Finally Got It Right?

Submitted by kb9704 on June 17th, 2010 at 3:59 AM

East-West Split

Despite my earlier two posts, i think i finally got it right, after thinking about it more clearly, OSU and UM would need to be in the same division because the game would lose hype if we got to play each other just a week later. Also an east-west split would be a lot more competitively balanced than a north-south split, and 4 way divisions are just too complicated. So i think this time i finally got it right. Here is how the divisions would look.

 

East West
Big Ten Divisions
Michigan State Illinois
Michigan Northwestern  
Penn State Wisconsin
Ohio State Iowa
Purdue Minnesota
Indiana Nebraska

 

At first glance it may look like the East is a little loaded. But if you look at the records for the past 10 and 25 years, they are pretty even

East West
Big Ten Divisions (10 and 25 years)

Michigan State 60-62 (0.492)

               153-141-4 (0.513)

Illinois 45-73 (0.381)

           124-162-5 (0.426)

Michigan 81-43 (0.653)

                222-80-5 (0.723)

Northwestern 61-61 (0.500)

                        116-172-3 (0.399)

Penn State 77-46 (0.620)

                 218-86-1 (0.715)

Wisconsin 86-43 (0.667)

                  170-129-4 (0.516)

Ohio State 102-25 (0.803)

                 230-74-5 (0.744)

Iowa 80-45 (0.640)

        182-116-5 (0.601)

Purdue 67-57 (.0540)

           133-156-4 (0.454)

Minnesota 62-62 (0.500)

                129-162-5 (0.436)

Indiana 39-78 (0.333)

            118-167-3 (0.410)

Nebraska 84-44 (0.656)

                242-71-1 (0.771)

That equals out to be 426-311 (0.578) for the East and 418-328 (0.560) for the West.

If you look at 25 years it comes out to 1074-704-22 (0.597) for the East and 963-812-23 (0.536) for the West.

Scheduling?

 Every team would play the other 5 teams in their Division. That gives them 5 Conference games so far. That leaves 3 more games to schedule against people that are not in the division.

Rivalries?

 

Rivalries                   Protected / Unprotected
Big Ten Rivalries
Illinois-Northwestern Protected
Indiana-Purdue Protected
Indiana-Michigan State Protected
Iowa-Minnesota Protected
Iowa-Wisconsin Protected
Minnesota-Wisconsin Protected
Michigan-Michigan State Protected
Michigan-Minnesota Unprotected
Illinois-Ohio State Unprotected
Illinois-Purdue Unprotected
Minnesota-Penn State Unprotected
Michigan State-Penn State Protected
Penn State-Iowa Unprotected
Ohio State-Penn State Protected
Michigan-Ohio State Protected

 

 All but 5 major rivalries are protected with this setup.

Those 5 are:

Penn State-Iowa

Michigan- Minnesota

Illinois- Ohio State

Illinois- Purdue

Minnesota Penn State

With the 3 non-division conference games that are scheduled all of these games could be made. Although Minnesota and Illinois would only have 1 different team to play every year.

 

Conference Championship Game?

 The winner of the East Division and the winner of the West Division would play each other for the Conference title.

 Also with this setup, Michigan and Ohio State would NEVER play each other a week later. They would be playing each other for a shot to be in the Big Ten Championship Game, which would give the game more hype, not less, like playing them a week later would (as i have had in my previous posts).

Comments

umjiayou

June 17th, 2010 at 5:14 AM ^

First, you can't base who goes to the conference championship game only on division records.  Imagine a 5-3 conference record team winning the CCG and representing the B10 in the Rose Bowl.

Also, i am for putting M and OSU in different divisions.  Its (incredibly) unfortunate that it means that The Game will have to be played earlier in the schedule.  However, lets give the scenario where M has not lost a conference game and the second place division team has lost two.  Does M hold back its top players in preparation for the CCG next week? Obviously, it won't, which means that by playing full out v. OSU they are at a disadvantage where as they should have been rewarded for being previously undefeated. 

Essentially there are two schools of thought. 1. M and OSU in the same division playing in the last week of the regular season.  2. M and OSU in opposite divisions playing earlier in the season as a protected rivalry with the chance to play again in the CCG.  I think this is the biggest debate in setting divisions, not geography v. competitive balance.

Baloo_Dance

June 17th, 2010 at 8:32 AM ^

What would the single most attractive option be for the Big Ten?  Gotta be OSU and Michigan playing in the CCG.  If you put them in the same division your are guaranteeing that OSU and Michigan will not play for the Big Ten title!  Does that feel right to you?  Me either. 

So if the best potential game is OSU and Michigan in the CCG, why cap the potential of the conference? 

I think you move the "regular season" game up to the first week of conference play.  Kick off Big 10 play with a bang and get the conference on the national radar early in the year.  Plus the game would have it's "own weekend" a la Texas/Oklahoma.

Also, this scenario guarantees that there will be something on the line for every Michigan/OSU matchup.  If they were to play back to back weeks, there would always be questions.

Sac Fly

June 17th, 2010 at 7:43 AM ^

... michigan plays northwestern in evanston 2011, i was planning on going since i live in chicago and can't make the trip to AA. but if they change the schedules to accommodate nebraska that might get left out

Rasmus

June 17th, 2010 at 8:19 AM ^

I ask because you don't seem to be aware that these issues have been discussed there repeatedly and in great detail. In the past few weeks there have been at least 20 threads on the topic. You could have learned a lot from those discussions.

Given the creativity of some of your earlier ideas, I'm sure you would still have had something to add. But posting diaries without being aware of the extensive efforts of everyone else here to hash this out is just bad form.

I'm not a moderator, but allow me to point out that if you had put these up as Board posts instead of diaries, people would be more tolerant of your apparent lack of awareness.

GVBlue86

June 17th, 2010 at 8:22 AM ^

No you haven't yet, but let us all experience you grow and learn by writing many more diaries on this subject. Maybe, one day, you WILL have it figured out.

jg2112

June 17th, 2010 at 8:26 AM ^

Anyone who spends more than 10 minutes reading, writing, or analyzing divisional setups, who doesn't depend on such analysis for his primary source of income, really needs to get a hobby.

Seth

June 17th, 2010 at 9:53 AM ^

Anyone who denigrates a person for taking time to provide thoughtful, free commentary on a topic of interest is just shooting themselves (and us) in the foot.

Serioulsy: "you have too much time on your hands" is the single most obnoxious response to somebody who put a lot of time and thought into presenting something. It's basically saying "oh, good for you that you donated your effort and skills and time to providing content for me, but I wouldn't do that because my effort, skills and time are more important than yours, which you can see by the tersity of my response to your well-thought-out work."

In the pantheon of asinine ways to respond to a poster, "tl;dr" is at least an admission that the non-reader is more lazy than the author, and "FIRST!" at least demonstrates some commitment to the board. Not that either of these responses are ever cool, just that they're not nearly as dick as your response.

(That's right: "dick" as an adjective -- I'm trying this out today)

That said, kb9704, whether you're really a kid from Tennessee or the reincarnation of previous MGoDouchebags, I'd lay off the New Diary button for awhile, unless you've got something Mathlete-like to offer. If you have a new idea for an old diary, just edit the old one, rather than pushing top content down. Even if I think it was wrong how jg responded to you, that doesn't change the fact that of all of the proposed alignments, yours are the worst, the second-worst, and third-worse.

U of M in TX

June 17th, 2010 at 9:01 AM ^

In the East Division, you have 3 teams with over .700 win %, versus only 1 in the West Division and only 3 that are over .500.  Doesn't seem very even to me!

MGoDC

June 17th, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^

Quick hint for you:

Dont bother posting anything again with UM-OSU-Penn State in the same division. I dont care if the other 3 members are Delaware State, My Highschool's Women's Volleyball team, and a Texas Pop Warner team. It's a loaded division that's unfair. When UM gets back to being UM those are 3 teams that will be in the 9-11 win department virtually every year, whereas the other division would have Nebraska-Iowa-Wisconsin at best which is really no comparison.

backusduo

June 17th, 2010 at 10:43 AM ^

I don't think you can go off of overall record.  You need to look at who has been the conference champion, because at the end of the day you are going to want to set up the best matchup.  When you look at it that way.  Your East bracket would have 9 of the last 11 titles coming from it, with the only west team being Iowa 2 years (1 they split).  Nebraska hasn't won a conference title since '99, though I concur that they are on their way up.  That is going to make for some very poor title game matchups as a 5-3 West team gets battered by a 7-1 East team year after year.  We don't want the same issue that the North/South Big XXII had.  I think the best breakdown is based on strength in the Big Ten and keeping Michigan and OSU together.  Anything that doesn't do that should not even be considered.

kb9704

June 17th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^

i guess i will retire trying to make a division setup, obviou\sly im not cut out for it, i cannot take everything into consideration...and MGoBlog took away my "post" button so even if i wanted tooo, i couldnt. I gave a valiant effort, but i will now retire my division setups, (which are not "the worst, second worst, and thrid worst" btw. This last one was a decent one. It could work.

Rasmus

June 17th, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^

You lost your "post" button because you have less than 20 points. It will come back when you get back to 20 points.

Think of the MGoBoard as the shallow end of the pool -- the best place for people learning to swim. You would probably still have 20+ points if you had posted to the Board instead of to the diaries. Posting a diary is like swimming in the deep end of the pool. Experiments like yours definitely do not belong in the diaries (right now, 15 hours later, your diary is still at the top of the list where everyone can see it -- had it been a Board post it would be on the second or third page by now), but would be welcome on the Board. You might still get negative votes,  but not on the scale that you have been here.

kb9704

June 17th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^

i guess i will retire trying to make a division setup, obviou\sly im not cut out for it, i cannot take everything into consideration...and MGoBlog took away my "post" button so even if i wanted tooo, i couldnt. I gave a valiant effort, but i will now retire my division setups, (which are not "the worst, second worst, and thrid worst" btw. This last one was a decent one. It could work.