Probable realignment scenario per 97.1 WXYT

Submitted by Stephen Y on January 30th, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Per Doug Karsch... EAST Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana. WEST Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota. Up in the air is where Michigan State and Purdue end up. EDIT: Sorry about the formatting. I started the thread on my phone. Per Doug Karsch, this comes from a source of his.

Comments

hockeyguy9125

January 30th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^

for the B1G title game each season and that has appeal to it.

But honestly, even if it is a harder road, I like playing Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa each season (or at least more often than not). Its a more appealing schedule in general than Rutgers and Maryland.

Also, if the conference adds in more conference games to ensure teams play the opposite division more, I think that would make this alignment much easier to deal with.

Needs

January 30th, 2013 at 12:17 PM ^

Right now, we haven't played Wisconsin since 2010, we won't play them again until 2015 so the discrepency you're talking about already exists. In the old Big 10, UW, Iowa and Minny regularly rotated off our schedule for two years at a time. The new alignment would replace Nebraska with Penn State, a wash in terms of perception (and would benefit us, b/c they're going to suck). 

The real benefit is that a realigned schedule no longer places Michigan at a competitive disadvantage within the division by locking us into a cross-division rivalry with the perenial power in the division opposite. This also restores the Game to its proper place as a regular eliminator for the conference championship. I too would like to play Iowa and Minny more than Rutgers and Maryland, but those are pretty low on the scale of importance. And I agree that upping the number of conference games is essential given this expansion.

Brodie

January 30th, 2013 at 2:48 PM ^

Exactly, does anyone seriously care about Iowa? A team farther away from us than Rutgers, with no real history until they suddenly got mediocre and who we haven't played annually in decades anyway?

Sorry, MGo, but I'll take real balance and sensible geography over LET'S PRETEND RURGERS AND MARYLAND DON'T EXIST any day

clarkiefromcanada

January 31st, 2013 at 1:07 AM ^

Here is the official Sparty narrative or how it would sound on RCMB:

"SCUM was so worried about Coach D and our program being on the rise that they conspired with tO$U to keep the Spartans out of their division. Brady Hoke, after eating his 20th donut of the day, demanded that Pizza Dave his AD keep him in a division away from Michigan State out of fear. After they heard about the new divisions, those Walverines at MGoBlow celebrated like crazy. They all fear us."

ijohnb

January 30th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

Assuming Staee would still be in our division or at least a protected cross-over, I would not mind playing the new blood.  I believe that both Maryland and Rutgers will improve (Rutgers was already pretty solid) once they are established in the conference and I would not mind changing things up in the way proposed.

E. Gordon Gee

January 30th, 2013 at 3:19 PM ^

I agree this does suck because most of the schools listed (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota)* are  actually fun schools to travel to for a game especially Wisconsin. Maybe the B1G should look outside of geography and competitive balance and separate schools based on fan favorites to travel too. Just a random idea. 

*Schools I've been to. 

triangle_M

January 30th, 2013 at 10:19 PM ^

Being a fun school takes a backseat to ease of  travel to see a game.  With Rutgers, Penn State and Maryland on the schedule, I'll easily make at least one of those games a year.  I can take the kids to the Smithsonian and catch a UM game in the same weekend.  Its a huge bonus for east coasters.  

snarling wolverine

January 30th, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^

while Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa all rotate off the schedule...this blows

You make it sound like Nebraska is this time-honored rival of ours.  We've played a total of eight times in our history. Also, Wisconsin has already rotated off our schedule, as has PSU.

We're not going to play every team our fans want to see every year. That's reality no matter what the setup is.

jmdblue

January 30th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^

suggests that Penn St. will be bad for a very long time and that Wisconsin has risen to near B1G elite.  I don't necessarily believe either.

I think it would be great if we only played our chief rival from E. Lansing 2 of every 3 years or so.  Think of all the delayed couch immolations.

MI Expat NY

January 30th, 2013 at 12:51 PM ^

You may be right.  But "tradition" changes.  Minnesota was a power up through the early 60's. State was a power in the 50's and 60's.  Wisconsin has been only for the last 20 years.  And while there are a handful of schools that it's hard to imagine them ever not being a power for any significant length of time, Penn State is probably no longer one of them.  The sanctions are a cataclysmic event that could easily result in them no longer being a traditional power.  Is it likely?  Maybe not, but it's certainly possible.  It's also possible that someone else rises up and becomes the new Wisconsin.  People in 1988 would think that Wisconsin was as likely to go to 6 Rose Bowls in the next 25 years as anyone today were to think that Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, or Minnesota is likely to go to 6 Big Ten Championship Games in the next 25 years.  Times change.  The right coaching hire at the right time can make all the difference in the world.  

Regardless, splitting up who people think are the current traditional powers does not assure divisional parity, just as the proposed East/West divisions does not assure a lack of parity.  

jmdblue

January 30th, 2013 at 1:12 PM ^

but I'll still take PSU over Wiscy within a few years of probation ending.  PA kicks out a lot of good ballplayers and they maintain their geographical advantage to NY and NJ talent. 

I'll give you your point about Minnesota, and you could add the U of Chicago ro even Harvard if you wanted to get a little arcane.  Your Sparty example, though, is a point in my favor.  State has never been a traditional power that carried the expectation of long-term dominance.  They were good-great from around 1955 to 1966.  This is about the sort of run I think Wisconsin's on. 

Needs

January 30th, 2013 at 1:35 PM ^

I'd take that bet. Wisconsin's now been good for 20 years. More importantly, Penn State's success this year, before the scholarship reductions take place, have given a false impression that Penn State's going to be able to whether these sanctions.

Look at what 10 scholarship reductions has started to do to USC, and that's a team that regularly recruits in the top 10 in a highly desireable place for young people to live. PSU's recruiting, during the current era, has averaged in the mid-30s. They're dealing with a reduction of twice as many scholarships as USC, and State College is a really tough sell for anyone not from Pennsylvania. Terrelle Pryor said a lot of innacurate things. That Penn State was "country" was not one of them. 

Even after the sanctions end, it's going to take them a few years to ramp up to a full team and they're going to be recruiting against the impression that Penn State's day has passed. Given their move to the Big 10, the big winner in this may be Rutgers and Maryland, who can sell Big 10 football and potential while remaining close to home to the elite players in NJ and Maryland that PSU has relied on.

jmdblue

January 30th, 2013 at 1:55 PM ^

Feel bad for PSU folks if the evil of Sandusky and the cowardice of his enablers cost them their football tradition.  I view Michigan as a perenial top 10 team with the proudest tradition in college football.  We spent almost a decade in the wilderness, three of it in the deep wilderness, but we are about to be back.  PSU viewed themselves the same way.  No way Wisconsin is on that level, nor will they be.  They may be better than PSU in 10 years, but it will be because PSU is much less than what they were, not because Wiscy is threatening to win national championships.

Needs

January 30th, 2013 at 2:46 PM ^

I don't feel nearly the same sense of pity, not because of Sandusky, but because the whole "holier than thou/here to save the Big 10" vibe that Paterno and their fanbase gave off has always rubbed me the wrong way. And I've always thought PSU's "tradition" was built on playing incredibly weak schedules in the late 1960s and 1970s followed by 10-15 legitimately great years (I acknowledge you could make the same case for Michigan post-1969, but at least we had Ohio State. They had ... Pittsburgh?)

Wisconsin's unlikely to reach the highs PSU achieved during their 15 year run ending in the late 1990s, but they've been consistently a better team for the 15 years since that ended. 

FreddieMercuryHayes

January 30th, 2013 at 12:26 PM ^

This might actually be true though.  They have almost unprecedented scholly reductions for the rest of the decade.  They had a very strong senior class this year, but I expect them to fall off quite a bit in the coming years.  They do have a really good QB coming in, but they'll be weak throughout the rest of the roster soon.

ish

January 30th, 2013 at 12:00 PM ^

this makes sense if the east gets Purdue.  otherwise the teams just aren't evenly split.  UM, OSU and PSU are three of the four best teams, historically.

stephenrjking

January 30th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

Absolutely right. Look at the history of the two biggest conferences with divisions in the past 20 years: The Big 12 and the SEC. When the Big 12 first split the power was in the North, with Colorado good, Kansas State rising, and of course Nebraska the dominant power in college football. The North was favored every year.

But Oklahoma and Texas rose, and the North became an afterthought. 

In the SEC, things have swung all over the place. In the late 90s and early 00s the East was the power division--Florida and Tennessee were the big boys. LSU, Alabama, and Auburn spend large periods of time mired in mediocrity, with LSU in particular never being seen as a future power. But things moved, and now the power is in the west. For now.

The reason the SEC has had better balance between the divisions is not because of careful realignment, but because there are just more schools willing to do everything to win. Each divsion has at least three schools that have devoted the resources to winning every year. 

The B1G will not find any balance by playing with divisions. What it needs are teams to rise to the challenge.

stephenrjking

January 30th, 2013 at 12:13 PM ^

Absolutely right. Look at the history of the two biggest conferences with divisions in the past 20 years: The Big 12 and the SEC. When the Big 12 first split the power was in the North, with Colorado good, Kansas State rising, and of course Nebraska the dominant power in college football. The North was favored every year.

But Oklahoma and Texas rose, and the North became an afterthought. 

In the SEC, things have swung all over the place. In the late 90s and early 00s the East was the power division--Florida and Tennessee were the big boys. LSU, Alabama, and Auburn spend large periods of time mired in mediocrity, with LSU in particular never being seen as a future power. But things moved, and now the power is in the west. For now.

The reason the SEC has had better balance between the divisions is not because of careful realignment, but because there are just more schools willing to do everything to win. Each divsion has at least three schools that have devoted the resources to winning every year. 

The B1G will not find any balance by playing with divisions. What it needs are teams to rise to the challenge.

MileHighAnnArborite

January 30th, 2013 at 2:28 PM ^

Especially with the B1G's even revenue split.  The Big XII didn't have equal revenue split, so even though the North was more powerful in the beginning, the money flowed south to Texas and Oklahoma at a disproportionate rate, and as the arms race began to heat up as we moved into the last decade, the southern schools were able to keep up at a rate that many in the north (Nebraska aside, but definitely a factor for Colorado and KState) could not.