Geography to Play Big Part in B1G Realignment

[Iceland12]

Saw this in the "Comments" section of the BTN Expansion Survey:

Quote below from the article at this link:http://thegazette.com/2012/11/30/whats-next-for-b1g-expansion-football-realignment/
Commissioner Jim Delany said last week the conference’s athletics directors will handle reconstructing the divisions in early January. When league administrators crafted the Legends and Leaders divisions in August 2010, they placed a priority on competitive equality. Rivalries and geography played secondary roles, as I documented in this 10-part series in 2011.
But Delany suggested that the tenets in realignment will be different this time around when incorporating Rutgers and Maryland into the league.
“I think it’s realistic to believe that geography will play a bigger role simply because now we span from the ocean to the Colorado border and from the Canadian border to the mid‑South,” Delany told reporters. “So we’re really pushing the limits. We are a national conference in many ways, but even geographically we’re spread, and as a result I think that geography will have to play probably a more important role in the evolution of the next divisional structure.”

 

[Gopher Bandanna Guy]

I'm waiting for Delany to pick up 2 more teams in 2013, making his 16-team superconference a reality. Then the remaining original charter members of the Big Ten to secede to break free and make their own conference in 2021. I say they call it , the "Big Ten".

 

[TLHGO4]

I'm waiting for Delany to pick up 2 more teams in 2013, making his 16-team superconference a reality. Then the remaining original charter members of the Big Ten to secede to break free and make their own conference in 2021. I say they call it , the "Big Ten".

Does that mean Chicago will rejoin the Big Ten?

 

[Iceland12]

I'm waiting for Delany to pick up 2 more teams in 2013, making his 16-team superconference a reality. Then the remaining original charter members of the Big Ten to secede to break free and make their own conference in 2021. I say they call it , the "Big Ten".

Why wait? You could do it now with 14. There were 7 Charter Members before it was called the Big Ten. Purdue, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern and the University of Chicago. Not a bad Division. Oh, I know what you're thinking and yeah, Indiana could replace the Badgers.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Simple. East-West, this time for real. Move to 9 game conference schedule (they'll want to do this anyway) ASAP, so that you can have a protected crossover game as they currently do (to help with preserving some rivalries). 3 NC games gives the flexibility to have 1, even 2 NC rivalries or big matchups and slip in a FCS or low-level FBS type team in the mix. 4/5 Home/Away or 5/4 alternating years allows teams to go all-in with 8 home games or the schedule flexibility of a home/home series with a major opponent that coincides with the 5 home game year making for 7 total home games, no one loses out on ticket/etc revenue.

Divisions, split strictly by E/W alignment:

East:
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

West:
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska

Crossover games (not necessary but sure help in preserving some of the games the BT might want to consider if they value history):
Michigan-Minnesota (LBJ game)
Indiana-Purdue (in-state rivalry)
MSU-Iowa (seem to be very similar in style of play and competitiveness over the past decade to each other, but not really a "rivalry" per se)
OSU-Wisconsin (if Wisconsin thinks they're one of the big boys, let them play OSU ever year )
PSU-Nebraska (Big-time programs recently entered the BT, history in some big games from the 80s including the catch that was 3 yards out of bounds)
Maryland-Illinois (nothing good to say here, new team no history)
Rutgers-Northwestern (same as above)

All traditional rivalries are kept: OSU-UM, UM-MSU, Indiana-Purdue, MSU-Indiana, WI-MN, MN-IA, NW-Illinois, UM-MN, PSU-Maryland (played 27 times), PSU-Rutgers (played slightly fewer). Even lesser or newer rivalries are maintained: Neb-IA (played a decent amount and similar in geography), Neb-MN (played 55 times or something?), WI-IA (Heartland Trophy), MD-Rutgers (newcomers), OSU-PSU and OSU-MSU (MSU and PSU see OSU as their bigger rivals). Are there any I'm missing?

As much as I hate the MD-Rutgers addition, this keeps a focus on geography (locality) for a majority (6 of 9) conference games, protects and fosters the rivalries, and makes sense to the casual viewer (East/West is unquestionable). I also think these divisions are pretty competitive on the eye test, although this really should be the LAST thing they consider since teams rise and fall over time.

Thoughts?

 

[GophersInIowa]

As it stands now, how would you do it geographically? Would the BT be willing to put Ohio St. and Michigan in the same division? There are several ways in my mind:

NW Division: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Michigan St., and Northwestern
SE Division: Ohio St., Penn St., Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, and Illinois

That's definitely not balanced at all.

West: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Northwestern, Illinois, and Purdue
East: Michigan, Michigan St., Indiana, Ohio St., Penn St., Maryland, Rutgers

Or you could switch Michigan St. and Purdue and I think you've got it pretty balanced. Michigan and Michigan St. would still play as the protected rivalry game.

 

[metrolax]

When you start tinkering with divisions in terms of competitive balance, you often get screwed. That's what has happened now. Just make it geographical, and you will find that most of the time you actually get good balance.

 

[Iceland12]

Simple. East-West, this time for real. Move to 9 game conference schedule (they'll want to do this anyway) ASAP, so that you can have a protected crossover game as they currently do (to help with preserving some rivalries). 3 NC games gives the flexibility to have 1, even NC rivalries or big matchups and slip in a FCS or low-level FBS type team in the mix. 4/5 Home/Away or 5/4 alternating years allows teams to go all-in with 8 home games or the schedule flexibility of a home/home series with a major opponent that coincides with the 5 home game year making for 7 total home games, no one loses out on ticket/etc revenue.

Divisions, split strictly by E/W alignment:

East:
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

West:
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska

Crossover games (not necessary but sure help in preserving some of the games the BT might want to consider if they value history):
Michigan-Minnesota (LBJ game)
Indiana-Purdue (in-state rivalry)
MSU-Iowa (seem to be very similar in style of play and competitiveness over the past decade to each other, but not really a "rivalry" per se)
OSU-Wisconsin (if Wisconsin thinks they're one of the big boys, let them play OSU ever year )
PSU-Nebraska (Big-time programs recently entered the BT, history in some big games from the 80s including the catch that was 3 yards out of bounds)
Maryland-Illinois (nothing good to say here, new team no history)
Rutgers-Northwestern (same as above)

All traditional rivalries are kept: OSU-UM, UM-MSU, Indiana-Purdue, MSU-Indiana, WI-MN, MN-IA, NW-Illinois, UM-MN, PSU-Maryland (played 27 times), PSU-Rutgers (played slightly fewer). Even lesser or newer rivalries are maintained: Neb-IA (played a decent amount and similar in geography), Neb-MN (played 55 times or something?), WI-IA (Heartland Trophy), MD-Rutgers (newcomers), OSU-PSU and OSU-MSU (MSU and PSU see OSU as their bigger rivals). Are there any I'm missing?

As much as I hate the MD-Rutgers addition, this keeps a focus on geography (locality) for a majority (6 of 9) conference games, protects and fosters the rivalries, and makes sense to the casual viewer (East/West is unquestionable). I also think these divisions are pretty competitive on the eye test, although this really should be the LAST thing they consider since teams rise and fall over time.

Thoughts?

Pretty good.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

My only problem is getting all worked up over this whole thing, setting up longer term schedule methods and even assuming future schedule availability for NC opponents and then adding 2 teams in 2013 and screwing it all up again. And depending on those 2 teams the existing divisions may need realigning again (ex NC and UVA are added, E/W needs a change rather than adding one to each).

If 14 is the long-term solution, I would set up inter-divisional games on a 2 year home/away basis but each team comes in to the window each year, and use the odd # of other division games as the odd one out for the 4/5 h/a split. Example for MN:

2014: Michigan (home), Rutgers (away), OSU (home)
2015: Michigan (away), OSU (away), PSU (home)
2016: Michigan (home), PSU (away), Maryland (home)
2017: Michigan (away), Maryland (away), MSU (home)

This ensures in a 4-year span players can play (and students can see) as many BT teams as possible on the schedule, even if the game is away. Helps build the sense of a conference.

 

[GophersInIowa]

My only problem is getting all worked up over this whole thing, setting up longer term schedule methods and even assuming future schedule availability for NC opponents and then adding 2 teams in 2013 and screwing it all up again. And depending on those 2 teams the existing divisions may need realigning again (ex NC and UVA are added, E/W needs a change rather than adding one to each).

If 14 is the long-term solution, I would set up inter-divisional games on a 2 year home/away basis but each team comes in to the window each year, and use the odd # of other division games as the odd one out for the 4/5 h/a split. Example for MN:

2014: Michigan (home), Rutgers (away), OSU (home)
2015: Michigan (away), OSU (away), PSU (home)
2016: Michigan (home), PSU (away), Maryland (home)
2017: Michigan (away), Maryland (away), MSU (home)

This ensures in a 4-year span players can play (and students can see) as many BT teams as possible on the schedule, even if the game is away. Helps build the sense of a conference.

The bad thing about that is there is one team you won't play in four years. In this case, it would be Indiana. I would prefer it to go in a 6-year cycle where you are ensured to play every team at least once every three years. Something like this:

2014: Michigan (home), Michigan St. (home), Maryland (away)
2015: Michigan (away), Penn St. (away), Rutgers (away)
2016: Michigan (home), Ohio St. (home), Indiana (away)
Then repeat that the next three years switching all home to away and away to home.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Or you could throw out wanting to play a team in consecutive years H/A and go for the approach of seeing every team in a 4 year span, 2 teams twice:

2014: Michigan (home), Rutgers (away), OSU (home)
2015: Michigan (away), Maryland (away), PSU (home)
2016: Michigan (home), MSU (away), Indiana (home)
2017: Michigan (away), OSU (away), Rutgers (home)

Neither is perfect. One gives a little more continuity to the schedule and players are guaranteed to see a most of the teams on their schedule both at home and away. I actually prefer the second because is smooths out the inconsistencies in schedule difficulty from year to year. By this I mean OSU doesn't get 2 years in a row of playing a cupcake like Illinois while PSU gets Nebraska instead for 2 straight years (or the opposite, a tough stretch for a team like MN getting 1-2 tough teams from another division for 2 years). It also gives fans/teams better exposure to the whole league, even if it doesn't include h/a scenarios.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

The bad thing about that is there is one team you won't play in four years. In this case, it would be Indiana. I would prefer it to go in a 6-year cycle where you are ensured to play every team at least once every three years. Something like this:

2014: Michigan (home), Michigan St. (home), Maryland (away)
2015: Michigan (away), Penn St. (away), Rutgers (away)
2016: Michigan (home), Ohio St. (home), Indiana (away)
Then repeat that the next three years switching all home to away and away to home.

Posted at the same time. Like I said I tend to agree with this method more than the first suggestion.

Of course, the commish and bozo ADs will probably come up with something stupid on an epic scale that we can't even fathom, and then it will only change 2 years later when the league adds Texas Tech for the TX market and Georgia Tech for the ATL market.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

Evolving back to a Big Ten...

I'm waiting for Delany to pick up 2 more teams in 2013, making his 16-team superconference a reality. Then the remaining original charter members of the Big Ten to secede to break free and make their own conference in 2021. I say they call it , the "Big Ten".

I'll try to hang on long enough for that to happen - best idea in a long time...

 

[EG#9]

Simple. East-West, this time for real. Move to 9 game conference schedule (they'll want to do this anyway) ASAP, so that you can have a protected crossover game as they currently do (to help with preserving some rivalries). 3 NC games gives the flexibility to have 1, even 2 NC rivalries or big matchups and slip in a FCS or low-level FBS type team in the mix. 4/5 Home/Away or 5/4 alternating years allows teams to go all-in with 8 home games or the schedule flexibility of a home/home series with a major opponent that coincides with the 5 home game year making for 7 total home games, no one loses out on ticket/etc revenue.

Divisions, split strictly by E/W alignment:

East:
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers

West:
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska

Crossover games (not necessary but sure help in preserving some of the games the BT might want to consider if they value history):
Michigan-Minnesota (LBJ game)
Indiana-Purdue (in-state rivalry)
MSU-Iowa (seem to be very similar in style of play and competitiveness over the past decade to each other, but not really a "rivalry" per se)
OSU-Wisconsin (if Wisconsin thinks they're one of the big boys, let them play OSU ever year )
PSU-Nebraska (Big-time programs recently entered the BT, history in some big games from the 80s including the catch that was 3 yards out of bounds)
Maryland-Illinois (nothing good to say here, new team no history)
Rutgers-Northwestern (same as above)

All traditional rivalries are kept: OSU-UM, UM-MSU, Indiana-Purdue, MSU-Indiana, WI-MN, MN-IA, NW-Illinois, UM-MN, PSU-Maryland (played 27 times), PSU-Rutgers (played slightly fewer). Even lesser or newer rivalries are maintained: Neb-IA (played a decent amount and similar in geography), Neb-MN (played 55 times or something?), WI-IA (Heartland Trophy), MD-Rutgers (newcomers), OSU-PSU and OSU-MSU (MSU and PSU see OSU as their bigger rivals). Are there any I'm missing?

As much as I hate the MD-Rutgers addition, this keeps a focus on geography (locality) for a majority (6 of 9) conference games, protects and fosters the rivalries, and makes sense to the casual viewer (East/West is unquestionable). I also think these divisions are pretty competitive on the eye test, although this really should be the LAST thing they consider since teams rise and fall over time.

Thoughts?

This would be a great alignment for Minnesota (with the obvious exception of getting Michigan every year), but I don't think it is fair long term. While I agree that most teams rise and fall over time, I think Michigan and tOSU are exceptions. If it's about money, maybe you do put them in the same division and hope that someone from the western half of the conference becomes the 3rd super power of the conference. If it's about competitive balance, I think you split them up and split the other 12 teams by geography. My own personal opinion is that it's going to get tougher and tougher to recruit to Nebraska (despite their awesome facilities) due to the fading memories of their dominance and (most importantly) their location.

What about swapping Purdue/Wisconsin(or Nebraska) to the East for Michigan/Rutgers?

In this scenario, Purdue and Indiana would then be in the same division and you split Michigan/tOSU. Wisconsin stays in the West where they've won* 2 consecutive titles and Rutgers has to take one as the new team that gets screwed. I think most of the teams in the West would like to get a game with one of Rutgers/Maryland every year to expand their own recruiting footprint/media exposure. Certainly not a perfect scenario as the biggest flaw I see is forcing an end to Michigan-MSU as an annual game.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

This would be a great alignment for Minnesota (with the obvious exception of getting Michigan every year), but I don't think it is fair long term. While I agree that most teams rise and fall over time, I think Michigan and tOSU are exceptions. If it's about money, maybe you do put them in the same division and hope that someone from the western half of the conference becomes the 3rd super power of the conference. If it's about competitive balance, I think you split them up and split the other 12 teams by geography. My own personal opinion is that it's going to get tougher and tougher to recruit to Nebraska (despite their awesome facilities) due to the fading memories of their dominance and (most importantly) their location.

What about swapping Purdue/Wisconsin(or Nebraska) to the East for Michigan/Rutgers?

In this scenario, Purdue and Indiana would then be in the same division and you split Michigan/tOSU. Wisconsin stays in the West where they've won* 2 consecutive titles and Rutgers has to take one as the new team that gets screwed. I think most of the teams in the West would like to get a game with one of Rutgers/Maryland every year to expand their own recruiting footprint/media exposure. Certainly not a perfect scenario as the biggest flaw I see is forcing an end to Michigan-MSU as an annual game.

I think Michigan/OSU dominance is overrated if you look long-term, especially if you consider the rest of the teams outside PSU are not in any way super powers. Nebraska last won a national championship the exact same year that Michigan did, and I'd say in the meantime have had equal amount of success and down years. I'm confused how Nebraska's location is a hindrance to them to you - they have continued to be able to recruit and compete. Are they any more remote than, say, Tuscaloosa AL? Eugene, OR? Nebraska has a lot of tradition/history, and much of it is recent. They also have an incredibly passionate fanbase that has proven itself over the years, and donated enough for them to have these top notch facilities we keep comparing to. They have nothing to worry about. Also, like em or hate em, Wisconsin and Iowa have been pretty successful over the last 12 years.

In fact, if you look at the last 13 seasons of football from 2000-2012 and average out conference place (I have no idea exactly how to say what Rutgers and Maryland would have averaged in the Big Ten over that span, so I will say both average the middle of the pack at 7 given MD's success in the early 2000s and Rutgers' more recent success) and final AP poll standings (I will use current AP standing for 2012 season as I feel it is pretty accurate given we're after the regular season and include OSU's placement in the AP standings, as well as include PSU's negated seasons). For 2012, given the PSU/OSU situation I used standings/record and did not factor the title game in (since Wisconsin did not finish 1st by record). The conference divisions I proposed have had:

East: Average BT placing of 6.0. 29 teams finished the season ranked in the Top 25 with an average ranking of 10.8 when they did.

West: Average BT placing of 5.9. 23 teams finished the season ranked in the Top 25 with an average ranking of 12.5 when they did.

I think it's hard to say either side has a distinct advantage over the other, except for the giant elephant in the Big Ten: Ohio State. They have proven year after year to finish in the top of the Big Ten, and have finished the season with a final ranking in the single digits 9 times in the last 13 seasons. Whatever division they fall in will have the slight advantage in terms of times ranked and average rank. For example, flip the West's top team (Wisconsin, surprisingly by # times ranked and avg rank) and the East's top team, OSU, and all of a sudden the West has a better average poll placement and only 2 fewer times ranked total.

For me, the moral of the story is that competitive balance means very little outside OSU. Set up the conference for success in terms of geography (for teams and fans), fostering rivalries, and then look at 'competitive balance' to see if it comes close enough to passing the test.

 

[station19]

With the conference soon going to 14 teams(and most likely more in the future), is it better to have protected rivalries or just play your own division and rotate all non division teams/games?

 

[RailBaronYarr]

With the conference soon going to 14 teams(and most likely more in the future), is it better to have protected rivalries or just play your own division and rotate all non division teams/games?

That's a very good question and it completely depends on your point of view. For me, geographic alignment makes the most sense. Traditional rivals are TYPICALLY aligned geographically. It's a better branding method as it's easy to understand and is "fair" in the eyes of many ("hey, they aligned it right down the middle E/W, what more can they do?"). That said, there are some 'rivalries' such as Indiana-Purdue and MN-Mich that aren't kept with that straight E/W alignment, and some teams that might like playing cross-divisional teams on a regular basis could be served. Furthermore, if you don't want protected cross-division games, then it's nearly impossible to keep all of the rivalries without having an alignment method that a) makes sense to anyone and b) is competitively balanced.

I love the Jug game - the history and rivalry that's there even if Michigan has utterly dominated the series. I know Purdue/Indiana is big to them. In the past when it was 4 years on 2 years off for the Jug (or the cycle of teams not protected), it wasn't a huge deal. NOW, you relegate games like that to just a rotation schedule and you go possibly 4 years without the game. I dunno. It's tough, to be sure. And even in our current situation of "protected x-division games" we have ones that make zero sense like Purdue-IA (or seem forced like PSU-Nebraska) and some teams get a "ho-hum" game. That's what happens when you dilute the league with more and more teams that don't have history with current BT member schools. A non-ideal situation where some get a good deal (I would say an E/W alignment for MN is a great deal, ESPECIALLY if you get a crossover with Mich), but other schools will get screwed in to playing Johnny Come Latelies MD and Rutgers every year, even more if you do a crossover protection.

 

[Hates Monikers]

Regardless of the final details of the divisions, I'm thinking that we'll have Wisconsin and Iowa in our division under most of the options we'll see. That leaves the question of the protected rivalry. I thought was really important to keep our rivalries with Wisconsin and Iowa. But Michigan? It's been 50 years since they considered us a rival. I hope we wouldn't be tied to them every year.

I understand the Little Brown Jug. But we went two seasons without playing them a few years ago, and we all survived. If they're not in our division, I hope we get an annual matchup we might win occasionally.

 

[station19]

I guess what I was thinking was; if you go e/w some schools may lose some rivalries with their neighboring schools(think schools in mich, indy and ill).

Mn could possibly lose mich, but as stated above that game wasn't played every year for awhile.

If you drop the protected cross-over games you would see the teams in the other division more often.

As it is, a school that has a protected game with indy or purdue has an advantage over the team that has to play osu every yr.

With 16 teams and an eight game schedule, you would play teams in the other division once every eight years. With 16 teams you can pretty much count on a nine or ten game schedule.

 

[MorningCalmBadger]

If we go to 16 teams, what about looking at the first "pod" system within 2 divisions to help preserve rivalries and target the games you want to play the most?

Leaders North
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

Leaders South
Rutgers
Georgia Tech/North Carolina
Indiana
Purdue

Legends North
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Maryland

Legends South
Penn State
Pitt/Virginia
Illinois
Northwestern

- Play everyone in your pod every year (3 games).
- Play 2 teams from every other pod one year and the other 2 the following year (6 games).
- That's a total of 9 league games which still leaves room for 3 non-conference games to accommodate annual extra-conference rivalry games like ISU/Iowa, Notre Dame/Michigan/MSU/Purdue, Illinois/Missouri etc.
-I think it preserves all of the biggest traditional rivalries, and ensures that other good rivalries like Michigan/Minnesota or Wisconsin/MSU will never take more than a 1 year hiatus. You play every team in the conference 5 times every 10 years and you play your biggest rivals every single year.
-There is at least some Geographic consistancy to help reduce travel costs.
- The best record from each division can still play in the championship game.
-The one weakness might be in getting the competitive balance right, but in my opinion, besides a few of the mega powers, I think it ebbs and flows enough to knock that approach down on the priority list. Yesterday's MSU and Iowa are today's Northwestern and Rutgers. It changes all the time. Geography and rivalries don't change. I realize the Michigan/MSU/OSU pairing is a bit ridiculous, but I can't find another way to solve that little rivalry group without putting them together or doing a permanent crossover system which would totally screw up the play 2 teams in the other pod system every other year which is important.
-Unless you go add one extra conference game to go to 10 and make that extra one a 'permanent crossover' game in which case the pods could be re-tooled and evened out a bit and everything else could stay in tact within the system. But man... that is a lot of tough games and only 2 non conference games. I don't see that happening.

 

[SelectionSunday]

It's pretty clear Big Ten will go to a 9-game conference slate. Delany will get it done; he'll eventually convince all the coaches.

Once it's 14 (or 16) I'd be in favor of getting rid of protected rivalries. Too much potential for creating imbalance. Play the 6 (or 7) teams in your division, plus 3 (or 2) -- using the rotating 2-year schedule cycle -- from the other division.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Regardless of the final details of the divisions, I'm thinking that we'll have Wisconsin and Iowa in our division under most of the options we'll see. That leaves the question of the protected rivalry. I thought was really important to keep our rivalries with Wisconsin and Iowa. But Michigan? It's been 50 years since they considered us a rival. I hope we wouldn't be tied to them every year.

I understand the Little Brown Jug. But we went two seasons without playing them a few years ago, and we all survived. If they're not in our division, I hope we get an annual matchup we might win occasionally.

I'd rather play them. Put me in the minority, but I think local casual fans and diehards get more excited about a game against Michigan (or OSU, Nebraska, etc) than Indiana, Illinois, or Purdue. Part is the jug, part is the name recognition. I'd rather be excited about a bigger matchup than excited over a win against a team we might win occasionally.

And yeah, we went 2 years in the past, with 4 years on. New situation the best we would see is 1 game in 3 years or 2 years on and 4 years off. That's a lot less.

I also don't like how a lot of Gopher fans succumb to the idea that we won't or can't win games like OSU, Nebraska, Michigan and should keep them off our schedules as much as possible. For one, it shows no faith in the program, the coach, the AD, or the players to improve and be a little more like a team like Iowa, Northwestern, Wisconsin who actually can and do win those games "occasionally." It also ignores the fact that we haven't won very many of the "winnable" games over the past 45 years, either. BT wins over Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern (when they were down), and the bad Purdue teams excite nobody and amount to 2-3 BT wins a year (look at even Mason's record in the BT, the most successful coach since the late 60s).

I'm not saying it's right, but I sure would rather play Michigan each year, start winning a few of them and actually have it become more of a rivalry than to help it continue to decline in to insignificance. Those Mich fans and players sure cared about the jug when we took it in 2005...

 

[Schnauzer]

I'll be okay as long as they keep the division names "Legends" and "Leaders".

 

[Iceland12]

I'll be okay as long as they keep the division names "Legends" and "Leaders".

HA! I knew that someone had to like those names!

 

[jovs]

NW Division: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Michigan St., and Northwestern
SE Division: Ohio St., Penn St., Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, and Illinois

If the expansion will come from the Southeast area of the country then planning for the future:

NW Division: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, and Northwestern
SE Division: Ohio St., Penn St., Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, and Michigan St.


Add the new teams to the SE and shift Michigan St to the NW when the new teams are added.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

If the expansion will come from the Southeast area of the country then planning for the future:

NW Division: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Illinois, and Northwestern
SE Division: Ohio St., Penn St., Maryland, Rutgers, Purdue, Indiana, and Michigan St.


Add the new teams to the SE and shift Michigan St to the NW when the new teams are added.

If they're going to go to 16, they should just do it now. Don't F around with 14 for a year or 2, spending time/money paying branding companies to come up with genius ideas like Legends and Leaders and a great MS Paint logo again and then again 2 years later (along with the scheduling arrangements/changes that could cost schools money to back out of NC schedule opponents). I suppose all this TV revenue makes it easy to spend so much (why not give themselves a pat on the back and raise for their good work while at it). Find the teams you want in the next 5 months and announce the 16 team league and setup that will be there through 2050 (hopefully) so you can start negotiating TV contracts NOW.

 

[highwayman]

They're not going to split up MSU/Mich, Ind/Pur, and not going to have Mich and OSU in the same division. That really limits the options. The "geographic" comment is some what of a red herring. Md and Rutgers will be together in the Leaders with PSU. Either Wisconsin or Illinois will switch to the Legends. Really the only option. I'm betting on Illinois in order to reunite with Northwestern. Nine games with a protected rivalry.

Leaders:
Indiana
Maryland
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers
Wisconsin

Legends:
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern

I think the Maryland President already said as much.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

If we go to 16 teams, what about looking at the first "pod" system within 2 divisions to help preserve rivalries and target the games you want to play the most?

Leaders North
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

Leaders South
Rutgers
Georgia Tech/North Carolina
Indiana
Purdue

Legends North
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Maryland

Legends South
Penn State
Pitt/Virginia
Illinois
Northwestern

- Play everyone in your pod every year (3 games).
- Play 2 teams from every other pod one year and the other 2 the following year (6 games).
- That's a total of 9 league games which still leaves room for 3 non-conference games to accommodate annual extra-conference rivalry games like ISU/Iowa, Notre Dame/Michigan/MSU/Purdue, Illinois/Missouri etc.
-I think it preserves all of the biggest traditional rivalries, and ensures that other good rivalries like Michigan/Minnesota or Wisconsin/MSU will never take more than a 1 year hiatus. You play every team in the conference 5 times every 10 years and you play your biggest rivals every single year.
-There is at least some Geographic consistancy to help reduce travel costs.
- The best record from each division can still play in the championship game.
-The one weakness might be in getting the competitive balance right, but in my opinion, besides a few of the mega powers, I think it ebbs and flows enough to knock that approach down on the priority list. Yesterday's MSU and Iowa are today's Northwestern and Rutgers. It changes all the time. Geography and rivalries don't change. I realize the Michigan/MSU/OSU pairing is a bit ridiculous, but I can't find another way to solve that little rivalry group without putting them together or doing a permanent crossover system which would totally screw up the play 2 teams in the other pod system every other year which is important.
-Unless you go add one extra conference game to go to 10 and make that extra one a 'permanent crossover' game in which case the pods could be re-tooled and evened out a bit and everything else could stay in tact within the system. But man... that is a lot of tough games and only 2 non conference games. I don't see that happening.

I'm more a 3-4-1-1 guy, with "rotating divisions" for championship game purposes.

You play your pod (3 games) your partner pod (4), and one each from the other 2 pods (2)

Best best record from the each if the 2 sets of partnered pods would play each other in the CCG. A plus would be you are playing mainly the same conference schedule as the other 7 teams in your division that year.

This method, everyone comes to your stadium at least once every 6 years. And if you play the 1 from the 3rd & 4th pod correctly, then the 5 in ten would apply.