gophmeister
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,204
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 36
I'm sure he has enough and I think he has a good ally in Barry Alvarez. I doubt some mad scheme to give all the marbles to 4 teams will happen. It's 4 against 8.
Sid: Maturi says Gophs may not be in div with Iowa or UW
- Thread starter BleedGopher
- Start date
I'm sure he has enough and I think he has a good ally in Barry Alvarez. I doubt some mad scheme to give all the marbles to 4 teams will happen. It's 4 against 8.
It seems that Delaney has his own ideas, and he is planning on implementing them. I'm sure if all 12 (or 11 for these meetings) he would have to defer to them, but he seems to have his mind made up that Mich/OSU/PSU can't be in the same division, regardless of what the rest of the B10 thinks.
WAGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 1,779
- Points
- 113
I'm more concerned that Maturi doesn't know what is best for Minnesota. He's so connected with Alvarez, that he may think what is best for Wisconsin is also best for Minnesota.
Schnoodler
Ice Cream Abuser
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 6,994
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 36
If they can move the eastern most team to the west, I can't see why they can't move us to the east.
If PSU moved for balance makes sense to any of you, then you have to consider Minnesota to the east.
If PSU moved for balance makes sense to any of you, then you have to consider Minnesota to the east.
GopherinPhilly
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,591
- Reaction score
- 267
- Points
- 83
Swap MI for Northwestern and we its all good
I still see the obvious movers are MI & MSU to the west along with WI/MN/IA and NE. East is OSU, PU, IN, IL, NW and PSU. MI/OSU is a protected rivalry game. This to me, makes the most sense, and all but guarantees us a lifetime of mediocrity.
I still see the obvious movers are MI & MSU to the west along with WI/MN/IA and NE. East is OSU, PU, IN, IL, NW and PSU. MI/OSU is a protected rivalry game. This to me, makes the most sense, and all but guarantees us a lifetime of mediocrity.
Yes, he does. He is quite literally one of the top 2-3 most powerful men in college athletics. He will tell the presidents and ADs what he thinks is best and they will cow-tow to him. Basically, if Jim Delaney wants it, he gets it. It is now a foregone conclusion that the divisions will NOT be divided by geography. End of discussion. Personally, I don't like it, but that's the way it will be.
Right now it is a fight for each AD to stake a claim to preserving their rivalries and it sounds like from the remaining 3-4 models being considered that Maturi held his own and preserved the MN-IA and MN-WIS games each year no matter how the divisions are aligned.
WAGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 3,577
- Reaction score
- 1,779
- Points
- 113
In the end, this is what matters most - playing WI and IA each and every year. I'd also like to play MI and Nebraska each year too, but that only comes after solidifying the border battles.
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/08/greenstein-big-ten-divisions-taking-shape.html
Greenstein: Big Ten divisions taking shape
by Teddy Greenstein
Most of the talk regarding Big Ten divisions has centered on the need to split up the "big four" -- Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska.
But that thinking might be flawed. Perhaps it's the "big six" -- adding Wisconsin and Iowa -- that needs to be chopped up.
"You have six teams that have separated themselves," Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told the Tribune. "You can't have four in one division."
That thinking could pave the way for having Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State anchor the east (with Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana) and Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa man the west (joined by Northwestern, Illinois, and Minnesota).
Alvarez said that Big Ten officials and athletic directors have been analyzing "everything -- overall record, conference record, opponents, opponents' records, BCS ratings, Sagarin ratings" in an effort to achieve what commissioner Jim Delany calls "competitive fairness".
That's the first criteria the Big Ten will use. Second is preserving rivalries. Third is geography, though Delany did acknowledge travel concerns at Big Ten media days.
Some projections have Penn State joining Nebraska as pillars of the West, but would that be fair to Nittany Lions fans who wish to drive to road games?
"Geography plays some part of it, but it's impossible to fit it all together (perfectly)," Alvarez said. "So there has to be some compromise."
There's no debating that 1993 is the starting point for analyzing data. That's Penn State's first Big Ten football season and the beginning of the "modern Big Ten" in Delany parlance.
Using overall win totals, Wisconsin (145) barely trails Michigan (146) and Penn State (147). Ohio State (170) and Nebraska (165) are tops.
Going by victories in conference games, it's fairly easy to divide the teams into four "clusters", as Alvarez called them:
Group 1: Ohio State (106), Nebraska (98), Michigan (94)
Group 2: Penn State (86), Wisconsin (79), Iowa (71)
Group 3: Purdue (63), Michigan State (63), Northwestern (59)
Group 4: Illinois (45), Minnesota (44), Indiana (33)
So the questions become: Which criteria are most important? And should the Big Ten assume that Michigan (3-13 in Big Ten play over the last two seasons) will rise from the dead?
Delany said he hopes to have the divisions determined by early-to-mid September.
Greenstein: Big Ten divisions taking shape
by Teddy Greenstein
Most of the talk regarding Big Ten divisions has centered on the need to split up the "big four" -- Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska.
But that thinking might be flawed. Perhaps it's the "big six" -- adding Wisconsin and Iowa -- that needs to be chopped up.
"You have six teams that have separated themselves," Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez told the Tribune. "You can't have four in one division."
That thinking could pave the way for having Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State anchor the east (with Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana) and Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa man the west (joined by Northwestern, Illinois, and Minnesota).
Alvarez said that Big Ten officials and athletic directors have been analyzing "everything -- overall record, conference record, opponents, opponents' records, BCS ratings, Sagarin ratings" in an effort to achieve what commissioner Jim Delany calls "competitive fairness".
That's the first criteria the Big Ten will use. Second is preserving rivalries. Third is geography, though Delany did acknowledge travel concerns at Big Ten media days.
Some projections have Penn State joining Nebraska as pillars of the West, but would that be fair to Nittany Lions fans who wish to drive to road games?
"Geography plays some part of it, but it's impossible to fit it all together (perfectly)," Alvarez said. "So there has to be some compromise."
There's no debating that 1993 is the starting point for analyzing data. That's Penn State's first Big Ten football season and the beginning of the "modern Big Ten" in Delany parlance.
Using overall win totals, Wisconsin (145) barely trails Michigan (146) and Penn State (147). Ohio State (170) and Nebraska (165) are tops.
Going by victories in conference games, it's fairly easy to divide the teams into four "clusters", as Alvarez called them:
Group 1: Ohio State (106), Nebraska (98), Michigan (94)
Group 2: Penn State (86), Wisconsin (79), Iowa (71)
Group 3: Purdue (63), Michigan State (63), Northwestern (59)
Group 4: Illinois (45), Minnesota (44), Indiana (33)
So the questions become: Which criteria are most important? And should the Big Ten assume that Michigan (3-13 in Big Ten play over the last two seasons) will rise from the dead?
Delany said he hopes to have the divisions determined by early-to-mid September.