Big Ten Alignment Poll - See Message for Details

[mplsbadger]

Please select from among the most discussed alignment options. In each case, starting from the top in a division, the teams are paired in terms of their divisional rival.

1) East-West

DIVISIONS

East

Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

West

Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Illinois

CROSSOVER GAMES

None

2) East-West with PSU/NW swap

East

Ohio State
Michigan
Northwestern
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

West

Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Penn State
Illinois

CROSSOVER GAMES

Penn State - Ohio State
Michigan - Nebraska
Illinois - Northwestern
Wisconsin - Michigan State
Iowa - Purdue
Minnesota - Indiana

Note: Rivalry weekend opponents are the divisional rivals.

3) North-South

North

Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Iowa

South

Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana

CROSSOVER GAMES

Ohio State - Michigan
Penn State - Michigan State
Northwestern - Wisconsin
Illinois - Nebraska
Purdue - Iowa
Indiana - Minnesota

Note: Rivalry weekend opponents are the divisional rivals except for Ohio State - Michigan, and Penn State - Michigan State.

4) Rittenburg

DIVISIONS

Delany Division

Penn State
Northwestern
Nebraska
Iowa
Indiana
Purdue

Delaney Division

Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota

PROTECTED CROSSOVERS

Penn State-Ohio State
Nebraska-Michigan
Iowa-Minnesota
Northwestern-Wisconsin
Indiana-Illinois
Purdue-Michigan State

Note: Rivalry weekend opponents are divisional rivals

 

[Rosemountian]

I would rank them 1,3,4,2.
Number 2 would create a huge imbalance of power. You cannot have Michigan State as the 3rd best team in 1 division while Minnesota is 5th in the other and call it even. Minnesota and Michigan State are essentially equals as far as "balance of Power" is concerned.

 

[ulfr]

The powers that be are hell bent in not having Michigan, OSU and Penn State in the same conference so we can all forget it...

Illinois is the better school to swap for PennState to the east over NW. This plan seems the best behind a simple east west. Illinois has two trophies in the west, and now that they buried the [sweet sioux] hatchet with Northwestern, the cannon and turtle are the historically sound ones. A crossover game allows even more to be preserved, but this seems to step on the least number of toes.

GRAIN BELT (253 wins over 10 years) — Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern


RUST BELT (234 wins over 10 years) – Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois

You lose Illinois-Northwestern, Ohio State-Penn State, Penn State-Michigan State

Of which OSU v PSU and likely PSU v MSU are doomed as yearly matchups under any plan that would be accepted

 

[MrGopher]

The powers that be are hell bent in not having Michigan, OSU and Penn State in the same conference so we can all forget it...

Illinois is the better school to swap for PennState to the east over NW. This plan seems the best behind a simple east west. Illinois has two trophies in the west, and now that they buried the [sweet sioux] hatchet with Northwestern, the cannon and turtle are the historically sound ones. A crossover game allows even more to be preserved, but this seems to step on the least number of toes.





You lose Illinois-Northwestern, Ohio State-Penn State, Penn State-Michigan State

Of which OSU v PSU and likely PSU v MSU are doomed as yearly matchups under any plan that would be accepted

Perfectly, exactly, and brilliantly said. Completely agree. And I do have a feeling this will be how it is in the end.

Division1 Minn,wisc,Iowa,Neb,NU,PSU
Division2 Ill,OSU,Mich,MSU,Pur,IU

 

[dpodoll68]

Perfectly, exactly, and brilliantly said. Completely agree. And I do have a feeling this will be how it is in the end.

Division1 Minn,wisc,Iowa,Neb,NU,PSU
Division2 Ill,OSU,Mich,MSU,Pur,IU

Talk about unbalanced! Every team in your Division 2 aside from OSU has been mediocre-to-terrible the last 3 years. If you leave out MSU, it has the four worst teams in the conference over the last 2 years, at least. As others have said, a division of "OSU and the five dwarves" does not balance out the other division.

I'm still waiting for a good explanation (i.e., one that doesn't involve Bo Schembechler and/or Fielding Yost) as to why everyone is so sure Michigan will ever be any good again. Them becoming a national power again is the only way this scenario would even be remotely balanced, and even then it still wouldn't be.

 

[MrGopher]

Talk about unbalanced! Every team in your Division 2 aside from OSU has been mediocre-to-terrible the last 3 years. If you leave out MSU, it has the four worst teams in the conference over the last 2 years, at least. As others have said, a division of "OSU and the five dwarves" does not balance out the other division.

I'm still waiting for a good explanation (i.e., one that doesn't involve Bo Schembechler and/or Fielding Yost) as to why everyone is so sure Michigan will ever be any good again. Them becoming a national power again is the only way this scenario would even be remotely balanced, and even then it still wouldn't be.

Dude. I can't take you seriously when your scope of history is only three years. Sorry.

And you want a reason why Michigan wont be horrible for so long.... Money. You ever look at how much money it costs to get season tickets in the Big House?? And its not like there are only a couple of seats and suites there. Their alumni and boosters make ours (and Iowa's and wisky's and just about everyone's) look small, poor, and uninfluential. And whopping media coverage even while they have been bad. And they can recruit even though their coach is a tool. GOD!! I hate Michigan!

 

[year of the gopher]

Dude. I can't take you seriously when your scope of history is only three years. Sorry.

And you want a reason why Michigan wont be horrible for so long.... Money. You ever look at how much money it costs to get season tickets in the Big House?? And its not like there are only a couple of seats and suites there. And whopping media coverage even while they have been bad. And they can recruit even though their coach is a tool.

In my opinion the divisions shouldn't be set based on historical power of the schools. Strict geography should be used. There is no telling which school will go through the next up cycle (ala Wisconsin in the 90's and 00's) or the next down cycle (Illinois has become a TERRIBLE team). If we're going to use history as a judge, how far back should we go? Does Minnesota get considered as a powerhouse due to NC's in the 30's and 40's???

 

[dpodoll68]

Dude. I can't take you seriously when your scope of history is only three years. Sorry.

What's more relevant to "competitive balance"? That Michigan has sucked donkey balls for two years or that they have one national championship in the last 62?

And you want a reason why Michigan wont be horrible for so long.... Money. You ever look at how much money it costs to get season tickets in the Big House?? And its not like there are only a couple of seats and suites there. Their alumni and boosters make ours (and Iowa's and wisky's and just about everyone's) look small, poor, and uninfluential. And whopping media coverage even while they have been bad. And they can recruit even though their coach is a tool. GOD!! I hate Michigan!

Hmm. Among BCS schools, Stanford has the largest endowment. Northwestern is #4. Two bastions of football excellence, are they not?

 

[MrGopher]

In my opinion the divisions shouldn't be set based on historical power of the schools. Strict geography should be used. There is no telling which school will go through the next up cycle (ala Wisconsin in the 90's and 00's) or the next down cycle (Illinois has become a TERRIBLE team). If we're going to use history as a judge, how far back should we go? Does Minnesota get considered as a powerhouse due to NC's in the 30's and 40's???

Yeah, I wouldn't be heartbroken by a clean East-West split. But I doubt it is going to happen.

I'm not saying that they should look at any slice of history to determine things, but to pick on only the most recent three years is way too short-sighted.

 

[MrGopher]

What's more relevant to "competitive balance"? That Michigan has sucked donkey balls for two years or that they have one national championship in the last 62?



Hmm. Among BCS schools, Stanford has the largest endowment. Northwestern is #4. Two bastions of football excellence, are they not?

Considering Michigan is still the winningest program in Div1, I'm sure they haven't been a pile of losers 61 out of the last 62 years.

And I'm not talking about endowment. I'm talking about football revenue. Boosters to the Football program. Not to their Pharmacology program, or to their Aerospace Engineering program.

I highly doubt that NU and Stanford's football money looks anything like Michigan's. Which do you think is more relevant to our discussion... Football money or research money?

 

[dpodoll68]

I'm not saying that they should look at any slice of history to determine things, but to pick on only the most recent three years is way too short-sighted.

That's been my whole point all along. The history of the teams is inconsequential when looking at "competitive balance". There's absolutely no way of knowing what the Big Ten is going to look like 5, 10, 20 years from now. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. The last 3 years thing is a joke, a play on "insert random arbitrary timeslice here" and using that to justify any kind of split other than E-W.

Which do you think is more relevant to our discussion... Football money or research money?

Neither is at all relevant. Notre Dame has a huge football budget...look at how well they've been doing. Utterly irrelevant for 22 years and counting. There are other examples, but they are Exhibit A in "having a huge following, booster revenue, expensive tickets, etc. does not at all even remotely guarantee football success".

If they would just tell us the truth, for once, and say that it's really about marketing and trying to line up the most popular schools in the championship game as often as possible...I still wouldn't be happy with it, but I would give them props for being truthful. Instead, they try to feed us this "competitive balance" BS. You are playing into it yourself. You care more about the fact that Michigan has a huge football budget, expensive tickets, sells a lot of merchandise, has a historically strong recruiting base, etc. than the fact that they suck and there is nothing to guarantee that they won't continue sucking for the foreseeable future.

 

[MrGopher]

That's been my whole point all along. The history of the teams is inconsequential when looking at "competitive balance". There's absolutely no way of knowing what the Big Ten is going to look like 5, 10, 20 years from now. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. The last 3 years thing is a joke, a play on "insert random arbitrary timeslice here" and using that to justify any kind of split other than E-W.



Neither is at all relevant. Notre Dame has a huge football budget...look at how well they've been doing. Utterly irrelevant for 22 years and counting. There are other examples, but they are Exhibit A in "having a huge following, booster revenue, expensive tickets, etc. does not at all even remotely guarantee football success".

If they would just tell us the truth, for once, and say that it's really about marketing and trying to line up the most popular schools in the championship game as often as possible...I still wouldn't be happy with it, but I would give them props for being truthful. Instead, they try to feed us this "competitive balance" BS. You are playing into it yourself. You care more about the fact that Michigan has a huge football budget, expensive tickets, sells a lot of merchandise, has a historically strong recruiting base, etc. than the fact that they suck and there is nothing to guarantee that they won't continue sucking for the foreseeable future.

So you aren't an idiot!! I didn't realize you were joking. Can't tell with some of the goofballs on this site! No harm no foul.

And yes, I would be fine with a EastWest split for exactly the reason you alluded to... it actually is forward-looking, and not based on satisfying the status quo of traditional powers.

 

[highwayman]

That's been my whole point all along. The history of the teams is inconsequential when looking at "competitive balance". There's absolutely no way of knowing what the Big Ten is going to look like 5, 10, 20 years from now. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. The last 3 years thing is a joke, a play on "insert random arbitrary timeslice here" and using that to justify any kind of split other than E-W.



Neither is at all relevant. Notre Dame has a huge football budget...look at how well they've been doing. Utterly irrelevant for 22 years and counting. There are other examples, but they are Exhibit A in "having a huge following, booster revenue, expensive tickets, etc. does not at all even remotely guarantee football success".

If they would just tell us the truth, for once, and say that it's really about marketing and trying to line up the most popular schools in the championship game as often as possible...I still wouldn't be happy with it, but I would give them props for being truthful. Instead, they try to feed us this "competitive balance" BS. You are playing into it yourself. You care more about the fact that Michigan has a huge football budget, expensive tickets, sells a lot of merchandise, has a historically strong recruiting base, etc. than the fact that they suck and there is nothing to guarantee that they won't continue sucking for the foreseeable future.

SCORE! East-West is the only way to go. Time will certainly tell about the great fallacy of "competitive balance". Competitive balance will come from WHATEVER divisions are formed. The 5 games in the division will settle the score, the 3 non-division games will generally be a wash. We have NO WAY to predict how things will play out over the next 10-20 years. East-West is the only way to go.

 

[ulfr]

There is nothing written in stone that Michigan will comeback in a timely fashion, nor is there anything that says PSU survive at the top post-Paterno as it didn't really become a consistent top ten contender util he came around. After all, there was a time when it was inconceivable that Minnesota wouldn't be a top 25 team.

But this is all about perception in the here and now, and more importantly, its potential in the eyeballs-on-HD-screens race. National Media has a greater interest in Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, or OSU because those were the good teams 'back in the day'. [Perception seems to lag a bit to the 'good old days' which seem to always be the two or three decades or so ending 5 years ago.] Penn State and Nebraska have could not have moved the national 'needle' nearly to the extent that they do now back say in the '30s. It will, however, take a colossal and continued movement for Michigan to tumble that far over years that isn't nationally relevant, much more than one bad coach's tenure. Notre Dame is certainly more in danger of being unable to move the 'needle' in coming years.

Although most fans in Big Ten territory, especially in the western regions, would love to see a simple division along territorial lines that is not going to happen. The decision will be driven on the perceived popularity of the match-ups in the rest of the country. Yes, MARKETING will drive this whether you or I like it or not. I would hope that locally the WI-IA matchup would be a victim before MN-IA or MN-WI but given our relative unimportant stature in the world of marketing and the limp#ick approach our AD is publicly taking with his whole 'gee-wiz, compromises will have to be made, don'chya know' act, I am almost dreading the eventual announcement. To me the 'Penn State swapped for Illinois in an otherwise east-west format [aka 'Grain Belt V Rust Belt' format] keeps the balance of perception and wins and is the best I can hope for at this point. The big losers would be Penn State in loosing regional relevance in exchange for a clearer shot at the title, and for their fans, much less accessible road games year in and year out. The rest of the league would keep rivaleries more or less intact and be able to rekindle some with Nebraska in the west.

But I am expecting something that will make me hit my head on this desk...

 

[loki]

You make some good points but why are you so sure? Are you an AD or work for the Big Ten. If not, you nor anyone except those on the inside can be completely sure. I for one hope that common sense will prevail, which in my opinion is is an E/W alignment, though often in life it does not.

 

[gold04]

I'd put PSU, OSU, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan in one division. Then I'd put Minnesota, Illinios, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana and MSU in another. I think those divisions would be pretty equal.

 

[mplsbadger]

To me the 'Penn State swapped for Illinois in an otherwise east-west format [aka 'Grain Belt V Rust Belt' format] keeps the balance of perception and wins and is the best I can hope for at this point. The big losers would be Penn State in loosing regional relevance in exchange for a clearer shot at the title, and for their fans, much less accessible road games year in and year out. The rest of the league would keep rivaleries more or less intact and be able to rekindle some with Nebraska in the west.

Just wanted to understand the impact of putting PSU in the west on the team's fans.

Example schedules if east:
OSU, MI, MSU, PUR, IN, NU, IA, MN
OSU, MI, MSU, PUR, IN, WI, NW, IL

Example schedules if west (with IL swap and NO crossover)
OSU, NW, MSU, WI, IN, NU, IA, MN (swaps NW for MI, WI for PUR)
NU, MI, IA, PUR, MN, WI, NW, IL (swaps NU for OSU, IA for MSU, MN for IN)

Notice that the impact with no crossovers is an average of 2.5 games a year, or 1.125 road games per year (at destinations that are further away). The reason it is not 3 games per year is that Illinois is always in the opposite division. If you protect the OSU game as a crossover, this becomes one road game a year.

I just don't think this is going to be a big deal to their fans and think it is a weak part of the argument against moving PSU west.

 

[Iceland12]

I'd put PSU, OSU, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan in one division. Then I'd put Minnesota, Illinios, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana and MSU in another. I think those divisions would be pretty equal.

I'd then create a two division set-up for basketball by swapping Nebraska, PSU and Iowa for MSU,IL and Purdue. Though Tubby might want to somehow get the Badgers in his division also.

 

[Goldmember]

Although most fans in Big Ten territory, especially in the western regions, would love to see a simple division along territorial lines that is not going to happen. The decision will be driven on the perceived popularity of the match-ups in the rest of the country. Yes, MARKETING will drive this whether you or I like it or not.

I don't get it. So why do we want Michigan/OSU/PSU/Michigan State to all very rarely play each other? Because the "perceived national popularity" of those games is low or high?

And are we talking about "marketing" the same way the ACC talked a lot about "marketing" before they added three of the biggest college football brands in the country and managed to attract less national attention than before because of an illogical alignment?

 

[Schnauzer]

I voted for East/West but somewhere in the back of my mind I hope the Big 10 finds a way reduce the spotlight on divisions, or come up with a plan that rotates three team "pods" each season. After all, the Big 10 is known for its unity and I think a lot of that has to do with the "all for one, one for all" spirit (not to mention the long history together, I know). The thing I always hate about divisions in any conference is the 'us and them' mentality that is sure to follow. It behaves as mini conferences within the parent conference. "Our division is much tougher than yours..."

I know having a championship game is a big deal and it is headed our way. That will probably kill the 'pod' idea because it would raise the chances of having the championship game played between two teams that had already met in the regular season. But, to daydream... it would be fun to see MN/WI/IA, MI/MSU/OSU, PSU/PU/IN, NEB/IL/NU

 

[RodentRampage]

I don't get it. So why do we want Michigan/OSU/PSU/Michigan State to all very rarely play each other? Because the "perceived national popularity" of those games is low or high?

And are we talking about "marketing" the same way the ACC talked a lot about "marketing" before they added three of the biggest college football brands in the country and managed to attract less national attention than before because of an illogical alignment?

Here's what the pundits have done. They went into an MRI machine, and saw what parts of their brains were activated when people explained the ACC's situation to them. Then they went in and surgically removed those parts of their brain.

That's the only way it makes any sense. They've seen the problems this has caused the ACC, but seem determined to repeat those same mistakes.

Remember Wormtongue from the Lord of the Rings movies, the character spewing bad advice? That is what the market drones are. The market drones love to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I'm sure the market drones at Ford sang the Edsel's praises too.

Part of what annoys me about this is the lying. If it is about marketing, then say so, stop LYING and saying that it is about competitive balance. There is simply no reason to assume that Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa will not over the long term balance out OSU/Michigan/PSU.

 

[highwayman]

Here's what the pundits have done. They went into an MRI machine, and saw what parts of their brains were activated when people explained the ACC's situation to them. Then they went in and surgically removed those parts of their brain.

That's the only way it makes any sense. They've seen the problems this has caused the ACC, but seem determined to repeat those same mistakes.

Remember Wormtongue from the Lord of the Rings movies, the character spewing bad advice? That is what the market drones are. The market drones love to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I'm sure the market drones at Ford sang the Edsel's praises too.

Part of what annoys me about this is the lying. If it is about marketing, then say so, stop LYING and saying that it is about competitive balance. There is simply no reason to assume that Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa will not over the long term balance out OSU/Michigan/PSU.

You are a nerd, but I'm a bigger nerd for knowing off the top of my egghead that Brad Dourif played him in the movie.

What gets lost in this "competitive" crap is that you still have a 50-50 chance that the two division champions play in the regular season and in the championship game. What's more competitive than having the best two teams play twice??? Yet half hail this and half fear this. Goofy. East-West. Walk away. Goodnight and goodbye.

 

[mplsbadger]

Here's what the pundits have done. They went into an MRI machine, and saw what parts of their brains were activated when people explained the ACC's situation to them. Then they went in and surgically removed those parts of their brain.

That's the only way it makes any sense. They've seen the problems this has caused the ACC, but seem determined to repeat those same mistakes.

Remember Wormtongue from the Lord of the Rings movies, the character spewing bad advice? That is what the market drones are. The market drones love to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I'm sure the market drones at Ford sang the Edsel's praises too.

Part of what annoys me about this is the lying. If it is about marketing, then say so, stop LYING and saying that it is about competitive balance. There is simply no reason to assume that Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa will not over the long term balance out OSU/Michigan/PSU.

Gosh I hope the rest of the conference doesn't stand for it.

A big worry is that on the OSU board they want to swap PSU and Wisconsin. I hate the idea of Wisconsin moving east as I think most UW, MN, IA fans do.

So what if the western schools refuse this and they instead do the PSU swap with Illinois to 'balance' the divisions. This will basically clear a path for OSU to the title game every year.

OSU already plays Michigan and PSU every year. Why change it now?