J.W. Wells Co.

With the addition of Rutgers and Maryland, it seems more or less inevitable that eventually the Big Ten will grow to 16 schools.  Given the NCAA's rule that championship game participants must come from separate divisions that play an internal round robin, dividing into two permanent divisions of eight teams each would ensure that a school plays schools in the other division almost never.

The answer that no one seems to be touting?

4 "pods."  2 non-permanent divisions.  Pods are B1G North, South, East, and West.

Let's assume for the sake of needing to pick two more teams for this discussion that Notre Dame finally sees what pretty much everyone else sees and finally decides to hitch its wagon to the Big Ten rather than the relative uncertainty of the ACC, and brings Georgia Tech with them.

We've then got 16 teams, which divide into four pods of four teams each.

We'll also assume that we're going to 9 conference games, because with 15 other teams to play on a somewhat regular basis, how could you really not?

Here's how the schedule works.  Every two years the pods rotate with each other to combine into divisions, like so:

• Years 1 and 2:  North/South vs. East/West
• Years 3 and 4:  North/East vs. South/West
• Years 5 and 6:  North/West vs. East/South

Like the current set up, each division sends its champion to the B1G championship game.  There's no four-team playoff... just the championship game.

Whom do you play?

Every year a team will play everyone in its own pod, everyone in its division partner pod, and a fixed opponent from each other pod in the other division.  So every year a team will have essentially 6 fixed annual opponents; the other 3 games are played against the non-fixed annual opponents in the division partner pod.  So as the pods rotate to combine with each other, the nine teams that are not annually fixed on a team's schedule will rotate onto the schedule for 2 games in every six-year division cycle.  That allows for the maximum protection of rivalries while also ensuring that you'll play everyone in the league on average once every three years... that's a far better rate than what proposals for fixed divisions are giving us.

So each team's nine conference games are scheduled thus:

• 3 games: play everyone in your own pod
• 4 games: play everyone in your pod's division partner pod (these first two bullets create the necessary divisional round robin)
• 2 games: play your fixed annual opponent in each of the other division's pods

The four pods are divided as follows, and numbered according to fixed annual opponents in each pod (1s play all other 1s each year, 2s play all 2s, etc.):

NORTH:

1. Michigan
2. Notre Dame
3. Michigan State
4. Purdue

SOUTH:

1. Ohio State
2. Northwestern
3. Rutgers
4. Illinois

EAST:

1. Maryland
2. Georgia Tech
3. Penn State
4. Indiana

WEST:

1. Minnesota
2. Nebraska
3. Iowa
4. Wisconsin

Fixed annual final week games:

• Michigan – Ohio State
• Michigan State – Penn State
• Maryland – Georgia Tech
• Notre Dame – Purdue
• Iowa – Nebraska
• Minnesota – Wisconsin
• Illinois – Indiana
• Northwestern – Rutgers

Traditional, renewed, or natural rivalries preserved on an annual basis:

• Michigan – Ohio State
• Michigan – Minnesota
• Michigan – Notre Dame
• Michigan – Michigan State
• Notre Dame – Northwestern
• Notre Dame – Georgia Tech
• Notre Dame – Michigan State
• Notre Dame – Purdue
• Michigan State – Penn State
• Purdue – Illinois
• Purdue – Indiana
• Ohio State – Illinois
• Northwestern – Illinois
• Illinois – Indiana
• Maryland – Georgia Tech
• Maryland – Penn State
• Rutgers – Penn State
• Penn State – Nebraska
• Minnesota – Iowa
• Minnesota – Wisconsin
• Iowa – Nebraska
• Iowa – Wisconsin

Unimportant or "fake" rivalries lost on an annual basis:

• Minnesota – Penn State
• Ohio State – Penn State
• Michigan State – Indiana

Initial reactions:

• The North and West pods appear to be complete no-brainers... ND's traditional rivalries with U-M, MSU, and Purdue, and the U-M & MSU rivalry make the North a pretty natural fit.  The West is the traditional triangle of hate, plus Nebraska.  That leaves the South and East to be sorted out.
• Michigan's fixed opponents each year would be Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Ohio State, Maryland, and Minnesota.  In years 1 and 2 we'd also see Northwestern, Rutgers, and Illinois.  In years 3 and 4 we'd get Georgia Tech, Penn State, and Indiana.  In years 5 and 6 we'd get Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin (for a murderer's row schedule, but come on, deal with it).
• Impermanence of divisions is a concern, though a minor one; would be tough to remember on a year-to-year basis who's in what division.
• There'd be no more "Legends" champ or "Leaders" champ.  A team would simply claim a "Division" championship each year, due to the rotating natures of the divisions.
• Luckily for rivalry maintenance and flexibility, Rutgers seems to have no natural football rivals.  I've lumped them with Penn State for a start.  The three "lost" rivalry games listed above could potentially be annually preserved by tweaking the membership of the South and East, or the numbers assigned in them.
• Schedule strength?  Each team's fixed annual opponents include some tough games and some cake walks.  And as the pods pair up to form divisions, teams will gain tough games and easy games.  As we've seen the past few years, strength of schedule is very fickle anyways as teams rise and fall in quality; in the end it's probably all a crapshoot, but the two years in which the South/East team up against the North/West will likely be the most unbalanced.
• Rivalries?  As I've said above, all important rivalries are preserved.  And ND would start getting GT and Northwestern again.  Penn State would start playing teams from the east coast again.  And the old ACC teams play each other.
• ND, GT: Yes, I know.  Who knows if this will happen?  But I needed to pick another two teams to get us to 16.  Chill out.

Is it just me, or does this make too much sense?  I think rotating pods is the only way to see every team in the conference on a somewhat regular basis without going to an eleventy-billion-game conference schedule.

[Edited to clean up some formatting.]

Last week (in UV?) Brian mentioned the fact that 40 years of continued beatdowns and general success is why there are so many Walmart Wolverines.  Little Brother's fans are just jealous that people who attended neither school seem to be more willing to pick a much more successful program for their rooting interests.

So I thought I'd go further into the numbers.  It's pretty staggering.  Let's look at it in a thinly veiled hypothetical.

Suppose there are two schools, A and B.

A and B are both large, long established, public universities roughly 70 miles apart in the same state.

A and B have played each other in football 41 times since 1969.  During that period:

• A has won 30 games in that series, B has won 11 games.
• A's winning percentage over B is .732.
• A has outscored B 1100-659.  That's an average game of 29-16.
• A has shutout B five times, and has allowed only three points in two additional games.
• A has never failed to score at least a touchdown against B.
• A has won 1 national championship. B has won none.
• A has won 21 conference championships. B has won 3.
• A has appeared in 35 bowl games, including a streak of 33 straight, with 15 wins.
• B has appeared in 16 bowl games, with 5 wins.
• A has appeared in 16 Rose Bowls, 2 Orange Bowls, 1 Sugar Bowl, and 1 Fiesta Bowl.
• B has appeared in 1 Rose Bowl.
• A's players have won 2 Heisman trophies. B's have won none.
• A's winning percentage against all opponents is .756.
• B's winning percentage against all opponents is .509.

Since 1898, A and B have played each other in football 102 times.

• A has won 67 games in that series, B has won 30 games, with 5 ties.
• A's winning percentage over B is .681.
• The all-time series between the schools includes a score of 119-0 in favor of A.

National Statistics:

• A is the NCAA FBS leader in all-time football wins with 881, 33 wins better than second place.
• B has 621 all-time wins, good for 32nd place among all FBS schools.
• A is the NCAA FBS leader in all-time football winning percentage at .737, .005 (roughly 3 whole games) better than second place.
• B's all-time winning percentage is .592, also good for 32nd place among all FBS schools.

National Championships:

• A has earned 11 consensus national championsips.
• A has been selected as national champions in 5 additional years by various recognized selectors on the idiot fringe of college football opinion.
• A claims only its 11 consensus national championships.
• B has earned 3 consensus national championships.
• B has been selected as national champions in 3 additional years by various recognized selectors on the idiot fringe of college football opinon.
• B still claims a total of 6 national championships.

Conference Championships:

• A has won 41 conference championships.
• B has won 6 conference championships.

Which team's football program would YOU root for?

A is the University of Michigan.  B is Michigan State University.

Is it any wonder that there are so few Walmart Spartans?  Little Brother indeed.

Okay, so there's also that basketball thing.  A few years ago ESPN ranked the top all-time basketball programs.  Michigan was ranked 13.  Sparty was ranked 16.  Yes, MSU fans: basketball actually existed as a sport separate from the exploits of Magic Johnson and Tom Izzo.  U-M men's basketball actually owns a 91-74 record over MSU (84-71 adjusted for vacated games).

Hockey?  Let's not even bother to share the stats. MSU has a good hockey program historically, but U-M is far and away the most celebrated hockey program in history, with its record 9 national championships and current record streak of 20 straight years in the NCAA tournament.  There's acutally a guy in my hometown who claims that Sparty has won more championships and has had more tournament success than U-M.  So okay, let's go to the stats anyways since thinking about that guy has pissed me off:

• National Championships: U-M 9, Sparty 3.
• NCAA Frozen Fours: U-M 23, Sparty 9.
• NCAA Tournaments:  U-M 33, Sparty 23.
• CCHA Regular Season Championships: U-M 10, Sparty 7.
• CCHA Tournament Championships: U-M 9, Sparty 11.  WOO-HOO! GO SPARTY!

During the ND game on Saturday, ESPN used a graphic that showed ND had slipped to #3 in all-time wins, behind U-M and Texas.  I had not realized this happened at the end of last season.

Here are the current (up-to-date following 2009 Week 2) rankings for wins and winning percentage.  Comments/observations below.

ALL-TIME WINS:

1.  MICHIGAN  -  874
2.  Texas  -  834
3.  Notre Dame  -  832
4.  Nebraska  -  819
5.  Ohio State  -  809
6.  Penn State  -  802
7.  Alabama  -  801
8.  Oklahoma  -  792
9.  Tennessee  -  777
10.  Southern Cal  -  768

ALL-TIME WINNING PERCENTAGE:

1.  MICHIGAN  -  .740  (874-295-36, 1205 GP)
2.  Notre Dame  -  .736  (832-285-42, 1159 GP)
3.  Texas  -  .718  (834-317-33, 1184 GP)
4.  Oklahoma  -  .716  (792-298-53, 1143 GP)
5.  Ohio State  -  .715  (809-307-53, 1169 GP)
6.  Alabama  -  .709  (801-316-43, 1160 GP)
7.  Southern Cal  -  .707  (768-303-54, 1125 GP)
8.  Nebraska  -  .702  (819-337-40, 1196 GP)
9.  Tennessee  -  .694  (777-328-53, 1158 GP)
10.  Penn State  -  .690  (802-349-42, 1193 GP)

Thoughts:

1.  In terms of wins, MICHIGAN's got a huge lead over Texas and Notre Dame, followed by another drop-off to schools that have pretty recently cracked 800 wins.

2.  In terms of percentage, MICHIGAN and Notre Dame have a tremendous lead.

3.  Around the 1200 GP point, a win raises MICHIGAN's percentage by about .0002 (1/5 of a point).  A loss drops MICHIGAN's percentage by about .0006 (just over 1/2 of a point); so 2008 was pretty tough on the all-time stats.

4.  MICHIGAN's substantial leads in each category I think can be attributed to MICHIGAN's two highly dominant eras as far as number of wins: Yost and Bo.  The other schools on those lists have had dominant stretches here and there, but generally only one truly dominant era each.

5.  Also, since 1970, MICHIGAN has generally avoided (thus far, fingers crossed) a multi-season dead era of a bad coach or a few bad coaching searches in a row, such as has occurred with every other team on those lists, save for Penn State (though one could argue the late 1990s and early 2000s had the same effect there).  4-5 lousy seasons in a row, or a full decade of mediocrity, really takes a toll on winning percentage.

6.  The top ten on each list are the same teams, in slightly different order.  So number of wins is generally analogous to winning percentage.  Duh.  BUT:

7.  Just outside of the top ten in percentage, a few precocious upstarts pop up.  Florida State sits at #11 with .670 and only 460 wins.  Miami (Fla.) is #14 with .634 and only 546 wins.  Other than those two notables, the list roughly holds true: more all-time wins roughly equals greater winning percentage.  Since the top ten traditional power schools racked up most of their wins and drove their percentages higher in an era with nowhere near the parity we have today or in the past 30 years, I think what Florida State and Miami did in the 1980s and 1990s was pretty darned impressive.

8.  Until the late 1990s, MICHIGAN and Notre Dame had each hung around the .745 mark for quite a while, then Notre Dame slipped off, and Michigan followed in 2005-2008.

QUESTIONS AND INVITATION FOR PREDICTIONS:

When will MICHIGAN get to 900 wins?

When will MICHIGAN get back to .745?

I'm watching the MGoBlue.com video feed now (with the radio audio piped in), and have several comments.

First of all, this is pretty good coverage, at least compared to the alternative.

I see that the Miami players are entering and leaving the rink from the south end, rather than the north. Until I moved away and quit going to games in 2006, both teams used the entrance at the north end. When did this change? Are there new visitor facilities at the south end now? I recall that the "concourse" area at the south end really was mostly useless loading-dock type space.

During radio commercial breaks, we hear what Al Randall and Jim Hunt are saying off the air with their mics on. Just before Jim Hunt's second-intermission interview with Miami's injured Justin Mercier, Jim said, "Justin, how's the leg? They told me not to ask you about it, but I won't say anything on the air." And Mercier then gave him the full scoop "off the air."

After the interview, Jim was talking to his producers, and he said something to the effect of, "How was that? Yeah, LOTS better than the first one. [Greg Pateryn in the first intermission] When you don't know these kids sometimes you have no idea what you're gonna get on the air."

In the third period, Michigan appeared to score a shorthanded goal which was waived off. Porno-mustache Langseth reviewed the video, and the MGoBlue camera focused from the press box right down onto the review monitor rinkside. The ruling was that the puck was directed in with a Michigan skate, and the goal was waived off. From the video I saw though, it clearly looked to me on the slow motion the ref was looking at that it was a Miami skate that kicked in the puck. What are the rules about defensive skates kicking pucks in? Or maybe I just didn't see it correctly.

Someone had better buy Bryan Hogan a HUGE steak tonight. He made some absolutely ridiculous saves in the second period.