Division Announcement Tonight Comment Count

Brian

Got your torch? Pitchfork? Great:

A person familiar with the discussions says the Big Ten plans to announce Wednesday night how it will break up into two divisions.

The person, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the conference hasn't released the information, says the process of putting six teams in each division was completed on Wednesday.

Random internet people at Frank The Tank's Slant, the unofficial home of expansion speculation are saying this is the breakdown:

THIS DIVISION

Michigan
Nebraska
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern

IS THE DUMBEST THING IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE DIVISION

Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois

I'm not vouching for that at all, but I haven't seen anything suggesting people have come to their damn senses and put M and OSU in the same division.

Comments

imafreak1

September 1st, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^

Last week, I learned that moving the OSU/Michigan game would ruin not only the future but the also the past and be the stupidest stupid thing ever. This week I learn that even if you don't move the OSU/Michigan game, it's still the worst of all worlds.

IS THIS THE KOBAYASHI NO WIN SCENARIO?

WE NEED CAPTAIN KIRK TO SAVE THE WORLD!

FGB

September 1st, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

don't know why everyone assumes that cross divisional games won't factor in. Of course they will, the division record will probably be a tie-breaker or something. Otherwise NONE of your cross-divisional games would mean anything for the conference. Which would mean that when we go to 9 games a team could lose 4 games and still play in the championship if they win all their divisional games....the B10 would not let that happen. And the benefit of this is that this retains the stature of the game for the 85% of the time that we're NOT going to be rematching them in the championship game.

Six Zero

September 1st, 2010 at 1:51 PM ^

Because this bears no resemblance to the artist formerly known as The Big Ten.

But, I guess...
"Get outta the new one if ya can't lend a hand, fo' the times, they are a changin'."

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2010 at 2:43 PM ^

Now, it's actually a good thing that Rich Rod STILL THOUGHT HE WAS IN THE BIG EAST WHERE THAT BULLSHIT SPREAD SHIT WORKED.  /Boom Freep comment'd.

Rod knew all along - don't change for the conference; the conference will change for you. 

BeileinBuddy

September 1st, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^

If the ESPN article on the front page is true, as for men's basketball scheduling (same division home and home, single games against other division (3 home 3 away)), we luck out and get to feast on Nebraska and Iowa and have equal opportunity against Minnesota, and Northwestern. Still have to deal with Sparty but it's expected.

03 Blue 07

September 1st, 2010 at 1:59 PM ^

Fuck this. So pissed. Let me guess: Play OSU in mid-October? Awful. And if they try to make an MSU-UM game be the last week of regular season, I'll be doubly pissed. That's crap. It elevates their program and doesn't do shit for us. God.

acnumber1

September 1st, 2010 at 2:01 PM ^

According to reports on espn, we'll play our division teams home and away in hoops, while playing 3 of the other division teams home and the other 3 away. 

 

Playing Nebraska in hoops twice a year while facing Purdue/Wisconsin/Illinois only once can't be a bad thing.

chitownblue2

September 1st, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^

I don't get it. Everyone was so upset about them moving the game. Now it looks like the won't.

And everyone is still upset.

Maybe you like being upset?

chitownblue2

September 1st, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

Everyone would be happy aside from the entire rest of the Big 10 that wants one of the "Big Boys" to headline each division. It's a compromise, like everything in life. We don't always get everything we want.

Can you tell I'm married?

chitownblue2

September 1st, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^

That's what virtually everything I've read says, yes. Why would any other team want to get stuck in the same division with the 2 traditional heavyweights of the conference? Splitting them is the definition of "competitive balance" (albeit not lately).

wile_e8

September 1st, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^

Well, for one, BHGP, an Iowa blog I'm sure you know well, says:

With the swift, gruesome demise of Nebraska-Oklahoma as a yearly event, Jim Delany now has the most iconic rivalry game, firmly entrenched in tradition at the end of the college football regular season. And now he wants to strip it of the end-of-year designation because of an unlikely potential matchup in the championship game?

Pardon our bluntness, but that sounds insane.

And The Only Colors, a Michigan St. blog, says:

A simple East-West alignment splits the six teams in the first two tiers into two groups of three and splits each of the other two tiers neatly in half, as well.  Tough to beat that.  Doc Saturday attempts it by swapping out Wisconsin for Penn State.  That's not really an improvement based on the data above--and if we're not using recent historical performance data to measure "competitive fairness," what is it we're using?  Meanwhile, you'd be splitting those team off from both their current protected rivalries.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.  Anything you do to place more emphasis on competitive fairness leads to a marginal improvement, while creating significant disruptions in the other two categories of consideration.

And Black Shoes Diary, a Penn St. blog, says:

I'm in favor of splitting the league through geography down the border between Illinois and Indiana. I think putting Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State in the east with Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin in the west provides a nice balance to the league.

And Frank The Tank, the blog that's been cited here many times for its coverage of realignment and an Illinois fan, says:

Before I get angrier about this, let’s try to put together a reasonable alternative to the KISS formula that keeps Michigan and Ohio State together while also making a good faith effort toward the amorphous concept of “competitive balance”.  To me, there are 3 “pods” of schools in the Big Ten:

And that's just what I've found in a little bit of searching the other blogs that I follow.  But since the unimpeachable chitownblue puts forth the unfounded assertion that all the rest of the Big Ten want the "Big Boys" split up, I guess I should just ignore all that.  OK then.

wile_e8

September 1st, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^

So what you are saying is that we should shut up and stop complaining because the people at the bargaining table are upsetting fans of other teams too? 

You started off by saying we just liked to complain, and I stated what would get us to stop complaining.  And now you are trying to blow it off by saying the people at the bargaining table are getting what they want.  The whole point of the outrage from the start is we don't like what the people at the bargaining table want.  Just because the apparent result isn't as bad as one of the other possibilities doesn't mean we should have to shut up and be happy about it.

Blue Durham

September 1st, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^

without both Ohio State and Michigan, hence the drive to split them up. I also understand the desire to have intra-divisional games only for the last few weeks of the season, thus forcing a move of the OSU-Michigan game. I don't think this is the end of the world, wrecks the season, or the stupidest thing ever, despite what Brian writes. Regardless, many of our other, I guess less important, traditions like the winged helmet, touching the banner when the team takes the field, the playing of The Victors (say, wasn't that song, the most famous in sports, written after Michigan beat the University of Chicago in the last game of the season to win the conference and become Champions of the West?), winning (I haven't liked that break from tradition the past few seasons), etc. will all remain intact whatever is decided. I don't know about you or anyone else here, but I think I will still watch all the games.

UMQuadz05

September 1st, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

Delaney:  OK, Dave, we figured it out.  You'll play OSU the last week of the season, but you will be in different divisions.

Brandon:  Hmmm...people aren't going to like that.

Delaney:  Isn't there anything you can do?

Brandon:  I've got it!  Let's spread rumors that the game will be moved to mid-October.  Then when the actual announcement comes, everyone will just feel relief.

Evil Genius Jim + Pimp Hand Dave= bad news

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2010 at 2:10 PM ^

My contention all along - and it was shared by many on the board - was that The Game is meaningful because it's The Game.  Even last year, when Michigan had no shot to win the title, that shit was everything because it was the last game of the season against OSU. 

Like Chitown says, either a loss in the game knocks one of the teams out of the division lead, or it knocks the loser down in BCS estimations, or if both teams go in with teriffic records, there will be direct title game implications.   But no matter what, it will stil matter, because its The fucking Game. 

So fucking decide whether the tradition of the matchup matters or if you're arguing for some kind of divisional parity.  I'm personally gonna have a drink to celebrate if we still play OSU at the end of the year, regardless of divisional alignment. 

 

 

chitownblue2

September 1st, 2010 at 2:14 PM ^

Yes.

IT IS FUCKING UM/OSU. It will ALWAYS have meaning. "Determing the champion" doesn't give it meaning - as it's been plenty meaningful in years that hasn't been the case. It's Michigan/OSU, people! The tradition give it the meaning.

MGoShoe

September 1st, 2010 at 3:03 PM ^

...illogical which is why CB2's posts are all getting upvoted.  Clearly everyone here disagrees with him.

What I see is CB2 engaging with several posters who disagree with him in (mostly) respectful dialog (the one blow up was tamped down and is no more).  I actually think he's turning some to his way of thinking. 

blueblueblue

September 1st, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

There is an implicit temporal element in your statement, though you didn't you stop to think that maybe we made our respective judgments at different points in time. If you didn't take it personally when someone criticizes 'your' board, you might have recognized this dimension.

MGoShoe

September 1st, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^

...you put the word your in quotes since I never used the word.  I'd offer that the board is everyone's - even its critics such as you - and no one's at the same time. 

Given the temporal dimension you mention (28 min between our posts, BTW), perhaps you could exercise some greater restraint on passing judgment on the board's logic and coherence until such time as people have had the chance to render their judgment in a more complete fashion.

The key is that CB2 engaged in a fairly useful back and forth that actually became more respectful over time.  The way the exchange progressed belies your criticism of the board which was perhaps, a rush to judgment.

blueblueblue

September 1st, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^

Are you serious? My rush to judgment? That is quite hypocritical of you. You, being perhaps the most ubiquitous poster here, ought to know how things change here in general, and how they have changed this thread specifically, within a span of 28 minutes. It really seems like you are selectvely ignoring the rest of the thread to be critical of me. I am by no means the only one complaining of the lack of logic, and especially the lack of coherence between this week and last week's complaints. Singling me out , and pretenting I am the only one complaining, is an even better example of illogical posting than what I first pointed out.

Your ciriticsm of my ciricism is laughable. I will exercise the amount of restraint I feel necessary, not the amount you feel necessary. Try again to shape how I post when you can make a more logical, compelling argument.

Wolv2004

September 1st, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^

The Game will absolutely always matter.  If you're basing this purely on whether a conference championship is on the line for one or the other team, I think you're missing the point.  The point is that I hate OSU.  I hate 90% of Buckeyes that I meet.  There are bragging rights on the line every single year.  It matters because it's the last game of the year, pride is on the line, maize and blue represents everything that is right in the world.  The previous records are completely irrelevant.  

There is even recent historical evidence that the game matters for reasons other than previous record.  In 2004, a heavily favored 9-1 Wolverine team (undefeated in the BigTen) lost to a 6-4 OSU team.  I was in grad school at the time and it stung a lot.  I remember talking to players on the team who were completely devastated by the loss.  The game had no baring on the outcome of the conference.  We still went to the Rose Bowl.  That game still mattered a lot, previous record be damned.  

TheIcon34

September 1st, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^

I don't get why people are griping, because in any scenario, many fans will have very legitimate reasons to gripe.

People may say in some years the Game will not have any meaning, and frankly, it didn't the last 2 years, so that is not something the "conference" controls. To me, the Game and all the stakes it usually provide is more about denying the other team the conference title or a national championship. This will continue. If either team has a real bad year, they still have the chance to ruin national championship hopes, although a conference title game may be able to help the 1 loss team salvage their season with a BCS title bid. A 1 loss team could beat an undefeated team in the last game, thus both teams meet each other again for the title game, knowing that even the losing team will not get a bcs bid because there were the 2 other 1 loss team from each divisions waiting. (Such as Nebraska who lost to Michigan, and Penn st who lost to Ohio st, but both didn't get in..so there are 4 1-loss teams in the conference, the team who most recently lost is usually left out...unless you are Oklahoma a few years ago.)

I am excited for any scenario, because the stakes will always be high, no matter what the Big 10 conference decides. I think the fans have spoken, we want the game to be the last game, thus we shouldn't even worry about conference breakdown/scenarios since anything, and everything will happen regardless of the odds. That's just college football, everything is chaotic and it works for all of us, depending on which side we end up on.

Mr. Robot

September 1st, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

If we truely are separated by playing the last game of the year, hopefully some year soon we will get that guarenteed rematch the next week before The Game even happens. That way the Big Ten will see the absurdity of it and do something about it. Maybe they'll finally snap up ND and someone else, go to 14, redo the divisions, and use ND to balance the other division without us and OSU.

Ed Shuttlesworth

September 1st, 2010 at 2:05 PM ^

I wasn't against moving the game, especially if the alternative was this.  I can't stand the thought of UM/OSU being meaningless, and that's more important to me than moving the game up a month.   No one's suggesting they play in the summer; it could still be cold and rainy.

With ESPN as the only source, the odds on its accuracy are 50/50 at best.

jblaze

September 1st, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^

it's better to have M - OSU as the last game. The division thing really isn't an issue, as they will play each other yearly anyway. I think the important thing is that the divisional allinments are fair and balanced.

mpharmd98

September 1st, 2010 at 2:08 PM ^

When I first heard this, I thought they had split each team from it's traditional end of season rival - i.e. M opposite OSU, MSU opposite, PSU etc. but then PU and IU  are in the same divisions.

If they switched maybe Indiana for either Iowa or Minnesota, I'd at least accept their reasoning...

MillerTime

September 1st, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^

Okay, we all understand that with the addition of Nebraska, something has to change. If the schedule comes out such that all divisional games will be completed before the last week of the season, the last week can stay as a "rivaly week" - an interdivision slate. That means M-OSU, PSU-Nebraska (the "Newbie Bowl"), Wisconsin-Minnesota, Iowa-Illinois (?), Purdue-MSU, and Indiana-Northwestern (The Journalism Bowl?).

Understanding that something has to give, that's a fair compromise. The "rivalry week" games will not interfere with the divisional standings, leaving the excitement of the final divisional games to the second-to-last week of the season. Further, teams who are out of contention will still have the traditional incentive to win their last games - to beat a rival or knock their opponent out of the National Title picture.

Michigan and OSU wont be able to keep eachother from the title game, but they will be able to affect National Title aspirations (as it's been in the last few years, anyway), and if they each win their divisions, they will re-match on a neutral field - weren't we all clammoring for this in 2006, anyway?

If they do something else with the schedule, then I'll go buy my pitchfork. But understanding that Nebraska's addition DOES create a need for some shake-up, that's the best way to do it. Let's just hope that's how the schedule happens...