Alvarez: Wisconsin and Iowa to be in separate divisions
Just saw this linked on the twitters-
University of Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez confirmed Wednesday that when a two-division format for football is unveiled by league officials next month, UW and Iowa will be separated.
http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/article_dd73bde0-b0a6-1…
August 25th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
Makes sense, based on what we're hearing:
Div 1:
Michigan or OSU
PSU or Nebraska
Iowa
Div 2:
Michigan or OSU
PSU or Nebraska
Wisconsin
I'm not necessarily happy about it, but I'd bet that's the idea at Big 10 HQ.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:23 PM ^
I'd actually guess:
1: Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin
2: OSU, PSU, Iowa
I guess you could switch Iowa and Wisconsin, but I feel like the Michigan/Nebraska and OSU/PSU pairs might be the most natural.
You could throw MSU in #1 above, too.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^
To finish that up I'd put MSU, Minnesota, and Indiana into #1 and Northwestern, Purdue, and Illinois into #2.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
Minnesota should go with Iowa to keep the geographical balance of the divisions equal.
Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Illinois, NW
OSU, PSU, Iowa, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana
August 25th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
I think Iowa and Nebraska seems like it would be a better rivalry than Wisconsin/Nebraska. I actually think the Iowa/Nebraska game could end up being a great rivalry since they are neighboring states and I'm sure there is some level of animosity lying dormant. So, I would guess that Iowa and Nebraska would be in the same division. Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty much assured as cross-divisional rivals, but this alignment would keep Nebraska/Iowa together in the same way we're stuck with MSU.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
I figure that Nebraska-PSU would be the cross-division rivalry as would Iowa-Wisconsin. My thought was that Iowa and PSU would like to play and Wisconsin wants to play Nebraska.
6 to one, half a dozen to the other. We'll see when the final word comes out.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:05 AM ^
that they wont put both illinois and indiana schools in the same division. other than that I think you could be right. IF going off of geography
Since barry said this it sounds like its closer to being done than what I originally thought. scary
August 26th, 2010 at 10:26 AM ^
Based on this new info, I would guess:
1. Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Indiana
2. Ohio St, Nebraska, Iowa, Purdue, Mich St, Illinois
I can't believe I have MSU in a different division than UM, but, somehow academic culture just kept creeping into my picks. I see more cultural fit between UM, Wisconsin, NW, and Minnesota. It's almost an Urban-hippie division vs. a Rural-strongman division. I know, I know... Penn St. is a land-grant, not in an urban setting, has an excellent agricultural school etc. But you have to admit that there is a strange similarity between the ideal of Paternoville and the communes of Ann Arbor, Madison and Minneapolis.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
security would never be able to restrain the deep-rooted animosity these fanbases have for each other. oh the humanity had they been.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:12 PM ^
This is just more evidence to support the idea that they are going to split up major rivals and have some kind of cross-divisional rivalry week.
I don't think this is a horrible idea. The only problem is that I doubt the rivalries will be the final week, which obviously is the big kicker. I guess the 2nd to last week or even the 3rd is the next best thing, but still a bummer.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
in more than one thread but i don't understand why divisional matchups can't be completed by the end of week 11 and reserve week 12 for rivalry week. split the divisions based upon these week 12 matchups. the odds of having a rematch are minimal and if it happens, it will be the ultimate discussion piece for a week, a neutral site boast for 1 of the 2 teams and also has yet to happen in the SEC.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
similar thoughts on "the "final' word on moving the game thread."
August 25th, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
It could, and you could easily rationalize it as having the Championship Game matchup set early to allow people to make travel plans.
August 26th, 2010 at 6:42 AM ^
Games between the divisions would still count in the standings; hence the issue that by playing OSU every year that there will be an unbalanced schedule. Craig Ross articulates this point well at MVictors: http://mvictors.com/?p=7960
August 26th, 2010 at 9:10 AM ^
isn't that the explicit reality everyone notes when MSU thinks they have a shot at the conference championship bc they dont have OSU on their schedule, etc? thank god that's changing next year. or maybe not.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:14 PM ^
And sadly, that's pretty much the nail in the coffin for Michigan-Ohio State in the same division. If they're splitting up rivals like that, it's to even out the competition in each division, and there'd be no reason to split up two of the stronger teams in the West if Michigan and Ohio State were going to be paired together in the East.
Since Wisconsin was lobbying from the beginning for a season-ending game with Nebraska, my assumption is that the split will be something like this:
West (or Great Lakes Division or whatever)
Michigan, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan State, some other teams
East (or Plains division or whatever)
Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, rest of other teams
Now please, for the love of God, just schedule the Michigan-OSU game the final week of the regular season. Make it work, Jim Delany.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
I think you can pair teams based on historical strength (10 years or so), right? My first choices are below, but for the bottom half:
MSU -- Northwestern
Purdue -- Minnesota
Indiana -- Illinois
It gets pretty dicey near the bottom, but those are my thoughts.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:23 PM ^
I have no arguments with that.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:15 PM ^
NOOOO! DELANY HOW COULD YOU, THIS WILL NOT STAND! FACEBOOK GROUP ASSSSSEEEMMMMBBBLLLEEEE!!!!!!!
Seriously though, is this a big deal and I'm just missing it?
August 25th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
It's a big deal for Wisconsin and Iowa to a certain extent, but mostly it's a big deal because it confirms that the Big Ten is splitting major rivals into separate divisions to try to make the divisions as even as possible from a competitive standpoint.
So if you were holding out hope that Michigan and Ohio State would be in the same division when all is said and done, you can probably forget about it.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:28 PM ^
Ah okay, makes sense. Thanks
August 25th, 2010 at 11:18 PM ^
Is it me or was adding Nebraska seem like more trouble than it's worth?
August 25th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^
August 25th, 2010 at 11:44 PM ^
We knew the conference would separate into divisions eventually. I just never thought the process would get this messy and be such a pain in the ass.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
Odd, that I found myself wondering that aloud as i analyzed one of the million "split the divisions like this" and "do this with the M OSU rivalry" threads.
At first it seemed so perfect, and i loved it, only wondered why it had taken this long for such a perfect fit for everyone.
I wouldn't want it any other way i guess, because we have to keep up with the times in some respect and i think this is all going to be great for the b10, eventually. But man, it's making me wonder if we all realized what we were asking for in b10 expansion and conference championship games and such.
Would all this somehow be fixed if we went to 14 or 16 teams like was widely assumed at one point? Has expanding to 12 and stopping somehow caused us more trouble than we asked for?
August 26th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
What made the Big Ten great, to me at least, are the rivalries. Taking away some of the conferences marquee match ups for the sake of a championship game may not be as profitable as some would think. Splitting the rivalries may result in less nationally televised games. At this point everything is so fucked up that the Big Ten might as well keep expanding.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:55 PM ^
What a shitshow. Why even bother with divisions if they're going to make no sense. Play a 9-game conference schedule, top-2 teams play for the championship. It's not much different than what we do today. 8-games for 11 teams. Instead you have 9-games for 12 teams.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:08 AM ^
No divisions would be fine with me, and the Michigan-OSU could then remain the final game of the season. But I am almost positive the NCAA requires a divisional split with all the teams in a division playing each other if you want to have a championship game.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:22 AM ^
No divisions sounds fine with me. I like the idea of the top 2 teams in the conference just meeting in the championship game. If there's a two-way or three way-tie for first or second place in conference, just pick the two teams with the best overall record or highest ranking.
In terms of divisions, there are going to be times where one is just dominant over the other. Look at the Big 12 the last several years. There were times when a 5-6 Iowa State team or a 6-6 Kansas State team were in contention to go to the Big 12 title game in late November because all the teams in their division were crap. What's to get excited about? A 5-6 team can't go to a bowl but they can contend for a conference championship. It's just wrong.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:10 AM ^
For the record, I found the following in a Bleacher Report article on Pac-10 divisions:
That proposal became NCAA Division I bylaw 17.9.5.2 (c): A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division.
This means that other proposals, such as a three division format with four members each is not possible; nor is any scheduling alignment that prevents division members from not playing all other division members.
So going the no-division route would require a change in NCAA rules.
One other idea on this: If there is a two- or three-way tie for second, one tiebreaker might be that if one of the second-place teams hasn't played the team in first place and the other second-place team(s) have, then the one that hasn't played the first-place team would go to the championship.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
They changed the bylaw to allow a conference championship in the first place, they can change it now. Especially given the threat of the major conferences expanding and taking their ball and going somewhere else.
August 26th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
I was only pointing out that right now you can't have a championship game without divisions. How difficult is it to have one of those bylaws changed?
IIRC from the expansion talk earlier, you were pushing for Syracuse and other eastern teams to be added to the Big Ten. I now wish the Big Ten had expanded to 16 teams. It seems to me that with eight-team divisions, they would have to put Michigan and OSU in the same division.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
I still think the Big Ten goes eastward and if ND eventually goes, SU will go with them (and Rutgers, which makes no sense, and Pitt). I digress.
If the Big Ten goes to 16 and you go to a pod system and instead change the bylaws to allow a semifinal game. Michigan-Ohio State can be the last game of the season if they're in pods on the opposite side, meaning they can only meet in the championship.
No back-to-back weeks, problem solved.
August 26th, 2010 at 12:03 AM ^
...it seems like they successfully got together and made no one happy. Neb and Ok were huge rivals, when the two split in the Big 12 divisions the rivilary cooled. Rivals matter b/c of competition in standings. I am really dissappointed in the way they've split up the teams. We all should have just fought for geographic splits in the beginning. Dumb!!!
August 26th, 2010 at 12:18 AM ^
I love this. All this scheming and fidgeting with division lineups. Desperate arguments over the placement of Northwestern in the Corso Division or the Schlichter Division, and how that affects Iowa's strength of schedule in seasons that they play Indiana instead of Minnesota. Ack! That means Michigan State will have to play Illinois on the same weekend that Michigan plays Purdue? How can we market that in Toledo! HELP!!!
Why not just go with the straightforward east-west lineup? No, it's not perfect, division strength won't be precisely equal to the 43rd digit, but you get two reasonably competitive divisions without blowing up a whole lot of rivalries.
But wait, if we put Penn State and Wisconsin back in the Corso, then...but what do we do with the Northwestern-Ohio State cross-division game in the last week of September? Oh Fudge...
August 26th, 2010 at 7:54 AM ^
This makes about as much sense as splitting UM and OSU and moving The Game....Oh wait...
Wtf is going on in Chicago? "Hey let's make sure NO ONE is happy with how we do this"
August 26th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
Michigan vs. MSU in the last game of the season.
August 26th, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^
Blech. I'd rather play Penn State than those clowns.