Conference realignment
With that school from Ohio potentially being crippled by reductions in scholarships and bowl bans, the B1G divisions could be realigned on a geographical basis and still maintain a good competitive balance.
East: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Purdue
West: Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Nebraska
Not gonna happen. 1 school isn't bigger than the conference
I don't understand that argument. Wouldn't a straight geographical split be the ultimate statement that no one school is bigger than the conference? I would say that the current setup is an admission that some schools are "more equal" than others.
Go away.
its a herp within a derp. We must go derper
Legends: Iowa, Michigan, MSU, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Leaders: Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Cheaters: Ohio State
Or according to ohio state fans:
Legends:
Leaders:
Cheaters: Iowa, Michigan, MSU, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin, Ohio State
Or Cheaters/Liers/Murderers/Robbers
All I know is that besides a major hire in the next 2 or 3 weeks...Wiscy might have a cake walk for 2 yrs or so to the big ten title game. I guess PSU could give them a run but if OSU drops in any kind of way for a extended amount of time then the weasel BB might have Wiscy taking over the conference for a little bit.
Damn that makes me just as sick as Tressell doing it the last 8 yrs...
But this just isn't the time for that.
You will never see 3/4 of M/OSU/PSU/UN in the same division.
Ever.
Nebraska is NU. Which results in all my Nebraska relatives calling Michigan MU.
I know they call it that. But it bugs me so I go with UN. Just like I'd go with UO for Oklahoma.
They should make it an NU if they want it called that, like Northwestern University. I don't know why I feel strongly about this, but it's always bugged me.
I am definitely in favor of a straight geographical split, but this should not be the rationale. Otherwise we could potentially see the divisions realigned every few years if something happens. The argument for a geographical split is simple. First, you can't necessarily predict how conference teams will perform 10 or 20 years, so it's silly to gerrymander the divisions based on 2011 assumptions of program strength. Second, virtually all the rivalries are contained within the divisions that way, so there is no need for cross-divisional protected games, which result in teams never playing one team in the other division for four years.
I realize that it hasn't worked well for the ACC, but I like the competitive alignment. They looked at wins since 1993, and it seems fairly accurate for future expectations. Keeping the big four teams seperated helps balance (though it's not exactly fair for M/OSU) in a way that couldn't happen in an east/west split.
At the very least, the Big Ten needs to find a way for every four-year class of players to play every Big Ten opponent. That is the biggest problem I have with this alignment, and it's largely caused by the need to have protected cross-division rivals. If they didn't have them (and there'd be no need for them in a geographical aligment), then you could play half of the other division's teams one year (or two years) and then play the next after that. Right now the conference is really hamstrung by the protected rivalries. It's going to have to figure something out. I can't stand the idea of not playing Wisconsin at all for four years.
I don't like it either, but there is a good deal of talk about going to nine conference games (sometime just after this four year cycle is the talk, IIRC) which would solve that problem, but then bring up the additional issue of six more losses for the conference as a whole. I don't know what the best solution is, but I will say that any team that wins ten conference games (nine plus the CG) definitely would be in the title game. It's more likely that a team trips up on one of those games, and that's where the problem comes in.