Alignment Link

[mplsbadger]

Per Illinois' Ron Guenther it will be in part based on a ten year audit.

http://www.illinihq.com/news/football/2010/07/14/tate_on_big_ten_realignment

Six conference members are significantly ahead in the 10-year audit. They are Ohio State (102 wins), Wisconsin (86), Nebraska (84), Michigan (81), Iowa (80) and Penn State (78). Clearly, those six should be divided equally. And it would make sense to split them along geographical and, in this case, time zone lines. That throws OSU, PSU and Michigan in the East, and Nebraska, Iowa and Wiscoinsin in the West.

Perfect! And it follows suit that Purdue (68), Michigan State (65) and Indiana (39) fall in the East, with Minnesota (62), Northwestern (61) and Illinois (45) in the West.

But there is a fallacy in basing the decision on total wins. Some teams played tougher schedules than others. So let's review it on conference games only. And there we find Ohio State (64), Michigan (53), Iowa (49), Nebraska (47 in the Big 12), Penn State (45) and Wisconsin (44).

19 more conference wins in the east, 11 of which come from OSU being 11 wins better than ANY of the other 'big six'. I still say split it by geography but I know they won't.

 

[highwayman]

Per Illinois' Ron Guenther it will be in part based on a ten year audit.

http://www.illinihq.com/news/football/2010/07/14/tate_on_big_ten_realignment



19 more conference wins in the east, 11 of which come from OSU being 11 wins better than ANY of the other 'big six'. I still say split it by geography but I know they won't.

This just makes too much sense. If they swap PSU or Michigan for Wisconsin, it will just prove that the Big Ten Office and ADs have no consideration for tradition or "competitive play". It will be about getting OSU versus "fill in the blank" for the title game every year.

 

[Schnoodler]

I really think they are going to go for the best title game which means well balanced divisions. So much of the thinking on the boards has been about lumping perennial contenders. I think they specifically want to avoid a super division and a diminished title game, and shortsightedness by moving a team too far out of geographic logic. Expect a 2/2 split of the top four by geography, and the rest split by geography as well.

 

[grunkiejr]

I really think they are going to go for the best title game which means well balanced divisions. So much of the thinking on the boards has been about lumping perennial contenders. I think they specifically want to avoid a super division and a diminished title game, and shortsightedness by moving a team too far out of geographic logic. Expect a 2/2 split of the top four by geography, and the rest split by geography as well.

You're probably right about the 2/2 split and your logic for why is solid. However, the build up of that logic is based on a fallacy--a West Division (by Geography) would hold it's own with the East. The other issue I have with it is that it is based on the Big 12 experience but people forget that when the Big 12 was formed Colorado and Nebraska were both coming off recent National Championships, KSU was going to BCS level bowls at the top of the Snyder regime, Texas was struggling (early in Mack Brown's tenure), OU was good but not great, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were irrelevant and Texas A&M was actually arguably the top program in the South. Teams ebb and flow with coaching personnel and every program is one bad hire away from mediocrity...too bad for the Big 12 North you had Nebraska, Colorado and KSU do it simultaneously.

 

[Schnoodler]

You're probably right about the 2/2 split and your logic for why is solid. However, the build up of that logic is based on a fallacy--a West Division (by Geography) would hold it's own with the East. The other issue I have with it is that it is based on the Big 12 experience but people forget that when the Big 12 was formed Colorado and Nebraska were both coming off recent National Championships, KSU was going to BCS level bowls at the top of the Snyder regime, Texas was struggling (early in Mack Brown's tenure), OU was good but not great, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State were irrelevant and Texas A&M was actually arguably the top program in the South. Teams ebb and flow with coaching personnel and every program is one bad hire away from mediocrity...too bad for the Big 12 North you had Nebraska, Colorado and KSU do it simultaneously.

Who knows how the powers at be think. It seems that in the end it really doesn't matter, balance will evolve by nature of opportunity. Which is why I've liked the geographic split. Eventually it's the teams that see the title game most frequently that will become the perennial faves and the past will fade.

 

[RodentRampage]

Geography is the default position, any other partition requires evidence why this is better than a geographical partition. But the evidence would have to be compelling. If geography had the top 6 teams in one division, and the bottom 6 teams in the other, yes, we'd have to reconsider.

But a geographic split puts half of the top 6 in each division. OSU has been so dominant that there is no way that you can balance them out. 4 of the top 6 in one division, and two in the other makes little sense.

If it comes down to brand, then build the brand rather than just shuffling around the brand name teams. Anything other than geographic looks like gerrymandering for desired outcomes. One of these years we are going to win our division. I don't want the Big Ten crying in their beers over it. One of these years neither of the division winners will be a brand name team. The Big Ten is going to have to learn to deal with this. They seem so afraid of the possibility of a Big 12 scenario that we get the ACC scenario.