Expansion, Divisions, and UM-OSU
If the Big Ten gets another team, which will happen evenentually (even if that's not for 10 years), there will probably be divisions. UM and OSU have to be in the same division. If we're not, we could end up playing them twice in a row, with the first game not mattering at all. That would be stupid.
Not playing OSU in our last game could also weaken the rivalry. What happens when one team is guaranteed to make it and the other can't? Obviously the better team will prepare and try to win the game, but it won't be the same. I don't think OSU was as fired up to play this game this year because they were already in the Rose Bowl no matter what.
Overall, expansion would be good for the Big Ten, but it has to be done right. Thoughts?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
I think you put OSU and UM in the same division, and the winner gets a shot at the B10 title game. It's a disadvantage to have to pay OSU and then the title game (am I getting ahead of myself here?) but the alternative is lamer.
I think you put UM and OSU in one division, and PSU/(Notre Dame or Pitt or Iowa or Wiscy) in the other. That way, each division is relatively balanced.
Quite frankly, though, The Game would really be more exciting is we won is occasionally...
December 15th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
Is the Big 10 thinking about adding a 12th team..../sarcasm. I like this topic I just count 5 threads on the front page of the MGoBoard.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
East/West - If you did East/West, the PRE-Expansion easternmost schools are PSU, MSU, us, OSU and furthest West are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern with Indiana and Purdue as your middle ground. Guess this year it would have been more or less fair, particularly if ND was the expansion team and ended up in the west and Indiana and Purdue go east.
North/South - Northern most schools are us, MSU, Wisc, Minn. South would be just about anyone else. They're all about even. Maybe thats the best way.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:23 PM ^
Further, I'd really like a school that has or will add ice hockey. A Big Ten ice hockey league would be fantastic but we only have five schools with the sport right now (Wisco, Minn, MSU, OSU and us). Adding ND would be perfect. I don't think anyone else mentioned for consideration has hockey although Syracuse is thinking of adding it.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:01 PM ^
Illinois and Penn State have thought about adding D1 hockey for years, although they'd obviously have to take their lumps and suck for a while.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:08 PM ^
PSU's non-D1 team is almost D1 level, from everything I have heard. They would be immediately decent.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:19 PM ^
I remember an Athlon College Football preview from the late '90s (Kurt Kittner on the cover?) which speculated that the B10 would add Syracuse and divided into the (from my memory) Lake division:
Syracuse, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota
and the Land division:
Penn St, Ohio St, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Iowa
Not saying this would be a great idea, but it is a creative approach. With those division names, we could probably get a certain butter company to sponsor our championship game.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:20 PM ^
If its not the last game of year, have it the first game or first big ten game. But, keep it the last game or i'll go ape shit
December 15th, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
The other conferences have shown that often the best 2 teams are in the same division.
Right now each school has 2 they always play why not add a third school (maybe make the LBJ a guaranteed game every year for M). Then each school could play half of the remaining conference schools, retaining an 8 game conference schedule. The teams with the 2 best records play in the championship game.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:40 PM ^
The problem here is that you still run into the same problem concerning OSU and Michigan.
What if both teams played each other and afterwards still had the two best records in the conference? Then both teams would have to play a second time. Granted no system is going to be perfect, but it is necessary that OSU-Michigan be a one time thing.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^
We all wanted another shot at them in 2006...
December 15th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
tradition.
2. It makes no sense whatsoever for two teams to play, team a wins. They play agian in a CCG. Team b wins. Now we have a clusterfuck. Yes this will happen at random times. But through history OSU and Michigan own the big 10. So you have to base it on that.
Id rather keep The Game as is and have PSU or Pitt/whoever in the other division and play them in the CCG.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:34 AM ^
The 2007-2008 NY Giants and NE Patriots sadly disagree with you. :-(
December 15th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
Way out-there theory:
You put the teams in seperate divisions
Play on the first or second week of the year simulate the ND schedule).
Losing team still has opportunity to make it to the title game since it's so early in the year.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^
It has to stay at the end of the year, it makes the game that much bigger. By playing the game at the begining of the year the teams could easily recover which would make the big game that much less important. It MUST stay at the end of the year, even if that means OSU and Michigan cant play each other in the the championship game.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:34 PM ^
Nothing to see here
December 15th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
Ever since this got brought up a couple of days ago everyone has been about who to add and what teams would go in which division. How would those division get drawn up? etc., etc. I'm here to say that just because we add one more team, why do there have to be two divisions? Why can't it be just one big conference? Just because the Big 12 has 12 teams and they have a conference title game doesn't mean the Big 10 would have to. We already have 11 teams and 8 confernece games, meaning each team doesn't play two teams from the conference each year. Well, if we add a 12th team all that means is that you don't play 3 teams from your conference each year. I can see how that might create some serous chaos at the end of the year and it could be a 2 or 3 way tie for the conference title. The fact of the matter is that it has already happened before. In 1903 Michigan, Minnesota, and Northwestern split the crown 3 ways. 1906, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin shared the title. In 1918, Illinois, Michigan, Purdue won it. Want to get more recent, ok, in 2000 Michigan, Northwestern, and Purdue split the title. Now I know that NOBODY likes split titles, but it has happened all throughout conference history. I would like to see divisions as well but I just wanted to put this argument out here because no one has even considered it an option.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:54 PM ^
Would be for the revenue produced by a conference championship game. There must be divisions when a 12th team is added.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:52 PM ^
For those with problems with Michigan/OSU playing out twice in two weeks, I would just move the Michigan/OSU game to the first or second Big Ten game every season. This way the game still means a ton and a rematch in the championship game would be fine. I wouldn't mind playing OSU in warmer temps in Late September/Early October.
Anyway that is my opinion.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:41 PM ^
Then all we have to do is move Michigan-MSU to the end of the year, which I'm OK with. It would sort of be a Texas-like situation where they have their biggest rivalry in the middle of the year (Oklahoma) and close out with the somewhat one-sided Texas A&M rivalry. The only difference is that Michigan and OSU might meet up in the championship, but if the Big Ten (unlike the Big 12) cares about parity and preserving every major rivalry, then I doubt Michigan and OSU can be in the same division.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^
...for a major rivalry - the SEC has Alabama / Auburn every year and they are in the same division within the conference. Although of late it has been Alabama / Florida that has the bigger grudge match in the SEC Champ game.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:02 PM ^
Since 2002, I think we would have had 3 rematches for the title game:
2007
2006
2003.
That's at rough glance, though I think I did it correctly.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:34 PM ^
Here are some rivalry games that aren't played on the last game of the season, yet remain very compelling:
Texas-Oklahoma
USC-Notre Dame
Michigan-Notre Dame
Miami (FL)-Florida State (uh, IF they're both good)
That's all I can think of right now.
Another reason to expand is exactly what happened this season. You have an undefeated SEC Vs undefeated Big 12--no way would an undefeated Penn State or Ohio State (or any undefeatd Big Ten team) crash that party.
December 15th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
The Big 12 does it best and I think we could copy them a little bit. A lot teams play their rivals the last game of the season and it still works out for them. Plus they have Texas and Oklahoma in the same division and it works out well. One thing for sure, you have have to separate Iowa/Wisconsin and Penn State from Ohio State and Michigan.
You would play every team from your own division (5 games) and 4 teams from the other (4 games) plus 3 non-conference games for a total of 12. You rotate the teams the same way as they do currently. Have teams play their biggest rivalry game at the end of the year and their 2nd biggest towards the beginning.
My proposed divisions without names are:
Mich
Mich St.
Ohio St.
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Pitt
Penn St.
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Northwestern and Illinois could be interchangeable
December 15th, 2009 at 5:56 PM ^
The only problem I see cropping up is that MSU is left without a real end of season rival. I imagine that we'd give every team a permanent inter-divisional rivalry game (keeping Penn State, OSU, Illinois, and Northwestern happy, while Michigan and Minnesota would be happy too).
Permanent Inter-divisional Games
Illinois-Northwestern
Ohio State-Penn State
Michigan-Minnesota
Purdue-Iowa
Michigan State-Wisconsin
Indiana-Pitt (Pitt gets lucky)
End of Season Games
Michigan-Ohio State
Penn State-Pitt
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Minnesota-Iowa
Michigan State-Wisconsin
December 15th, 2009 at 5:02 PM ^
Who cares if OSU and Michigan are in same division? Winner of the division will play the winner of the other division. They would never play each other twice. The Game would still be important, as it could easily be the game that determines the division winner and who goes to conference championship game. This same thing applies to UT-Oklahoma, who are in same division and usually have the best records, and winner of that game usually goes to Big 12 championship game.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^
If they weren't in the same division you would have to assume that they will still keep each other on the schedule for a game, still presumably at the end of the season. This would mean that not only could they potentially play each other twice in a season, but in back-to-back games.
There is absolutely no way that there is ever a season that Michigan and OSU do not play, regardless of teams added, divisions made, etc.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:10 PM ^
North: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, MICHIGAN
South: Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, new entrant (has to be one of Pitt/Mizzou, doesn't it?)
I think you have to put us and OOHI in opposite divisions in order to create the possibility we'll meet in the championship game. You can't eliminate that out of hand, that would be stooooopid. Seriously, really dumb. The Big10 Championship never has UM-OSU!? Are you kidding?
"Quite frankly" I would like to see Northwestern get the boot and bring both Pitt AND Mizzou in. Northwestern is the only private school, is rarely relevant and we don't need them for the Chicago market. There are scads of alumni from about half of the conference's schools from and/or living there already.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:32 PM ^
Has anyone considered rotating divisions?
Why not reform the divisions at the end of every season based on how the teams finished?
For example, based on the 2008 standings the divisions this season would have looked like this:
Penn State
Michigan State
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Michigan
12th Team
Then, after this season the divisions would change for 2010 to:
Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Minnesota
Michigan
12th Team
Now of course this is not perfect because there are only 11 teams currently, but in theory I think it works really well.
As far as the Michigan-OSU conundrum goes, there are two things I want to say. The first is that there is no good solution, and that is part of the reason I was against expansion up until recently. The second thing is that the Big Ten is not going to only think about one rivalry whenever they decide to do this. That means that we are all in for a change that we may not like. My idea of continuously changing conferences is the best IMHO because it is the best compromise. Some years Mich-OSU might play twice, and others they would be the two best teams but would be on the same side of the conference. Michigan-OSU could still play the last week of the regular season, and every other team could play one rival every year, regardless of what division they are in.
I think this system would keep things very exciting and is the best overall option. What are you opinions?
December 15th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^
First of all, divisions would need to stay the same for two years, so that each team can play their opponents on some form of rotating home and away schedule. As a result, considering the rate at which teams change in college football, I think the divisions could be inequitable as often as not. Meanwhile, it would be hard for teams to form new traditions with different teams, especially Pitt, with that kind of rotation.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:15 PM ^
Those are all good points.
I would definitely agree on waiting two years between every division shift. Then you could go by a team's cumulative Big Ten record over those two seasons.
In addition to solving the home and away problem, this would also help to reduce the likelihood of uneven divisions because if a team has been really good or really bad for two seasons, they are unlikely to make a major move up or down.
The big point I am trying to make is that EVEN IF you had uneven divisions, they would only last for two years before being shifted again. Of course you're going to have teams that greatly underperform (Michigan) or overperform (Iowa) form time to time. But in general, bad teams are bad and good teams are good.
Plus, how does setting permanent divisions make uneven divisions any less of a problem?
I just don't want the Big Ten to become like the Big 12 is right now. I know it was not always this way, but for as long as I have been a college football fan the North has been mostly an afterthought. The only good they can do is occasionally upset Texas/Oklahoma in the title game. That often leaves the South with the three or so best teams in the conference battling it out for one spot.
Michigan/OSU/PSU could easily be in the same spot if the Big Ten goes to standard divisions. Imagine that Michigan returns to their normal spot at the top of the Big Ten in a couple years, but because of the conference divisions they are forced to battle it out with the other best team (OSU) every year just to get a shot at and Iowa, Wisconsin, or MSU. That does not sound appealing to me.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^
SPARTY, VOTE FOR NO MORE BURNT COUCHES.
To hell with Notre Dame
Screw the orange(weak football)
Big ten go get Mizzou
No Pitt unless they get a stadium(think Gopher's)
Is Kansas to far way?
December 16th, 2009 at 3:41 PM ^
in theory.. I think they could shuffle the divisions around each year depending on which teams are projected to be good...