Marcus Fuller: Minnesota Gophers might sink in Bigger Ten

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,073
Reaction score
16,656
Points
113
Minnesota Gophers might sink in Bigger Ten
Nebraska's arrival, new divisional setup, could hurt Gophers
By Marcus R. Fuller

Glen Mason couldn't win a Big Ten title at the University of Minnesota. And he believes it will be even harder to achieve for the Gophers with the expected expansion of the Big Ten.

The University of Nebraska's board of regents reportedly will announce today they have accepted an invitation to join the conference. That won't help the Gophers' efforts to end the Big Ten's longest football title drought.

The Gophers haven't won a Big Ten title since sharing a championship with Indiana and Purdue in 1967. The last time Minnesota went to the Rose Bowl was after the 1961 season. And it hasn't beaten Nebraska since 1960, having gone 0-14 against the 'Huskers since.

"It sure doesn't help your chances," Mason said about expansion hurting the Gophers' hopes of winning a title under coach Tim Brewster.

Brewster declined to comment specifically about Nebraska, but he disagrees with the idea that expansion would have a negative impact.

"Overall, I think (Big Ten Commissioner) Jim Delany has the best interests of everybody at heart," he said. "And what Jim and the (university) presidents do in this conference I'm sure will make everybody's situation better. It's certainly not going to hurt anybody's situation. There's no guarantee that it's going to happen."

Gophers athletics director Joel Maturi said he didn't want to speculate on the Nebraska situation and wouldn't comment "until any announcements." ESPN.com reported Thursday that a source with knowledge of the situation said Nebraska would join the Big Ten by the end of the week or early next week.

But what's good for the Big Ten potentially could be bad for Gophers football.

The Big Ten is expected to split into two divisions, with a conference championship game added in December. Nebraska likely would be in the same division with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern and Illinois. That means the Gophers, who have a 6-18 conference record in three seasons under Brewster, could be considered the worst team in a Big Ten West. They are 2-8 under Brewster against their potential division opponents.

The Big Ten East could include Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan State, Michigan, Indiana and Purdue. Minnesota is 4-8 against those teams in the past three seasons. But the Gophers, who play eight conference games, likely would play only three teams from the East and five teams from the West in a 12-team league schedule.

Brewster wouldn't say whether he favored the Big Ten expanding with Nebraska. He also had no comment on what influence the 'Huskers potentially would have on the conference landscape.

"I think everybody understands the situation," he said. "I'm for what Delany and those guys decide to do."

It makes sense for the Big Ten to expand because Nebraska is among the five most successful college football programs in history (Ohio State and Michigan are also in that group). The 'Huskers might not be as dominant as they were in the 1970s, '80s and '90s when they were ranked No. 1 and winning national titles. In 1983, for example, they demolished the Gophers 84-13, the worst loss in school history.

But they still have a big name that would boost the Big Ten's football image. They wouldn't begin play in a new conference until 2011-12, but the 'Huskers could earn about $20 million a year in revenue from television rights.

Last season's 13-12 loss to Texas in the Big 12 title game proved that Nebraska probably would slide immediately into the Big Ten's top tier, which includes Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa and Penn State.

"Obviously, there has been a lot of speculation to this point, but once the movement starts taking place, when you look at the storied Nebraska program, it's been down for a few years. But it's on its way back," said Mason, a former Kansas coach who is a football analyst on the Big Ten Network.

Former Wisconsin athletics director Pat Richter said Nebraska joining the Big Ten possibly would be a challenge but that it could force Minnesota's program to grow.

"It raises the bar," he said. "It gives everybody incentives to be more respectable. I don't know necessarily if the rest of us needed to have Nebraska in the Big Ten when you have Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and everybody else. But from a geographic standpoint, it kind of puts Minnesota right in the middle of things.

"It's a big deal. Just like Penn State was a big deal years ago when it joined the Big Ten (in 1990). It wasn't as known widely as this situation. This has gotten a lot of publicity and attention, whereas when Penn State came in, it was quiet, hush, hush. I think people are probably more accepting of this, because it's the landscape of college sports today."

Brewster has strong ties to the Big 12 as a former Texas assistant under coach Mack Brown. His youngest son, Nolan, also plays for the Longhorns. But Brewster said he wasn't concerned that Nebraska was contributing to the dismantling of the Big 12. It was announced Thursday that Colorado joined the Pac-10. Texas, Texas AM, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State could soon follow.

"It's the way the college landscape is moving," Brewster said. "Change is sometimes a very positive thing in life. I think everybody hopes that if there's change in conference alignments across the country that it will be a positive thing."

If one thing could remain, though, it would be Minnesota's biggest rivalry games with Wisconsin and Iowa, Brewster said.

"Obviously, there's been a long-standing history with those rivalry games," he said. "Those are very important to not only us but to the conference itself."

NEW BIG TEN

A projection of what an expanded Big Ten Conference would look like in football:

BIG TEN WEST

Minnesota: Hasn't won a share of Big Ten title since 1967 and 0-14 against Nebraska since 1960.

Wisconsin: Among the top three teams in division. Could start rivalry with Nebraska.

Iowa: A down year for the Hawks could open door for future rival Nebraska to compete for a title.

Nebraska: Potential rivalry games with Iowa and Wisconsin would determine division race.

Northwestern: Fourth-best team in division, but move to top of the Big Ten becomes difficult.

Illinois: Beating Minnesota would keep the Illini out of the West division basement.

BIG TEN EAST

Ohio State: Playing Nebraska in first year of expansion would be huge draw, but raw deal for Buckeyes.

Michigan: Regaining prestige would be tougher with Ohio State and Penn State in the same division.

Michigan State: The Spartans probably would compete with Purdue to be the division's third-best team.

Penn State: Only true Eastern team, but traveling wouldn't be as much of a burden.

Purdue: Divisional opponents aren't going to want to face this rising program every season.

Indiana: Minnesota is likely the worst in the West. The Hoosiers easily get that distinction in the East.

http://www.twincities.com/sports/ci_15274184

Go Gophers!!
 

What teams did or didn't do decades ago doesn't actuallly mean that much, those players of the past can't come onto the field. With less teams to contend with, the Gophers have a better chance of winning a division than they did in winning an 11-team conference title. I remember when the Big Ten used to be called the "Big Two and the Little Eight". Removing restrictions on Big Ten teams playing in bowl games played a part in changing this.

I think that having the chance at winning a division title could have a similar effect.

In any case, no disrespect to Nebraska, but I'm not shaking in my boots at the prospect of playing the Cornhuskers. The other division wouldn't be any easier, with Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.
 

I agree Rodent, especially if we expand to only 12 and stop, it would be easier, then you just have to win a 6 team division and get to the title game, then who knows what happens in a one off like that. Now, the 16 team format, then you're talking 8 team divisions...yeah, that could be tough, but even still, you're only taking on 8 teams in a division instead of 11 in a whole conference to get to a "title game" if they still go that route.

One note though:
Last season's 13-12 loss to Texas in the Big 12 title game proved that Nebraska probably would slide immediately into the Big Ten's top tier

How does that one game prove that?? I mean they also lost to Iowa State. Maybe a better way to put it would be that their 10-win season would slide them into the Big Ten's top tier.
 

That article was pretty negative. Where's the balance? It certainly made some valid (negative) points but on the other hand we'd be much less likely to have the same brutal schedule that we're going to have this year if we play the aforementioned B10 East teams every year and only a handful of tOSU, UM, PSU, and MSU.

Also, isn't there an argument to be made that more elite teams increase competition and make it hard for a single team to dominate the league (like tOSU has done for some time) which in turn opens the door for an upstart team to leapfrog an otherwise B10 champion favorite?
 

This division set-up will actually help the Gophers win the Big Ten. All we have to do is get to the title game and get lucky. Way easier than going undefeated.
 


I stopped about half way through, but was that a thousahd-word article about how adding a team to the big ten will make it harder for the Gophers to win the conference? Because I could have told you that after second grade math.
 

I stopped about half way through, but was that a thousahd-word article about how adding a team to the big ten will make it harder for the Gophers to win the conference? Because I could have told you that after second grade math.

Perhaps you should take remedial second-grade math, because you are wrong. So is Marcus. Think about it.
 

Oh jeebus. This is why I don't miss Glen. Have some f-ing confidence. If Texas comes on then yes, I think things get a lot tougher on the West half of the division. Nebraska doesn't make them easier, but I would agree that in a divisional format the Gophers stand a better shot of winning at least the West half and putting themselves into a title matchup then they currently do with winning the conference outright. And I don't think Nebraska becomes more of a roadblock than Wisky or Iowa would be.
 

Perhaps you should take remedial second-grade math, because you are wrong. So is Marcus. Think about it.


Umm...thought about it. Being the best of 11 teams is still easier than being the best of 12.
 



It will eliminate the possibility of a shared Big Ten title, which is the only way that this would make it more difficult for us to win the Big Ten. A shared title is still a Big Ten title, after all, if everyone went 4-4, we could have the Big Ten title shared 11 ways.

Yes, we add Nebraska to the schedule, but we won't have to beat Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State to win the division.
 

Oh jeebus. This is why I don't miss Glen. Have some f-ing confidence. If Texas comes on then yes, I think things get a lot tougher on the West half of the division. Nebraska doesn't make them easier, but I would agree that in a divisional format the Gophers stand a better shot of winning at least the West half and putting themselves into a title matchup then they currently do with winning the conference outright. And I don't think Nebraska becomes more of a roadblock than Wisky or Iowa would be.

I agree with this. Adding Nebraska and a west division helps us. But in my opinion, adding Texas (and Notre Dame) will bury us even further. We'll never see ABC or ESPN again.
 

It will eliminate the possibility of a shared Big Ten title, which is the only way that this would make it more difficult for us to win the Big Ten. A shared title is still a Big Ten title, after all, if everyone went 4-4, we could have the Big Ten title shared 11 ways.

Yes, we add Nebraska to the schedule, but we won't have to beat Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State to win the division.

To be honest, the reason I want to see the Gophers win a Big Ten title is to get to see the Gophers in the Rose Bowl. For whatever reason that is what makes me excited. And thanks to the rules changes a shared title won't get us there anymore (b/c the Rose Bowl can and would likely pick the co-champion now).

And winning it outright means beating a good team from the east in a title game. It is likely that the team we'd have to beat in a title game is one we would have had to beat to share the title under the old setup anyway. So depending on the year it might not make things any harder.
 

I wrote six months ago that a 12th team would help the Gophers get back to the Rose Bowl. I'll spare you linking the article because most people here hate bleacherreport.com, but Fuller is way off on this one. You have a much better chance winning a six-team division and winning a conference championship game than you do beating out 10 other squads over a full season.
 



Penn state has played in 2? Rose bowls. I dont think Nebraska will necessarily have much more success. They probably will play in about 1/3 to 1/2 of the title games under an east west alignment however.
 

Umm...thought about it. Being the best of 11 teams is still easier than being the best of 12.

Are you obtuse?

What is easier? Being the best of 11 teams or being the best of 6 plus one extra game?

Don't forget that you have toes too if you run out of fingers to count on.

(P.S. This is not even mentioning that the 3 most dominant teams (by far) since 1993 will almost certainly be in the other division.)
 

If those were the 6-team divisions, it obviously would be much easier for the Gophers to win the Big Ten. The stength is in the other division. Gophers would only need to have a better conference record than 5 teams instead of 11 in order to get a shot at the big prize (Rose Bowl or other BCS bid). Simple math, really. As others have pointed out, anything can happen in a 1-shot deal.
 

If those were the 6-team divisions, it obviously would be much easier for the Gophers to win the Big Ten. The stength is in the other division. Gophers would only need to have a better conference record than 5 teams instead of 11 in order to get a shot at the big prize (Rose Bowl or other BCS bid). Simple math, really. As others have pointed out, anything can happen in a 1-shot deal.

Either way all Big Ten programs need to step up which makes for better football overall.
This will be very interesting going forward, and only looks like doom for those who expect us to win the conference by "slipping by" an easy schedule, or winning a tiebreaker.(cough cough Mase)
What the heck is wrong with stepping up and earning it on the field? This new division alignment gives us a path which requires beating our rivals and earning a berth to a big game, which would up the stakes and be very exciting.
 

I don't see any chance that the divisions Marcus mentioned ever being reality.

I simply can't see Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State all being fine with being in the same division.

If it is two divisions, I expect there to be a north-south split, rather than east-west.
 

Oh jeebus. This is why I don't miss Glen. Have some f-ing confidence.

That was the biggest thing I took from the article. Brew may strike out at Minnesota, but it's not going to be because he didn't try to hit a HR.

As for the rest of it, I agree. The chances of a winning the west with 2-3 losses and a 1 game shot with the East provides a better opportunity.
 

I don't see any chance that the divisions Marcus mentioned ever being reality.

I simply can't see Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State all being fine with being in the same division.

If it is two divisions, I expect there to be a north-south split, rather than east-west.

Depends on who gets added and you handle cross division scheduling. This would be easier if the OSU/Michigan game weren't so sacred b/c they could just put Michigan with the West.

How would you envision a North/South split? For the sake of argument lets say they add ND and Mizzouri along with Nebraska.
 

Assuming a "Big Ten Central" division had existed with Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern and Nebraska over the last 12 years, Minnesota likely would have been close to winning the division once, in 2003. But ultimately the tie-breaker would have been the final game of the year at Iowa. It turned out to be a 40-22 loss for the Gophers. Just imagine if that game had been played for a chance to go to the Big Ten Championship game?
 

I don't see any chance that the divisions Marcus mentioned ever being reality.

I simply can't see Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State all being fine with being in the same division.

If it is two divisions, I expect there to be a north-south split, rather than east-west.

As much as the balance seems off, I think time zones is going to be a major factor.

I could see swapping Michigan State for Northwestern.....that would shift a bit of power. Then go with a permanent rival in the other division:
Michigan-Michigan State
Wisconsin-Ohio State
Penn State-Nebraska
Northwestern-Illinois
Iowa-Indiana
Minnesota-Purdue

The last two seem to get a bit dicey in terms of "rivalry," but I think this would balance the east-west power a bit. And it would be a good balance with basketball (Purdue/Ohio State with possible rebirth of Indiana & Michigan in east with Illinois/MSU/WI/MN in the west)
 

Is Marcus smoking something? The east is a much scarier division in my opinion. Michigan will not be down very long, OSU and PSU are always tough, and MSU is usually no pushover. Add in the fact that I can see Purdue on the upswing and the East looks in the long term much tougher (especially if ND ends up there and we get Mizzou). Regarding the schools in the West, both Iowa and Wisconsin historically tend to be pretty cyclical (very good 1-2 years and mediocre 1-2 years - usually never bad though) and Nebraska has been pretty mediocre until very recently. Also, Northwestern and Illinois can easily implode and be in the basement every other year. Taking all of this into account, I'm glad we are in the West.
 

Are you obtuse?

What is easier? Being the best of 11 teams or being the best of 6 plus one extra game?

Don't forget that you have toes too if you run out of fingers to count on.

(P.S. This is not even mentioning that the 3 most dominant teams (by far) since 1993 will almost certainly be in the other division.)


Being the best of 11 teams is easier.

You can make all the assumptions you want about the layout of the leagues (it seems that most of these are based on the presumption that the Gopher's best bet is to sneak into a championship game then get lucky against a better team...which probably isn't too far off the mark). But when you get down to basic statistical probability, if there are 11 unique potential outcomes to an event, each of those outcomes is more likely to occur than they would be if there were 12 unique potential outcomes.

So, does the 12-team, 2-division conference make it easier to get lucky and get an undeserved conference championship? Probably.
Does it increase the chances of any one team winning the conference, particularly in a future where many characteristics of the teams and conference are unknown? Decidedly not. (Unless that team is Nebraska, whose chances of winning the Big Ten would increase by a significant margin.)
 

if there are 11 unique potential outcomes to an event, each of those outcomes is more likely to occur than they would be if there were 12 unique potential outcomes

Yes, I understand basic probability. However, you are not competing against 11 other teams. You are competing against 5 other teams, and then 1/6 from the other division. Compute those odds, math wizard.

So, does the 12-team, 2-division conference make it easier to get lucky and get an undeserved conference championship? Probably.

Thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

Does it increase the chances of any one team winning the conference, particularly in a future where many characteristics of the teams and conference are unknown? Decidedly not. (Unless that team is Nebraska, whose chances of winning the Big Ten would increase by a significant margin.)

The characteristics of the teams are irrelevant. I don't care what the make-ups of the divisions are. From a basic statistical standpoint, it's a no-brainer. How are you not getting this?
 

Being the best of 11 teams is easier.

You can make all the assumptions you want about the layout of the leagues (it seems that most of these are based on the presumption that the Gopher's best bet is to sneak into a championship game then get lucky against a better team...which probably isn't too far off the mark). But when you get down to basic statistical probability, if there are 11 unique potential outcomes to an event, each of those outcomes is more likely to occur than they would be if there were 12 unique potential outcomes.

So, does the 12-team, 2-division conference make it easier to get lucky and get an undeserved conference championship? Probably.
Does it increase the chances of any one team winning the conference, particularly in a future where many characteristics of the teams and conference are unknown? Decidedly not. (Unless that team is Nebraska, whose chances of winning the Big Ten would increase by a significant margin.)

There are not more games because there are more teams so the probability does not change as you describe.
 

Yes, I understand basic probability. However, you are not competing against 11 other teams. You are competing against 5 other teams, and then 1/6 from the other conference. Compute those odds, math wizard.

Evidently, you don't.

This argument is asinine. I've never been called stupid so many times by someone who's defending such an obviously incorrect belief.
 

Is Marcus smoking something? The east is a much scarier division in my opinion.

I have no doubt that will be the perception. But I don't think it is the reality at all. Look at the "Top 3 football schools" from each division:

Over the last 10 years Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska have a combined winning percentage of .65.

OSU, Michigan and Penn State have a combined winning percentage of .69.

But even this slight advantage to the East is 100% becuase of the Buckeyes, who have been .80. If you were to reduce their winning percentage to the same as the next most successful (Wisconsin... not Michigan), then the Top 3 in the East would be only .54, which would be substantially worse than the Top 3 in the Central.
 

Evidently, you don't.

This argument is asinine. I've never been called stupid so many times by someone whose defending such an obviously incorrect belief.

Your position depends on treating winning the conference as if it were a random event. The problem is that it is not. You admit earlier that there is some validity in the possibility that the Gophers could sneak into a championship game, but then you dismiss it for a position which treats it as a purely random event.

If I get into a fight with Mike Tyson, there are two possible outcomes: either I win or he wins. However, this does not mean that they are equally likely.
 

and MSU is usually no pushover.

MSU is .49 over the last 10 years. The Gopers are .5000000. And this is despite the disastrous 2007 season (a major outlier). But as Jo Pa says, perception is reality.
 




Top Bottom