
Love the quote that comes with the non news:
"The directors of athletics also relied on the results of a fan survey commissioned by BTN last December to arrive at their recommendation, which is consistent with the public sentiment expressed in the poll."
Sometimes I wonder if the goal of adding Rutgers and Maryland was to give the B10 leadership a way to save face as they exited Legends and Leaders. Then I think that's crazy. Then I remember that the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland and think it's not crazy enough. THEORY: The Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland because Jim Delany is secretly a plant in need of more soil. THEORY: The Big Ten expanded because now they have those bastards from Delaware surrounded, and can finally give them what-for for signing the Constitution first. THEORY: Bo Ryan controls everything and is unhappy only ruining basketball. &c
Anyway: over the long term Michigan will be meeting teams in the other division about half the time. Purdue will be on under a third of future schedules since they have a protected crossover with Indiana; the other teams will be just under 1/2, except the league is going to kick off their new divisions with as many sexy matchups as possible:
Big Ten also will use "parity-based scheduling" for initial crossover rotations. Top teams in divisions will play more, Delany said
"In the first 18 years, you’re going to see a lot of competition between teams at the top of either division," Delany said. "We call that a bit of parity-based scheduling, so you’ll see Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa playing a lot of competition against Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. But it will rotate. Early on, we feel this gives the fans what they want."
Ace and I talked about whether this was terrible or fine; I initially thought terrible but after some time I think I just want to see interesting games, and putting top teams against each other does that. It also helps smooth any schedule imbalances.
CON:
- I will miss playing Iowa annually.
- I enjoyed making Michigan Ryan Field's Big Ten Team every other year.
- I don't even feel like Wisconsin's in the same conference any more.
- In general it will be hard to start hot feuds against anyone Over There. See the rapidly dying MSU-UW quasi-rivalry.
- I'm actually okay with the Jug game not happening annually, but it is a symptom of how you're not really a conference at 14 teams.
PRO:
- Hey remember that thing where they might move the game to midseason and—horror—put Michigan State at the end of M's schedule? That is ding-dong dead.
- Now I can root against Ohio State with all my heart when they play Nebraska and the like, and the Game is what it always should be: critical.
- Sparty did not escape to the other division, saddling M with a protected crossover, guaranteeing them an annual game against Purdue, and giving the Spartans some vague hope of ever reaching the Rose Bowl again.
- I welcome the return of Penn State to the schedule annually and look forward to re-establishing the Zombie Nation WE OWN PENN STATE meme.
- My loathing for the incompetent and debt-crippled athletic departments of Rutgers and Maryland will give those games some spice. HOW DARE YOU BE IN OUR CONFERENCE is good foundation for hate, I guess?
- They did fix it so the divisions switch off 5/4 home games as a unit.
All in all, Delaware is screwed.
Elsewhere
BHGP finds a man distressed at the callous disposal of the Big Ten's most sacred traditions: "Legends" and "Leaders". Dave Brandon has put down the prospect of moving The Game, backed away slowly, and whistled idly if anyone passing by pointed at it and said "what the…?"
are going to surprise doubters. So does Delaney, obviously. He's staking a lot on this, and if both the viewership and Rutgers sink to outright suckage. . . he will not be remembered so fondly.
The SEC's a whole different thing, schedule-wise. They combine the features of not enough conference games with protected crossover rivalries to produce some consistently unbalanced schedules. With 3 annual crossovers with no protected games among contenders after the Big 10 goes to 9 games, consistent imbalances over time should be mitigated.
Now we can add Dogfish Head Beers and Punkin Chunkin to our BTN spoils. Plus, now we can stop pretending like the Michigan-Delaware match isn't inevitable. Time to destroy those Blue Hens and their very attractive helmets
It kind of bothers me that the B1G basically did exactly what everyone wanted them to. Not that I didn't want the divisions to look like this, but it seems like Delany is basically saying "just give the people what the want until we move up to 16 teams and then we'll fuck it up again."
I laughed hard at this. Then I cried a bit because I think it is true.
Delaney is an evil mastermind who is only doing what everyone wants to set them up for his real master plan of evil and destruction.
WHY CAN'T YOU SEE IT'S SO CLEAR?
It kind of bothers me that the B1G basically did exactly what everyone wanted them to. Not that I didn't want the divisions to look like this, but it seems like Delany is basically saying "just give the people what the want until we move up to 16 teams and then we'll fuck it up again."
If by some unholy atrocity Delaware is added to the B1G, then they must be forced to change their helmets.
I disagree with Brian that we can't be Champions of the West because of our placement in the Eastern Division. We can be Champions of both; first as Champion of the East having earned the right to play in the Title Game; and second as Champions of (and over) the West, upon beating our Western Division counterpart and winning the Big Ten Title.
To be honest, I think our fight song only makes more sense, now. If our goal is, as Hoke and Co. say it is, year in year out to win Big Ten Titles, then our goal, and now our fight song's meaning, nunc pro tunc, should always be to be Champions of the West.
Or we can change it to "Champions o'er the West".
Go Blue!
The real reason for the switch to the new divisions is because they are running out of room on the little brown jug to mark the scores. Now it's good to go for another 100 years or so.
I trust you mean that Michigan will have a more difficult path in relative terms, don't you?
Let's look at the teams we know UM and MSU will play each year in their own division:
Michigan - Indiana, Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan State - Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers
UM is playing two peer programs that are legitimate major football programs in Ohio State and Penn State. The remaining programs are ones they should beat the vast majority of the time.
MSU's peers may be who in that bunch? Not Indiana. Maybe Rutgers and Maryland. But Michigan State has to deal with three major football programs in its own division and probably more competitive games with RU and MD than Michigan will have.
Now let's say Michigan gets Nebraska and MSU doesn't. That means UM has a third major legitimate program as its competition, i.e, the same as MSU does regarless of who they play in the west. But what happens when UM plays Wisconsin and MSU gets Nebraska? The situation changes there to some degree.
So no, I'm not real worried that MSU is going to have an easier schedule run that Michigan when it comes to Big Ten conference games.
Plants don't expand fast enough. He is more of an underground fungus.
what an oxi-moronic phrase ! I would hate to see a rematch in the B1G title game and "parity scheduling" is likely to do just that. The ONLY thing that Delany has done correctly was BTN ... which makes him 1 for whatever ....
Go Blue!
Change is hard. I understand that it can make you feel grouchy and insecure at first. But after a while it will seem like normal.
New things are good for all of us. They just take a little getting used to.
In no time at all, beating Rutgers will be just as much fun as beating Minnesota ever was.
You'll see!
Minnesota isn't dropping off the schedule completely. We'll still play them about half the time.
People are getting too worked up about this. Minnesota has won three times in the last 45 years. The vast majority of those games weren't close. It's pretty hard to justify protecting a rivalry that's that lopsided.
If only every game against Minnesota could have been as exciting as that one. They'd be a protected rival for sure.
Ideally, I'd like to play them every year, but if you go to geography (which we did, and I'm happy) you really can't justify it.
If every game against Minnesota was as exciting as that one then we'd all be furious because Michigan would suck.
April 30th, 2013 at 11:23 AM ^
The 2003 Michigan team was really good. It won the Big Ten outright. That game wasn't close because we sucked, but because Minnesota, for once, didn't.
April 29th, 2013 at 10:42 PM ^
All "parity-based" crossovers are going to accomplish is to make it more difficult for a Big Ten team to go undefeated and make the "playoff." I have two reactions to that.
1. Until every major conference champion is allowed into the playoff, it isn't really a "National Championship."
2. Delany is still a pompous, arrogant idiot who doesn't understand what it takes to get a team into the beauty contest that is disguised as a "playoff."
April 30th, 2013 at 12:04 AM ^
It makes it more likely the Big Ten sends extra teams to bowl games, meaning more money. If the argument is that money is the driving force behind realignment, the best way to attract new members (should there be an expansion to 16), would be to increase the pot of money.
The top tier teams, even with "parity-based" scheduling, would still make bowl games - most would consider Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State, and Wisconsin in this group (setting aside Penn State due to the bowl ban).
The "best of the worst" teams would have an increased shot at making a bowl game - probably Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Rutgers in this group.
Really the teams who are hurt the most are the programs considered to be good enough that they draw top teams, but bad enough that they can't win - Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue.
If you can figure out where to put Maryland and Northwestern, hats off to you.
If you can figure out where to put Maryland and Northwestern, hats off to you.
In the ACC and the Ivy League?
April 30th, 2013 at 10:33 AM ^
Touche, but isn't Northwestern a bit outside the Ivy League's footprint?
April 30th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^
Lower tier bowl games typically lose money for the school due to ticket and hotel guarantees. Heck, I think some schools even have lost money from BCS appearances. UCONN comes to mind.
Looking at the map made me realize why Delaney wanted to add Maryland and Rutgers. The B1G needed access to the sea to stay competitive with the likes of the SEC and PAC 12.
well, now we can develop & support a naval presence in the Atlantic.
If we can get UBC or poach Washington from the Pac 12, we can defend the continent on 2 naval fronts w/o relying on the panama canal
April 30th, 2013 at 10:22 AM ^
about Rutgers and Maryland is a bit out of hand IMO. I think they are both teams that have the "arrow" pointing up, and they will be fun to play every year. Too many old farts here that just want to wave their fingers and say "Get off my lawn!" - We started this whole mess of expansion with our B1G network. The result is every major conferece swiping teams away to make super-conferences and there are still 2 teams left for us to grab. If you are mad about the most recent 2, wait till you find out about the last ones. The best part of all this craziness is that we have an actual COLLEGE FOOTBALL PLAYOFF in my lifetime. I thought I would be dead before that happened, and I can't wait to watch Michigan in the tourney. Go Blue!!
April 30th, 2013 at 11:34 AM ^
You say "...there are still 2 teams left for us to grab. If you are mad about the most recent 2, wait till you find out about the last ones..."
Why just 2? Why this 16-team assumption that everybody has? Why not 0 more, or 6 more? I realize there are people who are looking forward to the conference adding Kansas State and Tulsa (or whomever) to increase the conference to 16, but I don't see that adding teams is inevitable.
Any of you guys know who that guy is that graduates at the end of the Big Ten commercial that Brian references in this post? My buddies and I have been trying to figure it out for a while. Thanks in advance!
Go Blue!
April 30th, 2013 at 11:17 AM ^
Hollis say something really stupid (even for them), I rarely fixate on anything Sparty. Snickering at their failures makes me feel, well, like Sparty. In this case though, I am snickering so hard my ears are pinging. Sparty truly has lost any forseeable shot at reaching the Rose Bowl. This must be very painful for the 40,000 fans who pack their 75,000 seat stadium.
April 30th, 2013 at 12:39 PM ^
The best Delaney comment was mentioning Iowa as a top-tier B1G school, but not Michigan State as one. Ouch. Couch, meet Gasoline; Gasoline, Couch.
Comments