By geography:


East

Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Michigan
Indiana
Northwestern

West

Nebraska
Illinois
Purdue
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa

Fair? Would you want Michigan to be in the West for a rival championship game?

I mean I was only a Geography major for two years....but I'd venture to say that Purdue and Northwestern need to be switched.

East Division
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn Statue
Purdue
(Notre Dame)

West Division
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin
(Missouri)

I will absolutely loathe the Big Ten if they make the mistake of putting Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions. That would be terrible, the prospect of meeting twice in one season is too stupid to contemplate (although a rematch in 2006 would've been sweet for all the marbles).

How about a North and South?

South

Ohio State
Indiana
Illinois
Penn State
Iowa
Nebraska

North

Wisconsin
Michigan
Northwestern
Michigan State
Minnesota
Purdue

sjmvsfscs08;387533 wrote:I mean I was only a Geography major for two years....but I'd venture to say that Purdue and Northwestern need to be switched.

East Division
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn Statue
Purdue

West Division
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin


I will absolutely loathe the Big Ten if they make the mistake of putting Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions.

+1

Nebraska and Wisconsin would have absolutely own the WEST

The West would be like the Big 12 North. One of them would make the title game, but never win it.

Yeah, if you switch Purdue and Northwestern you'd have it right. They will want to keep traditional rivals together so that they could still play each other in the final game of the season. Iowa and Nebraska would be new regional rivals who would play each other in their final conference game every year (Nebraska I assume will still play Colorado the day after Thanksgiving every year).

Clearly the East would be better right away. Let's not forget that the Big Ten doesn't seem to be stopping right now though. It is possible that other teams they add won't join until 2012, but they may join in 2011 like Nebraska. If Nebraska ends up joining in 2011 and then 2 or 4 more teams are going to be joining the following season I can honestly see the conference waiting till 2012 to host their first conference title game.

ccrunner609;387626 wrote:I dont think so, Iowa could win something.

+1

http://www.bigtennetwork.com/videos/index.asp?autostart=true&bcpid=35036476001&bclid=1119242954&bctid=91442947001

BTN video talking about potential divisions

The East/West setup mentioned, with the divider being the Indiana/Illinois state line makes the most sense. Impacts the least amount of old rivalries when I first look at it.

Should they hold at 12 teams, that setup can work long-term too. A few of the games where they have the old school traveling trophies between two teams would be impacted (for example, Illibuck, Little Brown Jug)... if anyone was bent on keeping those games alive they could make it like the ACC, where 1 of the crossover games is against a "legacy" team that is played every year, and then the other 2 open crossover spots rotate between the other teams.

I think splitting North/South cuts into too many rivalries (you can do the permanent crossover, but splitting it East/West with a permanent crossover allows for the highest percentage of rivalries AND those trophies to be retained), and I think splitting it randomly based on how good the teams have been recently (like the BTN clip suggests) is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.

I hope they mix it up every 3 - 5 years but each team gets to name two must-play games each year. BTW...who are Penn State's traditional rivalry games in the B10 now?

^^I'd have to say OSU & michigan--IMO

Even though the current Big Ten schedule rotates, each team has two it always plays.

Permanent matches are as follows:

Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota

Most of those would be kept with an east/west split.

vball10set;392989 wrote:^^I'd have to say OSU & michigan--IMO

Michigan St oddly enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Grant_Trophy
At least that is the one with the trophy at stake.

But I'd say Michigan since for a while they could not beat them.



East West makes the most sense to me as well. Rivalries won't be changed that much. Just as long and OSU and Michigan is still the same time every year, and they are in the same division, I'll live with divisions.

Al Bundy;392999 wrote:Even though the current Big Ten schedule rotates, each team has two it always plays.

Permanent matches are as follows:

Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern
Indiana: Illinois, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State
Purdue: Indiana, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota

Most of those would be kept with an east/west split.

Set 1 of the 3 crossover games as permanent in an E/W format as has been mentioned, and every matchup on that list is covered.

Only issue is you may cut some of the old school "trophy" games from being played every year by doing that (but this already happens, not a HUGE deal).

Delany has said that competitiveness is the greatest concern with divisions and geography is second, followed by traditional rivalries. I think ultimately it will be a pure East/West split along the Illinois/Indiana boarder. Competitiveness is too hard to gauge. What do you do with Michigan? Do you rate them high because of their traditional position in the conference, or do they rate low because of their recent position in the conference? What happens if you put a team someplace and they fall off the map or another team ends up making a rise and dominating the conference? I think you'd have to do alignment on a four year schedule, then look at realigning, just in case things become lopsided.

Division A
Ohio State
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Minnesota
Nebraska (or Iowa)

Division B
Penn State
Michigan State
Purdue
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Iowa (or Nebraska)

Play everyone in your division once (5 games). Play your 'rival' school in the other division every year (1 game). Then play 3 of the other 5 schools in the other division, rotating a team in and out every year (3 games). That gives a 9 game league schedule.

The cross-matchups would be:
Ohio State-Penn State
Michigan-Michigan State
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Nebraska-Iowa

This also would preserve Ohio State-Michigan, Ohio State-Illinois, Indiana-Illinois, and Penn State-Michigan State.

It would also give a more balanced league for scheduling, while keeping OSU-UM in one division to eliminate any potential rematch a week later in a title game.

You could switch Nebraska and Iowa. That would put Iowa-Minnesota as an annual division game. Would setup annual Penn State-Nebraska games, and Nebraska-Wisconsin. That would also put Minnesota-Iowa back as a division game.

This would help accomplish the 'two anchor teams' the Big Ten uses now, by making one essentially a divisional opponent and the other a cross-division rival.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk, that's one of the best non-geographic breakdowns I've seen that preserves competitive balance and traditional rivalries. The only change that I would make is that I would put both Iowa and Nebraska in Group B and move Wisconsin into Group A. This gives you the new Iowa/Nebraska rivalry and the Wisky/Minny rivalry in division, and give you two traditional powers (A - Ohio State, Michigan; B - Penn State, Nebraska) and one second tier team (A - Wisconsin; B - Iowa) in each division.

I also think that they should continue to only play eight conference games (five division games, one permanent crossover, and 2 crossovers on a rotation) to give each team four out of conference games. I wouldn't think that the schools really need four OOC games until you think about the schools that have traditional, annual rivalries out of conference (Iowa/Iowa State, Illinois/Missouri, Nebraska/Colorado, Michigan/ND). If the conference only allows for three out of conference games that really only gives these schools two games to schedule each year, which reduces the chances of them scheduling big names OOC. If I were Michigan and I played Notre Dame every year and only had two out of conference games besides that, I wouldn't schedule another BSC school very often, especially if my first conference game were against someone like Wisconsin. Could you imagine them opening their season against Western Michigan, Notre Dame, Pitt, and Wisconsin? That would be killer and would be enough for me to not schedule that Pitt game if I were the AD. You also lose a home game every other year if you have to play nine conference games, and that can be a significant loss of revenue. Playing four OCC games allows teams to have eight home games more often.

True. The 9-game idea was that way the league could cycle through every team once every two years and host everybody at least once every 3 years. An 8-game schedule would mean 3 years to play every team, and 5 years to host and visit every team.

More I think about it, I think Iowa should be in Group A and Nebraska in Group B. If you put Iowa and Nebraska in Group B (which does make overall competitive sense), it leaves you deciding who is who in regard to cross-division rival. That would force Minn-Iowa as one, and Nebraska-Wisconsin as the other. Which although Wisky has already come out in favor of that setup (having Nebraska as an anchor rival), I still don't think it makes sense as that would be 'manufacturing' a rivalry that isn't geographic or long held.

Either way, if Wisky and Nebraska are both in Group B, then there's always a game each year for them. And Iowa-Minny would always have a game. And then the cross-div games of Iowa-Nebraska and Minn-Wisky (which Minnesota and Wisconsin seem to both want to get back as rivals).

I liked the ACC setup, which I think is the only way to have a non-geographic divisional setup in the Big Ten that can maintain the most amount of rivalries and, to me as an OSU fan, preserve and sanctify OSU-UM as the last regular season game of the season and not have to think there's a rematch the very next week. Which would ruin The Game.

Sykotyk