Shooter

Donate To GopherHole
60's Guy said:
According to the top 25 poll at the present time Michigan is the only one not in the top 25.
Click to expand...

Anybody else think that these problems at Michigan will be more permanent than Delany and other national pundits perhaps think? The Rust Belt is being hit hard by the recession, particularly Michigan with the automakers.

Not at all saying there is a one-to-one correlation with the prosperity of the state/industry/major cities, but Michigan is a much less desirable place to live today than it was 10 years ago. I know Michigan's collapse didn't really have anything to do with the economy, but it is going to be more difficult for them to come back now, IMHO.
 

Ohio State and Michigan in one division.
Nebraska and Penn State in the other.

Split Iowa and Wisconsin and fill in the rest is what is going to happen.

Most likely looking at Ohio State and Nebreska in the championship game the first couple of years with Penn State in the mix occasionally.

Wisconsin or Iowa would probably not want to be in Ohio States division. The other division will be stronger but Ohio State will still be the most dominant team.
 

I remember reading an article about a pod system that seemed like it would be the best way to schedule (IMO). It would never happen because it's too complicated, but I think it would be the most fair and interesting.
 

A Question

With the goal of self-interest, could Barta, Alvarez, Osborne, and Maturi stick together?

And once again, screw anything that isn't East/West.
 

Maturi has made it clear that they are going with "competitive balance," which means we'll be kicked around. Trouble with that approach is: who knows if Nebraska or Penn State will be all that competitive in 20 or 30 years? East/West is the only sensible way to go and I'd bet most Big Ten fans agree, but then majority opinion doesn't seem to mean much these days.
 


East-West maintains competitive balance. Those who insist that it doesn't are making an assumption that OSU, PSU and Michigan will always be very good, and that Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa will not. That's too big an assumption to make. Putting 4 of the top 6 in the West makes the west brutal. Protected crossover games throw a complete monkey wrench in competitive balance, if they go with crossover games, then that means they were lying about competitive balance being a factor.

The real reason is protecting the existing brands. But east-west is an opportunity to build the brand up.
 

competative balance = commisioner speak for the most money for tv matchups.

True competative balance should be:

1) true east west split
2) both divisions have two three team 'pods' like someone suggested a few months ago
3) you play teams in your division every year and every team from opposite division every other year.
4) after 4 years you would complete the cycle-4 games in division and 2 games(one home one away) against opposite division.

Try this on a 4 year trial basis

A) does anyone expect Michigan to be a major power in the next 2-4 years?
B) in 4 years the Big 10 could be adding 2 or 4 more teams.
C) no matter how you cut the mustard some yearly rivalries will be lost.
 

I favor an east-west split, without protected cross-division rivalries, and no pods. The division has to mean something, it's essentially a mini-conference. Protected rivalries and pods undermine this. When you go with divisions, you're going to become closer to your divisional rivals, and less close to the teams in the other division. This becomes more true the more teams that are added.
 

RodentRampage said:
I favor an east-west split, without protected cross-division rivalries, and no pods. The division has to mean something, it's essentially a mini-conference. Protected rivalries and pods undermine this. When you go with divisions, you're going to become closer to your divisional rivals, and less close to the teams in the other division. This becomes more true the more teams that are added.
Click to expand...

Why do you feel pods would 'undermine'.
 



Pods would mean that you had a whole new division everytime the pods were moved around.
 

RodentRampage said:
Pods would mean that you had a whole new division everytime the pods were moved around.
Click to expand...

All the pods would do is determine which 3 teams you play from the opposite division and insure that in a two year period you would play every team in opposite division once.

Every year you would play 5 games against your division and 3 against the other division. Divisions would stay the same but the three games against opposite division would not be the same for all teams in said division. There is no way you can have an exact same schedule unless you go to an 11 game schedule.

Not sure if we are talking the same idea about pods.
 

station19 said:
All the pods would do is determine which 3 teams you play from the opposite division and insure that in a two year period you would play every team in opposite division once.

Every year you would play 5 games against your division and 3 against the other division. Divisions would stay the same but the three games against opposite division would not be the same for all teams in said division. There is no way you can have an exact same schedule unless you go to an 11 game schedule.

Not sure if we are talking the same idea about pods.
Click to expand...

It appears we aren't talking about the same pod concept. The pod concept that I have seen has the Big Ten broken up into 4 pods of 3 teams, with the pods moving around. You would have one division being composed of Pod A and Pod B, with the other division being composed of Pod C and Pod D. Then after a few years, it switches around, with A and D in one, and B and C in the other. Then it switches around with A and C in one, and B and D in the other. Finally, it starts all over again, with A and B in one, and C and D in the other. This would severely undermine the divisions.

What you describe is what I would expect to be done when we have divisions, but I have not heard that described as pods.
 

RodentRampage said:
It appears we aren't talking about the same pod concept. The pod concept that I have seen has the Big Ten broken up into 4 pods of 3 teams, with the pods moving around. You would have one division being composed of Pod A and Pod B, with the other division being composed of Pod C and Pod D. Then after a few years, it switches around, with A and D in one, and B and C in the other. Then it switches around with A and C in one, and B and D in the other. Finally, it starts all over again, with A and B in one, and C and D in the other. This would severely undermine the divisions.

What you describe is what I would expect to be done when we have divisions, but I have not heard that described as pods.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see that 2017 OSU banner: "5-time Lakes/Plains/Lakes/Lakes/Plains Division Champions!"
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom