A defense of (more or less) straight geography for divisions (in which a dead horse is beaten to death)
Another post about division alignment, you say? Okay. I’m in. Full disclosure: I think the terrible idea of putting Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions is a terrible idea. I’ll freely admit that this was undertaken in an effort to show that UM and OSU should stay in the same division. All conclusions were concluded in advance and argued for backwards.
The oft repeated priorities for Big Ten in carving up divisions have been rivalry preservation, competitive balance, and geography. Geography has been relegated to the bottom of the list. The out of hand dismissals of dividing the Big Ten at approximately 86 degrees longitude have me perplexed; apparently folks think that you don’t get the other two with a geographical alignment.
If you look at what the divisions would look like along straight geography you get:
East: OSU, PSU, UofM, MSU, IN and PU.
West: IA, IL, NW, UW, NE, MN
The East is heavy at first glance.
But I looked at the conference records for the past eight years* assigning a point value to each team based on where they finished in the conference in a given year. I pretended Nebraska was in the Big Ten the whole time, and did exactly as well as they did in the Big12 in those years. Realistic? Maybe, maybe not. Mathematically possible? Only in years where they were 4-4. I assigned 12 points for a first place finish, 11 for second, and so on down to 1 point for last place. Where there were ties, I split the total points available for the tied spots amongst all the tied teams evenly. For example, in 2002, IA and OSU tied for first place, so they were each awarded 11.5 points [(12 + 11)/2].
Long story short, if you start with straight geography and then pull the ol’ switcheroo with IL and PU (which are less than 100 miles apart), you get the following competitive balance:
|
EAST |
Total Points |
Avg per year |
|
OhioState |
88 |
11.00 |
|
Michigan |
67 |
8.38 |
|
PennState |
62.5 |
7.81 |
|
MichiganState |
42.5 |
5.31 |
|
Illinois |
31 |
3.88 |
|
Indiana |
20 |
2.50 |
|
East total |
|
38.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
WEST |
|
|
|
Iowa |
68 |
8.50 |
|
Wisconsin |
58.5 |
7.31 |
|
Nebraska |
52 |
6.50 |
|
Purdue |
49 |
6.13 |
|
Northwestern |
47 |
5.88 |
|
Minnesota |
38.5 |
4.81 |
|
West Total |
|
39.13 |
Each point represents one spot in the final overall standings, and this division alignment suggestion balances them to a quarter of a point on average over an eight year period.
Look at the conference as being composed of three tiers:
The top tier [OSU, UM, PSU, and IA] is unbalanced [3E/1W]
The middle tier [UW, NE, PU, and NW] is all in the West.
The lower tier [MSU (lol omg roflmao y2k wow), IL, IN, and MN] are unbalanced [3E/1W].
East is top heavy, sure. But the West is thick middled. I don’t think either division would be easy to win, and I don’t think you’d have the Big 12's permanent problem of having six 3-5 teams in one division and three 7-1 teams in the other .
And just in case you’re wondering, here’s what the 8 Big Ten championship games would have looked like (if tied teams played head to head, I listed the winner of the head to head as the division winner):
|
Champ games: |
|
|
|
2002 |
OSU (8-0, t1) vs. IA (8-0, t-1) |
|
|
2003 |
UM (7-1, 1) vs. PU (6-2, t2)# |
|
|
2004 |
UM (7-1, t1) vs. IA (7-1, t1)# |
|
|
2005 |
PSU (7-1, t1) vs. NW (5-3, t3)# |
|
|
2006 |
OSU (8-0, 1) vs. UW (7-1, t2) |
|
|
2007 |
OSU (7-1, 1) vs. UW (5-3, 4)# |
|
|
2008 |
PSU (7-1, t1) vs. NW/NE (5-3, t4) |
|
|
2009 |
OSU (7-1, 1) vs. IA/NE (6-2, t2)# |
The “#” indicates a rematch. First meetings went like this:
2003: UM 31-PU 3
2004: UM 30-IA 17
2005: PSU 34-NW 29
2007: OSU 38-UW 17
2009: OSU 27-IA 24 (OT)
So a couple of the games would have been rematches of blowouts. But we would have gotten to see OSU-UW in 2006 and OSU IA in 2002.
In six of the eight years two teams in first, second or third place would have played for the conference title. That’s ok in my book. No division alignment is going to guaranty that the best two teams will always play for the conference championship. In some years (like 2005) there will only be two good teams. If they’re both in the same division, then the other division is going to have a logjam of mediocrity at the top. It’ll happen. The 2007 UW team was 9-4 overall, so not exactly a bad team, even though they were fourth in the conference. Ditto with the two NUs that tied for the imaginary division title in 2008.
I don’t see any reason why this shouldn’t work. I think it achieves geographic reasonableness, competitive balance, and protects most of the rivalries anybody gives a shit about. And I think they could all be protected with a permanent interdivision rivalry game. Plus Nebraska gets to start up new rivalries based on intuitively obvious things such as the color red (UW), corn recipes (IA), the rightful owner of “NU” (NW), mascot creepiness (PU), and, ummm... well... uh, I have nothing for Minnesota.
But most importantly The Game is still The Game.
*I used 8 years as a baseline because that’s as far back as ESPN goes for standings. But I think it’s a reasonable baseline nonetheless. I’m not sure what Minnesota did in the early ‘90s should matter.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
I tell you what this is pretty well done. I agree the east will be a little top heavy and the west will be pretty thick in the middle (that's what she said!), but it may still be competitive year in and year out. Teams will always change and will be good one year or for several years, and may not be quite as good for the next few years; so it all could even out. And of course it keeps us and the Suckeyes in the same division and THE GAME at the end of the regular season (where it should be). Nice job.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
This is very impressive work, sir.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
Ladies and gentleman, you are looking at the divisions the Big Ten should have gone with.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
lady and gentlemen
August 20th, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^
I can think of at least two girls that frequent the board. What do you think this is? A sausage-fest or something?
August 20th, 2010 at 1:46 PM ^
Like the geography game and how you justify it. I agree it makes a ton of sense.
However, the key issue is that the new Big 10 will have four marquee programs and it seems like everyone is hot and bothered about making sure Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., and Nebraska are split right down the middle.
Delany has said performance since Penn St joined the league will be a primary factor as well as keeping rivalries in tact. That being said...no chart...but research (ok it's kind of a chart)
.600+ conf. win pct/.700+ overall win pct
1.Ohio State (106-29-1)[.779](170-43-1)[.794]
2.Michigan(94-42)[.691](146-62)[.702]
3.Penn State (86-50)[.632](147-62)[.703]
4.Nebraska
.500+ conf./overall win pct
5.Wisconsin (79-54-3)[.581](114-70-4)[.606]
6.Iowa (71-64-1)[.522](119-86-1)[.578]
.400+ conf. win pct/near .500 overall win pct
7.Michigan State (64-71-1)[.471](106-98-1)[.517]
8.Purdue (62-71-3)[.459](104-98-3)[.507]
9.Northwestern (59-77)[.439](104-104-1)[.498]
SHAME
10.Minnesota(44-92)[.324](94-111)[.459]
11.Illinois (45-90-1)[.331](75-121-1)[.381]
12.Indiana (33-103)[.245](70-127)[.355]
*Note I was too lazy to research Nebraska but my guess is they fit into that top 4.
With that in mind...the divisions...
BO DIVISION
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Northwestern
WOODY DIVISION
Indiana
Minnesota
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Wisconsin
"Oh noes" you say, "too many rivalries are lost." To that I say, "Watch."
PROTECTED CROSSOVER GAMES
Michigan vs Ohio State
Iowa vs Minnesota
Nebraska vs Wisconsin
Illinois vs Purdue
Michigan State vs Penn State
Northwestern vs Indiana
This means the only three rivalries not played every year are: Illinois vs Ohio State, Indiana vs Michigan State, and Michigan vs Minnesota. Three rivalries that aren't played every year anyways. Competitive balance and maintaining rivalries, the two things Delany absolutely wants to uphold.
Am I thrilled about us and them being in opposite divisions? No. Does this alignment probably make the most sense? Yes.
EDIT: Forgot Iowa vs Wisconsin in lost rivalries. Dealbreaker? Or does Wisconsin say forget it we'll start a rivalry with Nebraska instead?
August 20th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^
Except for the obvious terribleness of having OSU and UM in different divisions. I'm just going to hate that terrible idea no matter how reasonable a package it's wrapped up in.
Also, did I mention it's terrible?
August 20th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
It is terrible, but seeming to be unavoidable.
I think the bigger question is which is worse?
Michigan vs Ohio State not being the 3rd weekend in November
or
Michigan vs Ohio State back-to-back (The Game, The B10 Championship)
August 20th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
Then I would move The Game to earlier in the year. Back to back just seems awful to me. What if we have a situation where each team has already clinched its division, and then they're playing each other the last week of the season? I'd like to think that both teams have enough reqpect for The Game to still play all out, but it would be concerning that an OSU/UM game could be an exchange of off-tackle runs to avoid "showing the other team anything" while playing the real game the next week.
But I feel dirty even entertaining the hypothetical.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:55 PM ^
There is no way they are going to put 3 of the 4 marquee porgrams in one division like the OP listed.
Michigan and Ohio State will be split
Neb and Penn will be split
Iowa and Wisc will be split
These 6 will all play each other in October, mid season, with one rotation.
Lower Tier & Cupcake Big Ten and non-confrence will pad the ends.
Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State will NOT be in one division.
August 20th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
Swap Indiana and Illinois
Michgan vs OSU
Nebraska vs PSU
Wisc vs Iowa
Minn vs MSU
NW vs Illinois
Indiana vs Purdue
I actually like the idea of 2 cross divisional games. Michigan would then play PSU, while OSU plays Nebraska (The top 4 teams play a round robin). Wisconsin plays MSU, Iowa plays Minnesota (Wisc, Iowa, Minn play round robin). Purdue would play NW, and Illinois would play Indiana (regional round robin).
Rotate the 2 on and 2 off to make 9 games. I can't help but think that they will have something like this in mind for when they go to 9 games, but they can't right now because of contractual obligations.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^
This breakdown makes as much sense as anything else I've seen. The Big Ten's obsession with splitting up U of M, OSU, and PSU reeks of the kind of overstrategizing that gave us New Coke. There's little doubt in my mind that between Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska that nine years out of ten at least one of them will be up to giving whoever wins the east a legitimate battle in the championship game, and Nebraska should give the West division enough marketing appeal that they'll have fannies in the seats for western division games.
Brandon -- snap out of it! Fight this! They're ruining one of the greatest traditions in sports for practically nothing!
August 20th, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^
I took Jeff Sagarin's final rankings of each team for the last 10 years as a sample set (I know that his rankings aren't perfect, but his were the most complete I could think of to compile this data). I then averaged each divisions to determine the average ranking of the division for each year, as well as, the average ranking of the division over the last decade. It turns out the average ranking over the decade is 43.8 for the East and 48.0 for the West, so a 4.7 rank disparity in schedule toughness. Definately a difference, but maybe not as much as I was expecting.
I then took the highest ranking team from each division to determine who was the winner of the division, and then compared the two divisions highest ranking team to determine the winner of the conference game.
The results were not very suprising for the East division, as Michigan won the division 4 times, Ohio State 5 times, and Penn State 1. The West was a little more diverse with four teams representing (out of 7) with Iowa at 5 times, Nebraska with 2 times, Wisconsin with 2 times, and Illinois with 1.
The Conference Championship game winners over the decade were as follows;
Nebraska, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio State, Ohio State, Ohio State, Penn State, Ohio State. Giving the East a 7-3 Advantage.
Obviously, this analysis is far from perfect, but it did show that although the East was the better division, the West was not nearly as far behind as anticipated. I would take this disparity in division strength, to keep the rivalries in tact, and create a geographically logical split.
August 20th, 2010 at 7:14 PM ^
All of sudden, after the hideous idea of UM/OSU being separated and playing in October has been floated, I'm suddenly MUCH more receptive to the straight-geography route.
(Hmmm . . . could that have been the league's hidden plan all along?)