Big Ten "likely" to change its divisions at some point soon?

Submitted by SAMgO on
Saw this SBNation article on the topic: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/2/29/11132384/big-ten-div… It suggests the most likely shakeup would be switching MSU and Purdue. IMO, this is terrible for Michigan unless we're willing to give up playing MSU every year, which I am certainly not. If we have a protected rivalry with MSU and are just competing directly with OSU for the division, they'll have a built in scheduling advantage more often than not. Obviously the divisions are grossly unbalanced, but I don't think there's much the Big Ten can do about it without hugely affecting intra-division competitive balance. What say you?
MGoBoard

umichshea

February 29th, 2016 at 2:33 PM ^

I tend to look at overall history vice a good short run. I think Sparty will have all they can handle with Iowa, Wisky, Nebraska over the long haul. MI/OSU will always be at a disadvantage when both teams are "right". However, to the victor go the spoils. If you can't beat your rival...you shouldn't play for the conference title.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 11/11/2014

MGoPoints: 1190

EastCoast Esq.

February 29th, 2016 at 2:41 PM ^

Stop with the constant changes. Things are fine as they are right now. Geographically, the divisions make sense. Just because Nebraska and Wisconsin aren't carrying their weight isn't a reason to throw everything into flux again.

Joined: 07/16/2012

MGoPoints: 22977

M-Dog

February 29th, 2016 at 3:40 PM ^

Maryland and Rutgers may not have been good for the Big Ten, but they have been a blessing for Michigan recruiting.  They make us a "local" team in New Jersey and the DC area.  We play in that area every single year now.  And we recruit like it now.

I love being in the Big Ten East, which is now one of the "glamour" divisions in all of college football. 

I don't give a shit what Michigan State does, but I no not want Michigan to leave the Big Ten East in any way shape or form.

 

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257516

C-Bar

February 29th, 2016 at 2:41 PM ^

mebbe the idea is to transition an 'entrenched' east team to the west for a west team no one has strong feelings associated in either, so that later Purdue could switch back west (along with say Indiana), when 2 more east coast teams are added to the Big Ten as the next wave of expansion...

Joined: 12/17/2015

MGoPoints: 194

mfan_in_ohio

February 29th, 2016 at 2:41 PM ^

None of the East teams want to play them, and lots of the West teams could use a win.  Plus, Rutgers might get annoyed and leave the conference, and then we'd all be better off.

Joined: 01/26/2009

MGoPoints: 18189

jmblue

February 29th, 2016 at 2:47 PM ^

This is getting ridiculous.  Are we going to change them every few years?

Geographical divisions keep all the rivalries together (save IU/PU, which is protected).  Just leave it that way and accept that competitive balance might not be perfect.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102861

Farnn

February 29th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^

If MIchigan can get ND back on the schedule regularly, I wouldn't mind having MSU change divisions as long as there isn't a guaranteed crossover game.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 12788

BornInAA

February 29th, 2016 at 2:49 PM ^

So we seed the divisions every based on how bad teams performed the year before? To make it fair? 

Is this pee wee?

Maybe we should start a Big Ten championship bracket from the first week, then Purdue will only have to lose one game a season.

 

Joined: 11/21/2009

MGoPoints: 14507

Tuebor

February 29th, 2016 at 2:49 PM ^

I prefer the current divisions to putting MSU in the west with a protected rivalry game against them each year.  If they want to go to the west and give up the protected rivalry game I'd go for it.

Joined: 03/14/2011

MGoPoints: 17467

WolverineHistorian

February 29th, 2016 at 2:50 PM ^

You can't just change the divisions because they were unbalanced one year. Things tend to change over the years. It's not ALWAYS going to be like 2015.

Also, MSU had a long history of avoiding playing OSU. Look at their all time series since 1980. I think it was roughly 16 times they didn't play each other despite being in the same conference. I don't want it to go back to that. They should have to play all the big boys like we have to.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Joined: 08/10/2009

MGoPoints: 55466

Mr Miggle

February 29th, 2016 at 8:32 PM ^

Three of the top four programs over many years are in the same division. The east also has the three largest stadiums and the schools willing to put the most resources into football. They also have all of the schools in the best recruiting areas. Those are all durable factors. Any year where the west is stronger than the east will be an aberration.

Joined: 10/07/2010

MGoPoints: 47664

Wolvie3758

February 29th, 2016 at 2:50 PM ^

I liked that both were equally balanced..we definitely need to get back to that...The West is weak and therefore MUCH eaiser to win

Joined: 12/12/2010

MGoPoints: 6338

Alton

February 29th, 2016 at 2:52 PM ^

This is just some guy at SB nation passing on a rumor started by some guy at ESPN.  A rumor started because he has to think of something to write every day.

There are no sources (other than members of the media), and no quotes from anybody who has any power.

You may safely ignore this.

 

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 13309

WolvinLA2

February 29th, 2016 at 2:58 PM ^

Give me a break. The Big 12 and SEC have had many years of unbalanced divisions (which the SEC has now, maybe worse than the Big Ten) but they haven't needed to change everything around. This is lame.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

Avon Barksdale

February 29th, 2016 at 2:58 PM ^

STOP CHANGING THE DIVISIONS. This idea that the division are unbalanced and needs to be fixed is asinine. The SEC East used to absolutely dominate the West and then LSU, Alabama, and Ole' Miss became good while Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia regressed.

There will be a balancing act in the future. Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa are enough to balance things out. I don't think the West will ever be able to fully dominate the East with Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and MSU, but those three should always be competitive. Minnesota and Illinois also always have an 8-9 win season every five years or so.

The Big Ten West really needs Nebraska to start being Nebraska again. They also need Purdue to stop being a MAC level football program and all will be right.  

Joined: 04/27/2013

MGoPoints: 12859

ABOUBENADHEM

February 29th, 2016 at 3:13 PM ^

that UM has to play OSU and MSU either home/home or away/away in a given year.  THAT makes the least amount of sense.  One of those games should be home and the other away each year.

Joined: 11/17/2015

MGoPoints: 2768

Bleedmaizeblue

February 29th, 2016 at 3:13 PM ^

This is why we should have 12 team conferences. Everyone plays 11 conference games and plays everyone plus 1 non conference game to warm up with before conference play. No one wants to watch our three non conference scheduled games this year! Against three teams that were well below .500 last season.

Joined: 07/11/2013

MGoPoints: 2919

Pierre Despereaux

February 29th, 2016 at 3:17 PM ^

I tend to agree that the divisions shouldn't just randomly be realligned, but I think the idea is here due to a perception problem.

When you have an extremely weak division, the top team tends to be discredited a bit. Look at Iowa last year for instance. Since they missed the best teams of the East and got the worst of the West, they were pretty much crucified by the national media for it. I don't think it's a great look for a conference to have one of the teams playing in the conference championship viewed as complete frauds.

Joined: 02/10/2016

MGoPoints: 594

Dallas Walmart…

February 29th, 2016 at 3:19 PM ^

1. Our path to the B1G title stays the same while all other East teams have an easier path

2. State's path gets much easier

3. Don't like the idea of having to beat them twice to win the B1G (especially while they likely would only have to beat us once).

Joined: 10/20/2011

MGoPoints: 1158

cutter

February 29th, 2016 at 3:52 PM ^

When it comes to Eastern Division games, Michigan swaps out Michgan State for Purdue in terms of the overall competition from within the division.  I'd say adding a team on par with the other lesser three already in it (Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana) helps U-M chances in winning the East (especially if Penn State is floundering around for awhile).

Does State's path get that much easier?  Yes, they don't play Ohio State each year, but right now Penn State isn't holding up their end of the bargain right now.  Swap those two our for Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa and I'd say it's still a basic wash for Michigan State.

There's also no guarantee that Michigan would have to beat MSU twice any given season to win the Big Ten championship, so you're arguing the exception and not the rule.  Let's say that Michigan played Nebraska during some future season and then met them again in the Big Ten Championship game.  What's the difference there?  You can also think about it this way--it could give Michigan a chance to beat MSU not once, but twice in any single year when the stakes are the highest, i.e.., the B1G title game and a spot in the four-team national championship.

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 815