The Big Ten should realign

Submitted by jmblue on

PSU is in deep trouble in football terms.  Some here have tried to argue that maybe they'll weather this like USC did.  That's very, very doubtful.  They are going to have to compete with a 65-man roster from 2013-16, and the four-year bowl ban all but guarantees that good recruits won't come the next couple of years.  The free-transfer policy will likely lead to what underclass talent they have now leaving.

If that weren't enough, PSU as an institution is just starting the nightmare.  More trials are to come.  Civil suits will follow.  The Department of Education will investigate.  The NCAA itself may investigate further to look into inidividual liability.  In other words, this scandal  - which was instigated by the football program - is going to remain on the front pages for years.  That will further cripple recruiting.  Altogether, PSU is not going to be allowed to have a "normal" roster (with four balanced classes) until 2020, and by that point they will likely have stunk on the football field for years, and have invested zero money in facilities (since they won't be able to afford it), so there is no guarantee recruits will suddenly line up to go there.  I would not surprised to see Pitt emerge as the dominant program in Pennsylvania.  (Incidentally, the two programs are going to renew their annual series, which will give Pitt the chance to drive that point home to recruits.)  

Unfortunately for PSU, I expect them to be bad for awhile, maybe for good.  So what does this all mean for the Big Ten?  Consider the current divisions, which were set up in the name of competitive balance.  The Big Ten formed these with the intent to split up the "Big four" (U-M, OSU, Nebraska, PSU) and give each one a protected game against another to keep things competitive.  Here are the two divisions, with each team's protected rival in parentheses:

Legends Bo                                             Leaders Woody

Michigan (OSU)                                       OSU  (U-M)

Nebraska (PSU)                                      Wisconsin (Minn.)

MSU (Indiana)                                         Illinois (NW)

Iowa (Purdue)                                          PSU  (Neb.)

Northwestern (Ill.)                                    Purdue (Iowa)

Minnesota (Wisc.)                                    Indiana (MSU)

If indeed PSU will be down, then not only will the Leaders division likely be weaker than the Legends, but there will be a competitive imbalance in the Legends division as well.  Why?  Because we'll be playing OSU every year while Nebraska, our presumed top competitor, will be playing a downtrodden PSU.  Throw in MSU playing Indiana and we're at a significant disadvantage scheduling-wise.   Likewise, OSU is at a disadvantage vis-à-vis Wisconsin, which gets a gimme win against Minnesota while OSU has to play us.  The Big Ten set up these divisions precisely to avoid unbalanced schedules, and yet here we are.  Get ready for Michigan to regularly have the hardest schedule of any conference contender.  (Only Minnesota, which has to play us while we only play them, will have a tougher schedule year-in and year-out.)

The solution?  An east-west geographical split:

East                                                            West

Michigan                                                   Nebraska 

OSU                                                           Wisconsin 

PSU                                                           Iowa

MSU                                                          Northwestern

Indiana                                                     Illinois

Purdue                                                     Minnesota

This would balance things out nicely.  Assuming Wisconsin is here to stay as a conference power, there'd be two power programs in each division.  What's more, this would eliminate the need for cross-divisional protected games altogether, since all the rivalries would be contained within each division.  Rivalries that the league is currently throwing by the wayside, like Wisconsin-Iowa and MSU-PSU (as much as we mock the Land Grant Trophy, MSU fans really liked that rivalry) get restored to annual meetings.  

It will take a couple of years, at least, but at some point, if my pessimistic take on PSU turns out to be true, the league should really look into this.

Comments

jmblue

July 24th, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^

 

I like your divisional split based on an East/West basis. Aside from competitiveness which I will get to, it sets up decently for keeping rivalries and makes sense geographically. I just don't know if I agree with competitiveness as your rationale for changing what we have now.

 

Let me clarify my position. I've always been in favor of an East/West split. I think keeping the schools close geographically makes more sense (shorter road trips for fans) and preserves virtually all the rivalries.  Keeping the divisions competitively balanced was the Big Ten's rationale for the non-geographical divisions we currently have.  By their own line of reasoning, it will be a failure.  It will not make things any more balanced than they would have been with a straight East/West split.  

If PSU does fall off the map (which I think is going to happen - I think people will be shocked at just how bad this scandal/sanctions will affect them), the Big Ten should learn from this experience to not try to gerrymander divisions and just go with geography like everyone else. We've had these divsions for one whole year.  They shouldn't be etched in stone.

Hardware Sushi

July 24th, 2012 at 4:31 PM ^

I agree with that point - realignment for rivalries, simplicity, fan travel, etc.

It seemed like your reason for revisiting alignment seemed to be based on competitiveness within the divisions, since you state you expect Penn State to be bad. That now makes more sense to me - you're saying "since competitiveness was the Big Ten's #1 goal, we should revisit alignment in order to preserve that goal (in addition to my original stance of wanting a geographical breakup)."

I'm still not sure I agree about how far Penn State will fall, but I understand your point more clearly now.

M-Dog

July 24th, 2012 at 7:44 PM ^

"since competitiveness was the Big Ten's #1 goal, we should revisit alignment in order to preserve that goal"

Or better yet, stop chasing that false goal.  As soon as you think you've caught it, it goes and changes on you.  

Better to emphasize the great (and enduring) geographic rivalries that the B1G has.  An East - West split does this.  And the Divisions have an good competitive balance to boot anyway.

 

BlueTuesday

July 24th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^

Perfect. Thank you. I always felt the L&L divisions were dicked up to begin with. Michigan and ohio should have been placed in the same division to start with. Knowing there's a chance of having to play your archrival two weeks in a row somehow cheapens the rivalry IMO and does nothing to enhance it.

You should get once chance to beat your archrival, winner takes all.

jmblue

July 25th, 2012 at 6:31 PM ^

True, it'd be sacrificed.  At the same time, Minnesota was not a protected game from 1993-2010 and we barely noticed.  I think playing for the Jug is a fun little tradition and all, but honestly, it's not that important.  Being in the same division as OSU is much more important to me, and I think most fans, than keeping the Jug an annual series.

But anyhow, under the proposal I've suggested, with no protected cross-division games, a team will play every other team in the other division 50% of the time, instead of the current 40% for non-protected series.  A four-year class would get at least two Jug games.  You would never miss an opponent for four consecutive years, like we currently are with Wisconsin.

CRex

July 24th, 2012 at 3:14 PM ^

I would swap Indiana and Northwestern.  For the next decade or so it seems unfair for us to get both Indiana and PSU on the same schedule.  Give us Northwestern and a trip to Chicago every other year as a nice bonus.  

ChicagoB1GRed

July 24th, 2012 at 5:41 PM ^

Michigan got the only cross-division rival it cared about, OSU, and wants to play them every year knowing they are a perennial power. You got what you wanted. Plus Indiana twice. And PSU.
 
Meanwhile no one minded the B1G handing Nebraska PSU as a cross-division game since they were  a strong team, along with Wisconsin and OSU twice instead of Indiana. We both get Illinois and Purdue
 
So now that PSU is set to decline (and even though Michigan plays them twice), its all unfair and we need to change the schedule? How often should we go through this?

Seth

July 24th, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

I'm down for a divisional realignment too but to get OSU and Michigan in the same division (better to meet every year for the div crown than once a decade in Indy), not to adjust for Nittany mediocrity. You are overestimating how far down this takes them. In two years their recruiting will pick up a tick because only 55 can play at a time anyway, and there are still plenty of kids growing up who dream of playing for Penn State, and plenty more who will leap at sure playing time. The facilities won't see upgrades for a few years but they already have better than MSU et al and probably will still come 2020. They've been downgraded severely but they're still Purdue/Illinois or better thus neutered

M-Dog

July 24th, 2012 at 7:21 PM ^

East - West is the way to go.  Clean, simple, everyone understands it and it puts us and OSU in the same Division where we belong.

It's a fool's errand to chase "competitive balance".  The SEC East was the dominant Division for years with FL, GA, and TN.  Now it's the SEC West.  Things even out.

The B1G is blessed with a natural appealing and competitive East - West split.  It's a slap in the face to the B1G West to infer that Wiscy, Neb, Iowa would not form the foundation of a very strong Division.

Sons of Louis Elbel

July 24th, 2012 at 9:09 PM ^

The only way to preserve the Brown Jug as an every year thing (which *some* of us still like, even if the game generally isn't competitive), would be to swap Minnesota and Iowa for Purdue and IU. The main disadvantage to this, I think, is that it makes our division a little too strong (assuming Iowa is generally better than Purdue; IU and Minnesota are pretty much a wash, though I think Minny has a better chance of improving in the near future). But it would give us the LBJ game on a yearly basis. In either scenario, the last weekend of the regular season could turn into a great tradition: M-Ohio is (of course) at the top, but all the other games are good as well: IU-Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket), Iowa-Minny (Floyd), PSU-MSU (OK, the Land Grant Trophy was kinda made up, but they actually had a bunch of really exciting games early on, though of course hard to know how good PSU will be for the next decade), Illinois-Northwestern, and Nebraska-Wisconsin (not a traditional rivalry, but sure to become a big one between the two powers in that division).

In either case, as the OP notes, the main thing is eliminating the need for protected crossovers, so you'd play every one in the other division half the time, or 2/3ds of the time if we go to a 9 game schedule. So even the Illibuck game would still get played plenty (ditto for Minny-Wisconsin in my slightly altered scenario, or the LBJ in the OP's suggestion).

Alas, we all know the B10 will never give up on its dream of M-Ohio in Indy. Sigh.