Division Announcement Tonight
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.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^
Chitown, you're still stuck on the "split" scenario, where the winner of Game 1 somehow gets a leg up on the 2nd (maybe) BCS bid even though they lose the last game of the year. That is practically never going to happen, rendering that first win no different than a loss.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
That is practically never going to happen,
Why, again?
And you're still stuck on the fact that the only way they can meet is if they've both locked up their divisions? What if one or both needs a win in the final game? This seems far, far, more likely.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
Since there is nothing we can do about this now I'm just going to focus on the good that comes out of this. We still get to keep "The Game" even though we may have to rematch the following week. I believe that we're going to go 8-4 this year and by the time next year rolls around we're going to be in great shape as a team to go out and dominate our division year after year. I can see this turning out to be a great thing in the long run. We are Michigan and we should not worry about what division we're in and who we have to play. We never worried about it before. 3 Days!!! GO BLUE
September 1st, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
Damn, there's a lot of cry-babies out there. I think being in different divisions AND still playing in the last game will work fine. Last week I read (maybe here) that UM and OSU would have only played in the title game 3 times over the last 17 years anyways.
If they do happen to play again in the championship game, that will be awesome. It'll be like a playoff series in other sports where you get so familiar with your opponent that it becomes a test of wills, players and coaches alike.
The team that loses in the regular season would have a chance for revenge and the team that wins will have a chance to embarass the other team. How cool would that be?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
You=trolling moron.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^
btw, who are we gonna get?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
Thumbs up for any an all Ron Burgundy references.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^
potato salad
September 1st, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
Let's just beat every team's ass on the schedule!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
It's done and there is nothing left. So moving on lets ASS-U-ME ND joins down the road, they obviously go in with UM and MSU. Who does the Big Ten get to balance on the other side?
Plus JoPa can't last forever can he? How long do zombies walk the earth? So what I'm trying to say is I think once the expansions are over we'll be freaking out again in five more years.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
Wisconsin and Illinois to the west.
Spartans and us to the east.
Two pretty tough geographically sensible divisions filled with natural rivals.
How is that so tough to understand
September 1st, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
the picture on the front of BigTenNetwork.com is correct, then this is essentially what they will do except it's Purdue to the other division, not Illinois.
Then again, it doesn't make much sense for them to be that obvious 3 hours before their show. But maybe. They haven't proven to be the brightest bunch thus far.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
Illinois fans are going to be SO PISSED that their big rivalry with Michigan isn't being preserved...
September 1st, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
good point, who are they going to Muck every year? FIndiana, FIowa
September 1st, 2010 at 4:01 PM ^
Keep playing Michigan-OSU at the end of the season, as well as PSU-Nebraska, Iowa-Wisc, etc. If it shakes out that the championship game would be a rematch, do the following: the winner of the original matchup gets a bye, like in the NFL. There's a good chance that with both teams being so good, the winner will be invited to the BCS title game anyway. Make the championship game into a Big Ten "wildcard game", between the remaining division winner (who lost the previous matchup) and the runner-up from the winning division. This would be for the rights to go to the next-best bowl game. Remember that the majority of the time, this will not happen anyway, and the championship game will remain a championship game.
Example: Michigan beats Ohio State to end the season. But it is OSU's only loss, and they remain champion of their division. Michigan gets a bye to the Rose Bowl/BCS title game. OSU has to play Iowa for the right to go to the Orange Bowl.
That way they can be in separate divisions for balance, AND play at the end of the year, AND still be playing for the Rose Bowl, AND not have a rematch. Everyone's happy.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
Seriously, screw you.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
Seriously, why?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
You've been contributing some seriously thoughtful posts today. Nicely done.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:18 PM ^
wow, getting complicated
September 1st, 2010 at 4:39 PM ^
I actually like this idea, but I don't think it will ever fly for the same reason Michigan and Ohio State are ending up in different divisions. The powers that be can't see beyond the television contract.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
And fuck the Big Ten.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
Splitting UM and OSU is the most colossally stupid decision since New Coke.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
It truely is worse then when the Big 12 split Oklahoma and Nebraska, and we know how well that worked out.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
When you can play them THREE times in a row
Enter the game undefeated, #1 and #2
Loser of "The Game" wins "The Championship Game"
Both 1-Loss teams play for the BCS National Championship.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:48 PM ^
If 2006 happened in 2007, when LSU got into the MNCG with two losses, this seriously could have happened, and nobody would have much of an argument against a re-re-match. But you could probably run a million NCAA '12 (featuring new conferences!) simulations and it wouldn't ever happen. Cool to think about though.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
I don't see any reason to be upset about splitting the two teams. It'd be neat if the Game were for the division title - then you'd still have the "loser can't go to the Rose Bowl" aspect - but the only, only thing I care about is if it's still at the end of the season. It's not Michigan-Ohio State if it's not cold. Other than that, have at it.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
Ok, seriously, I just watched ESPN's take and Andy Katz said that MSU and Michigan "had" to be in the same division - WHY??? The biggest rivalry in the entire conference is OSU-UM so why the fuck does Michigan and MSU have to be in the same? Why can't it be the cross over game?
Then the text goes off to say this "According to multiple sources, the Big Ten wanted to preserve a number of traditional rivalries such as Michigan-Michigan State, Iowa-Minnesota, Purdue-Indiana and Indiana-Illinois."
You've got to be fucking kidding me. You think preserving UM-MSU, Iowa-Minnesota, PU-IU and IU-UI is more important than OSU-UM? WHAT?!?!?! These arguments just make absoltuely 0 sense at all, please, please, please tell me why preserving any of those is more important than preserving the signature rivalry of the conference...
September 1st, 2010 at 4:56 PM ^
Wow, I haven't seen so much contention in one thread since the last Tate vs. Denard thread I suffered through (a long time ago).
I've moved past anger into acceptance, because I realize that there is no way to satisfy every goal, so this compromise is about as good as it will get.
FWIW, I saw somewhere (can't find it now, grrr...) that the protected rivalries are M-OSU, NU-PSU, Wisconsin-Minnesota, PU-Iowa, Illinois-NW and Indiana-Sparty. Purdue-Iowa and IU-MSU are somewhat random, but the others all make sense. If MSU gets stuck with Indiana at the end of the schedule every year it will at least be somewhat funny to watch them try to get up for their "rivalry" game when it's meaningless and against a bad team. Maybe they could just play a basketball game instead?
Finally, I think division names should be West and East. The westernmost teams are NU, Iowa and other UM, and they're all in our division. PSU and OSU are the easternmost teams and they're in their own division. Plus, it would bring back meaning to "Champions of the West."
September 1st, 2010 at 9:55 PM ^
I was actually going to make the same suggestion, including the "champions of the West" reference, so count this as +1 vote for East and West. They'll probably do something that makes way less sense, like the ACC with Florida State in the "Atlantic" and Va Tech in the "Coastal".
September 1st, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
did they split up rivals UM/OSU, IA/WIS and ILL/NW but not Purdue/Indiana?
September 1st, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^
If last game in Nov is us and OSU and I'm happy with this. It was a foregone conclusion we'd be in different divisions. I see a brutal rivalry with Nebraska looming.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:03 PM ^
I'm actually coming around on the split. There are some interesting points being made in this thread. If Conference Record trumps Division Record, then this is essentially one of the weird pod-rotation proposals disguised within a two-division set up. Having division records as the tie breaker (SEC style) is KEY, though.
I also like the fact that tier teams will probably only be able to dodge, at most, one of the four pillars in this arrangement.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:13 PM ^
Eh, the divisions are not great but for competitive balance I think they work about as well as possible. Keeping UM and OSU in the same division (maybe instead of Nebraska) would have made that division quite a bit tougher, and at this point the commercial interests are going to win out over tradition. Not saying I'm happy, but I don't care when OSU plays UM provided UM wins. And my sense is that the frequency of UM-OSU being the last game will be less than, um, "random" most years.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^
This is a satisfactory work around as long as The Game is the last game OSU and M play in the regular season (trips to Hawaii excluded).
Random thought: To keep back to back week rematches from happening, how about a bye for OSU and M after The Game, thus keeping the Game in its current week before Thanksgiving, and putting two weeks between the Game and that other game (Conference Championship Game presented by Citi / GM / AIG or some other government run abomination).
September 1st, 2010 at 7:35 PM ^
Two reasons:
The schedule was pushed back a week so that we could add a bye week during the season. Coaches didn't like that they had to play 12 straight weeks from Labor Day to Thanksgiving. If you move the bye week to the end of the season, you kinda just defeated the purpose of the original schedule change.
Also, it wouldn't really be fair to other teams to have one team coming off a bye week before the CG and the other having to play the week before. If you give every team a bye that week, then the Big Ten will be off the TVs during the biggest rivalry week of the year, Thanksgiving weekend (Texas-TAMU, Florida-Florida State, etc.)
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:42 AM ^
i generally agree with your points regarding an end of season bye. It was more for taking the pulse of the board.
But by not providing OSU or M a bye during the season, theoretically it would make it more difficult for the two teams to reach the CCG, but likely increase their odds of winning it when they did make it.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:17 PM ^
Think about it. People like me who wanted Michigan-OSU in the same division are now not nearly upset because it was floated as a possibility The Game would be moved.
Now, The Game stays in its rightful place. So I'm not as pissed.
Our division is definitely tougher, but Wisconsin loses a rivalry with Iowa and a potential rivalry with Nebraska.
I give it a 5/10.
September 1st, 2010 at 8:56 PM ^
Is it for sure that non-divisional and non-conference games hold no bearing as to who goes to The Big Ten Championship Game? Not even in a tie-breaking scenario?
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 AM ^
Delany didn't say that straight out on the TV show as far as I can recall.
But in interviews afterward, he was asked and replied that division standings would be determined by overall conference record. So the rumors to that effect weren't true -- or maybe it was just a trial balloon that fell so flat that they didn't go that way.
The OSU-Michigan game will not be meaningful for the division title berths often enough as it is; it's good they didn't render it entirely irrelevant to conference standings. This analysis came up with 2 times out of 36 possible, it would have mattered to the division berths to the title game, using the last 18 years of historical data:
But I don't think that analsys uses the officially correct division breakup. "c OR e" means "clinched or eliminated" based on a divisional game that would necessarily have been played (e.g., Michigan-Nebraska in 1997) but historically wasn't.
Comments