3 team divisions

[MaxyJR1]

Since the only balanced way to do things is to have a true round-robin and that will not happen, here is an idea. Have four divisions of three teams. Balance them using the last 25 years of history. Nebraska (242 Wins), Ohio State (240), Michigan (213), and Penn State (218) would all be in separate divisions. Then divide the other teams by history/geography. There would be eight conference games playing two in your division each year and then playing the three teams in two of the other three divisions. Have a tie-breaking system like the NFL for determining the Championship game. Below is an example of divisions. I don't care how it turns out as long as the top four are in separate divisions.

Nebraska
Iowa
MN

Ohio State
Wis.
Purdue

Penn State
Indiana
Illinois

Mich
MSU
Northwestern.


In this senario every team would see eachother for two home games and two away games four out of six years. Minnesota would play Nebraska and Iowa every year

 

[ChemEGopher]

Haven't you heard? OSU and Michigan MUST be in the same division. This type of idea could have worked if Notre Dame was added instead of Nebraska.

 

[Coburn]

No offense intended, but that makes about as much sense as a two-story outhouse. (I'll take the top floor, thank you)

People are trying to think way too hard on this. Any outcome other than a simple East/West split based on geography will be the result of mental masturbation by people coming up with complex solutions to a simple problem.

 

[MaxyJR1]

This is more balanced than East/West. I prefer East/West, but I can't see putting the top three Big Ten teams over the last 25 years in the same division.

This senario has a balanced division schedule and their will not be any two year layoffs from any teams or playing a team on the road two years in a row.

 

[dpodoll68]

I prefer East/West, but I can't see putting the top three Big Ten teams over the last 25 years in the same division.

Why 25? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 80? That's my biggest problem with all this effort to massage away sanity in order to kowtow to the "name" schools in the conference. You can take an arbitrary slice of any period of time in the Big Ten's history and make virtually any argument you want (except make Indiana look good, ever). The point being that any division is arbitrary, with the exception of geography. To do anything else is insanity. No one knows how competitive any of these teams will be over the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years - and that's the beauty of following college sports. I'm sure if a Princeton fan (26 national championships) was told in 1910 that their school would be a complete afterthought in athletics 100 years later, they'd laugh and say, "Yeah, right". If you told a Michigan fan in 1948 (10 national championships at that point) that they wouldn't win another national championship for almost 50 years, they'd think you were crazy. Much in the same vein, Michigan may never be good again, and Ohio St. may completely suck 10 years from now. Likely? No, but possible. One thing is impossible for sure, though - State College, PA (for example) is not going to be relocated to the Upper Midwest on a map.

 

[station19]

Why 25? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 80? That's my biggest problem with all this effort to massage away sanity in order to kowtow to the "name" schools in the conference. You can take an arbitrary slice of any period of time in the Big Ten's history and make virtually any argument you want (except make Indiana look good, ever). The point being that any division is arbitrary, with the exception of geography. To do anything else is insanity. No one knows how competitive any of these teams will be over the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years - and that's the beauty of following college sports. I'm sure if a Princeton fan (26 national championships) was told in 1910 that their school would be a complete afterthought in athletics 100 years later, they'd laugh and say, "Yeah, right". If you told a Michigan fan in 1948 (10 national championships at that point) that they wouldn't win another national championship for almost 50 years, they'd think you were crazy. Much in the same vein, Michigan may never be good again, and Ohio St. may completely suck 10 years from now. Likely? No, but possible. One thing is impossible for sure, though - State College, PA (for example) is not going to be relocated to the Upper Midwest on a map.

My thoughts exactly.

I would add to that the travel time and expense for all other sports(revenue and non revenue). Yes you could have different divisions for other sports than football, but why overmanage the situation.

 

[ruralgopher]

No offense intended, but that makes about as much sense as a two-story outhouse. (I'll take the top floor, thank you)

 

[MaxyJR1]

Why 25? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 80? That's my biggest problem with all this effort to massage away sanity in order to kowtow to the "name" schools in the conference. You can take an arbitrary slice of any period of time in the Big Ten's history and make virtually any argument you want (except make Indiana look good, ever). The point being that any division is arbitrary, with the exception of geography. To do anything else is insanity. No one knows how competitive any of these teams will be over the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years - and that's the beauty of following college sports. I'm sure if a Princeton fan (26 national championships) was told in 1910 that their school would be a complete afterthought in athletics 100 years later, they'd laugh and say, "Yeah, right". If you told a Michigan fan in 1948 (10 national championships at that point) that they wouldn't win another national championship for almost 50 years, they'd think you were crazy. Much in the same vein, Michigan may never be good again, and Ohio St. may completely suck 10 years from now. Likely? No, but possible. One thing is impossible for sure, though - State College, PA (for example) is not going to be relocated to the Upper Midwest on a map.

I agree, but from what is being put out there, it doesn't sound like East/West will happen. Another point is that confenences change, so going back too far creates problems.

 

[Kratos3]

Lately, it's hard to distinguish who the top four teams are. UW and IA are very competitive. Look, anyway you slice it, there are going to be years where one division is more dominant than the other. I like our chances better to make it to the championship game if UM or PSU are not in our division too. East-West still works best.

Also, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.

 

[Unregistered User]

Another point is that confenences change, so going back too far creates problems.

That logic would suggest that in the future (perhaps the near future) conferences will change again. What then? Depending on which programs are brought in, do we reshuffle yet again? Based on the history since the last re-mix, a fixed 25 year history, what parameters are correct?

I think they are trying to come up the some ideal situation, but this is a classic case of over-managing.

 

[RodentRampage]

When people talk about an east-west split being unbalanced, part of what they are talking about is imbalance of "name" teams, not an imbalance in the actual power of the teams. The Big Ten has three "name" teams; Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State. Nebraska will be the fourth. That's not necessarily the same thing as "good" teams. Michigan remains a "name" team despite some lackluster years. Over the long term, it's likely that they will come back, but even if they don't, reputation can take time to fade.

With an East-West split, the strongest teams in the west would likely be Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa. Is that going to be worse than Michigan, OSU and Penn State? Maybe not, but fair or not, Iowa and Wisconsin don't carry the same reputation as the big three teams in the east.

 

[MaxyJR1]

When people talk about an east-west split being unbalanced, part of what they are talking about is imbalance of "name" teams, not an imbalance in the actual power of the teams. The Big Ten has three "name" teams; Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State. Nebraska will be the fourth. That's not necessarily the same thing as "good" teams. Michigan remains a "name" team despite some lackluster years. Over the long term, it's likely that they will come back, but even if they don't, reputation can take time to fade.

With an East-West split, the strongest teams in the west would likely be Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa. Is that going to be worse than Michigan, OSU and Penn State? Maybe not, but fair or not, Iowa and Wisconsin don't carry the same reputation as the big three teams in the east.

I agree 100% that name is weighing more than strength. Although Michigan has been bad for two seasons, in the last 10 years they have won fewer than 9 games only three times.

Last 10 years

Wins
OSU=102
WI= 86
NE=84
MI=81
IA=80
PSU=77

 

[dpodoll68]

Last 10 years

Wins
OSU=102
WI= 86
NE=84
MI=81
IA=80
PSU=77

In the list above, the West teams have 250 wins. The East, 260. A difference of 1 win per year. Divided by 3, a difference of .33 wins per team per year.

Yup, the geographic divisions aren't balanced at all.

(Not directed at you, Maxy. I know you're pro East/West. Moreso for the conference bigwigs who will inevitably screw this up in order to fellate OSU/Mich/PSU followers.)

 

[Gophfan22]

Lately, it's hard to distinguish who the top four teams are. UW and IA are very competitive. Look, anyway you slice it, there are going to be years where one division is more dominant than the other. I like our chances better to make it to the championship game if UM or PSU are not in our division too. East-West still works best.

Also, if the glove does not fit, you must acquit.

Agreed. East-West works the best. People are making this way too complicated than it really is and are overthinking everything. East-West makes the most sense.

 

[RodentRampage]

I agree 100% that name is weighing more than strength. Although Michigan has been bad for two seasons, in the last 10 years they have won fewer than 9 games only three times.

Last 10 years

Wins
OSU=102
WI= 86
NE=84
MI=81
IA=80
PSU=77

Looks pretty even to me. Between OSU, Michigan and PSU, you have 260 wins in 10 years, and Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa have 250 wins over 10 years. That's just about as close as possible. If you switched Iowa and Michigan, it would be 259-251, and that's as negligible as you can get.

I think the East-West split is just fine from a competiveness position. It may not be so fine from a name recognition perspective.

 

[Gophfan22]

Exactly! Which is why they should name the East Division the "The Big Names" and the West Division "The Flyovers"

 

[RodentRampage]

How about the "Big Talk Division" and the "Big Actions Division"?

 

[Schnauzer]

Why 25? Why not 10? Why not 5? Why not 80? That's my biggest problem with all this effort to massage away sanity in order to kowtow to the "name" schools in the conference. You can take an arbitrary slice of any period of time in the Big Ten's history and make virtually any argument you want (except make Indiana look good, ever). The point being that any division is arbitrary, with the exception of geography. To do anything else is insanity. No one knows how competitive any of these teams will be over the next 10, 20, 50, 100 years - and that's the beauty of following college sports. I'm sure if a Princeton fan (26 national championships) was told in 1910 that their school would be a complete afterthought in athletics 100 years later, they'd laugh and say, "Yeah, right". If you told a Michigan fan in 1948 (10 national championships at that point) that they wouldn't win another national championship for almost 50 years, they'd think you were crazy. Much in the same vein, Michigan may never be good again, and Ohio St. may completely suck 10 years from now. Likely? No, but possible. One thing is impossible for sure, though - State College, PA (for example) is not going to be relocated to the Upper Midwest on a map.

Hammer hits nail on head. Nuff said.