On Wisconsin......

Donate To GopherHole
metrolax

metrolax

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,404
Reaction score
350
Points
83
Now that some dust has settled and some snippets of things have been said by enough
people, is what happened to Wisconsin regarding the divisions the result of some bad
karma? Is is a case of one school just pi$$ing off enough people that they simply got
royally screwed, or was it really the best situation that could be made and they just
innocently drew the short end of the stick.

To my knowledge, I'm not aware of any bad blood between Alvarez and the rest of
the league, but it seemed that they kept the Minnesota rivalry, and got absolutely
nothing more.

Maybe I'm putting too much thought into this, but......

Any thoughts?
 

Payback can be fun sometimes...

I have heard from one source, decent not great, that Alvarez went in to this with a list of "demands" and he expected everyone to fall in line with. It was between Minnesota and Wisconsin for being slid East, and that Barry rubbed several other A.D.'s the wrong way with his approach. Joel on the other hand came in with a give something, get something approach and the others respected the idea that he was there basically with hat in hand. Is it true? it sure could be, it makes sense with how things turned out. We got stuff that we on here didn't even dream of getting, and only lost our traditional season ending game. Minnesota has played first Wisconsin, then Iowa to end things for a very long time and now we have a clunker to end it. Pretty great overall.
 

re3886 said:
I have heard from one source, decent not great, that Alvarez went in to this with a list of "demands" and he expected everyone to fall in line with. It was between Minnesota and Wisconsin for being slid East, and that Barry rubbed several other A.D.'s the wrong way with his approach. Joel on the other hand came in with a give something, get something approach and the others respected the idea that he was there basically with hat in hand. Is it true? it sure could be, it makes sense with how things turned out. We got stuff that we on here didn't even dream of getting, and only lost our traditional season ending game. Minnesota has played first Wisconsin, then Iowa to end things for a very long time and now we have a clunker to end it. Pretty great overall.
Click to expand...

My "sources," which are about 50/50, said this but not in as much detail. What I heard was that Maturi is a lightweight but very good at these kind of politics. Bides his times, sort of plays dumb, and lets others fight while he waits for the right time to introduce a moderate proposal
 

Seems to have served us well in this instance.
 

No disrespect to your respective sources, but while the result definitely struck me as a bit off, it seems like a pretty obvious stroke of bad luck for the badgers. I agree with the premise that wisconsin got a pretty raw deal considering their relative power in the league (though I suspect they have other considerations in the pipeline with the Big 10). But Delaney has been very vocal about how they were splitting up the divisions, and as far as program quality goes, Iowa and Wisconsin are in a distinct level. If they really did think it was necessary to divide by tiers of team quality, WI and IA had to be separated. After that, the rest of the pieces sort of fall in to place.
 


I really don't

give a damn about Wisconsin.
 

Michigan fans seem pretty convinced that Alvarez was coming forth with the proposals that were going to "ruin The Game." They seemed pretty happy to see Wisconsin get screwed because in their minds he was attempting to screw them. Not sure how good their info is but they seem confident.

But honestly, what redpoo wrote is accurate. Once the decision to split OSU & Michigan was made the rest falls in to place pretty easily.

PSU/Nebraska had to be split. PSU with OSU makes sense from a geographical stanpoint and because it has been a budding rivalry.

Wisconsin/Iowa had to be split. Iowa with Nebraska makes more sense because of geography and potential for a border war. Wisconsin saw this from the beginning and that is why they sent the letter asking for a year end rivalry with Nebraska which would put them with Michigan & Nebraska instead of heading out east.

The last six were less defined from a competitive balance standpoint (everybody has had their down years and everybody but Indiana and to a lesser extent Minnesota have had their up years).

MSU goes with Michigan because with OSU/UM split that is the only way to keep UM/MSU.
Minnesota goes with Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska (Osborne acknowledge he requested it) and the axe for cross division.

IU & PU make sense sticking together so they go East.

That leaves Northwestern and Illinois to split and keep as cross-division rivals. Illinois makes more sense eastward because of the Illinibuck (turtle) trophy.

Alvarez didn't do himself any favors but for competitive purposes the only team he could have swapped with is Iowa.
 

I don't think Wisconsin was as badly screwed as a lot of people think, if it is true that it came down to the Gophers or Wisconsin going West, then there are pros and cons to both sides. Given that both sides were going to have two of tOSU, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State, being with Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue is a lot easier (as of now) than being with Michigan State, Iowa, and Northwestern. If you look at the divisions in the short term only, Wisconsin gets a favorable schedule while losing rivalry games and Minnesota gets rivalry games, but gets a tougher schedule. The obvious counter to that is we don't know, besides the top 4, what will constitute a tough game in 4 or 5 years.
 

Now, this might sound silly, but I honestly think in the long run that Wisconsin will have an easier road to the Big 10 Championship than say Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St., or Nebraska.

For Wisconsin to win the Big 10, they'd have to play tOSU or be better than them. What is the difference if they play tOSU now compared to the Big 10 Championship? Hypothetically...for Michigan to win the B10, they'd have to beat tOSU, a team with a better record than tOSU or tOSU again, Iowa, Nebraska, etc. I don't know...
 



Nice thread guys....

....and thanks to all of you.
 

EG#9 said:
I don't think Wisconsin was as badly screwed as a lot of people think, if it is true that it came down to the Gophers or Wisconsin going West, then there are pros and cons to both sides. Given that both sides were going to have two of tOSU, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State, being with Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue is a lot easier (as of now) than being with Michigan State, Iowa, and Northwestern. If you look at the divisions in the short term only, Wisconsin gets a favorable schedule while losing rivalry games and Minnesota gets rivalry games, but gets a tougher schedule. The obvious counter to that is we don't know, besides the top 4, what will constitute a tough game in 4 or 5 years.
Click to expand...

It wasn't down to Minnesota or Wisconsin to move east; it was down to Iowa or Wisconsin to move east. This was all about competitive balance and it doesn't take very much statistical analysis to figure out that Wisconsin & Iowa were #5 and 6 in the conference since PSU joined. Putting them in the same division makes one top heavy. Any of our fans trying to convince themselves that Minnesota and Wisconsin swapping divisions would be considered equal for competitive balance isn't being honest with themselves about the last 17 years of Big Ten football.
 

I confess to not understanding how Wisconsin got "screwed". They are in the "easier" division if considered top-to-bottom. Our division looks to be stronger taken as a whole.

Plus, who is the strongest Big Ten program when you take the long view? Michigan. And they'll be back.

Remember: there are not enough good players for everybody to be good in the Big Ten. Intelligent conclusion: We should prefer schools like Notre Dame and Illinois and Indiana to be very competitive. Why? Because it creates more parity with our rivals.
 

Studwell55 said:
I confess to not understanding how Wisconsin got "screwed". They are in the "easier" division if considered top-to-bottom. Our division looks to be stronger taken as a whole.

Plus, who is the strongest Big Ten program when you take the long view? Michigan. And they'll be back.

Remember: there are not enough good players for everybody to be good in the Big Ten. Intelligent conclusion: We should prefer schools like Notre Dame and Illinois and Indiana to be very competitive. Why? Because it creates more parity with our rivals.
Click to expand...

I think most people agree that Wisconsin now has an easier road to the Rose Bowl (and a MUCH easier road to 9-3 and a decent New Years bowl every season).

I'm actually finding it pretty heartening how many people here instantly (and correctly, in my mind) saw a schedule with Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin as a "win." I'll take all the rich history, rivalries and future great games with four those teams over an additional cupcake or two every time, and it seems like fans of both the Gophers and the badgers agree.
 



Hard to argue against the pain of losing rivalry games for Becky, but I believe I'd take a Big Ten Championship over all the rivalry games we play. I think if Becky fans take a step back and look at the big picture their attitude will change. Whether Barry intended to accomplish this or not he may well have the last laugh.
We just need to take care of our business and build a quality program that makes its own breaks. If we do then none of this matters.
 

Way too much thinking here boys. TV played the biggest role. In the end, this a balanced conference due to spreading the wealth and creating more potential.
 

grunkiejr said:
Michigan fans seem pretty convinced that Alvarez was coming forth with the proposals that were going to "ruin The Game." They seemed pretty happy to see Wisconsin get screwed because in their minds he was attempting to screw them. Not sure how good their info is but they seem confident.

But honestly, what redpoo wrote is accurate. Once the decision to split OSU & Michigan was made the rest falls in to place pretty easily.

PSU/Nebraska had to be split. PSU with OSU makes sense from a geographical stanpoint and because it has been a budding rivalry.

Wisconsin/Iowa had to be split. Iowa with Nebraska makes more sense because of geography and potential for a border war. Wisconsin saw this from the beginning and that is why they sent the letter asking for a year end rivalry with Nebraska which would put them with Michigan & Nebraska instead of heading out east.

The last six were less defined from a competitive balance standpoint (everybody has had their down years and everybody but Indiana and to a lesser extent Minnesota have had their up years).

MSU goes with Michigan because with OSU/UM split that is the only way to keep UM/MSU.
Minnesota goes with Iowa, Michigan and Nebraska (Osborne acknowledge he requested it) and the axe for cross division.

IU & PU make sense sticking together so they go East.

That leaves Northwestern and Illinois to split and keep as cross-division rivals. Illinois makes more sense eastward because of the Illinibuck (turtle) trophy.

Alvarez didn't do himself any favors but for competitive purposes the only team he could have swapped with is Iowa.
Click to expand...

This is great analysis. Once you decide that the big four must be split & the next two must be split, this is what you're going to get. It doesn't make sense for PSU to go west because they are the furthest east.SUIt PSU is east then OSU needs to stay east to play both PSU and MI
(assuming there can be only one crossover). This means Michigan goes west to join NU. As you said MSU must go with them. This means one of Iowa or Wisconsin must go east. Iowa has a border with Nebraska and is further west than Wisconsin. This conches it. The rest split by geography with Illinois joining UW because of strong rivalries and proximity with OSU, IN, and Purdue. This is why 'Barry said before the announcement that you could sort of figure it out - I posted a graph that depicted the split on GH before the announcement.

Perhaps Barrys peers don't like him but given the parameters that they made public this was going to be it, like him or not.

I don't think they'll ever revisit it either. If you think About it, the only reason to revisit it would be if the badgers rip off three big ten titles in a row and Michigan stays in the tank. But then why would the western teams want to add UW? I just can't see a scenario where it happens.
 

Now that folks have calmed down, most are resigned to the divisions and agree with grunkiejr's and RedPoo's analyses. It may or may not be easier for UW to get to the title game - we have played OSU fairly well (better than Michigan, even when Michigan was down), but uneven with PSU. The big gripe is from the fans - none of the closest road trips are within the division, PSU is fun but harder than hell to get to, no one really cares about Indiana and Illinois and the cities do not make up for the fact that these are basketball schools. [Northwestern also has an apathetic fanbase, but spending the weekend in Chicago makes up for it.]

The best I can say is that it will make the games at Iowa City, Lincoln, and Evanston more fun when they happen.
 

If you think a out it, the only way there would ever be any kind of switch is if UW pleaded for it, and MN, IA, NU, and NW asked for it because they missed the proximate annual rival. Even then, Michigan, PSU, and OSU would need to go along with it. I just don't see it. Maybe Michigan will change their tune when their fans get sick of going to Minneapolis, Iowa City, and Lincoln (where the drive is long and you can't get tickets) instead of Happy Valley, Bloomington, and West Lafayette (closer and easy tickets in the state of Indiana).
 


badgergopher said:
This means Michigan goes west to join NU. As you said MSU must go with them. This means one of Iowa or Wisconsin must go east.
Click to expand...

The notion that Michigan State had to go with Michigan is one I don't get. Maybe it wouldn't have changed things anyway, but assuming that MSU must go with Michigan means Michigan gets every single rivalry or trophy game protected, while Iowa vs. Wisconsin had to be sacrificed. Wisconsin didn't have to go with Iowa and NW didn't have to go with Illinois, so I am not sure why Michigan State had to go with Michigan. I would have liked to spread the pain around a bit more, but it doesn't appear to have been possible.
 

Talked at length with Maturi down in Murfreesboro at the GLC tailgate and he was real happy with how everything turned out. His main goal was to make sure we kept our main rivalry games with Ioweeeeee, Becky and he had hoped to keep Michigan which he did. He also said adding Nebraska and avoiding OSU & Penn ST on an annual basis was an added bonus.
 

Brewscrew said:
Talked at length with Maturi down in Murfreesboro at the GLC tailgate and he was real happy with how everything turned out. His main goal was to make sure we kept our main rivalry games with Ioweeeeee, Becky and he had hoped to keep Michigan which he did. He also said adding Nebraska and avoiding OSU & Penn ST on an annual basis was an added bonus.
Click to expand...


Spoke to Maturi about the same time you did. JM said that they wanted at least 9 votes "for" and the first vote on the alignment (as it is now) was 7-5. After some, as he said, "heartfelt statements"--I assume from Osborne and Maturi--the revote was immediately 10-2.

It has been well documented that Ozzie and Joel have been thick as thieves during this whole thing, and that Alvarez has tried to strong-arm everyone with his plan. I think it was Wisconsin in the west and the other 11 teams in the east. ;)

I have to believe one of the two no votes was Wisconsin. Could the other have been Illinois? Seems to be the one that would object to being in the east as well.

JM said they took the alignment to the school Presidents who gave it their approval. The ADs then revoted to make it 12-0 "for the record".

You have to bet Alvarez was against the whole thing. Joel could easily be called the architect of the alignment plan.
 

When you think about Maturi's legacy at the U, it will be pretty impressive. From merging two departments and restoring the fiscal condition of the resulting department to helping get a new football stadium built to the new football alignment to whatever the future holds (and I know I'm missing a number of things here), I think we'll look back at some point and say that the U's athletics department did quite well with Joel at the helm.
 

MplsHawk said:
The notion that Michigan State had to go with Michigan is one I don't get. Maybe it wouldn't have changed things anyway, but assuming that MSU must go with Michigan means Michigan gets every single rivalry or trophy game protected, while Iowa vs. Wisconsin had to be sacrificed. Wisconsin didn't have to go with Iowa and NW didn't have to go with Illinois, so I am not sure why Michigan State had to go with Michigan. I would have liked to spread the pain around a bit more, but it doesn't appear to have been possible.
Click to expand...

The difference between Michigan State and Wisconsin is that MSU has won 0 Big Ten Titles since PSU joined the league while Wisconsin has won 3. I'm not going to look up the records but Wisconsin has a much better record than MSU in that time period and established itself as no worse than #5 in the conference (an argument can be made for 4th with PSU). Therefore, moving MSU from one division to the other doesn't alter competitive balance while moving Wisconsin does.

Iowa also established themselves in the pecking order as #6. Therefore, Iowa and Wisconsin had to be split because they had set themselves apart from the rest of the league. If you put both of them in one division you would have 4 of the top 6 in one division and that would create competitive inequality--competitive inequality that is less balanced than a straight East/West split.

Once you accept that the top 6 had to be split you can fit the remaining 6 in according to rivalry and/or geography which is why MSU went with Michigan and Minnesota went with Mich/Neb/Iowa.

The Wisconsin/Iowa rivalry got sacrificed because they were (1) A victim of their own success in that they were good enough to alter competitive balance by moving divisions and (2) they each shared a rivalry with Minnesota and the triangle couldn't continue without sacrificing competitive balance. It was just a matter of whether Wisconsin kept Minnesota or Iowa for a rivalry. Even if Minnesota swapped divisions you'd still have one team missing out on playing because then Iowa would have to choose between a protected rivalry with Wisconsin or Minnesota.
 

highwayman said:
Spoke to Maturi about the same time you did. JM said that they wanted at least 9 votes "for" and the first vote on the alignment (as it is now) was 7-5. After some, as he said, "heartfelt statements"--I assume from Osborne and Maturi--the revote was immediately 10-2.

It has been well documented that Ozzie and Joel have been thick as thieves during this whole thing, and that Alvarez has tried to strong-arm everyone with his plan. I think it was Wisconsin in the west and the other 11 teams in the east. ;)

I have to believe one of the two no votes was Wisconsin. Could the other have been Illinois? Seems to be the one that would object to being in the east as well.

JM said they took the alignment to the school Presidents who gave it their approval. The ADs then revoted to make it 12-0 "for the record".

You have to bet Alvarez was against the whole thing. Joel could easily be called the architect of the alignment plan.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by the numbers you are quoting because Nebraska isn't a voting member yet.

Also, I'd be surprised if Illinois voted no. From a rivalry standpoint I would think they would rather be in the East than West because their two protected rivals have been Northwestern (now a cross-over protected game) and Indiana. They also have traveling trophies with Ohio State (Illibuck) and Purdue (Purdue Cannon). Putting them in the East permits 4 annual rivalry games.

It makes more sense to me that Northwestern wouldn't like the alignment. They consider 4 teams their rival (Illinois, Iowa, Purdue & Wisconsin) and because of alignment they will only have annual games with Iowa & Illinois.
 

According to what I've seen and understand, how it all broke down was putting teams into 'tiers'. Mich, OSU, PSU, and Neb are the cream of the crop. The 'middle tier' consists of Iowa and 'Sconnie. Then there's the rest.

With that said, they had to split up the tiers (via competitive equality) evenly. OSU and Mich were selected to be apart. PSU went with OSU, and Neb with Mich.

Now that they had the 'big ones' split, here comes the 'middle tier'. Iowa and Wisconsin. Probably for the 'Farmaggedon' reasons, they put Iowa in the division with Neb. Wisconsin got the OSU division.

Finally comes the remaining 'bottom feeders'. Minn, Illinois, NU, Indiana, MSU, and Purdue were to be split into threes. Now, given that Mich got a protected rivalry with OSU, MSU HAD to be in the same conference as Mich. Minnesota has more ties with the Mich division than OSU ('Sconnie being the only connection), so I figure the ADs figure they'd give Minn/Wisconsin each other as a protected rivalry and put Minn in the Mich division. If Maturi had something to do with this, then he definitely deserves some serious credit. With Illinois having a trophy game against OSU, they get put in that conference along with Purdue (probably to keep that rivalry as well). Which leaves NU and Indiana as the 'odd' teams out. I'm sure they just flipped a coin and gave them their rivalries that were not in their conferences as protected cross-overs.

This is how I understand how it all went down. But I could be completely wrong.
 

grunkiejr said:
I'm confused by the numbers you are quoting because Nebraska isn't a voting member yet.

Also, I'd be surprised if Illinois voted no. From a rivalry standpoint I would think they would rather be in the East than West because their two protected rivals have been Northwestern (now a cross-over protected game) and Indiana. They also have traveling trophies with Ohio State (Illibuck) and Purdue (Purdue Cannon). Putting them in the East permits 4 annual rivalry games.

It makes more sense to me that Northwestern wouldn't like the alignment. They consider 4 teams their rival (Illinois, Iowa, Purdue & Wisconsin) and because of alignment they will only have annual games with Iowa & Illinois.
Click to expand...

Since this affects NE as much as anyone else and this starts next year when NE comes on board, it only makes sense to give an equal vote to NE on alignment matters.

Either that or The University of Chicago gave NE power of attorney.
 

Formo said:
According to what I've seen and understand, how it all broke down was putting teams into 'tiers'. Mich, OSU, PSU, and Neb are the cream of the crop. The 'middle tier' consists of Iowa and 'Sconnie. Then there's the rest.

With that said, they had to split up the tiers (via competitive equality) evenly. OSU and Mich were selected to be apart. PSU went with OSU, and Neb with Mich.

Now that they had the 'big ones' split, here comes the 'middle tier'. Iowa and Wisconsin. Probably for the 'Farmaggedon' reasons, they put Iowa in the division with Neb. Wisconsin got the OSU division.

Finally comes the remaining 'bottom feeders'. Minn, Illinois, NU, Indiana, MSU, and Purdue were to be split into threes. Now, given that Mich got a protected rivalry with OSU, MSU HAD to be in the same conference as Mich. Minnesota has more ties with the Mich division than OSU ('Sconnie being the only connection), so I figure the ADs figure they'd give Minn/Wisconsin each other as a protected rivalry and put Minn in the Mich division. If Maturi had something to do with this, then he definitely deserves some serious credit. With Illinois having a trophy game against OSU, they get put in that conference along with Purdue (probably to keep that rivalry as well). Which leaves NU and Indiana as the 'odd' teams out. I'm sure they just flipped a coin and gave them their rivalries that were not in their conferences as protected cross-overs.

This is how I understand how it all went down. But I could be completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you come the closest to the reality of the exchange that took place.

The speculation of an 'alliance' between a couple AD's being formed and/or another AD trying to strongarm is NOT well-documented, and just isn't the way the group works. There is so much communication that happens in advance of the meeting, they all pretty much know the key questions to resolve by the time they show up. Formo, you hit the key issue that was addressed at the meeting.
 

Studwell55 said:
I confess to not understanding how Wisconsin got "screwed". They are in the "easier" division if considered top-to-bottom. Our division looks to be stronger taken as a whole.

Plus, who is the strongest Big Ten program when you take the long view? Michigan. And they'll be back.

Remember: there are not enough good players for everybody to be good in the Big Ten. Intelligent conclusion: We should prefer schools like Notre Dame and Illinois and Indiana to be very competitive. Why? Because it creates more parity with our rivals.
Click to expand...

I figure the top two are Ohio State/Nebraska, I think Ohio State is the better of the two.
The next two are Penn State/Michigan, I think Penn State is the better of the two.

Having to play Ohio State and Penn State every year is tougher than playing Nebraska and Michigan in my mind. That is where they got the tougher draw.
 

station19 said:
Since this affects NE as much as anyone else and this starts next year when NE comes on board, it only makes sense to give an equal vote to NE on alignment matters.

Either that or The University of Chicago gave NE power of attorney.
Click to expand...

Nebraska is not a voting member until July 2011, Osborne even re-stated this fact this past weekend. He is allowed to speak and voice their position but cannot cast a vote.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom