December 14th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^

Yes, but I'm saying that this is where Inner-Outer benefits the Nebraska/Minn/Iowa/Wisc quartet.  In the Inner-Outer setup, they get guaranteed East Coast games.  In the East/West one, they don't. 

As far as Michigan is concerned, as long as we're playing OSU annually, we're in good shape recruitingwise.  Ohio is a bigger deal to us than NJ or Maryland.


December 14th, 2012 at 9:17 AM ^

Posted this on Brian's thread too:

I'm wondering if a stacked Eastern division is better.  Recruits know they are guaranteed a number of big games each year.  Also, playing at Maryland and Rutgers every other year probalbly helps recruiting.

I think the odds of winning the division are a bit lower in the East/West format, but it also makes for a great number of big games and might help recruiting in some hotbed areas.  I'm going east-west.


December 13th, 2012 at 4:12 PM ^

Inner-Outer seems to be the best solution.  In East/West, I feel the West is too weak, Penn State helps the strength of that side in the Outer division.


December 13th, 2012 at 4:19 PM ^

Yeah, I agree. Inner-Outer seems to be the most competitively-balanced. Do schools care about travel distance? I'm sure Rutgers would probably get tired of having to travel to Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota every year.


December 13th, 2012 at 4:21 PM ^

I live in the chicago area, so I am much in favor of the inner/outer arrangement.  I drive to Michigan for football games, but I don't really want to go much further for a game.


December 13th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^

East West sounds the best as far as division names go, but teams rewritinging their preferred historic rivalries for the sake of division names is......aww hell, anything to get rid of Ledgers and Leadins.

snarling wolverine

December 13th, 2012 at 4:43 PM ^

I voted for East/West, because it seems more realistic than Inner/Outer - though I'd take Inner/Outer in a heartbeat.  It does seem to be the most balanced and for our division, anyway, the geography would be great.


December 13th, 2012 at 4:55 PM ^

strongly prefer inner-outer (after all, I had drawn that up as my prefered divisions even before I saw what Seth had done). I could live with East-West though. Anything but the +1

Dutch Ferbert

December 13th, 2012 at 5:15 PM ^

Don't know how I was six minutes behind you on that one.

The only upside of the old v. new alignment would be that MSU and OSU would be in our division. As much as I despise the LIttle Brotherness of so many Spartans I know, I do think they are our second biggest rival and should be in our division. But with that said, I would rather have them in the other division than OSU.

Dutch Ferbert

December 13th, 2012 at 5:16 PM ^

UM left the league from 1907-1916. Would our joining date be 1896 or 1916?

We were a founding member in 1896, but we technically are one of the last 7 to join if you use the 1916 date.

If the B1G used 1916, the last 7 would be: MD, Rutgers, Nebraska, PSU, MSU, OSU, Michigan (so it would essentially be East/West but swapping Nebraska for Indiana).


December 13th, 2012 at 5:16 PM ^

I voted for East/West. I think inner/outer would be better for Michigan (and everyone else in the "inner" division that never has to travel very far), but I think East/West is a better move from a conference standpoint, avoiding traveling between the East coast and Nebraska as much as possible.

I also don't think the competitive balance is too bad in East/West, especially if Penn State and MSU fall off a bit as expected in the coming years, and extra especially if Wisconsin can keep going as a perrenial conference contender.

the Glove

December 13th, 2012 at 5:38 PM ^

The fall sports fly to farther locations, so it doesn't make that big of a difference. No other sports besides football has divisions so they have to drive the distance anyways. I would rather see Michigan play traditional Big Ten schools rather than Rutgers and Maryland. To hell with Nebraska and their Ohio State coach.

the Glove

December 13th, 2012 at 5:47 PM ^

UofM-St.Louis... how do you not want the inner-outer?! I live in St Louis too. Do you have any clue how much this would potentially save on travel expenses for us? It would mean 4 out of the 7 teams would be roughly within a 4 and a half hour radius of StL. Why?


December 13th, 2012 at 5:22 PM ^

I voted for "Inner-Outer" (although I first thought or orbital diagrams when I saw this - Rutgers' orbit is very eccentric and it could escape the conference at apogee from the inner conference) as well. The East-West arrangement, to me, seems a little top-heavy in the East and a little bottom-loaded in the West, if you will. The Inner-Outer arrangement disperses the good and "meh" better. 


December 13th, 2012 at 5:24 PM ^


I would want to see expansion to 16 teams. With Four divisions.

Western Division: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa

Northern Division: Michigan, MSU, Northwestern, Illinois

Central Division: Purdue, Indiana, OSU, PSU

Eastern Division: Maryland, Rutgers, Georgia Tech* (possibly), Add Good Coastal school*

With this you would rotate each year the divisions that play each other. (like the NFL), with one protected rivalry game.For the championship, Top teams from each division would advance, and there would be a four team playoff for the Big Ten championship.

Most of you will probably hate this, but I think it would be pretty sweet.  


December 13th, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^

Is the current setup (where Michigan plays OSU every year while our division rivals only play them 40% of the time) balanced?

The protected cross-division games have got to go.   The league needs to put all rivalries within the divisions.


December 13th, 2012 at 5:36 PM ^

Agree, moving forward, as long as the B1G maintains an 8 game conference schedule, as long as Michigan and OSU are in different divisions, they are at a significant strength of schedule disadvantage due to having to play eachother every year, while their divisional rivals play Michigan/OSU 2 out of every 12 years.