Big 10 structure with 12 teams

Donate To GopherHole
Schnauzer

Schnauzer

Pretty Sure You are Wrong
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
6,368
Reaction score
2,946
Points
113
I have seen several posts about how the future Big 10 will look with 12 teams. Most of these threads list some sort of breakdown between a "Big 10 North - Big 10 South" or "Big 10 East - Big 10 West"

My apologies if this has already been thrown out there (if it has, I haven't seen it) but what if it was done on a regular rotation instead of some sort of eternal mason dixon line?

I actually don't like the SEC and Big 12 with their divisions. It always seems as though one side is loaded and the other is the little sister, in one form or another. It also creates conferences within the conference and breaks up some of that long standing unity that makes conference affiliations special.

In its current form for football, the Big 10 allows each team to have two rival opponents remain on the schedule every year (Minnesota has Iowa and Wisconsin, Michigan has Ohio State and Michigan State, etc.). What if they just continued this relationship and then altered which "pods" existed with others on a rotating basis for dividing the conference? That way, the conference wouldn't bog down into a long standing division and everyone would not lose focus of the Big 10 itself.

Pod one: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa
Pod two: Illinois, Northwestern, New Team
Pod three: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Pod four: Purdue, Indiana, Penn State
(I'm not stuck on these exact divisions, do it any way you see fit if you like a different lineup)

Year One: Pod One and Pod Three / Pod Two and Pod Four
Year Two: Pod One and Pod Four / Pod Two and Pod Three
Year Three: Pod One and Pod Two / Pod Three and Pod Four
Year Four: repeat year one
etc.

There would still be two divisions. Who is in each division would change every year though with the rotation of pods. The pods would exist to protect core rivalries but would mix/match on a regular basis. Two pods would always combine to create a division (in the example above, on year one Division A would consist of Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Iowa, and Michigan State while Division B would include Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, Penn State, New Team, and Indiana).

If every year is too soon, make the "pod rotations" and division alignments every other year or longer if you wish.

Basically, the main point is to mix it up and maintain the Big 10 instead of creating a long standing division like we have seen in other conferences.

Just throwing ideas around this morning and thinking out loud.
 

To have a championship game (the whole point of this whole expansion discussion) you need to have two divisions.

I also believe that if you have 12+ teams you MUST have two divisions according to the NCAA rules.
 

Big 10!

I said earlier that we should admit Missouri to our conference. Looking back now, I think Pittsburgh would be the better fit because they are an independent and would transcend into the conference easier. Notre Dame is too arrogant and big-headed to "lower" their team to join us.

Enough said. Bring in the Pitt Panthers!!
:clap:
Go Gophers!!
 

Yes, I am advocating 2 divisions. The composition of those two divisions would change on a regular basis. So, on year one Pod One and Pod Three would combine to make up Division A, while Pod Two and Pod Four would comprise Division B. The Division A champ would play the Division B champ to determine the conference champ, just like the other 12 team conferences.
 

froggopher said:
I said earlier that we should admit Missouri to our conference. Looking back now, I think Pittsburgh would be the better fit because they are an independent and would transcend into the conference easier. Notre Dame is too arrogant and big-headed to "lower" their team to join us.

Enough said. Bring in the Pitt Panthers!!
:clap:
Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

A few comments/questions for you:

1) Pittsburgh is not independent.
2) In fact, they have not been so for 20 seasons.
3) Why would we want them to "transcend" into the conference? Shouldn't they be playing by the same rules as everyone else?
 



I like the idea, has some kinks (mostly because there are guaranteed to be some rivalries and trophy games left out of the fold) but its definitely worth looking at.

Also I would do the divisions (pods) differently. But of course, you might too once we find out who that 12th school is. We shall see...
 

Oh yeah, I have no doubt there would be a lot of thoughts on how exactly the pods should be made up. I in no way declare the example above should be the end-all. I also think that on any given year, one division could look "stacked" over the other just like the Big 12. But, with a continual rotation it would come and go and the feelings of "us and them" would be minimized within the conference. The main thing is it wouldn't go on to eternity like it does in the Big 12.
 

Oops, sorry!

My apoligies for saying Pitt is an independant. For some reason I always thought they were. I will do my homework better from now on. They could be a pretty good fit though.

Anyone else's slant on Pitt?

Go Gophers!!!!!!!!!
 



Schnauzer said:
Pod one: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa
Pod two: Illinois, Northwestern, New Team
Pod three: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Pod four: Purdue, Indiana, Penn State
(I'm not stuck on these exact divisions, do it any way you see fit if you like a different lineup)

Year One: Pod One and Pod Three / Pod Two and Pod Four
Year Two: Pod One and Pod Four / Pod Two and Pod Three
Year Three: Pod One and Pod Two / Pod Three and Pod Four
Year Four: repeat year one
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that it would blow up a lot of rivalries. PSU considers tOSU it's chief rival, and tOSU likely considers PSU it's second most important rival. That wouldn't change after 20 years in pods.
 

Wouldn't that only give 5 conference games within the pods. So, they would still need to schedule 3 or so games outside of the pod breakdown. If so, that would then enable more rivalries to be played out on a yearly basis, correct? For example, PSU and tOSU could still play each other in one of the 3 outside-the-pod games, correct?
 

I really like this idea. Realistically though can you see the Big Ten goin for something like this? I see them being too stuffy to try anything different than the norm.
 

If Pitt gets added:

North
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Michigan St.
Northwestern
Penn St.

South
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Ohio St.
Purdue
Pitt

In this idea, you play 9 conference games instead of 8. Play every team in your division obviously. Then each team has a "rival" that they will play every year from the other division:
MN-Iowa
Illinois-NW
Michigan-Ohio St.
Pitt-Penn St.
Purdue-Wisconsin
Indiana-Michigan St.

Then just rotate the other 2 games with the 5 other in the opposite division. There's no perfect way of doing it, and I doubt changing to 9 conference games will happen.
 



This was already posted. It will be again I'm sure.
 

magpie said:
This was already posted. It will be again I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the pod idea? I haven't seen it before but that certainly isn't a guarantee nobody else has thought about it or posted it. I'm just curious if this is a new idea or if I am just reinventing the wheel or practicing convergent evolution.

Oh, and yes, I would assume that as in any current divisional conference situation, each team would play every team in their own division as well as 2 or 3 teams from the other division each season.
 

Schnauzer said:
Are you referring to the pod idea? I haven't seen it before but that certainly isn't a guarantee nobody else has thought about it or posted it. I'm just curious if this is a new idea or if I am just reinventing the wheel or practicing convergent evolution.

Oh, and yes, I would assume that as in any current divisional conference situation, each team would play every team in their own division as well as 2 or 3 teams from the other division each season.
Click to expand...

Someone posted the pod idea a few weeks back. I had thought that maybe it was you but apparently not.

The scenario from a few weeks ago:

4 pods of 3 teams.
2 pods in West division
2 pods in East division

Year one...West division teams play 5 games in their division and 3 games vs pod A of East division

Year 2..West division teams play 5 games in their division and 3 games vs pod B of East division.

I think I got that like the original.

This is probably the best idea I have read so far. Not sure who posted it. No matter what method is used there will be some missed rivalry games and some inequities.
 

It sounds different in that some of the pods are ALWAYS together... which is what I don't like about current Big 12 and SEC alignment. I would rather see each pod match up with one of the other three each year, and rotate so things don't grind down into an argument of "our division is tougher than yours".
 

Breakin' The Plane posted about a very similar idea about 10 days ago. He called it quads and referred to a Bleacher Report article that describes it in more depth using Notre Dame as the 12th team. I very much like this idea because it keeps the Divisions from becoming stale and you end up playing all the other teams more often by only having each team off your schedule for one year instead of the current two.

Here's the link:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/216123-the-big-ten-goes-to-quads

And in case that doesn't work, here's the article:

The Big Ten Goes to Quads
by Crayton

An Expanded Big Ten Schedule

The current scheduling system among Big Ten schools is that each team has two permanent rivals and rotates their remaining six conference games among the eight other schools in the conference.

What would Big Ten scheduling look like if the conference expanded to 12 teams? Would teams now have to wait four, five, even eight years to play a home and away against some of their more distant conference rivals?

For those fantasizing about a 12-team Big Ten, two divisions are almost a foregone conclusion. However, the Big Ten can have their cake and eat it, too. The current Big Ten scheduling format can fit wonderfully into a 12-team conference with a conference championship game.


What are Quads?

From 1996 to 1998 the WAC had 16 teams which they divided into four “Quads.” Two Quads were paired into a division and the pairings could change each year. In this manner, a team would have annual rivals within their Quad and rotate through the other teams in the conference.

We will examine how the Quad System would work for the Big Ten. For simplicity's sake, we will have Notre Dame fill the 12th Big Ten slot. Actual alignments will probably be drawn up with more considerations than I can give.

QUAD I
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin

QUAD II
Illinois
Northwestern
Penn State

QUAD III
Indiana
Notre Dame
Purdue

QUAD IV
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State

Teams play the other teams in their Quad every single year and each Quad undergoes a three year cycle with the other Quads of playing at home, playing away, and having a bye year. This totals eight conference games.

For example, each team in Quad I will host each team from Quad II and travel to play at each team in Quad IV. The next year, Quad I will host each team from Quad IV and travel to play at each team in Quad III.

For some teams like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa, there is almost zero difference between this scheduling and their current scheduling. These three teams are already permanent rivals with each other and play in their own “Quad,” of sorts.


The Big Ten Championship Game (Updated for 2010)

(2009 Big Ten Championship): No. 8 Ohio State vs. No. 10 Penn State

However, divisions are still required for a Conference Championship Game. The pairing of Quads is done in the following manner: The Quad with the best combined conference record the previous year will be paired with the Quad with the worst combined record (Quads with a bye against each other will not be paired). This insures that the top two Quads will always be in separate divisions.

As an example, here are last year's combined Quad records:

QUAD I: (14-10)
QUAD III: (13-11)
QUAD II: (12-12)
QUAD IV: (9-15) Notre Dame given 4-4 record

Quad IV will be paired with Quad I and Q III with Q II. The first two quads and the last to quads have byes this year against each other.

With these pairings, here are the divisions for 2010:

DIVISION I
Indiana
Iowa
Minnesota
Notre Dame
Purdue
Wisconsin

DIVISION II
Illinois
Michigan
Michigan St
Northwestern
Ohio State
Penn State

While divisions must change makeup at least every three years because of rotating byes, two Quads could potentially always sit in opposite divisions. Remember, scheduling is still done by cycling Quads but the Conference Championship Game is done by division.


Conclusion

The Quad System gets a bad rap from its experimentation in the WAC. The 16-team conference tried cycling five non-Quad games among 12 teams! Used by the Big Ten, six non-Quad games would cycle among nine teams, a much more equitable allocation. The WAC also used a convoluted cycling method such that some teams wouldn't see each other for six years!

The current Big Ten schedule has each team with two permanent rivals and cycles the other six games among the remaining eight teams. This is nearly identical to the Quad System. Should the Big Ten use traditional divisions then some teams will spend two or three years without playing each other.

The Quad System adds a Big Ten conference championship game without changing the Big Ten scheduling. Essentially it is the best of both worlds.

The only remaining question would be the naming of the two divisions. Specific geographic names such as East, West, North, and South would not work because the divisions are changing constituents.

General geographic nomenclature such as Midwest, Great Lakes, Old Northwest, and/or Heartland could be used. Colors are simple non-ordinal labels as well. Sponsorship might also be a consideration in this economic environment.

However, I am not sure how fond I'd be of the Outback Division winner facing the Capital One Division winner in the Citigroup Big Ten Championship Game.
 

Notre Dame gets to beat up on Indiana and Purdue year in and year out, while MSU gets Michigan and OSU year in and year out. Sorry, MSU!
 

Not sure exactly how I feel about the pod idea, but a couple of pitfalls, at least potentially: Someone already mentioned the NCAA being too "stuffy" for something this new and that's a possibility. Thing is, they might be cautious with good reason. Moving teams from division to division could mess with fans to the point where they lose interest. I mean, if you're constantly moving teams from division to division, the fan never identifies with a "home" division and at some point may stop identifying with a "home" conference. Don't know, just seems like one of those gambles that is high risk for high benefit, not the kin of wager one usually looks for. What the B10 is likely to do is look at the models already in existence, see what is working and not working with the fans, revenue, etc. and draw up a model of their own that's little more than a tweak or two from what the SEC / B12 already has.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom