From Myron today

Donate To GopherHole

Actually a good article.

But...a "journalist", actually earning a paycheck for his writing, using the phrase "how come" in a newspaper article? Embarrassing.
 

dpodoll68 said:
Actually a good article.

But...a "journalist", actually earning a paycheck for his writing, using the phrase "how come" in a newspaper article? Embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It actually sounds like he's just been reading this board and regurgitated it. Which isn't a bad thing.
 

Unregistered User said:
Exactly. It actually sounds like he's just been reading this board and regurgitated it. Which isn't a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Ha. Precisely what I was thinking. It seemed like a synopsis of all the division alignment threads that have taken place here lately. That and copying from Mason/DiNardo. Nothing like getting paid when someone else has done all the work for you!
 

Anybody else think it would be really shortsighted to create divisions primarily based off of competitiveness? Competitiveness tends to change often. Michigan sucks right now. Wisconsin and Iowa have been really good for the last 10 years and would have made the proposed "Plains Division" much stronger than the "Lakes" division with a weak Purdue and even weaker Michigan. Nebraska was very good this season as well. The whole "traditional powers" argument is stupid. Minnesota was a "traditional power;" it just depends on how long your time frame extends.

Geography doesn't change and rivalries persist. Make divisions based off those qualities.
 


eker0016 said:
Anybody else think it would be really shortsighted to create divisions primarily based off of competitiveness? Competitiveness tends to change often. Michigan sucks right now. Wisconsin and Iowa have been really good for the last 10 years and would have made the proposed "Plains Division" much stronger than the "Lakes" division with a weak Purdue and even weaker Michigan. Nebraska was very good this season as well. The whole "traditional powers" argument is stupid. Minnesota was a "traditional power;" it just depends on how long your time frame extends.

Geography doesn't change and rivalries persist. Make divisions based off those qualities.
Click to expand...

+ infinity
 

eker0016 said:
Anybody else think it would be really shortsighted to create divisions primarily based off of competitiveness? Competitiveness tends to change often. Michigan sucks right now. Wisconsin and Iowa have been really good for the last 10 years and would have made the proposed "Plains Division" much stronger than the "Lakes" division with a weak Purdue and even weaker Michigan. Nebraska was very good this season as well. The whole "traditional powers" argument is stupid. Minnesota was a "traditional power;" it just depends on how long your time frame extends.

Geography doesn't change and rivalries persist. Make divisions based off those qualities.
Click to expand...

It's incredibly short-sighted to try to create "competative" divisions. An east-west alignment has 95% going for it rivalry-wise and even competition-wise and anything else has at best 50% going for it. Why have divisions at all if you are going to have "guaranteed" inter-division rivalry games (mentioning Mch-OSU and Wisc-IA-MN playing every year even if in different divisions)?

Do we want Michigan and OSU playing on November 28, 2011 and then a week or two later in the Championship game? Nope.

Of course, it will be Minnesota-OSU in the Championship game, anyway;)

Also, I want to take "some" credit for the Plains/Lakes idea, first posted last year...

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showpost.php?p=149942&postcount=22
 


eker0016 said:
Anybody else think it would be really shortsighted to create divisions primarily based off of competitiveness? Competitiveness tends to change often. Michigan sucks right now. Wisconsin and Iowa have been really good for the last 10 years and would have made the proposed "Plains Division" much stronger than the "Lakes" division with a weak Purdue and even weaker Michigan. Nebraska was very good this season as well. The whole "traditional powers" argument is stupid. Minnesota was a "traditional power;" it just depends on how long your time frame extends.

Geography doesn't change and rivalries persist. Make divisions based off those qualities.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I also thought it, but you stated it much better.
 



highwayman said:
Do we want Michigan and OSU playing on November 28, 2011 and then a week or two later in the Championship game? Nope.
Click to expand...

This is a valid point. If OSU and Michigan are in opposite Divisions it takes away much of the build-up for thier regular season meeting most of the time. The ACC buit divisions soley around Miami and FSU and they both promptly went in the tank. The divisions make no sense, and even having lived in ACC territory for 5 years, I have to look at the conference standings to tell you who is in what division. It should't be that way. At minimum, OSU and Michigan being in opposite divisions means they have to play earlier in the season, and not on rivalry week. I think worries about the Big 10 West turning into the Big 12 North are over-blown. Nebraska appears to be fully back and Wisconsin and Iowa aren't going anywhere. Meanwhile, Michigan may never be back and no one knows what PSU football is like with a mortal coach. OSU may = Texas but there is no Oklahoma looming in the Big 10 East and there is no group as weak as the Iowa State-Kansas State-Kansas trio has been traditionally.
 

If the concern is the Big 10 mirroring the Big 12's unbalanced divisions, that is not likely:

Big 10 East Big 12 South

OSU = Texas
PSU < Oklahoma
Michigan < Oklahoma State
Mich. St = Texas Tech
Purdue = Texas A&M
Indiana = Baylor

Big 10 West Big 12 North
Nebraska = Nebraska
Wiscy > Mizzou
Iowa >> Kansas
Northwestern > Colorado
Minnesota = Iowa State
Illinois > K-State

Bottom-line, the Big Ten East will not be overwhelming the way the Big 12 South has been and the Big 10 West will be signifcantly better then the old Big 12 North.
 

howeda7 said:
This is a valid point. If OSU and Michigan are in opposite Divisions it takes away much of the build-up for thier regular season meeting most of the time. The ACC buit divisions soley around Miami and FSU and they both promptly went in the tank. The divisions make no sense, and even having lived in ACC territory for 5 years, I have to look at the conference standings to tell you who is in what division. It should't be that way. At minimum, OSU and Michigan being in opposite divisions means they have to play earlier in the season, and not on rivalry week. I think worries about the Big 10 West turning into the Big 12 North are over-blown. Nebraska appears to be fully back and Wisconsin and Iowa aren't going anywhere. Meanwhile, Michigan may never be back and no one knows what PSU football is like with a mortal coach. OSU may = Texas but there is no Oklahoma looming in the Big 10 East and there is no group as weak as the Iowa State-Kansas State-Kansas trio has been traditionally.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you said but stating that "Nebraska appears to be fully back" is not true. Nebraska used to contend for the national championship every year. It's been 10 years since they've been a factor at that level. They improved greatly last year but to call them a perennial national power is way too premature.

Your point about how there is no Oklahoma in the proposed Big Ten East is a good one. Whatever divisions are created the division with OSU is going to have the best program.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom