MN, Michigan, Iowa and Nebraska

Donate To GopherHole
Potential problems with said set-up:

LAST WEEKEND OF CONFERENCE PLAY

The biggest reason for moving the Ohio State-Michigan game to earlier in the year if in different divisions is "so they don't have to play two weeks in a row." If that's the case for that rivalry, why wouldn't it be the same for all other cross-over games? This would mean that the last weekend of conference play would have to be inside your respective divisions.

This would mean that either Minnesota-Iowa or Iowa-Nebraska wouldn't be happening.

Last week of play:
-Ohio State vs. Penn State (OK)
-Purdue vs. Indiana (OK)
-Michigan vs. Michigan State (OK)

That's half...how else would it break down?
-Wisconsin vs. Northwestern/Illinois (whoever it is in the split)
-Minnesota/Nebraska vs. Iowa?
-Minnesota vs. Nebraska & Iowa vs. Northwestern/Illinois?
-Nebraska vs. Iowa & Minnesota vs. Northwestern/Illinois?
-Minnesota vs. Iowa & Nebraska vs. Northwestern/Illinois?

Somebody is probably going to end up on the short end of the stick....knowing how hard our athletic department fights, I'd put money that it would be us.
 

RodentRampage said:
They each get an equal vote, don't they? They aren't giving OSU extra votes. It all comes down to whether or not the western schools have the balls not to cave.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the part where I said you were right:

Yes, in that as you say, if the Western schools stuck together their votes could kill any plan. It just sounds like, from what has been written, hardly anybody is willing to do that.

The assumption is that they all agree it's a bad idea which they may not, so if they disagree they have no balls?

Hell you've always been rational, more so then me, now even you have gone to "the dark side"? :)
 

FireDaveLee said:
MN-IA-NE-MI-MSU-IL
WI-PUR-PSU-OSU-IN-NW
Click to expand...

If this is the alignment (along with a crossover against wisky), let's go through my checklist of priorities.

Would we play wisky? check
Would we play Iowa? check
Would we play Michigan? check
Rather play Mich/Neb than OSU/PSU? absolutely


But i seriously doubt that would be the final alignment. Look at Illinois... their natural and trophy game rivalries are NU, Pur, Ind, OSU. There is no way that the best they can come up with in terms of an in-division rival will be Mich or Iowa.

Switch IL for NW and you have a much better alignment, IMO.

I think the solution to this whole issue is dropping the "trendy" idea that Mich and OSU should be in opposite divisions simply because their rivalry is more important, or "moves the needle" more than everyone else's.
 

FireDaveLee said:
I ask you, what is your solution? And one that would be accepted?

Being in a division with Illinois-Northwestern-Purdue-Indiana isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

+1

And if we do East/West - that means we have Wisconsin instead of Michigan, but then we likely play Michigan as our crossover game (this would also likely mean Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State are all in the same division - how do you think those programs would feel about that?).
 

Gopherhurrin said:
This reminds me of two other big time Gopher football debates I have seen in my Gopher football history and I therefore know how this one is going to turn out. Bravado is going to win out over brains once again. We are once again going to bravely "march off to the wonderful, new HumphreyDome" and enter the brave new plastic world of modern football under the Dome. The new Big Ten will be hard enough without us accepting an unbalanced, extra hard schedule every year when compared to some of our peers like NU, Pudue, Indiana, etc. Playing four of the six top programs every year is too hard. If you do not see that, than you are "braver" than I am.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You think the OSU braintrust is going to lobby to play the most challenging schedule??? "We're OSU, we want to play the best! Bring on PSU, MICH, & MSU in the same division!!!" Not a chance. Why not? They want to WIN, and they're trying to use every competitive advantage they can to get the easiest path to the title.

It's so funny to me to see posters on this board saying "Bring on the unfair schedule," or "I hope that so-and-so-star-player-from-another-team recovers from an injury quickly so we can face him." It is exactly opposite of the thinking of the coaches and schools that are actually competing.
 


TCF=UnitedWeStand said:
+1

And if we do East/West - that means we have Wisconsin instead of Michigan, but then we likely play Michigan as our crossover game (this would also likely mean Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State are all in the same division - how do you think those programs would feel about that?).
Click to expand...

If we did East/West, I would love for the Gophers to be paired with Mich, but would it happen? Would Michigan rather play us than any other western team?

I doubt they would rather play us if they could play Nebraska. Iowa and possibly wisky might also be preferable to some younger Wolverine fans, even given our historic trophy game.
 

OSU wants the easiest path it can get to the division title. Why should we be so eager to run with bricks in our pockets, when other people are not? As far as worrying whether or not the opponent's star player plays are not, I'm not to worried that the smack talkers will talk smack if they don't play, they will talk smack anyway. Of course, what I want or no not want makes no difference.
 

I have a hard time commenting on this alignment because I think I respect the fact that we aren't a needle mover.

I think I'd rather see Wisc/MI/NE in the division instead of IA/OSU/PSU. It is more important to me to beat Wiscy, and it would also carry weight as far as getting into the title game.
 

FireDaveLee said:
Michigan State & Illinois?

MN-IA-NE-MI-MSU-IL
WI-PUR-PSU-OSU-IN-NW
Click to expand...

I think this will be it. Alvarez said each team would get to protect one rival a year and the rest would be about 'balance'. With all the alk about OSU and Michigan being split up leaking out I think the grouping you outline above is close. As far as end of season games go, they could schedule a compelling weekend with the games below.

North / South ( crossover pairings )
Michigan / Ohio State
Minnesota / Wisconsin
Michigan State / Penn State
Indiana / Purdue
Iowa / Northwestern
Nebraska / Illinois

End of year games
Michigan / Michigan State
Ohio State / Penn State
Wisconsin / Minnesota*
Indiana / Purdue*
Nebraska / Iowa
Northwestern / Illinois

Only MN/WI and IN/PUR would be crossover games on the last weekend. Together these two might have produced only two rematches in the title game over the last sixty years (62 & 67). I think this would be an o.k. risk.

This end of year line up would improve things for MSU, PSU, and Wisconsin, who don't get to play meaningful games on rivalry weekend. Probably the most important currently protected rivalry it would 'break' would be WI/IA.
 



East/West isn't happening. It makes the most sense but it ain't happening. All signs are pointing to MI/OSU being split up. I don't really think that is the best idea, but it doesn't really make sense to have PSU in the Western division either. Like it or not the big four are going to be split up. It is going to be a gauntlet to get through no matter how the divisions are split, especially when they go to nine games.
 

I urge everyone to keep an open mind on this as long as you can. Let me try again to explain why I believe this is a disaster for us. There seems to be a huge consensus on which six teams are the recent "have" programs and which are the recent "not have" programs. This is good and makes for easy analysis. OSU, Mich., PSU, Neb., Iowa and Wis. are the "haves". Ideally, each team would have a fair chance to win the Big Ten because they would play three of the above teams. Yet they can not. Each of the "haves" does not have to play themselves. Let us set that problem aside. Let us put three "haves in each division. OK. Now, what I think we are discussing here is that we and say Purdue are both "have nots". While we will play three haves plus our locked rival Wisconsin, another "have", they will end up playing three haves and a locked rival game against someone like Illinois or MSU. This makes for an "unbalanced" situation every year for some teams. Every year. Another way to say this that is perfectly fair is to point out that if we play at least four "haves" every year, some other program or rotating program will only play two every year. If we take "too many" hard games, someone else gets "too few".

Now back to Michigan, "yes" they are willing to play OSU every year in their crossover rivalry game. Big Deal, that will only be their their third "hard" game of the year some years. Because they are in the same division as themselves, Neb and Iowa. They NEVER have to play themselves. Look at this schedule from the point of a Badger fan. Of their non random six games a year, they will play two "haves" (Ohio State and Penn State) every year while we play four. How do you think they will vote?

I am as brave and reckless as the next guy (I guess), but agreeing to a harder than average Big Ten schedule every year is just agreeing to suicide. Not brave, just not smart. If Joel Maturi agrees to this or accepts this (even if he accepts it and whines like a baby), I will conclude that he wants the money "no matter what", more than he wants our FB team to have a fair chance to win in the Big Ten.
 

Northwestern has as many conf championships as PSU since PSU entered BT, I may be wrong but I think they have the same as IA and WI too (might be wrong, off the top of my head). Does putting them as a 'have' change things? It seems that NW's football excellence gets overlooked far too often.
 

Gopherhurrin said:
I urge everyone to keep an open mind on this as long as you can. Let me try again to explain why I believe this is a disaster for us. There seems to be a huge consensus on which six teams are the recent "have" programs and which are the recent "not have" programs. This is good and makes for easy analysis. OSU, Mich., PSU, Neb., Iowa and Wis. are the "haves". Ideally, each team would have a fair chance to win the Big Ten because they would play three of the above teams. Yet they can not. Each of the "haves" does not have to play themselves. Let us set that problem aside. Let us put three "haves in each division. OK. Now, what I think we are discussing here is that we and say Purdue are both "have nots". While we will play three haves plus our locked rival Wisconsin, another "have", they will end up playing three haves and a locked rival game against someone like Illinois or MSU. This makes for an "unbalanced" situation every year for some teams. Every year. Another way to say this that is perfectly fair is to point out that if we play at least four "haves" every year, some other program or rotating program will only play two every year. If we take "too many" hard games, someone else gets "too few".

Now back to Michigan, "yes" they are willing to play OSU every year in their crossover rivalry game. Big Deal, that will only be their their third "hard" game of the year some years. Because they are in the same division as themselves, Neb and Iowa. They NEVER have to play themselves. Look at this schedule from the point of a Badger fan. Of their non random six games a year, they will play two "haves" (Ohio State and Penn State) every year while we play four. How do you think they will vote?

I am as brave and reckless as the next guy (I guess), but agreeing to a harder than average Big Ten schedule every year is just agreeing to suicide. Not brave, just not smart. If Joel Maturi agrees to this or accepts this (even if he accepts it and whines like a baby), I will conclude that he wants the money "no matter what", more than he wants our FB team to have a fair chance to win in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

I can't believe I'm going to say this....but Wren's right. We are getting screwed, but because we don't whine and bitch about it as much as Tressel, or Alverez will, we will be the ones getting screwed. Even if we ever do become a power again, with our schedule, 7-2 will be a good Big 10 record for us, while OSU will be pissed if they go 7-2 with their schedule...
 



" If Joel Maturi agrees to this or accepts this (even if he accepts it and whines like a baby), I will conclude that he wants the money "no matter what", more than he wants our FB team to have a fair chance to win in the Big Ten. "

Which is really, of course, the only point that you're trying to make Wren, otherwise you'd have answered the numerous requests for how you'd make the divisions. The East/West split, which most of us favor, would mean three yearly game against IA, WI and NE and if the kept traditional rivalries, Michigan which would be four tough teams a year.

Though I did get a kick out of your request for everybody "to keep an open mind"!

Me, I don't like this proposal if we get both Michigan AND MSU and you don't like it because..it allows you to take another shot at Maturi?

What's your proposal Wren?

Though taking this quite into account:

"Not all groups have the same athletic talent as all other groups. There is more pure football talent in southern states and rust belt states. More quickness. " he could be Loon!
 


Are you talking to me or Wren? If me, I have already said we should play Neb., Iowa and Wisconsin each year, three "haves" per year. I don't give a damn who anyone else plays as long as they too are in a fair situation that gives them no advantage over us. I want a schedule that is no worse than "average" on an average year. I am not in this to pull in $23 million extra per year. I am in this to have a fair chance of winning the Big Ten. No fair chance? No deal for me. As for Maturi, we will once again get to see where his priorities lie. Does he want to have a fair chance or does he want the money? In the meantime, if you think this split gives us an equal chance to win as anyone else, why don't you explain that to us?
 


I have assumed it would be Penn State, Nebraska, and Iowa in one division. Replacing Penn State with Michigan would make a division with this makeup easier in my mind. I will take Michigan over Penn State. I would rather be in this division than the one with Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin if that is how it breaks out.
 

Gopherhurrin said:
I urge everyone to keep an open mind on this as long as you can. Let me try again to explain why I believe this is a disaster for us. There seems to be a huge consensus on which six teams are the recent "have" programs and which are the recent "not have" programs. This is good and makes for easy analysis. OSU, Mich., PSU, Neb., Iowa and Wis. are the "haves". Ideally, each team would have a fair chance to win the Big Ten because they would play three of the above teams. Yet they can not. Each of the "haves" does not have to play themselves. Let us set that problem aside. Let us put three "haves in each division. OK. Now, what I think we are discussing here is that we and say Purdue are both "have nots". While we will play three haves plus our locked rival Wisconsin, another "have", they will end up playing three haves and a locked rival game against someone like Illinois or MSU. This makes for an "unbalanced" situation every year for some teams. Every year. Another way to say this that is perfectly fair is to point out that if we play at least four "haves" every year, some other program or rotating program will only play two every year. If we take "too many" hard games, someone else gets "too few".

Now back to Michigan, "yes" they are willing to play OSU every year in their crossover rivalry game. Big Deal, that will only be their their third "hard" game of the year some years. Because they are in the same division as themselves, Neb and Iowa. They NEVER have to play themselves. Look at this schedule from the point of a Badger fan. Of their non random six games a year, they will play two "haves" (Ohio State and Penn State) every year while we play four. How do you think they will vote?

I am as brave and reckless as the next guy (I guess), but agreeing to a harder than average Big Ten schedule every year is just agreeing to suicide. Not brave, just not smart. If Joel Maturi agrees to this or accepts this (even if he accepts it and whines like a baby), I will conclude that he wants the money "no matter what", more than he wants our FB team to have a fair chance to win in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

Rittenburg's proposal does the best job of addressing this. Because it would pair MI/NU and OSU/PSU in crossover games it guarantees that these teams face an average of 2.5 'tough' games a year. Everyone else faces an average of 3 'tough' games a year.
 

Gopherhurrin said:
So here is our, for example, 2019 schedule with an eight game Big Ten schedule:

Nebraska
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
random/OSU, PSU, NU, Purdue, Indiana
Michigan State
random/OSU, PSU, NU, Purdue, Indiana
Wisconsin

How many years do you think we are going to win six of those eight games? I'll answer that for myself. When we get either PSU or OSU as a random cross over game, we will win six out of eight of those games once a century.
Click to expand...

Seriously with that kind of weak attitude, just go ahead and pack it in. Iowa and Wisconsin are teams Minnesota used to DOMINATE, there is no reason why that shouldn't happen again. Nebraska is not what they once were and they are the most prone of the Big 4 teams in the new Big Ten to falling off the map. I won't argue that this rumored division would be significantly tougher than the division featuring Ohio State and Penn State, but to act like football powers (beyond a select few) stay the same over the course of a centrury is ridiculous. How has Florida State performed recently? Remember when Alabama was a middle of the pack SEC team a few years ago? If this expansion was done 10 years ago, everyone would have been happy to miss out on Purdue.
 

Originally Posted by FireDaveLee View Post
Michigan State & Illinois?

MN-IA-NE-MI-MSU-IL
WI-PUR-PSU-OSU-IN-NW
Click to expand...

As a Badger fan, I don't like this. Not only do we lose Iowa, which I could live with as we have rotated them off in the past, but only Northwestern is within easy travel distance. I have gone to Iowa, Minnesota, and Northwestern away games almost every year, and Illinois several times. PSU is horrid to get to (although fun once there) and the Indianas and OSU are much longer trips than those to the west.

I am sure Delany will take my opinion into consideration... :)

Seriously, if you haven't emailed or written Maturi or Delany with your opinion, you should do so.
 

At first I was not big on not being in the same division as Wisconsin, but how great would it be to have a potential MN-WI conference championship game matchup?

Honestly, I'm all about having an easy road to a title game, but we aren't playing in a mid level conference. We need to beat the big dogs to become a big dog again. If we play the way we're supposed to play, we'll win. The pieces will fall as they may. Regardless of who is leading the program, if we can continue on our current path and show results on the field, the challenge level debate won't matter. As a matter of travel, there will always be a good argument to an even east/west split, but it's a money game and it's all about who's in power now, as has been stated countless times already.
 

I have a problem with everyone assuming the end of the season rivalry game for Iowa will be Nebraska. Iowa has a rivalry game with Illinois. I could see the Rivalry weekend games being MN/Neb, IA/Ill and MI/MSU. In the other division OSU/PSU, IN/PU and WI/NU
 

ruralgopher said:
Northwestern has as many conf championships as PSU since PSU entered BT, I may be wrong but I think they have the same as IA and WI too (might be wrong, off the top of my head). Does putting them as a 'have' change things? It seems that NW's football excellence gets overlooked far too often.
Click to expand...

Your kidding right, Northwestern is 2-11 against Penn State in the Big Ten.
 

Iceland12 said:
Tradition? Rivalries? Worth considering to be sure but, Minnesota hasn't won a Big Ten Title since 1967. They haven't qualified for a New Years Bowl for the same amount of years. They haven't been within "spitting distance" off 55,000 per game since 1987. They have been taking more money out of the Big Ten then putting in for years and they probably aren't much of a TV draw either.

Minnesota, no matter who the AD is, will much like Indiana, have little or no say in how the Divisions turn out.

And there's nothing any of us can do about it though honestly, it doesn't sound to bad to me either.
Click to expand...

I don't think you really know how the Big Ten works. Every school has an equal vote and the conference has a long history of doing what's best for the WHOLE conference.
 

MrGopher said:
If this is the alignment (along with a crossover against wisky), let's go through my checklist of priorities.

Would we play wisky? check
Would we play Iowa? check
Would we play Michigan? check
Rather play Mich/Neb than OSU/PSU? absolutely
Click to expand...

This is a good post.

Look, I agree with everyone else that Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa should all be in the same division. At the same time I would like an alignment that preserves all 3 of our real rivalry games.

The other important point is to be in the opposite division as Ohio State. That is the sticking point for me. Michigan has proven they can be terrible, Penn State has big down years too. The only school in the Big Ten that looks like a juggernaut every single season is Ohio State. I predict that if Minnesota is in the opposite division as Ohio State the Gophers will make the title game within a reasonable amount of time. If Ohio State is in our division I shudder to think how much longer it could be.
 


Gopherhurrin said:
I urge everyone to keep an open mind on this as long as you can. Let me try again to explain why I believe this is a disaster for us. There seems to be a huge consensus on which six teams are the recent "have" programs and which are the recent "not have" programs. This is good and makes for easy analysis. OSU, Mich., PSU, Neb., Iowa and Wis. are the "haves". Ideally, each team would have a fair chance to win the Big Ten because they would play three of the above teams. Yet they can not. Each of the "haves" does not have to play themselves. Let us set that problem aside. Let us put three "haves in each division. OK. Now, what I think we are discussing here is that we and say Purdue are both "have nots". While we will play three haves plus our locked rival Wisconsin, another "have", they will end up playing three haves and a locked rival game against someone like Illinois or MSU. This makes for an "unbalanced" situation every year for some teams. Every year. Another way to say this that is perfectly fair is to point out that if we play at least four "haves" every year, some other program or rotating program will only play two every year. If we take "too many" hard games, someone else gets "too few".

Now back to Michigan, "yes" they are willing to play OSU every year in their crossover rivalry game. Big Deal, that will only be their their third "hard" game of the year some years. Because they are in the same division as themselves, Neb and Iowa. They NEVER have to play themselves. Look at this schedule from the point of a Badger fan. Of their non random six games a year, they will play two "haves" (Ohio State and Penn State) every year while we play four. How do you think they will vote?

I am as brave and reckless as the next guy (I guess), but agreeing to a harder than average Big Ten schedule every year is just agreeing to suicide. Not brave, just not smart. If Joel Maturi agrees to this or accepts this (even if he accepts it and whines like a baby), I will conclude that he wants the money "no matter what", more than he wants our FB team to have a fair chance to win in the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

This is just a stupid argument you're making. If the divisions go this way, we protect the most meaningful games to us. That is what matters the most. Why? Because within 2-3 years we will be playing nine conference games anyway and in the grand scheme of things there won't be much in terms of "unbalanced" advantages/disadvantages. It will rotate through (much like has been happening) with some randomness in certain years as to which two you don't play, but the overall idea is to preserve the yearly rivalries you want (which this plan absolutely does) and create someone balance (which this one does for the most part). And, frankly, I think it will be much easier get to a Big Ten title game coming out of a division with the top three of Mich/IA/Neb than it would be to get out of a division with a top three of OSU/PSU/Wis. So, you're barking up the wrong tree, IMHO.
 

Under this plan, for us, we would be in a division with Mich/Iowa/Neb/Wisc. with the random chance of playing OSU and/or PSU. In those particular years we will have no chance to play in the championship game. Why do we want that? How is playing four of the top six MINIMUM, an equal chance? It's easy, it's not. Wisconsin will play two of the top six, minimum, each year. How is that equal to our chance? Easy, it's not. I will almost surly drop my season tickets if this plan is past and Joel Maturi stays. I insist that my team, the Gophers, have a fair chance at a championship. If not, I am no glutton for endless, predictable punishment. All for an additional couple hundred thousand dollars per year. Are we a football program or a program for sale?
 

I think every year we would have the same chance of playing in the big ten championship as the winner of each division goes, as I don't believe the cross over games count. I'll be honest if that is part of the formula then it is my mistake, but I think every year we have the same issue of beating the other 5 teams in our division. Now for the national championship I can understand the issues with who our cross over game is.


Am I missing something?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom