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

Submitted by SAMgO on February 29th, 2016 at 2:27 PM
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?

Comments

Stephen Y

February 29th, 2016 at 3:44 PM ^

If they got it right from the start, then they wouldn't have had to keep changing it, amiright?  Seriously though, I was hoping for a Big Ten North and Big Ten South.  Would have kept the competitive balance pretty even.

North
Michigan
MSU
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Rutgers

South
OSU
PSU
Nebraska
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Maryland

Stephen Y

February 29th, 2016 at 4:32 PM ^

We had this scenario for a few years with the Leaders and Legends divisions, and we still played the Game at the end of the season.  No one complained except for Dave Brandon, who wanted move the game to October.  I don't see why it would have worked then but not now?

jmblue

February 29th, 2016 at 5:03 PM ^

No one complained except for Dave Brandon,

Actually a lot of us complained. While it was better than playing in October, the possibility of playing on consecutive weeks was a big problem. It would make the first game meaningless.

The SEC and Pac-12 have never split up archrivals. The ACC has, because it's stupidly run. It was ridiculous of the Big Ten to copy the ACC blueprint. Michigan-OSU should be played once per year, period.

And as noted, there is a real competitive-balance problem when Michigan's crossover is OSU and the other Legends/West/whatever teams are playing Indiana and whatnot.

 

wildbackdunesman

February 29th, 2016 at 4:53 PM ^

Not only that, but you could have a situation where the first game is meaningless in the terms of the national title.

Imagine, if both teams were 11-0, we would know that not only would they play in back to back games, in the event of a split the team that won the conference title game would likely be in the playoffs and the other team on the outside looking in....in essence making The Game devalued.

LSAClassOf2000

February 29th, 2016 at 3:07 PM ^

I think that another proposal needs to be on the table wherein Rutgers is moved to the Big Ten West but in reality is part of a three-way trade with other conferences. I think we may just have to hope then that the "team to be named later" is a rather good team, or at least better than the Scarlet Knights....or indeed the Boilermakers.

MgoBlueprint

February 29th, 2016 at 2:32 PM ^

The problem with swapping msu and Purdue are the longterm bet msu will remain strong. I wouldn't make that bet. It also undermines the east and west divisions. It could be good in the short term but horrible long term.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

JonnyHintz

February 29th, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^

Eh. As far as ruining the East/West geography, simply look at the SEC. Mizzou is further west than every team in the west division except aTm and Arkansas, despite being in the East. Auburn is further East than both Mizzou and Vanderbilt (and about the same as Kentucky) despite being in the West.

I think as long as you're reasonable, you can keep the East/West without undermining the geography of it.

Mr Miggle

February 29th, 2016 at 4:03 PM ^

ever since the last realignment process started. I have a hard time picturing Michigan ditching their main rivals just to be in the easier division.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that Purdue is going to surpass MSU soon and make the divisions more unbalanced than they are now? It'll serve MSU right if this undermines their recruiting.

Tater

February 29th, 2016 at 4:31 PM ^

Sparty wants to be in the West because they know their temporary "superiority" to Michigan is an aberration which is already in the process of correction.  Despite their bluster and hatred, they don't want to play a fully-restored Michigan program every year, nor do they want to compete with Michigan in the same division.

M-Dog

February 29th, 2016 at 5:40 PM ^

Fine with me.  Move to the West and try your luck there.

But don't expect a protected rivalry crossover game with us every year.  We'll play them once every four years like Wisconsin.  Just another team from the West.

coldnjl

February 29th, 2016 at 2:33 PM ^

I have no problem with it. Lightens our path and makes the divisions fairer. HAndle your own business and don't worry about whether MSU's path becomes easier or not. Recruiting wise, it does move them farther away from Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are states they need to recruit hard in order to succeed.

jmblue

February 29th, 2016 at 2:54 PM ^

It won't lighten our path because we'll get a protected rivalry game with MSU.  There is no way the MSU game drops off the schedule.

In fact, it'll be the opposite - if MSU remains good, that means we'll often have a tougher schedule than our East division rivals, who will miss them about half the time.

MGoSoftball

February 29th, 2016 at 3:53 PM ^

but no one else.  I wanted this when they realigned a few years ago.  I do not care about MSU, or Purdue, or Illinois or Indiana or Wiskey.  Keep them on a every-four-year rotation.  

I understand this is not popular for those of us who live in SE MIchigan.  But in the big picture, most M Alums really dont care about MSU anymore than other B1G Teams Save Ohio State.  I would drop MSU in favor of ND anyday.

kscurrie2

February 29th, 2016 at 4:31 PM ^

Not a fan of that. We need to play them until we are beating them consistently. If we drop the series after they have dominated us over the last 10 years, they will talk about us the same way we talk about notre dame. The MSU and OSU have to stay.

aratman

February 29th, 2016 at 3:38 PM ^

I don't think skipping MSU would be nearly as bad as the not playing Notre Dame thing that is going on now.  I fully support not playing MSU.  Though, I am not sure this changes anything as far as divisions go.  Purdue and State are about the same if things go back to there historic norms.

FauxMo

February 29th, 2016 at 2:33 PM ^

MSU should never have been allowed in the B1G in the first place. They like playing MAC teams a lot. They should leave and join the MAC. That would give them a lifetime of DISRESPEKT to leverage...