Rittenberg's Take on Divisions

Donate To GopherHole


Yeah, pretty well thought out.

Not exactly how I would do it, but i wouldn't cry my eyes out if that's how it ended up.

I like how Iowa-wisconsin gets the shaft in this arrangement. That made me chuckle. :)
 




It still bothers me that the B10 and people like Adam Rittenberg care so much about balancing the "name" schools. I don't think it is the idea of preserving power so much as it is letting those schools push you around. Clearly, with our AD, we will not even make a case for what makes the most sense for MN or more importantly what makes more sense for the B10 at large.
 

This is an interesting idea. The part I like about it is the relationship between the big four. By giving them a tough crossover game every year it gives everyone else a better shot.

One thing about the geographic alignment that is really tough is that it would be difficult to be Michigan St., Indiana, or Purdue. Those guys would average playing 3.5 of the big four. The West teams would average playing 2.5 of the big four.

Adam's proposal addresses this fairly well. The big four would average 2.5 games against other big four teams. This rest of the teams would average 3 games a year against the big four. This gives the rest of the teams the best chance, year in and year out, assuming Michigan regains it's form.

While I still prefer the geographic, If we adopted Adam's approach, I would tweak his alignments to:

West
Penn State
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Illinois

East
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Purdue
Indiana

End of Season
IA/NU
Minnesota/WI
PSU/IL
OSU/MI
MSU/NW
PUR/IN

Protected
Penn State-Ohio State
Nebraska-Michigan
Remaining 8 teams play one game that alternates against the big two each year and two games against the other four teams in the other division - no protected rivalry.
 

eker0016 said:
It still bothers me that the B10 and people like Adam Rittenberg care so much about balancing the "name" schools. I don't think it is the idea of preserving power so much as it is letting those schools push you around. Clearly, with our AD, we will not even make a case for what makes the most sense for MN or more importantly what makes more sense for the B10 at large.
Click to expand...

They're focusing on the imbalances of the Big 12 North/South.
 

I like Rittenberg's take. Being in the same division with Michigan gives us the chance to play for the Jug every year. We also keep Floyd and the Axe. Don't mind losing the Bell to an occasional matchup since that is how it is now, not to mention no history with that trophy. Would be nice to see Nebraska more than twice every few seasons, but at the same time we could meet up in the championship game a few seasons down the road.

I wonder when the Big Ten decides divisions if they will include a bylaw to option to restructure divisions after 5 or 10 seasons. Obviously you only do that if the majority of schools agree. I mean none of us know how balanced some of these divisions remain after a few seasons. Purdue could have another streak of brilliance, Minnesota could become a powerhouse if it turns the corner, Illinois solves its problems. Heck, Indiana could become a football power if someone invested A LOT of money into that program.

Interesting thought though: Say the divisions end up like this and we play Iowa as a crossover at the end of the season or something. What if we meet them again in the Conference Championship? Do we play for Floyd again? That would be a first....
 



It's a pretty good set up if you are of the mind that OSU/Mich/PSU must be split up. The only thing that would suck for us is that we wouldn't play Nebraska annually. I do like being in the same division as Michigan though as I think they'll be down longer than their fans believe.
 

Whether or not we, as Gopher fans, want to admit it, the Big 10 now has six (not four) perennial top teams: PSU, OSU, MI, WI, IA and NE (and MI is currently in a slump). If this is considered, then an East West divide makes the most sense.
 

I think people have very short memories when they talk about wanting to avoid a disparity like the Big 12 North/South. When the conference was first formed and for the first several years, the big concern was that the North was too strong and the South was too weak. Back then, Nebraska was unquestionably the best team in the conference and Kansas State and Colorado were elite. Oklahoma was lousy, so 3 of the top 4 powers (the other being Texas, who wasn't exactly an elite team at the time either) were in the North. In 1995 (last year of the Big 8), the three North schools were better than anyone in the South. Same with 1996, the first year of the Big 12 (Texas won the South with an 8-5 overall record). In 1997, Nebraska and K-State were miles above anything in the South (13-0 and 11-1 vs. 9-4 for Texas A&M). 1998 was very close and 1999 had K-State and Nebraska again much better than anything in the South. It was very even through the early 2000's, but in 2004, the North suddenly became very mediocre.

My point is that for more than half of the conference's life, the North was as good or better than the South. But people forget that fact very quickly.
 

I can't believe Rittenberg writes about the Big Ten for a living and that was the conference alignment he came up with. Completely and utterly pathetic for several reasons.

--You absolutely cannot separate Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. You can't do it. The rivalries are too intense and if one team wins the divisional crown they should have to not just play one another, but beat the opposing teams to that crown. Any format that separates these three teams is asinine.

--Probably should have Nebraska in the division with the 3 aforementioned teams, being as Iowa is Nebraska's most natural rival and all. I

--I agree that given the timing of their game, Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division. But it would make more sense for them to be in the opposite division of the aforementioned four teams (In this format I hope the Lil' Brown Jug game would remain a protected rivalry game).

--Again, an East West cross as outlined by FBT works perfectly. The fact that Rittenberg's excuse for avoiding this has to do with teams that 'move the needle' is asinine. This is the Big Ten, a conference with its own network. Who cares if 3 of the 4 quote unquote most popular teams are in the same half of the division. With at least 3 intersectional games a year explain to me how having separating the 4 quote unquote helmet schools is going to lead to any more games that garner national attention. Teams will still only miss out on 3 of the 6 teams in the other division every year. His logic is totally absent.

--Also, for totally selfish reasons I want Ohio State in the other division. They are by far the most dominant team in the Big Ten every year and I really don't want to have to beat them to win our half of the division. By all rights and logic they should be in the other half of the division.
 



(Possibly Bad) Idea about Division names: If there is no geographical basis for divisional alignment, and they want to name it after legendary BigTen figures (as seems popular on many blogs and tv commentaries) I think it could be a neat idea to name the divisions each after its most recent champion's legendary figure.

For example, if Minnesota and OSU are division champions, the following year, they will be called the Nagurski division and Hayes divisions. If PSU and Iowa wins, the Paterno and Kinnick divisions. etc. etc. etc.

This could be a reward in itself for winning the division: the newspapers would be printing this name all year across the country and ESPN could be talking about how Michigan, once again, has a bad record in the Woody Hayes division. ;)

Bad idea?

BTW, i just want to throw in there again I strongly believe that a traditional East-West divide is the best way to do things.
 

Unless you ban Ohio State from competition, you are going to have unbalanced divisions.

Rittenbergs reasoning for splitting up OhioSTate/Mich/Penn State is that WI and IA haven't beaten OSU since 2003.

Ohio State record vs Big 10 opponents since 2003
Illinois 4-1
Indiana 5-0
Purdue 3-2
Northwestern 5-1
Iowa 4-1
Wisconsin 3-2
Minnesota 5-0
Michigan State 6-0
Michigan 6-1
Penn State 5-2
Nebraska

Ironically, the two teams with the best winning percentage against Ohio State since 2003, the year Rittenberg wanted to use, are Wisconsin and Purdue.....maybe Purdue should in a different division than Ohio State to "balance" things out.

If it were East/West
Ohio State against west: 21-5 .808
Ohio State against east: 25-5 .833

So it appears the west is stronger against Ohio State than the east is? How can that be? And that doesn't even include games against the West's "name" school.
 

AhliBobwa said:
--Again, an East West cross as outlined by FBT works perfectly. The fact that Rittenberg's excuse for avoiding this has to do with teams that 'move the needle' is asinine. This is the Big Ten, a conference with its own network. Who cares if 3 of the 4 quote unquote most popular teams are in the same half of the division. With at least 3 intersectional games a year explain to me how having separating the 4 quote unquote helmet schools is going to lead to any more games that garner national attention. Teams will still only miss out on 3 of the 6 teams in the other division every year. His logic is totally absent.
Click to expand...

in Rittenburg's example you will get an average of 5 of the 'name' matchups per year. Two divisional games, two 'protected' inter divisional games, and one non-protected inter divisional
game.

In the pure geographic model with no crossover you will get an average of 4.5 name matchups per year. 3 divisional games in the east, and an average of 1.5 inter divisional games (Nebraska vs. MI/OSU/PSU).

That is how his proposal leads to more such games.
 

AhliBobwa said:
I can't believe Rittenberg writes about the Big Ten for a living and that was the conference alignment he came up with. Completely and utterly pathetic for several reasons.

--You absolutely cannot separate Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. You can't do it. The rivalries are too intense and if one team wins the divisional crown they should have to not just play one another, but beat the opposing teams to that crown. Any format that separates these three teams is asinine.

--Probably should have Nebraska in the division with the 3 aforementioned teams, being as Iowa is Nebraska's most natural rival and all. I

--I agree that given the timing of their game, Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division. But it would make more sense for them to be in the opposite division of the aforementioned four teams (In this format I hope the Lil' Brown Jug game would remain a protected rivalry game).

--Again, an East West cross as outlined by FBT works perfectly. The fact that Rittenberg's excuse for avoiding this has to do with teams that 'move the needle' is asinine. This is the Big Ten, a conference with its own network. Who cares if 3 of the 4 quote unquote most popular teams are in the same half of the division. With at least 3 intersectional games a year explain to me how having separating the 4 quote unquote helmet schools is going to lead to any more games that garner national attention. Teams will still only miss out on 3 of the 6 teams in the other division every year. His logic is totally absent.

--Also, for totally selfish reasons I want Ohio State in the other division. They are by far the most dominant team in the Big Ten every year and I really don't want to have to beat them to win our half of the division. By all rights and logic they should be in the other half of the division.
Click to expand...

I disagree...I kind of like Rittenberg's idea. Having the big teams play each other disproportionatly gives big games for the national audience and gives the less advantaged teams a better chance to win their division...everyone wins. My only thought on that is that it also seems like it would hurt our chances of sending two teams to BCS bowls, and outside of the network that's where our big paydays have been coming from. But I might be misreading that situation.

Also, I like the idea of being in a conference with Michigan (the Little Brown Jug is somewhat important to me) and not being in a division full of less elite programs, which is what the straight east-west split would do. Regardless of facts on the field, if OSU, PSU and Michigan were in the same division, our side would almost always be considered the second tier.
 

Quit with all this long term competitive balance nonsense. All the pundits are predicting that college football will evolve into 5 super conferences of 16 teams. Whatever they come up with will be short term until the conference expands again. With Michigan currently down an east west split makes the most sense.
 

Well put Rose Mountain. Your analysis makes more sense than most of the talking heads.
 

bigtenmapcrop340x234.png


Rivalries #1.
 

Over the last 7 years......

Under this football driven plan, how unbalanced will it be?

WEST: 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 TOTAL AVG.
Nebraska 10-4 9-4 5-7 9-5 8-4 5-6 10-3 56-33 (8-5)
Iowa 11-2 9-4 6-6 6-7 7-5 10-2 10-3 59-29 (8-4)
MINNESOTA 6-7 7-6 1-11 6-7 7-5 7-5 10-3 44-44 (6-6)
Wisconsin 10-3 7-6 9-4 12-1 10-3 9-3 7-6 64-26 (9-4)
Northwestern 8-5 9-4 6-6 4-8 7-5 6-6 6-7 46-41 (7-6)
Illinois 3-9 5-7 9-4 2-10 2-9 3-8 1-11 25-58 (4-8)

EAST: 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 TOTAL AVG.
Indiana 4-8 3-9 7-6 5-7 4-7 3-8 2-10 28-55 (4-8)
Purdue 5-7 4-8 8-5 8-6 5-6 7-5 9-4 46-41 (7-6)
Michigan 5-7 3-9 9-4 11-2 7-5 9-3 10-3 54-33 (8-5)
Michigan State 6-7 9-4 7-6 4-8 5-6 5-7 8-5 44-43 (6-6)
Ohio State 11-2 10-3 11-2 12-1 10-2 8-4 11-2 73-16 (10-2)
Penn State 11-2 11-2 9-4 9-4 11-1 4-7 3-9 58-29 (8-4)


Really seems to be quite balanced over the last 7 years.
 

E and W Geography and rivals is clearly the best way to go!

Great Plains
MN
Wis
Iowa
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwest

Great Lakes
Mich
Mich State
OSU
PSU
Purdue
Indiana

Cross over Rivals game
MN-Mich
Wis-Mich State
Iowa-OSU
Neb-PSU
Illinois-Purdue
North-Indiana

End of year Rivals Game
MN-Wis
Mich-OSU
Iowa-Neb
PSU-Mich State
Ill-North
Purdue-Ind


I think recods will change over the years but geography and rivals do not...history and tradition and location matters. This to me seems like a no brainer!
 

Rosemountian said:
Rittenbergs reasoning for splitting up OhioSTate/Mich/Penn State is that WI and IA haven't beaten OSU since 2003.
Click to expand...

What is he talking about? Did the 2004 Iowa and Wisconsin victories over tOSU get thrown out? Also, he leaves out that WI and OSU didn't play in 2005 and 2006 and WI had 10 and 12 win seasons in those years, respectively. would have liked to see them play.
 

GhostofBronko said:
What is he talking about? Did the 2004 Iowa and Wisconsin victories over tOSU get thrown out? Also, he leaves out that WI and OSU didn't play in 2005 and 2006 and WI had 10 and 12 win seasons in those years, respectively. would have liked to see them play.
Click to expand...

Yea, I have seen some North/South arrangements that begin to make sense. This one does not, and his reasoning for doing it how he did it is also incorrect.
 

The conference is layed out more east to west than north to south, an east-west split makes the most sense and provides the best competitive balance.

But no Great Lakes/Great Plains naming convention. Of the Big Ten states, only two, Iowa and Nebraska, have no Great Lakes shoreline. Minnesota has a considerable bit of Lake Superior shorline, and Wisconsin has a tremendous amount of Lake Michigan shoreline. I realize that the Twin Cities are not on the Great Lakes, but the U represents the state as a whole, not just the metro area.

Only one state, Nebraska is considered a Great Plains state.
 

loki said:
Cross over Rivals game
MN-Mich
Wis-OSU
Iowa-PSU
Neb-MSU
Illinois-Purdue
North-Indiana
Click to expand...

I think the changes I made to the above would please the fanbases more and still make sense from a TV perspective. Wisky fans have been focused on OSU for a number of seasons now, Iowa/PSU fans look at their games as a budding rivalry, though Neb/MSU does have less pop.
 

RodentRampage said:
The conference is layed out more east to west than north to south, an east-west split makes the most sense and provides the best competitive balance.

But no Great Lakes/Great Plains naming convention. Of the Big Ten states, only two, Iowa and Nebraska, have no Great Lakes shoreline. Minnesota has a considerable bit of Lake Superior shorline, and Wisconsin has a tremendous amount of Lake Michigan shoreline. I realize that the Twin Cities are not on the Great Lakes, but the U represents the state as a whole, not just the metro area.

Only one state, Nebraska is considered a Great Plains state.
Click to expand...

Agree. +1
 

Rodent made the mistake of confusing plains for prairie. Plains only apply to short grass prairie most of the states listed as plains do in fact have tall grass prairie with Wisconsin barely qualifying.
 

nsmike said:
Rodent made the mistake of confusing plains for prairie. Plains only apply to short grass prairie most of the states listed as plains do in fact have tall grass prairie with Wisconsin barely qualifying.
Click to expand...

I made no such mistake. The Great Plains states consists of the following states: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming.

Unless you meant to refer to someone else mistaking prairie for plains?
 

Good points about MN and Wisconsin being Great Lakes States so what do we call the divisions?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom