The proposed Big Ten West includes the six teams located in the Central time zone -- Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin -- plus Purdue, sources said. The proposed Big Ten East includes Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Rutgers.
New Division Names (football)
It'll be up to Nebraska and Wisconsin to make it happen, I guess.
I'd like to see Northwestern rise from the ashes that is the West division. A poor man's Stanford, if you will
Things don't stay the same. We should look at our own recent history.
Maryland and Rutgers also aren't very good as of the most recent years.
It's actually pretty balanced right now.
@McMurphyESPN 9:14 PM
Legends, Leaders gone in 2014 sources tell @espn. B1G East: IU, Md, Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, RU; West: Ill, Iowa, Minn, Neb, NW, PU, Wis
West will never win the Big Ten.
They may as well rename it "the late 2000s Big Twelve North"
The top 2 programs of the last 10 years (OSU and Wisconsin) are in opposite divisions. The top 4 programs of the last 10 years (OSU/Michigan and Wisconsin/Nebraska) are evenly split among the divisions. The worst programs of the last 10 years (Minnesota and Indiana) are in opposite divisions. The 4 worst programs of the last 10 years (Minneosta/Illinois and Indiana/Rutgers) are in opposite divisions.
They seem pretty balanced to me.
but you make excellent points. I'm just so happy that the division names are inspired by a compass.
The West will feature the 3-time defending B1G champion (Wisconsin), so how can you say it'll never win? Plus it has a historically great Nebraska program, as well as some solid Iowa and Northwestern programs. It doesn't seem that bad.
We should also keep in mind that PSU is almost certainly headed downhill as the sanctions start to kick in, and MSU is probably done being a league contender now that we're back on our feet and crushing them in recruiting.
Even if the divisions aren't 100% balanced, I don't really care. You can't make that perfect no matter what you do. All leagues with divisions are slightly unbalanced. It'll work itself out. The most important thing is that the rivalries are now all contained within the divisions, except IU-PU.
Let's be honest here: Michigan-Minnesota stopped being a legitimate rivalry a long time ago. The trophy is cool, but it's not important enough to screw up the divisional setup.
Are you seriously drawing parallels between Michigan-OSU and Michigan-Minnesota? One is routinely called the greatest rivalry in sports. The other, for all practical purposes, is basically Michigan-Indiana with a cool trophy. Minnesota has beaten us three times in the last 45 years, and very few of the games have even been competitive.
Here's a link to a Minnesota message board thread about the new setup. Try to find a single post lamenting the loss of the annual Jug game:
Here's the test: If a lot of Michigan fans actually care about seeing our annual blowout of Minnesota drop off the schedule, Brandon will hear about it and have to make some kind of a statement - "We're exploring the possibility of playing them as a nonconference matchup," something like that. I have a feeling that won't happen. (Though I wouldn't mind playing them in September if that were the case.)
When they rotated off the schedule and we only played them once in the Big Ten, to get a home and away.
Minnesota is not likely, but it has happened.
And has only happened "every year" for last year and this one. They used to rotate off the schedule. OSU and MSU were protected, not Minnesota.
And it's never been played every year, and has remained a rivalry.
The "Champions of the West" will never win the West division.
Disagree. Wisconsin has won or shared the last 3 Big 10 championships. Was that during a down Michigan period? Yes. But they did it. Is their "golden era" over? Who knows - maybe, maybe not. Northwestern won or shared the Big 10 championship in 95 and 96. Maybe a fluke but they did it. Hayden Fry's Iowa regularly competed and won a few times as did the early 2000s Iowa. And Nebraska has no chance to ever win a big 10 championship? Please.
Is it unbalanced - yes. Is the SEEE EEEE CEEEE unbalanced - yes. They seem to do ok.
thank God. I'd rather have Ohio in our division but have a tougher division than have Ohio in the other division. This also gets rid of the difficult back to back playings of The Game.
Because that was annoying when that happened...
It may well happen this year, and certainly would have at some point if we were separate. Keep in mind that Ohio has only been eligible for the B1G title game once.
It did happen in the Pac12 this year with UCLA and Stanford.
Because it never happened, it won't?
Many would agreed that Michigan and Ohio are clearly the best 2 teams in the league this year and moving forward. It was going to happen quite often.
The BIG issue is that you were going to be forced to make decisions with players, ala Denard Robinson last year. Do you sit him in "The Game" when it doesn't mean anything from a standings standpoint?
It was eventually going to taint the outcome of that great rivalry game. Coaches may coach different, players may play differently (if they're even on the field), there are a lot of things that could've happened if both teams went into "The Game" with their divisions already locked up and prepared to play the following weekend.
Not to mention that under the Leaders/Legends setup, we were going to always play a tougher schedule than our division rivals, and would often have to beat Ohio two weeks in a row to win the B1G title. That was not fair to us (or Ohio).
Yes this was the unfair situation in the old setup - both Michigan and Ohio, all things being equal, had the toughest schedule due to their protected rivalry. Compare to Sparty's protected rivalry with (insert laugh here) Indiana for example. That said it was actually a bonus for Ohio during this era since 2008-2011 were not competitive U-M teams but longer term it was not "balanced".
I think the 2011 Michigan team was pretty competitive with OSU.
First off, I don't care WHO we play.
You really wanted to have a rematch with Ohio over and over and over?
That has to be your only reason. Because if you say no, and assuming you're a Michigan fan. Championship games would likely going to be Michigan vs. Wisconsin by most predicitions...Penn St. is going to be terrible for awhile.
So it's the same as they would be now (with Nebraska/Northwestern also an option). So how are Championship Games going to suck?
Because that Wisconsin Michigan State championship 2 years ago was a horrid thing to watch...
So michigan left the Big Ten to join the BIG East?
Sparty wanted this, right?
I don't know about Sparty, but I certainly wanted it to be this way. Yeah, it's a bit unbalanced, especially if PSU gets back to being a good team, but the two east coast tomato cans will go a long way towards balancing things out.
How? If you're talking about what happens if/when we grab two more East Coast teams to get to 16, isn't the likely move to place them in the East with us and then move Indiana to the West to reunite them with Purdue?
Because, IMO, if/when we get to 16, we will be going to 4 pods. It will make things much easier to schedule.
Ridiculously earlt to think about this, but If it went to four pods after adding two more East Coast schools, which is what I think is what will happen, I'd like this set-up:
Pod 1: Rutgers, Maryland, PSU, hopefully strong East Coast team
Pod 2: Michigan, Ohio, Michigan State, Other East Coast team (probably not as good as in Pod 1)
Pod 3: Northwestern, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana
Pod 4: Minnestoa, Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois
I could see switching some of those Pod 3 and 4 schools to create more competitive balance. Each pod is matched up with another pod every year like the NFL conferences do. That's seven games, and then we play one team from each of the other Pods to give us nine games. Or split up M and Ohio and and have a protected crossover game, though I don't like that idea.
Most Spartys I know are pissed. I am thrilled. No more of this crap where we are guaranteed osu and they are guaranteed Indiana. Or where osu plays us, wisky, and 6 cupcakes. We traded nebraska and northwetern for psu and a few tomato cans schedule wise. I see this as a win for us and a small loss for osu and a huge loss for msu. The schedules will never be perfect but they will be more consistantly even with our rivals than before.
Sparty wants to be in the West real bad. They don't want to have play OSU every year.
They could really just get rid of the protected cross-division game altogether and put Northwestern in the East and Indiana and Purdue both in the West. Although the purple people probably wouldn't like the travel.
I still think bitching about the Legends and Leaders thing was a lot of wasted energy.
The purple people don't even travel to their own stadium.
It's just that the Maize People outnumber them in their own town.
True, but the athletic department will still want to travel to Illinois, Wiscy, Purdue, and Minny rather than having their two closest games be the Michigan ones.
Are they really keeping the protected cross division game? I am sure we will get Nebraska and Osu will get illinois
Only in the case of IU-Purdue. Nobody else has one, which is why I say they could get rid of that awkward setup with just a tiny bit of shuffling.
It just seems like NorthWESTern should be in the West.
They could really just get rid of the protected cross-division game altogether and put Northwestern in the East
But then you'd split up NW-Illinois, which would require a protected game.
Pretty weak western division, but putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division needed to happen.
The East is crazy stacked. Wisconsin must be absolutely thrilled with this alignment. They have a pretty clear path to the championship game every year.
I think it's more likely that Nebraska gets the cakewalk every year
Yeah, I'm not getting the Wisco love. Nebraska is the only historic power in the West and is the team most likely to dominate that division. Wisco has been good for about 15 years under Alvarez/Bielema and could go back to being a thoroughly "meh" team quite soon.
While the East has more of the historic powers (UM, OSU and PSU to just Nebraska in the West), I still prefer this alignment to the current configuration. I just hope that there are NO protected cross-over games and that includes Purdue-Indiana because, seriously, who outside of the Hoosier state gives a sh*t if those two play annually.
Basically, each division has two or three teams who are the realistic contenders to win their divisions each year, a team or two squarley in the middle of the pack and a couple of bottom feeders. The only real imbalance is that the winner of the East will probably be the better team in the championship game and will likely win the CG a majority of the time.
Wisconsin won the Big Ten in 2010, 2011 and 2012. That would explain the love for them.
What's the real knock on Wisconsin? That 20+ years ago, they weren't good? Yeah, but that's ancient history now. They've been consistently good for two decades. They're the only program in Wisconsin, have a great homefield advantage, and have easy access to the Chicago talent pool.
At this point I think we can consider them a conference power. I do think they made a strange hire with Gary Andersen - it could be another RR/Michigan type awkward fit - but in the long run I think they'll be good most of the time.
If Wisconsin drops someone else will rise. Not sure how old you are but 20 years ago Iowa was Wisconsin. There is always the "meh" program that rises to be "pretty darn good" just by the nature of someone has to fill that void. Also Illinois I consider the great lost wasteland - impressive school, great recruiting base, but a program that does not match what it should be. Maybe in 10 years they are the one that fills that void. Or it could be Wisconsin.
"Yeah, I'm not getting the Wisco love."
Uhh 3 straight Big 10 championships. Michigan's last 3 in a row were 90-92. I don't give a flying frack what the circumstances were, they did it, and a lot of other programs have not. Only OSU and Wiscy have run 3 off in a row in the past 20 years.
Yeah, Illinois seems to come out of nowhere to win the Big Ten once a decade, only to inexplicably return to crappiness. Their lack of staying power is one of the great CFB mysteries.
Your Burger face is "crazy stacked"...I mean, it's got eyes for goodness sake.
As for the East, you're taking names over recent success. MSU is on the decline, PSU is done for the next 10 years, and right now Maryland and Rutgers are pretty trash.
The B1G isn't a "stacked" conference to begin with, so unless they put Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Nebraska all in the same division...it's not unbalanced. They split those 4 and then also split the next tier of MSU/N'Western.
If I am in the West - I am happy.
I don't have to get beatup by MSU, Ohio, Michigan every year. I just need to pull some great upset in the championship game.
"...have to get beat up by MSU..."?
Really? MSU is a middle-of-the-pack Big Ten program who happens to be coming off a couple of good years after a decade or so of mediocrity. Nebraska and Wisconsin are much better programs, and are in the west division.
I dunno, I think MSU is exactly the type of team nobody wants to play. Great defense, ground and pound offense, games against them are gonna be shitty. They're not gonna have Alabama success, but they're still a tough draw
Before: "which division are we in again?" uh... "lalala leaders and best!" right. We're in the Legends.
Now: "which division are we in again?" uh... "lalala champions of the west!" right. We're in the East.
I had a great idea. Something I'd really like to see, as a season ticket holder. A ten-team division, with Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa, Ohio State and Michigan State. We'd play all of them every year (nine games) plus some quality out of conference teams like Stanford, Baylor and Missouri.
What a great idea that would be. Wait. I think we did that. Like, in 1975 (less Iowa):
That East division is STACKED for basketball. BTW, how are the basketball divisions going to work? Do they have a championship game between East/West divisions also? Or does this apply to football only?
The (now former) big east had more teams than this for basketball and had no divisions.
Ahh I see. Well my comment looks pretty damn stupid now, but the East is still stacked for football. I'm glad we have Ohio in our division now though.
Pretty sure there are no divisons for basketball (like the past two seasons), just one league
Nice naming, but conference balance seems a bit lopsided. I mean, unless you think Wiscy and Nebraska will defy recruiting rankings and be able to keep pace with UM/OSU/PSU (post sanctions). I have my doubts, espeically given how Wisconsin is apparently unwilling to put down good money for coaches and assistants.
And the ultimate loser in all of this is, as always, Indiana. Have fun playing MSU/UM/OSU/PSU every year.
I don't think it is crazy lopsided. West has more balance within its division, East is more top-heavy.
Plus, think of it this way: Between Wisconsin, NU, Iowa one of those will be in the B10 championship just about every year. That's a lot of exposure and opportunity to build a program to the next level. I wouldn't be surprised to see those schools have some major success over the next 5 years.
You'll only have one of Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State (when they get their shit back together) in your championship game every year. That's going to hurt whoever's left on the outside's shot of getting into a playoff. Like it or not, the Big Ten ain't getting the same love that the SEC gets in that regard.
But if we didn't make this move, it would never happen.
(referring to your last sentence)
Wow, this whole time I thought you were referring to Michigan St. as the team that makes the east so unfair.
They're 10 years away from being relevant again...you really want to worry about something 10 years from now when the world of college football changes every month an a half?
Get real. You (and a lot of the other posters on this site) are wrong about Penn State not being relevant for the next 10 years. Have you ever been to their campus or spoken with any of their students or graduates? Do you realize their 2013 recruiting class (which will probably be their worst in the next 10 years) was ranked 46th? (just behind Wisconsin at 37, Illinois at 42, Michigan State at 45, and ahead of Northwestern, Maryland, Indiana, Iowa, Purdue, and Minnesota). Most of those teams have been very relevant, at times, during the past 10 years.
" Like it or not, the Big Ten ain't getting the same love that the SEC gets in that regard."
The Big Ten does not DESERVE the same love that the SEC gets in football. It needs to be earned. It's been a ho hum conference for over a decade. Go win some national championships and respect will come. Sick of hearing the respect card. The SEC love annoys me as much as anyone but they do it on the field even if its "dirty" off the field. Until the NCAA cracks down / cares thats the way it is.
It's not like Indiana is playing for the Big ten championship every year as it is. I think they'd rather be in the division with those teams because it will help sell tickets.
Only took two years to come up with "East" and "West". I might have been less surprised with the "Rotel" and "Autoowners Insurance" divisions
What? Not "Barbasol" and "Rotel"?
"Red" and "Not Red"
("Red": IU, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, ohio, Rutgers, and Wisconsin, "Not Red": everyone else)
Now The Game will still be The Game and most often the de facto B1G championship. Also, I'd much rather have to play MSU in division than as a protected cross-over.
Thank you! Finally common sense emerges. "Competitive balance" is not something that can easily be controlled, so do what's right, which are these divisions.
Also, lolSparty. Go back to your hole and never come out.
Are you counting Sparty as a top-5 program? Please.
The five best programs are Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska and PSU. That works out to three in one division and two in the other, which is the best you can do - and PSU is headed for a fall with the sanctions, so it'll basically be 2-2 for the next several years, which is fine.
Then it's Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Sparty.
It's still no different.
Who cares if its unbalanced? We got in the same division as Ohio and we have the fertile NJ and Maryland recruiting grounds.
Also with a playoff looming, it will be very important to have a good strength of schedule. So we want a tough division.
and a great benefit to having Maryland and Rutgers in our division. I think you could also easily make the argument that it gets us further into the fertile Virginia recruiting grounds too. Big benefit to get to play with 3 or 4 hours of the state every year (PSU, Rutgers, Md)
I just hope it doesn't hurt us too much in Illinois. We've gotten some good guys out of that state.
Michigan is close enough to Illinois that I doubt missing 1 or 2 games in Illinois will matter to them or their families too much since we'll have a bunch of games in A2 and games in EL, Bloomington, and Columbus every year. All plenty close enough to Illinois...in my opinion
How many times will we miss Illinois AND Northwestern in the same year?
Wtf. Why couldn't they name it something awesome like "Leaders" and "Legends". Damn big ten.
Leaners & Legacys
Legions & Lenders
Lesions & Lemons
Clearly no one was thinking outside the box.
I consider us lucky that we're not in the MAC, they have Central & Eastern in the West division, couldn't they scrounge up a compass at their meeting?
We won, everyone! We won the war!
Kork Coupons helped them a ton on offense but now they're basically going to be a poor man's LSU from here on out: great defense, horrifying offense
I'm not sure they'll always even have a great defense. They're not recruiting all that well. If you've got to rely continually on 3-star guys to overachieve, at some point the well will run dry.
but I think as long as they have Narduzzi, he'll make those 3 stars into a respectable or better defense. When he goes, the wheels come off
I'm not a big Dantonio fan, but they will have a decent defense as long as he's still the head coach. For all his faults, the guy is still a solid defensive coach.
It makes it a lot easier to get to the Rose Bowl/NCG when we only have to play Ohio once and PSU will be down in the near future. It works out perfectly for us.
Way to get it right. I am happy with the names, simple.
Also, the SEC does just fine with perceived division imbalance:
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Miss St, TAMU
Whole lot more balanced than the new Big Ten. Plus, everyone is overlooking the fact that we have to play Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers every year now. Fuck. That.
I can live with playing them as long as we're also playing Ohio, MSU and PSU every year, and in the same division (so we're not handicapped by having a better cross-division rival than everyone else). Not to mention that Rutgers and Maryland give us good East Coast exposure for recruiting.
No it's not that balanced the past 10 years. Alabama and LSU are the class of the West. Florida the East. Those are the 3 current power programs of the SEC. Auburn had its one year. Georgia, for all its hype, is the perpetual bridesmaid. They are like the Clemson of the SEC - a bunch of preseason hype but never do it at the end. Tennessee has sucked for a decade. South Carolina has only risen due to the coach. I imagine when they made the divisions the thinking was South Carolina is garbage and Tennessee is the power in that conference with Florida. How things can change in a decade. It's been a 3 team conference at the top for well over a decade and they put a pretty darn good Texas A&M team in the stronger side to boot. And not that long ago Arkansas was a top 10 team.
And that's after having lost the last 4 and 5 of the last 6.
Everyone used to talk about how unbalanced it was in the East's favor. These things go back and forth.
Don't forget that in the not-too-distant past the East division of the SEC was the "big dog" while the West was down. Currently, it is (perceived to be) the opposite. (Personally, I think the SEC is about as evenly balanced as it has ever been right now). That is why chasing "balance" in the divisions is a fool's errand.
Champions of the East?
is not perfect. I am powerless to help or I would. I'd be happy to take over for Mary Sue if you are on the board.
Louis Elbel wasn't writing the song about a mere division title...
Good. Much better setup for us.
msu was in the West and Purdue was in the East but I will take it. I can handle a trip out east. MGrowOld?? I will stop by and pick you and the Mrs up on the way to Rutgers.
I actually don't think the balance is terrible. The east just has pretty much all of the consistent football powers.
The west has a whole gaggle of teams that you could probably expect to be 6-6 to 9-3 every year: Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Purdue While the east has the football powers: Michigan, Penn State (someday), and Ohio and the absolute tomato cans: IU, Rutgers, Maryland. (and no, MSU does not count as a football power for being good for 2 years in case you wondered)
Seems like overall it's fairly balanced and Penn State may be in the cellar for another decade
This isn't that unbalanced. The East has Michigan, Ohio, I guess MSU but it's not like they're a powerhouse, and a PSU team that still has most of the effects of sanctions in front of them, not behind. And three shit teams. The West has Wiscy and Nebraska and a purple time bomb that goes off every few years. Plus Iowa doesn't usually suck.
So 25 percent of Michigan's regular season schedule every year for the forseeable future will be Indiana, Maryland and Rutgers.
I'd bet Hoke actually is really happy about that. There's a lot of HS football talent in New Jersey and Maryland and now we'll get an annual trip to one of them.
Michigan fans who are going to religiously genuflect in front of the statue of St. Bo need to keep in mind that the Big Ten during his first glorious decade was completely craptastic. Ever hear of the "Big 2 and Little 8?" If you criticize the quality of opposition, keep in mind that you're criticizing the thing that helped make Bo a legend.
Yes, I am criticizing the quality of the opposition, and I am keeping in mind that I am criticizing the thing that helped make Bo a legend.
I remember going to those games in the 1970s. I remember that the only reason you got season tickets in even numbered years is so you could get them in odd numbered years. It sucked (except for that one game at the end of each odd numbered year). Things got much better by the 1980s, especially with the change in philosophy in the non-conference scheduling. Recently, though, things have been getting worse, and that worsening is accelerating with the addition of a couple of uninspiring universities to the conference. I guess I'm surprised that it is considered controversial to say so.
Who would you add to the conference then Alton? To make it better? And you cant answer "no one" because that's not how the landscape is going. The only premier programs I can think of to bring in is Notre Dame which has rebuffed the Big 10 for decades and... (crickets chirping). Oklahoma? Texas? That ship seems to have sailed. You say these teams are uninspiring we've added which I dont disagree with but there are only about 20ish premier programs in the country and a handful are in the Big 10 and most of the others have no intention of ever moving. If you say something like "Missouri" (which just moved to the SEC) or "Boston College" I say "yawn" - its just Purdue again. Tell me who you want and who is likely to come into the conference rather than whine about who is being added.
Here is a list of the teams that would "upgrade" the big 10 IN FOOTBALL (not basketball)
Oklahoma, Texas, USC, Oregon, Stanford, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Miami, Florida State, Tennessee, Auburn, Virginia Tech??, Clemson??, West Virgina??
Already "ours" - Michigan, Ohio, Penn State, Nebraska
I most certainly can answer "no one." It's entirely possible that the Big Ten will not expand for the next 30 years, and right now my hope is that they don't. I would have expressed that hope even more fervently 12 months ago, but the conference for some reason (yes, I know the reason) decided to ignore my advice and add Maryland and Rutgers.
The problem is that you're presenting this as a "who would you add, and you have to add somebody" argument. I reject your premises, so I also have to reject your conclusion. They didn't have to add anybody last year, and they don't have to add anybody next year. Because it would be profitable short-term to add two schools, they did.
From everything I have heard, though, if the Big Ten does expand, it would probably be in the southeastern direction (e.g., Virginia and North Carolina/Georgia Tech). It's not so great for the fans who buy the tickets, but this isn't about us any more, is it? They will add more schools when it becomes profitable short-term to add more (and profitable for the schools to make the move). I know they don't care about the product on the field, except as it relates to the bottom line. I understand that. I accept that. I do not like it.
Yes that is the downside but it will be an aid in recruiting. On the flip side while we have had some exciting games against Minnesota and Purdue I dont think they are very different programs than Rutgers and Maryland. Everyone is crapping on them but Maryland was a halfway decent ACC team early on under Friedgen and was 9-4, 8-5 as recently as 3-5 years ago... and Rugers was "MSU level" under Schiano - maybe that was their top or the move to the Big 10 will help recruiting. Is that much different than your average Minnesota and Purdue teams? Or even Illinois - nope.
Purdue, Minnesota, and Illinois is yay?
And by good game reasoning you'd rather play your other 25% vs. Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa (or Northwestern) than OSU, MSU, and Penn State? (Or as it is now, Nebraska, MSU, and Iowa/Northwestern).
Your logic is not welcome when people want to be pissed of for the sake of being pissed off.
Mean Husky over friendly Husky.
Let's play some football.
While this may be unbalanced for the conference as a whole, it is far more favorable for UM than the old divisions.
- Michigan already played MSU and Ohio every year anyway.
- We swap Nebraska for Penn State with the new set up.
- M will play in the untapped grounds of NJ & MD every year.
- Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin will rotate off the schedule regularly.
There will be seasons where Michigan will have very easy schedule on paper, especially with the ND rivalry on hiatus. I think we can expect to see more undefeated seasons heading into the Ohio game.
Saw this coming and I'm so happy!
What happens if, as expected, the B1G expands toward the mid-atlantic? The natural response would be to put Indiana in the West, right? Depending on who is added, the East could become even more top heavy.
Who cares? Michigan and Ohio in same division takes precedence. If you're the best team, then win the games.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm firmly in the "bring it on" camp. It's just that I think many people were willing to take an unbalanced tradeoff (presuming the divisions are actually unbalanced) to get OSU and M, and to a lesser extent MSU, in the same division. Will people be willing to accept further lopsidedness in the future when there's no proportionate benefit to Michigan?
if its any combination of north carolina. virginia & g tech - not exactly storied football programs
Bingo. Good for basketball though.
Interesting that you'd use that word.
When I was little and learning to read (this was a long time ago) my parents gave me books like "The Thirty Greatest College Football Stories of All Time." Georgia Tech was in those books. The Cumberland game, Wrong Way Riegel, John Heisman and Bobby Dodd. It may not be the greatest of programs now, but it's storied.
And with the exception of Indiana and Northwestern, that's what every B1G team had prior to this last round of expansion--they all have stories. There's Red Grange. Nagurski. Nile Kinnick, and the Fainting Irish game. All the great QBs at Purdue. I remember an interview with Keith Jackson where he talked about listening to games on the radio when he was small, and the aura of football power he felt given off anytime any Big Ten team was mentioned.
Penn State was a worthy addition in that regard. Nebraska, obviously. But Rutgers? Maryland? What's their story?
Rutgers played in the first college football game ever, in 1869.
But is there a story to go with that?
I guess, now that I look it up, that the Rutgers student body chasing the Princeton team out of town after the game makes a pretty good story, or it would if I could find more than a paragraph on it. But it wasn't part of the football lore that I learned growing up--that first game was more of a factoid than a story, and as far as the common fan was concerned they might as well have stopped playing football in 1870.
Their wiki page bears that out. The entire history of Rutgers football is split into two parts:
College Football is Born: The First Season (1869)
The Remaining Years (1870-2011)
The second section is about half again as large as the first.
so much win!! Also this makes those rings OSU made even funnier now because they say "leaders division" on it or something
Finally, some common sense from the league office (both in terms of the division names and their composition). Having us in opposite divisions with OSU and playing the last week of the season (and thus possibly playing two weeks in a row) was not going to satisfy anyone in the long-term. Either the Game was going to be moved or we were, into their division. I feared the former but thankfully it's proven to be the latter.
I don't care if it's "unbalanced" or not. That's a problem for schools like IU to worry about. We can handle our business in this division, and after 2013, we'll no longer have to root for OSU to beat our division rivals (which is quite disgusting to have to do).
Potential Best Case Scenario Schedule (2 home games vs West)
HOME: Ohio, Penn State, Maryland, Illinois, Minnesota
ROAD: MSU, IU, Rutgers, Purdue
Potential Worst Case Scenario Scheudle (2 road games vs West)
HOME: MSU, IU, Rutgers, Iowa
ROAD: Ohio, Penn State, Maryland, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Who cares if it seems unbalanced?
I get to watch Michigan football live in person every other year when we obliterate the Terps!
How much will Dave be paying the Maryland AD to move the game to M&T or Fedex Field?
Otherwise we'd probably play N'Western at Soldier Field and Indiana and/or Purdue in Lucas Oil.
Byrd/Capital One isn't that bad...they just can't fill it. More seats for Michigan fans on the east coast, it'll be like going to Evanston, just bigger.
wish they hadn't expanded. i get why they did but we could have done better
Let's wait for MSU to win something before claiming they are going to beat up on anybody.
You mean like back to back 11 win seasons or 4 of the last 5 against us?
I want to see them have success in the Hoke/Meyer era.
And ND just went to the NC game so add Kelly to that as well.
So I don't discredit their success, I just think it was a hell of a lot easier when Michigan sucked (damn near everyone was taking 4 of 5 from us), Michigan had a coach who liked to recruit elsewhere, Michigan didn't have it's "Michigan" identity, Michigan had the whole practicegate snafu, Ohio had sanctions, Ohio had a fired coach, Ohio had an interim coach, Weis was making a mess of ND, etc.
Again, a win is a win...but if we step back and take everything into account, it's easier to see how they got those wins.
Everyone is "full strength" now...so let's let our nuts hang and see who can man up and compete. MSU isn't getting the recruits they were getting, Drake Harris could very well be a Sparty 3-5 years ago. We're even taking their pipelines (Funchess, Ojemudia, etc.) Ohio isn't giving up the midwest. ND is going hard.
They did well over the past 5 years, but I think they're 6-6 to 8-4 for the next 5 and beyond...until something changes in their favor.
Since Dantonio's been there they've had two really good seasons, with 11 wins in 2010 and 2011. The rest of his years at MSU the Spartans have gone 7-6 twice (including last season), 6-7, and 9-4 (a pretty decent year), so, yeah 6-6 to 8-4 seems to be a pretty good bet. I guess we'll find out, but I also think MSU is more likely to win 6-8 games per year in the next few years than 11. Which were the aberration? The 6 and 7 win seasons or the 11 win seasons?
I don't think the alignment is that unbalanced. The East has Michigan, Ohio State, and occasionally MSU as contenders. Penn State is going to be shitty for a while. We wanted to keep Michigan and OSU together and whichever division got that combo would have obviously been the stronger division. My only complaint is that they didn't take my suggestion of naming the divisions 'titties' and 'beer'.
Sparty fans have to be shitting their pants.
you mean more than usual. And this time, related to sports.
I am literally more concerned with Indiana. They're actually recruiting pretty well (i.e. amazing for Indiana) under whoever their coach is now. Rutgers is going to be a 6-7 win football team forever and ever, amen
Rutgers is going to look even worse when they have to play a B1G schedule (East OR West division)...no longer are the playing in the crappy B1G where they could barely get 7-8 wins.
Rutgers has more upside than IU. They're the only school in a large, talent-rich state. They could put together a solid program just by keeping local guys nome.
IU on the other hand has to share the state with ND and PU, and it's not even a very good state for football recruiting anyway.
Agree on upside. Some kids who want to play in a power conference but want to stay close to home will now gravitate to Rutgers.
Indiana fans have to be on suicide watch.
From what I understand, most of them root for ND in football, so they probably don't care.
The Good: Michigan
The Bad: OSU, MSU, UW, PSU, NE
The Ugly: IA, IU, IL, MN, PU, NW, MD, RU
Big Championship: Winner Good vs. Winner Bad/Ugly.
I'm not sure how long they'll be willing to keep Dantonio if he can't rebound from last year. If he has another 6-6 season, he may be on the hot seat.
I could see MSU bouncing back a little this year. They still have a good D and I bet their offense will improve some. The game against them this year in East Lansing will be tough. They basically put everything they have into the Michigan game. I will not be surprised if they pull out some crazy stuff on offense just for the Michigan game.
But how do you see them (whether the divisions change or not) in the future now that Ohio has Meyer and Hoke is recruiting Michigan like Carr in his BEST years?
The Drake Harris situation should tell you everything you need to know about MSU...they're going back to where they came from. Michigan and Ohio are DOMINATING the region in recruiting.
There's also that school named Notre Dame that hurts MSU in terms of recruiting.
You ALSO have more and more SEC teams looking for recruits in the north.
This is a much better solution than trying to balance it out. Programs rise and fall, but we'll be on the same level of difficulty as Ohio regardless. All we wanted was an even chance, and this is it.
Leaders and Legends, we hardly knew ye. Actually, I didn't know ye at all. I deliberately forced myself from remembering which was which, and my stubborn obstinancy has been validated.
Sure, just like some weirdos get a perverse enjoyment out of hemorrhoids.
Unbalanced but good for the traditional rivalries.
I was thinking Majors & Minors, but I like your's better
It's like that every year. It's a very hard game because they are so amped up for it. However, they will suffer the losses of Bell and Sims greatly. They're already putting their best LB at RB. That's how bad their situation is. Maxwell and the receivers will have to step up big time. We'll see this fall.
I hope the "best LB to RB" comment is sarcasm
I think Connor Cook starts.
Recall that Dantonio played Cook over Maxwell at the end of the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. (Sport!)
|Michigan State Passing|
I expect Cook to be servicable, which is a significant upgrade from the completely impotent Andrew Maxwell.
Do we still play Nebraska every year?
No. They won't be in our division.
Damn the rivalry was just getting warm
It will be Michigan or OSU winning the B1G championship. I don't see NE or WI keeping up with the UM's and OSU's!
At least the game will mean something now! I hope Hoke can win more than Urban. If he can you will see Urban get Ill and retire!
I think it's either Max Bullough or Riley Bullough that were called MSU's number 1 RB after spring practice. Both are LBs. Edit here it is http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130412/GW01/304130006/LB-Riley-Bullough-gets-shot-RB
but really, if we were trying out say James Ross or Joe Bolden at RB right now, I would be 100% certain that the position was going to be a tire fire this year. I expect MSU's RB position to be a lot of people running into the backs of their own linemen 2 yards in the backfield
GB. People running into the backs of their own linemen 2 yards in the backfield is called "Play # 1" in Bollman's 1-page offensive playbook.
I refuse to recognize these adopted stepchildren from the east coast as legitimate members of our conference.
As an Iowa native, in a few ways this sucks. Good for the Hawks getting to play Wisconsin again (that was stupid as can be) but now Michigan only plays Iowa once a decade*...awesome. I've been to the Iowa-Michigan game @ Kinnick dating back to the 90's and even though there were a few breaks from the every other year cycle, once every 14 years* @ Kinnick is loose butthole. Welcome aboard Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana (which, okay, true BigTen at least). Saying this is analagous to just finding out baseball was on steroids but this college football game is turning into a heaping pile of crap; I love it, but man she ain't what she used to be. "Fear the Turtle" is now a part of the Big Ten mottos.
*Hyperbole, but I'm sure I'm really not far off.
East and West isn't very appealing, but at least it's neutral. Leaders and legends made us a national embarrassment. The addition of two crappy schools also hurts the conference's prestige. It's amazing that a product with so many millions of fans can limp along under such poor management.
I'm happy that the divisional alignments don't completely screw Michigan and make Ohio's life as easy as possible, but I'm upset that we still have fucking Rutgers and Maryland in the conference.
Au revoir, Legends and Leaders.
The expansion hurts the whole conference. The Big Ten has basketball prestige because it has so many strong teams. We should be adding only strong football teams. That's the way to build a conference. The decline of the conference is something we should all be honest with ourselves about. The conference is at its lowest point in a hundred years. And they think we're going to solve it by adding Maryland and Rutgers?!
Ignoring the vacations, of course. Eastern division teams in bold.
- Ohio State 63-17
- Nebraska 12-4
- Wisconsin 52-28
- Michigan 50-30
- Penn State 48-32
- Iowa 45-35
- Michigan State 42-38
- Northwestern 40-40
- Purdue 36-44
- Minnesota 27-53
- Illinois 19-61
- Indiana 14-66
If you give Nebraska that winning percentage through the entire decade (which might be a little high since they had a couple of bad years in the decade), you get total winning percentages of .543 for the east and .498 for the west.
So whether you think this is balanced probably depends on where you think Maryland and Rutgers would slot in. If they averaged 31-49 for the decade, it would be dead even.
6-18 in B1G play in three years under RR to be precise. Ugh.
44-12 in seven non-RR years.
That last sentence just made me feel better
Not the most scientific way to do this, but I took a slightly different path - I took the overall records since 2000 and calculated the "average record" and put those into the proposed divisions to get some vague (key word) sense of competitive partiy for these. It turns out that, in this scenario, the East would have a 0.588 winning percentage and the West would have a 0.576 winning percentage in that snapshot. Each division would then have only one team whose average performance was sub-.400 since 2000, which seems fair on the surface.
If they had done the other thing that was considered as well and put Purdue in the East and Indiana in the West, then the divisions, using the same method, are skewed by a good 8% when it comes to winning percentage and the West would have the two worst performing Big Ten teams since 2000. For parity on a broad level, I think these divisions that will be voted on by the presidents and chancellors might be about as fair as it gets from a team performance standpoint if geography is the driver.
Bummer for Sparty. Mark Hollis just negotiated his program to lying in the weeds for several more years. Until such time as hell freezes over, the Rose Bowl will remain a figment of Sparty's imagination.
Disagree. Things will get much worse for them before they start to turn the page. 5-7 years or longer is about the quickest they could do it with the huge loss of scholarships and ongoing bowl ban.
Then they'll have to shed that bottom feeder rep. Gonna be rough.
ever winning the Big Ten again just went so far down.
Number of times they've beaten both UM and OSU in the same season = 5 (twice in the fifties)
Number of times they've beaten UM, OSU and PSU in the same season= 1 in 13 tries
to play Penn St every year. We have had some classics
Will be awhile for classics..but yes there were
You've got to hand it to Jim Delany. The man sure knows how to time a press release.
Stop it with Penn State. They're a couple of years from bottoming out with the sanctions. And they won't be fully out from under them for at least six years.
As a reminder, here are Penn State's sanctions:
* No postseason games and no B1G bowl payout for 4 years (2012-2015).
* $12M fine plus probation each year for 5 years (2012-2016).
* Maximum 15 freshman scholarships each year for 4 years (2013-2016).
* Maximum 65 total scholarships each year for 4 years (2014-2017).
The biggest blow to Penn State's competitiveness, the 20 scholarship total reduction, does not even kick in until the 2014 season and lasts through 2017. They will probably not have a full complement of scholarship-quality players until 2020 or 2021.
Mark my words..... Michigan vs Rutgers will become the game to watch. They may even have it under the lights it will be so big. haha
The divisions are fairly balanced for now. If this is short term, I'm happy with it. But Penn State isn't going to be down forever, and I'm not entirely sure that Wisconsin is going to still be great 10 and 20 years down the road. What about Northwestern once Fitzgerald is gone? Are they the slightest threat to win the Big 10 a decade or two from now? For that matter, I'm not even sure Nebraska is built to compete with Michigan and ohio when both programs are firing on all cylinders. There will come a time where, if left in the current allignment, the East will far outperform the West. Although that is hilarious for sparty haters, it does make things difficult for anyone trying to win the East, and winning the West will largely come down to who you avoid from the East.
It's probably all a moot point since we'll be adding more programs in the near future. But as all of those teams are likely to come from the east, I'm still not sure how a true, geographically divided West will ever compare to a division with Michigan, ohio, and a non-sanctioned Penn State. At some point, it seems like we'll either have to give up on a geographic division or content ourselves with having one division be much stronger than the other.
Any geographically-oriented conference is going to have issues like that. It's not a big deal. Things work themselves out.
Nebraska is 9th in all-time winning percentage, 4th in all-time wins ahead of Ohio. Over the last fifty years they're first in both. Over the stretch from 1969-1997 their worst season was three losses. In one stretch they finished in the top ten 19 years in a row.
You could just as plausibly argue that Michigan and Ohio State might not be built to compete with Nebraska when the Huskers are firing on all cylinders.
"Just as plausibly" meaning not at all plausibly, obviously. But any suggestion that Nebraska hasn't been in the very top class of national football powers is laughable.
Yes, they are (were?) elite. I wonder if they can keep it up now that it is much harder for them to recruit Texas since they won't be playing any games down there. Bo Pelini sniffing around Ohio for Meyer/Hoke/Dantonio scraps does not seem to be a viable replacement for Texas recruiting.
...was done without games in Texas. The Big 8 didn't expand until 1996.
Take a look at their 1971 roster, probably their best team ever.
There wasn't a single player from Texas and almost no one in the Big 8 footprint outside Nebraska. Outside of half a dozen California kids and some bits and scraps from full-scale national recruiting, the whole roster is from what's currently the B1G, including five from IL and 7 from MI.
College football has changed an awful lot in a short period of time. There were several factors that combined to allow Nebraska to have the type of success they had in the 90's, many of which are no longer available. Nebraska was running the option when most other teams had abandoned it, making them THE place to be if you wanted to play that style of football at a high level. They had a legendary coach that was there for a long, long time. And it was an era where recruits chose where they'd play with prestige and tradition as a primary determining factor much more often than now. I think recruiting has changed, and I think Nebraska has lost some of what once made it uniquely appealing. That doesn't mean they can't keep winning a lot of games. But I believe Michigan and ohio are more attractive destinations for most elite recruits for a variety of reasons, and on top of that (for the time being, anyway) have better coaching staffs.
I could easily be wrong here, and any big program is really just one great coach away from being a powerhouse. But right now if I'm judging Big 10 programs based on apparent ceilings, there's the Big Two and everyone else. I think the era in which Nebraska was a top two or three program overall are behind us.
One final note: As far as "firing on all cylinders" goes, I'm not sure that most of us have ever seen Michigan firing on all cylinders, though we may once this staff has had a full recruiting cycle. We may have seen it for a brief period from Carr, and maybe early in Bo's career (though many of us weren't around for that.) But at best, the late 90's were the last time we were anywhere close to realizing our full potential as a program. So when I talk about Nebraska having a tough time keeping up, I'm talking about coaching, recruiting, and developing at a top five-ish level annually, because IMO that's where we'll be if everything comes together. Perennial national contenders, with NFL prospects on both sides of the ball playing in NFL-type systems. I don't know that Nebraska's program in it's current state shows any signs of having that type of potential. Again, one great coaching hire may change all that.
Never mind that I was talking about fifty years of excellence, not a single decade in the 90s. You claim there's no evidence that the Nebraska of the present is top-level B1G material...but here are the conference records since they joined:
- Michigan 12-4
- Nebraska 12-4
- Penn State 12-4
- Ohio State 11-5
- Michigan State 10-6
- Wisconsin 10-6
- Northwestern 8-8
- Purdue 7-9
- Iowa 6-10
- Minnesota 4-12
- Illinois 2-14
- Indiana 2-14
Looks like they're keeping up OK to me, so far.
But of course the real problem with this kind of analysis is that it looks at objective facts, and what you really seem to want to do is compare other schools to your wet-dream fantasy of a Michigan future at a level that no school in the history of college football has ever been able to maintain. Nobody's "top-five-ish annually." It's very rare for any school to even average ten wins/season over a decade or more.
"We weren't going to go with 'Bo or Woody,' 'Black or Blue,' or 'Plains or Lakes,'" Delany said. "Obviously we got some acceptance [with Legends and Leaders], but not as much as we would have liked."
"Some acceptance" = Delany and his marketing firm and no one else.
"not as much as we would have liked" = understatement of the year. Outside of Big Ten HQ, pretty much everyone considered Legends and Leaders an embarrassment.
Else think it would be ironic/awesome if u of Chicago accepted their open invite to rejoin the big ten immediately after we add 2 more teams?
took two tries to come up with East and West.
is that the eastern part of the country and its recruits get opened up to Michigan and Ohio this way, and then maybe the best recruits in the western part of the conference maybe trickle up some to Nebraska and Wisconsin. So, maybe more Illinois kids drift out that way, as well as Minnesota and such.
I'm glad Michigan is in the East division, for recruiting purposes. In the traditional Big Ten footprint, we'll still be able to recruit well, and having Maryland and Rutgers on the schedule every year should help increase recruiting in those and surrounding areas.
Anyone else hoping when they redo the schedules Nebraska gets another welcome to the Big Ten and gets OSU back on the cross-division games AGAIN? Or both of us?
I'm hoping to have Nebraska on the Michigan schedule but for selfish reasons: it's the only B1G stadium within reasonable driving distance for me to attend a game.
I like it. RCMB does not. Thus, I like it more.