Confused about why not East/West for divisions?
I know this conference division thing has been beaten to a pulp, but can someone please explain to me why the divisions are not based on geography, East and West?
It seems that the true protected matchups are UM-OSU, Wisco-Minn, Illini-Northwestern, PSU-Neb. (There will obviously be a few other protected matchups but none of significance) It also appears there are a few matchups that were asked to be kept through playing in the same division...those are UM-MSU, Neb-Min, Illini-Ind, Ind-Pur, OSU-PSU and Iowa-Neb.
My question is why can the divisions not be as so:
East: UM, PSU, OSU, MSU, Pur, Ind
West: Neb, Min, Iowa, Illinois, Wisco, Northwestern
All ture protected matchups and other desired matchups listed above could still remain intact. The East may seem a bit top-heavy, but no moreso than the current suggestion of OSU, Wisco, PSU. Plus, this gives fans a much better option when traveling to away games. Instead of us having to go to Minneapolis, Iowa City and Lincoln each year. And away from us, look at Wisconsin currently...away from their protected matchup with Minn, their next closest game is 4.5 hours away in Champaign, IL. Plus, the only other rivalry I can think of is Iowa and Wisconsin, which would be protected in a geographical division, but not in the current projected format.
Just would like to hear some thoughts as to why this option does not seem to be on the table or even the preferred option.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:05 PM ^
If you look at the records for the last 20 years (since PSU joined the Big Ten) the top four teams are: OSU, NEB, UM and PSU. Straight geography would result in 3 of the 4 being in one division. The Conference determined that they would split these four teams up and then the split up the next two, being Iowa and Wisconsisn. And that's what looks like is happening.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
It's just not that simple. With Iowa and Wisconsin in the west along with Nebraska, the competitive balance is a lot closer. Bottom line is Michigan's struggling and Nebraska's something of an X-factor. I understand the concern about having Michigan, Penn State, and OSU in one division, but right now the league office is driving itself and the fan base nuts trying to micromanage unknown and unknowable quantities. It's far from an open-and-shut case.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
you are also giving Iowa and Wisconsin more of chance to become even more prominent, while taking the risk of PSU,UM or OSU of becoming less prominent.
iowa and Wisky have a better chance of getting to the championship than they would with the current set-up (11 teams). What have these two teams done to deserve this right?
stick with the 4 most storied programs
September 1st, 2010 at 5:41 PM ^
I guess that makes sense...didn't realize how crappy Iowa was in the late-90s. Also, was looking more throughout and in both scenarios 3 of top 6 are in each division. Still think it makes more sense to go geographically.
Thanks though. I figured there was a method behind the madness.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
names so much because they really just seem to fit but of course other schools would protest it and complain how they're all left out. I do however feel that East and West just seems more fitting for this conference. Can't do North and South if Minnesota goes in the same conference as Ohio State.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
Competitive balance. And please stop beating the dead horse.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:54 PM ^
B/c they're stupid. They just created the new ACC. OSU, PSU, UM division isn't that much better than a Wisco, Iowa, Nebraska division. All these teams have up and down years (really except OSU in recent memory). East-West is the way to go, deciding on competetive balance is short sighted. It works in the SEC, and I'm pretty sure we'd rather the b10 look like that than the ACC. And I know the b12 is terrible b/c of the geography, but the b10 wouldn't be that bad.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:59 PM ^
I'm guessing the Big Ten is not done expanding yet. If 4 eastern schools are added then Wisconsin and Illinois are shifted West. Then you will see East and West divisions with UM and MSU in the West. Good for the fight song.
Only Michigan and Ohio State will be screwed out of being in the same division with their arch rival. This is the transition period. They're just distracting us by appearing to screw other schools as well. I'm looking at you Wisconsin. That's my paranoid, yet plausible $$$$, theory. If they were staying at 12 teams and going to 9 games (plenty of big name tv matchups) East-West makes too much sense and upsets the fewest people.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:26 PM ^
As ESPN is reporting seem to be the fairest. Stop griping, get over it, and enjoy what is about to happen with the Big Ten.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:31 PM ^
Alvarez already released the "tiers" they based it all on:
Tier Awesome: OSU/UofM/Nebraska/Penn St
Tier 2: Iowa/Wisky
Tier 3: Northwestern/Purdue
Tier 4: Minny/MSU/Indy/Illinois
So you take or two from each and then sort via rivalries...pretty simple. I like it, and can't believe they didn't screw it up!
September 1st, 2010 at 7:39 PM ^
Be sure to tell all your Sparty friends that even the Big Ten people put them in a category below Northwestern and Purdue.
September 1st, 2010 at 8:42 PM ^
Here's a theory I like from someone on the UVA site: with each division covering basically the whole footprint, ABC can't use that as an excuse to shrink the coverage area. SEC doesn't have to worry because CBS covers them exclusively, but ABC has to juggle games in the rest of the conferences, which are basically the Big Ten's competition. Now a game like Iowa/Wisconsin has meaning across the whole Big Ten, not just in those two states.