Shama: Big Ten Realignment May Come Next Week

Donate To GopherHole
GopherGod said:
Nebraska will not get a vote in deciding the divisions unless they wait until July 2011 to decide divisions which obviously won't occur. Nebraska will be aloud to voice ther opinion at the upcoming meetings but will not be aloud to cast any votes.
Click to expand...

Good point GG. I'm getting so used to the thought of them in the B10 that this never even crossed my mind.
 

Think about the priorities & votes for the two scenarios.

Geographic
MI - Doesn't like three in the east because of 'balance'. Knows that any scenario will protect 'the game'. Votes against.
OSU - Same as UM. Votes against.
PUR - Dosen't like it because they will never get back to the Rose Bowl with these three in the division. Votes against.
IN - Same as PUR. Votes against.
MSU - Same as PUR and IN but it grateful that UM-MSU is protected in this scenario. Votes against.
PSU - Is generally happy because they know that most of the 'balance' scenarios will split PSU and OSU, their biggest rival. Votes in favor.

NU - Doesn't get a vote.
WI - Wants the MN and IA rivalries protected and is happy to have NU in division, votes in favor.
IA - Same as WI. Votes in favor.
MN - Same as WI and IA. Votes in favor.
NW - It preserves their biggest rival, IL, and allows them to continue to recruit the western B10 states. Votes in favor.
IL - Most of their perceived rivals are in the east. Casts a tepid vote in favor.

Big Ten media partners - strongly advise the conference to split the 'big 4' so that they get more 'big 4' title game matchups.

Now consider PSU swap for IL.

MI - Likes the 'balance', protection of OSU and MSU. Votes yes.
OSU - Likes 'balance' protection of 'the game'. Votes yes.
PUR - Likes the swap of IL for PSU becasue it appears to be an easier divison to win, votes yes.
IN - Same as PUR. Votes yes.
MSU - Same as PUR and IN & happy that MI is in same division. Votes yes.
IL - Most of their perceived rivals are in the east, likes the fact that only two of top six are in the division, doesn't care about NW. Votes yes.

NU - Doesn't get a vote.
WI - Doesn't like 4 of the top 6 in the west but votes yes because the rivalries are protected (top priority) and NU is in the division.
IA - Same as WI. Votes yes.
MN - Same as WI and IA. Votes yes.
NW - While disappointed that IL rivalry will not be every year, is thrilled that WI, IA, and NU are in division because they are likely sellouts (no longer a concern for the Gophers!). Votes no.
PSU - Is pissed about moving west. Votes no.

I think based on the dimestore analysis above, that the geographic will be a very close vote and may not have enough support to get over the hump. I think Maturi and many others will defer to the leage office on what is 'best for TV'. While there may be some misgivings about the PSU/IL swap, I think it meets almost everyone's top priority.
 

If they make one swap, I think it's going to be Penn State to the West, Northwestern (instead of Illinois) to the East. Otherwise, I think they'll stick with the time zones.
 

SelectionSunday said:
If they make one swap, I think it's going to be Penn State to the West, Northwestern (instead of Illinois) to the East. Otherwise, I think they'll stick with the time zones.
Click to expand...

No. Illinois is closer tied to, and has more rivals within the east. Northwestern, on the other hand is just the same for the west. OSU, Indiana, Purdue and Michigan would all rather have Illinois. Iowa and wisky would rather have NU.

I realize NU is technically more east than Illinois. But the difference is marginal.
 

MrGopher said:
No. Illinois is closer tied to, and has more rivals within the east. Northwestern, on the other hand is just the same for the west. OSU, Indiana, Purdue and Michigan would all rather have Illinois. Iowa and wisky would rather have NU.

I realize NU is technically more east than Illinois. But the difference is marginal.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that a NW roadtrip is infinitely more fun than Champagna.
 


I would think that Iowa and Wisconsin would vote no on swapping Penn State with anyone from the west. Voting to swap Penn State to the West is to make a statement that Iowa and Wisconsin won't continue to be good, and thus Penn State is needed to balance the divisions.

So, are Iowa and Wisconsin going to vote to disrespect themselves? I'll hound them on it forever if they do.

It's likely that Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota will be in the same division regardless. I don't think that anyone will be able to force an alignment through that doesn't include these three teams in the same division. So, Iowa and Wisconsin could stick to their guns on not imbalancing the conference by moving Penn State west.

Are we sure that Nebraska isn't being given a vote on this?
 

GoGophers2005 said:
Ohio state
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Northwestern

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana

I say we change the rivalry weekend to the. Last weekend in October (Halloween).
Click to expand...
That puts 4 of the top 6 and 6 of the top 10 programs in the same division. Try again.

Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin have to be 3/3
Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota, and Michigan State have to be 3/3 if you are trying to achieve competitive balance.
 

The only logical switch from E/W would be moving one of PSU, Mich, or OSU, and trading them for Wisconsin or Iowa (most likely Wisconsin). With the purpose of preserving competitive balance, trading for Illinois or Northwestern does more harm than good. If you traded Penn State with Wisconsin and did protected rivalries it would be.

PSU-OSU
MN-WI
NEB-MICH
IA-MICH ST
NU-PU
IL-IN
 

RodentRampage said:
I would think that Iowa and Wisconsin would vote no on swapping Penn State with anyone from the west. Voting to swap Penn State to the West is to make a statement that Iowa and Wisconsin won't continue to be good, and thus Penn State is needed to balance the divisions.

So, are Iowa and Wisconsin going to vote to disrespect themselves? I'll hound them on it forever if they do.

It's likely that Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota will be in the same division regardless. I don't think that anyone will be able to force an alignment through that doesn't include these three teams in the same division. So, Iowa and Wisconsin could stick to their guns on not imbalancing the conference by moving Penn State west.

Are we sure that Nebraska isn't being given a vote on this?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is necessarily accurate that they won't split these three. A lot of this depends on how important WI and IA consider their rivalry. As another poster points out later a PSU WI swap is an idea being discussed in many forums. In this case they'd protect Wi/MN, PSU/OSU, and MI/NU (the rest would be contrived). I think this Is essentially the Rittenburg approach and it gets a lot of play on OSU and MI boards.

In this case crossovers might be, MN/WI, PSU/OSU, MI/NU, IA/PUR, NW/MSU, IL/IN. These would be played mid season.

End of season games would be, NU/PSU, MN/IA, NW/IL, MI/OSU, PUR/IN, and MSU/WI.

Would the western teams prefer this to the PSU/IL swap? Maybe. WI loses their rivalry with IA and gets a manufactured end of season rival. On the other hand they play in a more balanced division and get OSU every year which is preferred to PSU from most WI fans perspectives.
 



There will most likely be a couple more teams added in the next five years any way. ( Starting withNotre Dame and one more from the East Coast and then moving on from there as opportunity presents itself.) So, keep it simple now. Schedule an 11 game Conference Schedule in which every team plays every other team. Skip the Conference Championship for the time being, until Notre Dame and another team come into the conference. Sure, it would present scheduling problems with the signed non-conference teams. But, it will be incredibly confusing if they set up this divisional thing right now and in a year or two if and when ND and another team from the East Coast are added, they have to re-do the whole thing. When they add more teams, then they can easily split the whole thing into two divisions and do a conference championship if they think they must.

Personally, it seems to me that more revenue would be generated by having 11 conference games for the Conference Network to sell than to have a cheesy, hastily put together conference championship game that only two of the fan bases would be interested in any way, only to have to go through the entire mess again in a few years.

Let Nebraska properly be welcomed into the Conference by playing every team in the Conference during the first few years they are the "new kids in town..." Doesn't everybody want to either go look at Nebraska's house or have Nebraska come to their house? Just the event of having a new strong Conference Member will create buzz and excitement in itself. There is still more work to do. There will eventually be 14 Conference Member Teams to 16 Conference Member Teams. SUPER COFNERECE CITY is the way to go to enhance the Network that the Big Ten Commishner has built. Get the pay out up to 30 million or more per school. Build it right and it will pay untold dividends. And welcome Nebraska into the Conference by having them play every school in the conference!
 

The competitive balance argument should be a non factor. A geographic split is the only thing that makes sense,

I would be in favor of swapping MSU and Michigan for NU and ILL (I do like the idea of keeping the LBJ game in conference) but either way it would be acceptable. Putting PSU in the West would be just plain wrong as would putting NEB, Wis or IA in the East.

JMO
 

I looked at the Star Tribune article, and it talked about the 4 powers needing to be balances as being Nebraska, OSU, PSU and Michigan, with no mention of Iowa or Wisconsin. Why aren't Iowa and Wisconsin and their fans up in arms over this assumption that they aren't among the conference powers?

Having 4 of the top 6 teams in the West makes the West absolutely brutal. We could play all of the top 6 teams, while OSU might have to play only one. And if Michigan doesn't bounce back, they might not play any at all. It seems they have learned nothing from the ACC.
 

RodentRampage said:
I looked at the Star Tribune article, and it talked about the 4 powers needing to be balances as being Nebraska, OSU, PSU and Michigan, with no mention of Iowa or Wisconsin. Why aren't Iowa and Wisconsin and their fans up in arms over this assumption that they aren't among the conference powers?

Having 4 of the top 6 teams in the West makes the West absolutely brutal. We could play all of the top 6 teams, while OSU might have to play only one. And if Michigan doesn't bounce back, they might not play any at all. It seems they have learned nothing from the ACC.
Click to expand...

Why are so many on this board so willing to give so much credit to wisky and Iowa? I would hope one of the reasonable goals of our program would be to surpass wisky and Iowa in the next year or two. And hopefully it doesn't seem so out of question that we can string some wins against them in the near future.

If we believe that we can surpass those schools, then why are they considered so powerful. Yeah, they're good at football lately, but they are not icons of College football. Nebraska is, Michigan is, and OSU is. PSU is a quarter of a step lower, but still a national-level power.

Having said all that, i do believe having east-west geography split in divisions will work to create balance. And if three (Mich-OSU-PSU) are in one division, one of those schools will begin to look like an underachiever really quickly if they end up in third place in the east or lower year in and year out.
 



I think what people need to get their head around is that "competitive balance" is code for "making sure we don't put 3 of the 4 most nationally marketable programs in the same division." Iowa and Wisky don't fall into that category. Alvarez has admitted as much.
 

MrGopher said:
Having said all that, i do believe having east-west geography split in divisions will work to create balance. And if three (Mich-OSU-PSU) are in one division, one of those schools will begin to look like an underachiever really quickly if they end up in third place in the east or lower year in and year out.
Click to expand...


A while back, I posed this:


"When was the last season that all three had 0 or 1 conference losses at the same time?

THAT WOULD BE NEVER. And that includes seasons when they didn't play each other.

In fact, PSU, OSU and Mch have finished 1-2-3 only twice (1994-combined 5 losses, 1997-combined 4 losses). 13 seasons ago. Too many people are considering all-time totals and tradition, and are not looking at the B10 standings from year to year, especially the last 20 years.

There are ups and downs. "Division strength" in the conference would have little effect and would not result in much of a difference over time, except possibly in a conference championship game.

Check out the standings and analyze yourselves."

I still believe it.
 

GoAUpher said:
I think what people need to get their head around is that "competitive balance" is code for "making sure we don't put 3 of the 4 most nationally marketable programs in the same division." Iowa and Wisky don't fall into that category. Alvarez has admitted as much.
Click to expand...

No, I don't need to get my head around that. I understand that when they talk about competitive balance, they are lying through their teeth. But I have no need whatsoever to accept those lies.
 

highwayman said:
In fact, PSU, OSU and Mch have finished 1-2-3 only twice (1994-combined 5 losses, 1997-combined 4 losses). 13 seasons ago. Too many people are considering all-time totals and tradition, and are not looking at the B10 standings from year to year, especially the last 20 years.

There are ups and downs. "Division strength" in the conference would have little effect and would not result in much of a difference over time, except possibly in a conference championship game.

Check out the standings and analyze yourselves."

I still believe it.
Click to expand...

You have people talking about 10 years as being a mere "snapshot", and saying you have to look back 50 years. It's absurd to think that the events of 40 or 50 years ago have anything to do with how good a team will be now and for the forseeable future. 50 years ago, the Gophers were national champions.
 

MrGopher said:
Why are so many on this board so willing to give so much credit to wisky and Iowa? I would hope one of the reasonable goals of our program would be to surpass wisky and Iowa in the next year or two. And hopefully it doesn't seem so out of question that we can string some wins against them in the near future.

If we believe that we can surpass those schools, then why are they considered so powerful. Yeah, they're good at football lately, but they are not icons of College football. Nebraska is, Michigan is, and OSU is. PSU is a quarter of a step lower, but still a national-level power.
Click to expand...

I don't care about icons, that's about perception. It doesn't bring me any pleasure to observe that Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa balance about as well as possible OSU, Michigan and Penn State. OSU brings its own brand of imbalance, it's impossible to balance around one dominant team.

Just because I recognize that Wisconsin and Iowa are good programs doesn't mean I don't think we can't knock them off and take their place down the road.
 

The more I think about this, the more I hope they swap Michigan/MSU and Ill/NW if they refuse to do it the right way. To swap Ill and PSU makes the West way too strong. To swap WI and PSU damages way too many rivalaries in the name of balance. (WI would have to give up Iowa, Ill and NW.)

The MI/MSU swap for Ill/NW would be best for everyone (outside of straight geography). MI/OSU would be preserved via the protected rivalry. Ill would get to keep rivalaries with OSU, Indiana and NW with Iowa protected via the rivalry game. The crossover games would be: MI/OSU, NU/PSU, WI/NW, IA/IL, MSU/PUR and MN/IN. The final week-end match-ups would be in the division: MN/WI, NU/IA, MI/MSU, OSU/PSU, IN/PUR and Ill/NW. Literally, the only disadvantage is Michigan and OSU having to move 'the game' to earlier in the season. To breakdown how the votes would go:

MI: They would vote no due to the damage to the OSU game
MSU: The Michigan rivalary is protected. The loss of the PSU rivalry is made for by getting a game with Nebraska. They vote yes.
WI: Rivlaries are protected, they'd vote yes.
IA: Ditto
MN: All 3 trophies are in the division, they can't ask for more. Yes.
NU: Doesn't get a vote

OSU: They vote no for the same reason as Michigan
PSU: They don't have to go West. They vote yes.
IN: They get an easier division and to keep Illinois. They vote yes.
PUR: Ditto.
Ill: They get to keep all thier rivlaries. They vote yes.
NW: They're happy to still be with Ill. They vote yes.

So 9 of 11 would be in favor. And Michigan and OSU's objection is pretty minor.
 

All collges are equal, but some are more equal than others. OSU's and Michigan's objections would carry a lot of weight.
 

How about geographical until the next round of expansion. We know it's coming one of these years, that would be a good time to reassess whether geographical works or not.
 

People should not bank on the fact that the conference will expand again in the future. Unless Notre Dame wants to join (unlikely now that super-conferences are not forming) it would be very difficult to find teams that add value to the conference. Assuming that the value the conference gives to each Big Ten team is about 23 million next year, in order to find a team that brings that number up to 24 million per team, you would have to find a team that adds 36 million dollars. Pitt does not do that, Syracuse and Rutgers do not do that unless they give you the entire New York Market (They don't).

In economics, they call it "The Law of Diminishing Returns." With a title game already in place, there are only a select few teams that would add value to the conference (Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame are the only teams with Big Enough Markets or National Followings, that are not already in stable major conferences to add value).

Unless Notre Dame or Texas want to join, the conference will not expand again. You can say "the Big Ten will add three Big East teams and force Notre Dame," but they won't. If Notre Dame balked even if the Big East was folding, it would cost each Big Ten team millions of dollars per year.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom