MN,NE,WI,IA, MI and MSU ?

Donate To GopherHole
Iceland12

Iceland12

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
24,758
Reaction score
2,421
Points
113

I'll just delete my post and add what I wrote there.

Although there are some problems, some things seem to iron out. Michigan would come with MSU to the west....guessing that Northwestern & Illinois would head east. Michigan-Nebraska-Wisconsin-Iowa with the two bottom being Sparty & the Gophers would be a pretty lopsided division in my opinion, but rivalries would be in tact.
-Michigan & Ohio State earlier in the year (they're saying mid-late October, I say why not first Big Ten game of the year?) allows the following last weekend games of the year:

**Minnesota v. Wisconsin
**Michigan v. Michigan State
**Nebraska v. Iowa
**Ohio State v. Penn State
**Purdue v. Indiana
**Northwestern v. Illinois.

I don't think one team could complain about that. It would allow for Minnesota to continue the three most important trophy games and Michigan State, who I like playing more than Purdue or Indiana.

Crossover games?

**Michigan v. Ohio State (The game)
**Iowa v. Illinois (border war)
**Wisconsin v. Northwestern (Illinois/Wisconsin rivals in everything else)
**Nebraska v. Penn State (new Big Ten kids on the block yearly)
**Michigan State v. Indiana (Spitoon)
**Minnesota v. Purdue (the only weak one, but there has to be one. Besides, I feel no more bond between the other options).

Thoughts on what potentially might happen? Other than Ohio State/Penn State winner will be title game representative except for when Drew Brees is QB of Purdue?
 

A hell of a good deal for Illinois, NU, Purdue and Indiana. That would give each a real opportunity to win three games, minimum in a good year.
 

Natural east-west divisions would be
West: MN, IA, WI, NE, NW, Ill
East: OSU, MSU, MI, IN, PSU, PU

just swap Michigan for Wisconsin (or Iowa) and then you pretty much have east-west, and keep MI and OSU apart.
I still would like to see the natural east-west division though. But I understand all this is driven by $$$

of course we can re-think all of this again when 2 more teams are added to make it a 14 team conference.
 

That is insanely brutal. You could take the west division, spin it off into it's own conference, and it would still be a first-class conference no matter who you added to it. It puts 5 of the top 6 teams in the same division. And leaves OSU has the only strong team in the east. The other teams in the east wouldn't even have to beat OSU, just coast by on an easy schedule, and hope OSU stumbles a little. Are they thinking about how good the ratings will be to have OSU in the championship game ever year?
 


The rotation of the cross over games could also be murder for us some years. We could have UM, UMS, NE, Iowa, UW, OSU, PSU and Purdue in one year. The rotation system would be key for us. If we got OSU and PSU as a pair we might as well take the year off most such years.
 

Word said:
Natural east-west divisions would be
West: MN, IA, WI, NE, NW, Ill
East: OSU, MSU, MI, IN, PSU, PU

just swap Michigan for Wisconsin (or Iowa) and then you pretty much have east-west, and keep MI and OSU apart.
I still would like to see the natural east-west division though. But I understand all this is driven by $$$

of course we can re-think all of this again when 2 more teams are added to make it a 14 team conference.
Click to expand...

Michigan can't be opposite both OSU and MSU or they'd have to skip one every year.
 

Iceland12 said:
That would be a killer division not just for Minnesota but for anyone of those other schools thinking that they're going to go 8-0 or 7-1 in Big Ten play let alone 9-0 in a few years.

Rittenberg is writing about how the chances of tOSU and Michigan being in seperate divisions are getting stronger.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/24934/momentum-builds-for-michigan-osu-split
Click to expand...

This is an idiotic idea. The west would be way stronger than the east. I hate it. I'd rather have geographic with a PSU Illinois swap than this POS.
 

To be exact, Michigan does not care about the MSU game. MSU cares a ton about that game. Michigan sees itself as too good to play those green, poor cousins every year. The game elevates MSU to a sort of equal, in the eyes of UM.
 




Gopherhurrin said:
To be exact, Michigan does not care about the MSU game. MSU cares a ton about that game. Michigan sees itself as too good to play those green, poor cousins every year. The game elevates MSU to a sort of equal, in the eyes of UM.
Click to expand...

Yea, but since Michigan is MSU's only good rivalry (and its an IN STATE rivalry) the Big Ten isn't going to break it up.
 


That a good question...

Jike Spingleton said:
How does Purdue always get the scheduling breaks?
Click to expand...

Plus in basketball, it whole thing switches and the East is top heavy with the West having only teams that cycle, none that are a year in year out power. I do count the vadgers in that, even with their claim of National Supremacy.
 



I could live with this although it would basically mean OSU and PSU get a cakewalk to the title game most years.
 

re3886 said:
Plus in basketball, it whole thing switches and the East is top heavy with the West having only teams that cycle, none that are a year in year out power. I do count the vadgers in that, even with their claim of National Supremacy.
Click to expand...

Delaney has already said that the divisions are for football only.
 

Under that divisional scenario....

I'd feel like a Mississippi State fan does in the SEC West minus a degree in poultry science and a cowbell.

cowbell.jpg
 

I will be stunned if it is east-west. I have said for quite a while that it will be north-south with MI and OSU anchoring one division and PSU and NE anchoring the other. Wisconsin will go with MI and OSU and Iowa will go with Nebraska as the next top-level team.

My prediction:
North: MN, WIS, NU, MSU, MI, OSU
South: Neb, Iowa, IL, PU, IU, PSU
 

Jike Spingleton said:
How does Purdue always get the scheduling breaks?
Click to expand...

It's because the Boilermakers are stuck with IU as rivals. Which means there is one easy conference win every year. Also Purdue other bigger football rival would be either Illinois or Northwestern. They don't have the tradition of Michigan or Ohio State, hell they don't have the tradition of Iowa or Wisconsin.
 

Gopherhurrin said:
To be exact, Michigan does not care about the MSU game. MSU cares a ton about that game. Michigan sees itself as too good to play those green, poor cousins every year. The game elevates MSU to a sort of equal, in the eyes of UM.
Click to expand...

Much how Izzo and the Spartans see Michigan once basketball season rolls around!
 


Iceland12 said:
MN,NE,WI,IA, MI and MSU ?
That would be a killer (as in bad) division not just for Minnesota but for anyone of those other schools thinking that they're going to go 8-0 or 7-1 in Big Ten play let alone 9-0 in a few years.

Rittenberg is writing about how the chances of tOSU and Michigan being in seperate divisions are getting stronger.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/24934/momentum-builds-for-michigan-osu-split
Click to expand...

Obviously straight East West geographic split is the best answer on every level...which means it won't happen.

I'm torn about the aforementioned divisional alignments. On the one hand. I like the idea of playing all our real rivalries (Axe, Jug, Pig) every single year. Also, Minnesota has beaten Sparty 3 in a row and 7 out of 9, so I'd like to continue to play them.

That said, as other posters noted the 2 or 3 worst teams in the Big Ten would likely be in the opposite division most years. That would make our path to a title game harder.

There is one other factor though. At this point Ohio State has dominated the Big Ten so completely and for so long, I am starting to believe that Minnesota needs to be in a different division than the Buckeyes if we want to see the Gophers play for the Big Ten Title from time to time. Michigan is currently more terrible than anyone could have imagined. Penn State has been up and down (and the Gophers have a decent record against the Nits). Same with Nebraska. The only traditional power in the Big Ten that has barely wavered in power is Ohio State.


So if we can keep our 3 rivalries and stay out of Ohio State's division I think Minnesota football will be on the right path.

So, if we can
 

Personally, I love it. I know it would be great to play Illinois and Northwestern every year, but the reality is we're eventually going to play all but two teams every year anyways, and we'd have our chances to beat these teams.

I also love the opportunity to play for the Jug, Pig, Axe, and Nebraska every year. Add to it the fact that we won't have to play Ohio State every year, and frankly, that's a nice trade-off, in terms of pure rivalries.

If you look at who people tend to claim as our main rivals, it usually goes like this:

1. Wisconsin
2. Iowa
3. Michigan
4. Nebraska (just a guess)

If you've been clamoring about playing our rivals every year, this is the best possible scenario.
 

anonymous said:
I will be stunned if it is east-west. I have said for quite a while that it will be north-south with MI and OSU anchoring one division and PSU and NE anchoring the other. Wisconsin will go with MI and OSU and Iowa will go with Nebraska as the next top-level team.

My prediction:
North: MN, WIS, NU, MSU, MI, OSU
South: Neb, Iowa, IL, PU, IU, PSU
Click to expand...

I agree, at least you are very close.

I don't think that trying to create a situation where Michigan and Ohio State play in the championship is going to be realistic. Nebraska changes the dynamics completely.
 

jovs said:
I agree, at least you are very close.

I don't think that trying to create a situation where Michigan and Ohio State play in the championship is going to be realistic. Nebraska changes the dynamics completely.
Click to expand...

Michigan's record the past few years changes it even more.
 

GoAUpher said:
If the other SEC schools have their way Miss State fans will be without their cowbells too (or at least the school will pay dearly when they get used the way they used to): http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2010/08/sec_sets_fine_amounts_for_miss.html
Click to expand...

Well, the Mississippi State alumni in this article still thinks there is a market to "need some more cowbell." He quit his job just to manufacturer more cowbells. Now that is a fan.

http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100813/BIZ/8130331/MSU-fan-engineers-cowbells-to-make-a-living
 

What?

AhliBobwa said:
Obviously straight East West geographic split is the best answer on every level...which means it won't happen.

I'm torn about the aforementioned divisional alignments. On the one hand. I like the idea of playing all our real rivalries (Axe, Jug, Pig) every single year. Also, Minnesota has beaten Sparty 3 in a row and 7 out of 9, so I'd like to continue to play them.

That said, as other posters noted the 2 or 3 worst teams in the Big Ten would likely be in the opposite division most years. That would make our path to a title game harder.

There is one other factor though. At this point Ohio State has dominated the Big Ten so completely and for so long, I am starting to believe that Minnesota needs to be in a different division than the Buckeyes if we want to see the Gophers play for the Big Ten Title from time to time. Michigan is currently more terrible than anyone could have imagined. Penn State has been up and down (and the Gophers have a decent record against the Nits). Same with Nebraska. The only traditional power in the Big Ten that has barely wavered in power is Ohio State.


So if we can keep our 3 rivalries and stay out of Ohio State's division I think Minnesota football will be on the right path.

So, if we can
Click to expand...

Why do you guys just make up things whenever you want? Since Michigan State joined the Big Ten in the early 1950's they have been one of our hardest teams to beat. As recently as 1997 we were 11-23 against MSU. The previous coach beat them five times and this coach beat them last year. That's it! We have won six of our last seven meetings, not seven out of eight. Indeed, until Mason beat them in 1998 (5-3 against MSU)we had lost 17 games in a row to MSU!!! :eek::(
 

Gopherhurrin said:
Why do you guys just make up things whenever you want? Since Michigan State joined the Big Ten in the early 1950's they have been one of our hardest teams to beat. As recently as 1997 we were 11-23 against MSU. The previous coach beat them five times and this coach beat them last year. That's it! We have won six of our last seven meetings, not seven out of eight. Indeed, until Mason beat them in 1998 (5-3 against MSU)we had lost 17 games in a row to MSU!!! :eek::(
Click to expand...

It makes little difference what happened before 1998. That's a long time. No one is making anything up.
 

We have NOT beaten MSU "seven out of nine". At the university level accuracy is important. We have beaten them six out eight times in recent years. I believe that as the topic is about long run parity, the fact that MSU beat us 17 times in a row before Mason does play into the equation as well. Let's just stick to actual way things were in the past.
 

Gopherhurrin said:
We have NOT beaten MSU "seven out of nine". At the university level accuracy is important. We have beaten them six out eight times in recent years. I believe that as the topic is about long run parity, the fact that MSU beat us 17 times in a row before Mason does play into the equation as well. Let's just stick to actual way things were in the past.
Click to expand...

Accuracy is well and good. And I think its fine if you care about the long term record too (GH'ers always do when talking about Wisconsin after all). I think you got the response you did by claiming that the mistake was intentional and part of a widespread plan by some nebulous group of posters ("Why do you guys just make things up whenever you want?"). Frankly, that's over the top and ridiculous. But yes, I'm sure the innocent mistake (which didn't change Ahli's point about our recent success) is part of a vast plan by GH'ers to remake our program's history by making stuff up.
 

GoAUpher said:
I think you got the response you did by claiming that the mistake was intentional and part of a widespread plan by some nebulous group of posters ("Why do you guys just make things up whenever you want?"). Frankly, that's over the top and ridiculous. But yes, I'm sure the innocent mistake (which didn't change Ahli's point about our recent success) is part of a vast plan by GH'ers to remake our program's history by making stuff up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. What a completely "loon"-ey suggestion.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom