KISS...or...GEOGRAPHY WILL TRUMP COMPETITIVE BALANCE
While it has been interesting to read all of the different solutions to dividing up the Big 10 (12) into two divisions and what the seasons will be like, my thought is that the powers who will actually decide this will do in the simplest way possible, that is, through geography. Thus:
Big 10 East
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Big 10 West
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Illinois
Northwestern
Each team will play every divisional opponent every year = 5 games
Each team will play teams from the other division every other year = 3 games
The winner of the each division plays in the championship game = 1 game
[Edit] Four non-conference games = 4 games
[Edit] Total = 13 games
You ensure that the final game of the season is always a divisional game, possibly a rivalry game. The powers that be will ignore the strength advantage (disadvantage?) that the Big 10 East has in favour of reduced travel costs for all the teams, both revenue and non-revenue. If anything, the three top teams in each division battling it out to get to the conference game will be a plus. This approach preserves rivalries and avoids seeing conference championship games between rivals in back to back weeks.
Finally, it seems aesthetically correct to divide them this way. It is a simple, straightforward approach has a likelihood of taking root and developing new rivalries, especially in the West…at least until we go to 16 teams and four four-team divisions and a two round conference playoff. (This will eventually happen; the demand for dollars will demand more TV markets, whether sooner or later).
[EDIT] FWIW ... This is pretty much how they do it in the SEC...
I'm 99% positive the Big Ten championship game will be a school's 13th game.
You are likely right, in which case the above will be amended to four non-conference games and 13 games total.
Weary MGoUser grows weary of your conference proposals that have been contradicted in every university speech, front page post, or rational thought.
Shrug...we will see won't we, although in your effort to shoot down the OP, your use of hyperbole undercuts the point you are making. While you may disagree, the above post is in fact rational and taking its cue from physics, is a simple solution. But that was the point: to offer a simple solution in contrast to everything being written on the front page or in other diaries, as interesting, informative and well written as they have been.
Well, if simplicity is your only goal, just organize them alphabetically. You don't even need a map to do it. It's stupid, but it's simple.
you are wrong about the non-conference games if this is the divisional alignment ...
there will still be 4 off them
a conf championship game is an extra 13th game
ie bama and texas both were 13-0 going into the bcs champ game
were not giving away an extra home game against baby seal u
I just can't see Michigan and OSU in the same division. It would diminish the importance of The Game as a Big Ten champion deciding factor. I think Michigan-OSU will be in different divisions to allow for the possibility of a Michigan-OSU Big Ten Championship game.
the importance? It sets up great. Undefeated Michigan and OSU in the last game of the season, winner goes onto the CC game, the others hopes and dreams are dashed.
The problem with having Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions is they are always going to play at least one regular season game so playing again in a championship game is only going to water down the rivalry. I feel this has been covered countless times. You can't have them in different divisions.
I agree. I think if they were to play a cross-division game the last week of the 'regular' season and then have to play again in the conference championship a week or two later, there would be a watering down of the rivalry game.
Putting them in the same division so that there is the possibility of the conference championship game being on the line will enhance the rivalry. It'll be like a mini-version of the hype associated with the 2006 game (with a different outcome though hopefully!).
I know it is sacreligious to even bring this up, but the way to mitigate the "repeat diminishes The Game" factor, is to either move The Game earlier in the season, or as we've discussed keep tOSU and UofM in the same division.
In the latter case, much like winning The Game determined who was going to the Rose Bowl in the days of old, winning The Game will likely determine who is going to the Big Ten Championship game.
In the former case, if The Game is played earlier, and then both teams win their divisions, the build up for the repeat across the season would be significant.
Of course in 2006, almost everybody came out of The Game saying "I'd like ot see that again", and two weeks to absorb the passing of Bo, and playing on neutral turf (that was actually connected to the ground) may have been the difference between consolation Rose Bowl for us, or also ran Rose Bowl for tOSU.
So I am talking in circles, but I think my point in hindsight is: if tSOU and Michigan are truly the most deserving two best schools on the field, wouldn't you rather play The Game and then play again, rather than play The Game and sit home until bowl day? I'd say yes. But then, that would mean The Game is a rivalry game and not a roadblock for one of the two teams.
That is the conundrum ....
it won't really matter in five years, because Michigan is going to beat osu five years straight, by a combined score of 300 to 6 and osu will cancel its football program and focus on their school of forklift driving masters program.
no. once a year is perfect. that is what makes the game so important.
although, i do agree that playing another game after it diminshes the dramatic effect. but, like others have posted, there isn't a way to avoid that sad fact. at least delany will keep it the last regular season game of the year.
So i read your proposal to be 1) either M never plays OSU, unless both are in the championship or 2) M plays OSU every year and possibly repeat a week later in the championship.
How does this make any sense? Is this the best veiled sarcasm ever?
Having UM and OSU in the same division is the only simple solution to ensuring the rivalry game is played every year. It also ensures that whomever emerges from the Big 10 East is a deserving participant in the title game and prevents a back to back playing of the Michigan - Ohio State game, which would diminish the importance of the rivalry game. As for "The Game" determining the conference champ on a regular basis, that went out the window with the expansion to 12 teams...
You can have conference games outside the division. That way we can keep the current game and also have the possibility of a M/OSU championship game. There's no way we WON'T play them in the regular season. I just don't think Delaney will let it happen so that we CAN'T play them in the conference championship.
so we would be guaranteed to play them during the big ten regular season, then we could also play them in the championship game? this makes absolutely no sense. if we split these games then the winner of the last game wins the conference. uhh, no thanks.
Same division guarantees M / tOSU as the last regular seson game of the year. Guaranteeing a cross division game smells like a "we are more important" thought. Don't go there.
Look at what happened in the B12. Nebraska and Oklahoma were put into different divisions and their rivalry fizzled. Oklahoma and TX were put into the same division and their rivalry thrived.
As long as we are playing OSU for some kind of championship on the line, we'll maintain the intensity.
If they played twice in one year, the first game would mean nothing. theres no point in that, i used to think they needed to be in separate divisions, but the only way that would work is if they ONLY played in the CC game, and that would be close to never with the way things are looking now, we all want to see them play every year.
they will use . Competitive fairness 2. Rivalries 3. Geography. I think he is more or less saying us OSU, PSU will not be in the same division.
a mistake.
Don't get me wrong, I love me a complicated attempt at making a balanced system. I have also read everything Delany has said about the priorities as they stand now. But, he also said nothing had changed on the expansion timeline a week or two ago, and now here we are with Nebraska in the conference. Things change.
I think when they do a complete look at the way other conferences have done it, they will see that of all of them, the mishmash ACC method is the worst. I couldn't even come close to telling you what the divisions are in the ACC. Branding and sense are important, and I think they will win out. There is no reason to think that UM, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin will not be top 25 material for the forseeable future. Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State and Purdue have the resources to rise up as dark horses from time to time and Minnesota and Indiana are close to hopeless. You can look at the east / west split and see that the supposed top 4 are not split evenly, but that doesn't mean the divisions don't have competitive balance. If jamiemac will take a bet, I'll put a $100 down that when the smoke clears, this is what will happen.
+1 for the ACC example. Competitive balance gone utterly and horribly awry.
"Competitive Balance" is a transient cyclical thing.
Look at the SEC, the balance of power used to be the east, now its the west. It would have been a mistake for them to say "we can never put FL, TN, and GA together".
As a Michigan fan, I am in no way concerned about having PSU in our division and would prefer it (so would PSU). Some years they'll be elite some years they won't.
Besides, a division with Nebraska, Wiscy, Iowa, and IL is by no means a weak sister.
on a separate note, the nebraska - wisconsin game is setting up to be the most confusing game to watch as they both have pretty much the same uniforms.
...won't be much better. At least the helmets are different colors and they could go with the optional all red/all white unis.
Just watch their socks
The biggest problem I see with most Big Ten divisional alignment plans, is that they are TOTALLY based on football. I believe you HAVE to factor in basketball as well. I have a plan that has competitive balance not only in football, but basketball as well.
I plotted separately Big Ten football and basketball teams based on their all time records. For the purposes of determining balance, the top team all time in each sport gets 12 points and the last 1 point. They go a little something like this:
|
Football: |
Basketball: |
|||
|
12 |
1. Michigan |
12 |
1. Indiana |
|
|
11 |
2. Ohio State |
11 |
2. Michigan State |
|
|
10 |
3. Nebraska |
10 |
3. Ohio State |
|
|
9 |
4. Penn State |
9 |
5. Illinois |
|
|
8 |
5. Illinois |
8 |
5. Purdue |
|
|
7 |
6. Minnesota |
7 |
6. Michigan |
|
|
6 |
7. Iowa |
6 |
7. Wisconsin |
|
|
5 |
8. Michigan State |
5 |
8. Minnesota |
|
|
4 |
9. Wisconsin |
4 |
9. Iowa |
|
|
3 |
10. Purdue |
3 |
10. Penn State |
|
|
2 |
11. Northwestern |
2 |
11. Nebraska |
|
|
1 |
12. Indiana |
1 |
12. Northwestern |
The idea is that when you are laying out the divisions, you want the points total to be as equal as possible. A point total of 39 means complete competitive balance. Mostly based on competitive balance, but keeping Michigan and Ohio State in the same division, the conference divisions played out like this:
|
Football |
Basketball |
|||||
|
43 |
Big Ten Black |
37 |
Big Ten Black |
|||
|
11 |
OSU |
10 |
OSU |
|||
|
12 |
Mich |
7 |
Mich |
|||
|
4 |
Wisc |
6 |
Wisc |
|||
|
8 |
Ill |
9 |
Ill |
|||
|
2 |
NW |
1 |
NW |
|||
|
6 |
Iowa |
4 |
Iowa |
|||
|
35 |
Big Ten Blue |
41 |
Big Ten Blue |
|||
|
10 |
Neb |
2 |
Neb |
|||
|
9 |
PSU |
3 |
PSU |
|||
|
1 |
Indiana |
12 |
Indiana |
|||
|
3 |
Purdue |
8 |
Purdue |
|||
|
5 |
MSU |
11 |
MSU |
|||
|
7 |
Minn |
5 |
Minn |
|||
The point totals are very close for basketball and a little top heavy for the BT black in football. You would expect that though with Michigan and Ohio State in the same division.
OK, for all you rivalry people: Yes Michigan and Michigan State are not in the same division. This can be a protected football rivalry game played every year. Each team can have up to 2 under my plan. Each team would play an 8 game conference schedule in football (5 divsional and 3 non-divisional) Most rivalries ended up in the same division anyway. Division rivalries are marked with a (D). Protected rivalries have a (P).
Michigan-MSU (P)
Michigan-OSU (D)
Michigan-Minn (?)
Iowa-Minn (P)
Purdue-Indiana (D)
MSU-PSU (D)
Minn-PSU (D)
Iowa-Wisc (D)
Illinois-OSU (D)
Illinois-NW (D)
Indiana-MSU (D)
Minn-Wisc (P)
Illinois-Purdue (P)
I put a question mark on the Little Brown Jug game as Minnesota would have 2 protected rivalry games with Iowa and Wisconsin. We don’t play Minnesota every year anymore anyway. We could be guaranteed them every other year which is ok by me.
I just think this divisional alignment is the best of all worlds. Is it a perfect plan? No. I think it is the best balance I’ve seen (if you take historical records) while maintaining all but one yearly rivalry.
You do not need divisions for hoops because you can play enough games to play everyone at least once without divisions. And you can have a tournament at the end that includes everyone. Splitting into divisions for basketball is a bad idea.
It makes more sense with hoops divisions, then you play each team within the division twice, and each team from the other division once. That gives you a 16 game conference schedule (currently big ten has an 18 game schedule, big12, ACC and SEC 16). I doubt a full 22 game schedule would gain much traction with the AD's.
Currently, with 11 teams in the conference, we play 8 teams twice and 2 teams once each year, and the two teams we only play once are rotated so that over time no one is at a permanent advantage or disadvantage. It is a modified round-robin. Once we move to 12 teams in the conference, we will simply play 7 teams twice and 4 teams once each year in the same sort of modified round-robin. Divisions would not improve on this and, in fact, would be inferior if they eliminate the rotation.
You do not need divisions for hoops because you can play enough games to play everyone at least once without divisions. And you can have a tournament at the end that includes everyone. Splitting into divisions for basketball is a bad idea.
Basketball dos not need divisions as they have enough games to play everyone in conference at least once and most twice. it would just get confusing if you tried to play hoops with divisions
keep it simple. like the divisions above. leave it just like that. maybe even 9 conference games. but i ain't married to that neither.
would just like to see MICH vs Nebrasska moar.
Comments