Do the new divisions make it more difficult for UM and OSU to reach the Championship Game?
I'm suprised one topic hasn't received more play in all the divison alignment discussion. Perhaps the thing that originally concerned me most is something Brian brought up: that putting UM and OSU in separate divisons but keeping a protected cross division rivalry will make it more difficult for UM and OSU to make the championship game, because each team always plays a top notch team in their protected game (each other). For example, one year Michigan and Nebraska might play the same schedule but UM plays OSU as a cross divison game and Nebraska plays Illinois. Those two games both count equally in UM and Nebraska's fight to win the division, but the OSU game is much more difficult, and quite a handicap.
However, upon thinking about it more, it seems like the disadvantage won't be so bad: I assume that the other superpowers, Nebraska and Penn State, are protected to play each other. This ensures that the 4 powers each have, on average, the same number of guaranteed difficult games. Likewise, Iowa and Wisconsin should probably have a protected game. The only way for the schedule to really screw us is when a normally mid level team, like MSU, has a great season by avoiding good teams in the other division. This seems rare enough to not be a major concern, especially given that the 9 game conference schedule means that each team will only miss 2 cross division opponents in a given year.
Thoughts? Is the road actaully more difficult for UM and OSU? Should we even care if it is?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^
September 1st, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
Though I assume that these things are cyclical. Penn State will be back, and Nebraska will have its down years. I'm more concerned whether both UM and OSU have a systematic disadvantage in the long term, which I think would be bad for the conference. Right now I think that disadvantage is only minimal.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:04 PM ^
I think you're badly mistaken. Over the past 10 years, Wisconsin has been much, much more competitive with OSU than Michigan has. If that success is sustained, UW will be a consistent thorn in our side for years to come. Moreover, Penn State has won more shares of the conference title than any other team (other than OSU) over the past decade. This schedule is no more or less difficult for OSU than the current conference slate. Similarly, I don't think UM's schedule all that much different from their current schedule, save adding Nebraska to the yearly slate.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:40 PM ^
Yeah, I don't think PSU is tanking anytime soon. I know their recruiting class is sucking right now, but they brought in the best class in the conference last year. And we all know JoePa isn't really coaching anymore so it'll be a smooth transition.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
September 1st, 2010 at 7:12 PM ^
oh come on now...lets not get carried away. we should worry about winning more than 2 games in conference before making BCS plans.
I think these are about as perfectly split as they could be. I'm actually impressed. And we get the chance to Beat OSU and knock them OUT of the championship game while putting ourselves in. But in no way is this "a walk" - Nebraska, Iowa, and yes, even MSU, are all on the upswing and should provide some great competition. I'm just looking forward to some great games and EARNING our respect back!
September 1st, 2010 at 4:33 PM ^
No we should not care, if we are the best team in the Big Ten we will win all our games. The road to the BTC game is going to be hard for everyone, the best team will win.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
I'm not talking about which division has stronger teams (Though I think the balance looks pretty good on that front). I'm asking whether having a protected game against a strong team in the other division (e.g. UM/OSU) is a severe handicap.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
I know there weren't divisions but our protected games have been OSU and MSU. I think OSU has been M and PSU. M and OSU already have a tougher schedule because they always play each other and don't rotate out.. It hasn't prevented them from winning Big Ten titles.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^
It sucks when we crush a team like Wisky in a certain year when they don't have to play OSU and they end up going to the Rose Bowl (e.g. 1999 & 2000), but this scenario already occurs in the current system. Under the new format, the little 10 will at least need to beat either Michigan or OSU to get to Pasadena.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
If you assume that teams are going to maintain the same winning percentage that they have over the last 20 years, then no. Every team plays a team from each of the 6 tiers and then rotates 2 of the last 5.
If you assume that teams like PSU and Wisconsin are going to tank, then you also have to assume that teams like Iowa will tank as well, so it might be more difficult one year, but easier the next.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:37 PM ^
handicap or a big plus in terms of SOS.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
Though I had only considered it in terms of reaching the comference championship game, which doesn't depend on SOS. I think an easier schedule generally benefits teams as long as they're in a BCS conference, and unless the schedule is perceived to be so strong that you can get in with an extra loss (SEC).
September 1st, 2010 at 4:55 PM ^
... and a plus in recruiting / TV exposure.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
Went to bigtennetwork.com and they have a picture of all the helmets divided into 6 facing the other six could this be the actually alignment. Lets be honest espn and joe schad have been wrong waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy to many times. Put on the tin foil hat.
Agreed PSU is on the decline.They are a program with a spectacular coach and nothing before that. I wonder what happens when Joepa leaves. I know he doesn't really coach anymore, but he still is the teams figure head.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
The flip side is that we don't have to play ourselves. In historical terms, that's the greatest break of all.
We've played both PSU and OSU 15 of the past 17 years. We'll get by.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
Though you can argue with the competitive balance of the divisions based on which teams are good currently or historically, if you assume that UM & OSU are the two dominant teams in the conference there is no systemic disadvantage for either. This is one benefit of splitting up UM and OSU. Every team will have to play at least one of us and OSU every year, but half the conference will have to play both. That can never happen to us.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
I see it as no different then the teams that missed Michigan and OSU in consecutive years. They had an easy road to win it all but couldnt close.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
....determines division champions.
Most people I know favor every game counting in the conference standings, and then the team with the best conference record in the division goes to the title game. This preserves the stakes in The Game, but it also leads to situation where you have Team A (7-1 league, 4-1 division) going to the title game ahead of Team B (6-2 league, 5-0 division, smoked Team A 49-3).
The alternative is for the division standings to determine the division champion. So Team B would go to the title game in my little hypothetical. This, of course, would reduce The Game to a glorified exhibition, and, to answer the OP question, doesn't "hurt" either team at all.
I, of course, prefer the former. But I can't wait until the year where we roll Nebraska 49-3 and crush our division, only to see Nebraska go to the title game because they drew Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
How is it done now in the SEC (or in the past in the Big 12)? Hey! I know! I will look it up.
It looks like both use the overall conference record with various tiebreakers used if necessary.
September 1st, 2010 at 6:42 PM ^
Team A, Nebraska has a 7-1 record but got smoked by Michigan.
Team B, Michigan has a 6-2 record, but lost to OSU and Iowa.
If Michigan had beaten OSU they would have gone to the Big Ten Title Game. But losing to OSU cost them that shot. This actually helps preserve the importance of The Game.
I think the tie-breakers need to be:
1. Conference record.
2. Head-to-head.
3. Division record.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Look at Ohio State: their protected rivals in the current system are Michigan and Penn State. They are the only team in the conference that played both every single year. Despite that, they have won or shared the last five Big Ten titles.
Besides, what is the alternative? Michigan and Ohio State want to play each other every year.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^
As long as Iowa/Wisky is a protected rivalry and play each year, and Nebraska/PSU is a protected rivalry and play each year - then no I don't think OSU and UM playing each year will make it more difficult.
Now, if the big ten decides that Nebraska/Indiana is a protected rivalry and Nebraska gets to play Indiana every year while UM is playing OSU - then yeah, that could be a disadvantage.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Basically, unless we have Wisco and PSU in the same year (I'm hoping they try to prevent this from happening) it would be like any other year in which Wisco or PSU isn't off the schedule in the current arrangement.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
I'm not worried about the division were in. I actually believe we got a pretty good draw in that I would personally rather play @ Nebraska and @ Iowa then @ Happy Valley and @ Camp Randall. Also we're going to turn a lot of heads this season with a great improvement to 8-4 with an outback bid against Auburn, going into 2011 a very good football team. The prospect of playing Ohio State twice isn't very likely to happen too often, but if and when it does it certainly adds a lot more stakes and importance. 3 days til UConn. I can't eat, sleep or shit. Advice?
September 1st, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
Looking forward to breaking in the new restrooms at the stadium?
September 1st, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
WLM (Win/Loss Margin) over the past 10 years
OSU = 7.9
Wisc = 4.2
U/M = 3.8
Iowa = 3.4
PSU = 2.9
Purdue = 1.2
NW = 0.1
Minn = -0.1
MSU = -.3
Illini = -2.7
Indy = -3.9
Neb = 4.0
U/M, Neb, Iowa, MSU, Minn, NW = 10.9
The Others = 9.6
September 1st, 2010 at 5:33 PM ^
and difficult at the same time becasue we still need to beat the stronger teams like Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin and Ohio State to get to the top of our division come conference play. I do think though for Michigan playing a tough conference schedule against the Big Ten's top teams will help them tremendously.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
what's awesome is our initial cross-division games are Purdue and Illinois. We made out like bandits to start since they gave Nebraska Wisky and OSU to go w/ Penn St....that's brutal. Sparty has OSU and Wisky to go w/ Indiana (how hilarious is that as their big protected rival?!?!?!).
Our schedule sets up perfect to make some runs the next two years.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:11 PM ^
Michigan stinks right now, and that is what makes the Big Ten tough for us.
Ohio State is recruiting their arse off, and we are feasting on three-stars who have offers from no one elts or teams like Bowling Green and Air Farce.
Michigan will not be playing for anything anytime soon. To be so presumptuous when the program is so down is a mistake.
Hell, Nebraska basketball is probably better than Michigan right now.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:23 PM ^
Boy, Nebraska/Iowa as the last game of the year along w/ UofM/OSU will make for some great football Thanksgiving weekend!
MSU goes to Northwestern!!! lol!!!
September 1st, 2010 at 7:36 PM ^
I'm surprised they wouldn't have NW and Illinois play the last week. Then again, I don't know if either of those fanbases really cares.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:27 PM ^
Here is a link to the full composite schedules for 2011 and 2012.