What do I mean by that thread title?

NO MORE LEGENDS AND LEADERS!!!

It's about time!

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...ources-say

Just looking at the breakdown of those divisions, it is just more proof that more expansion is coming for the Big Ten. Geographical divisions are the future for the Big Ten but those divisions are not.

These divisions are way better.

With Penn State no longer a national power the argument that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State shouldn't be playing in the same division has faded.

As for the B1G moving to 16 with 2 more ACC schools...that would disrupt travel for Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St if Indiana had to move to the West division.

What I think is happening is as a conference grows larger it becomes increasingly difficult to collect enough votes required to expand it more. Conference Commissioners want to see conferences expand to add increase revenue but existing member don't want to give up their own hierarchy.

Delany had to use the threat of Penn State being sanctioned by the Department of Education to rally enough votes for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the conference. Once those school are in will they want to vote for more B1G expansion?

Utah and Colorado slipped into the PAC and then didn't want to vote the Texas schools into the league.

I don't see any proof of more expansion, I see sensible divisions.

(04-19-2013 10:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  With Penn State no longer a national power the argument that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State shouldn't be playing in the same division has faded.

As for the B1G moving to 16 with 2 more ACC schools...that would disrupt travel for Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St if Indiana had to move to the West division.

What I think is happening is as a conference grows larger it becomes increasingly difficult to collect enough votes required to expand it more. Conference Commissioners want to see conferences expand to add increase revenue but existing member don't want to give up their own hierarchy.

Delany had to use the threat of Penn State being sanctioned by the Department of Education to rally enough votes for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the conference. Once those school are in will they want to vote for more B1G expansion?

Utah and Colorado slipped into the PAC and then didn't want to vote the Texas schools into the league.

What this tells me personally is that if the B1G expands, it will be one school from the west and another from the east to keep divisional balance. Or...move Purdue back to the west and still bring two more eastern teams into the league. Still keeps the Kansas and ACC options open. In this case, I think the B1G has made an awesome move. This setup allows them to keep all their options open with very minimal, if any, disruption to the new divisions, i.e., Purdue.

(04-19-2013 10:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Delany had to use the threat of Penn State being sanctioned by the Department of Education to rally enough votes for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the conference. Once those school are in will they want to vote for more B1G expansion?

Where on earth did you get this from?

(04-19-2013 11:25 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  With Penn State no longer a national power the argument that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State shouldn't be playing in the same division has faded.

As for the B1G moving to 16 with 2 more ACC schools...that would disrupt travel for Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St if Indiana had to move to the West division.

What I think is happening is as a conference grows larger it becomes increasingly difficult to collect enough votes required to expand it more. Conference Commissioners want to see conferences expand to add increase revenue but existing member don't want to give up their own hierarchy.

Delany had to use the threat of Penn State being sanctioned by the Department of Education to rally enough votes for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the conference. Once those school are in will they want to vote for more B1G expansion?

Utah and Colorado slipped into the PAC and then didn't want to vote the Texas schools into the league.

What this tells me personally is that if the B1G expands, it will be one school from the west and another from the east to keep divisional balance. Or...move Purdue back to the west and still bring two more eastern teams into the league. Still keeps the Kansas and ACC options open. In this case, I think the B1G has made an awesome move. This setup allows them to keep all their options open with very minimal, if any, disruption to the new divisions, i.e., Purdue.

Thats if future expansion is based on the two division concept.

I don't think it proves expansion is coming but you can add two to east or the west and reunite Purdue and Indiana or expand east/west keeping this alignment.

One thing that has been pretty constant in realignment is the plans rarely work out the way they are drawn up. An expected yes turns out to be a no, presidents get cold feet, state politics intrude. With the Big 10 promising members that none of the 11 at the time of the BTN forming would have a reduction in revenue any team added is going to have to bring a real financial impact.

(04-19-2013 11:25 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:34 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  With Penn State no longer a national power the argument that Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State shouldn't be playing in the same division has faded.

As for the B1G moving to 16 with 2 more ACC schools...that would disrupt travel for Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St if Indiana had to move to the West division.

What I think is happening is as a conference grows larger it becomes increasingly difficult to collect enough votes required to expand it more. Conference Commissioners want to see conferences expand to add increase revenue but existing member don't want to give up their own hierarchy.

Delany had to use the threat of Penn State being sanctioned by the Department of Education to rally enough votes for adding Rutgers and Maryland to the conference. Once those school are in will they want to vote for more B1G expansion?

Utah and Colorado slipped into the PAC and then didn't want to vote the Texas schools into the league.

What this tells me personally is that if the B1G expands, it will be one school from the west and another from the east to keep divisional balance. Or...move Purdue back to the west and still bring two more eastern teams into the league. Still keeps the Kansas and ACC options open. In this case, I think the B1G has made an awesome move. This setup allows them to keep all their options open with very minimal, if any, disruption to the new divisions, i.e., Purdue.

That is what I'm kind of wondering...could there be votes to 16 with a combination like Kansas/Virginia? Both states are now contiguous to B1G country.

The ACC then responds by taking West Virginia from the B12 effectively ending their eastward expansion hopes.

Over the long run, I do see these divisions playing out similarly to the Big 12 North/South split. Some years the west will be stronger, but over the long haul the east will be precieved stronger and even when its not, it will get most the attention because of the big names and media markets (all the big states outside of Illinois are in the east). It will also have the big advantage of most the good recruiting grounds be located in those states.

I would have preferred inner/outer, but with that said, these are better than the current divisions (once you accept the fact that Maryland and Rutgers are coming regardless). The most important things were getting a set-up where you minimized locked crossovers and added conference games and they did both those by going to 9 conference games and getting a set-up where only Purdue/Indiana needed to be protected. Inner-outer would have still been a little better (you could have dropped all crossover games and would have divided the big names/big market/recruiting grounds more).

Score one small victory for common sense.

(04-20-2013 01:24 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Score one small victory for common sense.

Those sane victories are small and very far between.

Good stuff:

- Rutgers and Maryland see some top draws early. (see ND to Clemson and FSU)
- No Ohio State vs. Michigan rematch
- Penn State gets a needed boost with better TV matchups and maybe attendance gets back to capacity
- The West looks interesting in that it seems less predictable.
- Nebraska can develop deeper ties with its neighbors maybe get back its elite status.

(04-19-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just looking at the breakdown of those divisions, it is just more proof that more expansion is coming for the Big Ten.

Yeah, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State together is probably not something you draw up expecting it to last for 10 years.

(04-20-2013 07:52 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just looking at the breakdown of those divisions, it is just more proof that more expansion is coming for the Big Ten.

Yeah, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State together is probably not something you draw up expecting it to last for 10 years.

Exactly, it's just a statement that the Big Ten is moving to making divisions by Geography. They can tell potential additions that they intend to make future divisions based on geography or they can actually show them, which is what they are doing. The latter is much more impressive and means much more.

I highly doubt some of their possible targets would have liked to be intermixed into the Big Ten with divisions not based on geography. This was a very big deal for the Big Ten to do this despite the divisions not looking even. THAT is why it is a statement of another kind.

(04-20-2013 08:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:52 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just looking at the breakdown of those divisions, it is just more proof that more expansion is coming for the Big Ten.

Yeah, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State together is probably not something you draw up expecting it to last for 10 years.

Exactly, it's just a statement that the Big Ten is moving to making divisions by Geography. They can tell potential additions that they intend to make future divisions based on geography or they can actually show them, which is what they are doing. The latter is much more impressive and means much more.

I highly doubt some of their possible targets would have liked to be intermixed into the Big Ten with divisions not based on geography. This was a very big deal for the Big Ten to do this despite the divisions not looking even. THAT is why it is a statement of another kind.

3 Divisions East PSU,Rutgers,UMD,UVA,UNC,GA Tech
Mid-West Ohio St,Mich,Mich St,Indiana,Purdue,North western
West Illinois,Wis,Minn,Iowa,Nebraska,Kansas

(04-20-2013 08:06 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:52 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just looking at the breakdown of those divisions, it is just more proof that more expansion is coming for the Big Ten.

Yeah, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State together is probably not something you draw up expecting it to last for 10 years.

Exactly, it's just a statement that the Big Ten is moving to making divisions by Geography. They can tell potential additions that they intend to make future divisions based on geography or they can actually show them, which is what they are doing. The latter is much more impressive and means much more.

I highly doubt some of their possible targets would have liked to be intermixed into the Big Ten with divisions not based on geography. This was a very big deal for the Big Ten to do this despite the divisions not looking even. THAT is why it is a statement of another kind.

3 Divisions East PSU,Rutgers,UMD,UVA,UNC,GA Tech
Mid-West Ohio St,Mich,Mich St,Indiana,Purdue,North western
West Illinois,Wis,Minn,Iowa,Nebraska,Kansas

Well you thinking along the same lines I am except I am of the opinion that it ends up being four divisions rather than three which means 20 teams rather than 18.

That will allow FSU to be part of the party and also allows the conference to sit at 19 and have a stare down contest with Notre Dame.

(04-20-2013 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:06 AM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 08:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:52 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Just looking at the breakdown of those divisions, it is just more proof that more expansion is coming for the Big Ten.

Yeah, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State together is probably not something you draw up expecting it to last for 10 years.

Exactly, it's just a statement that the Big Ten is moving to making divisions by Geography. They can tell potential additions that they intend to make future divisions based on geography or they can actually show them, which is what they are doing. The latter is much more impressive and means much more.

I highly doubt some of their possible targets would have liked to be intermixed into the Big Ten with divisions not based on geography. This was a very big deal for the Big Ten to do this despite the divisions not looking even. THAT is why it is a statement of another kind.

3 Divisions East PSU,Rutgers,UMD,UVA,UNC,GA Tech
Mid-West Ohio St,Mich,Mich St,Indiana,Purdue,North western
West Illinois,Wis,Minn,Iowa,Nebraska,Kansas

Well you thinking along the same lines I am except I am of the opinion that it ends up being four divisions rather than three which means 20 teams rather than 18.

That will allow FSU to be part of the party and also allows the conference to sit at 19 and have a stare down contest with Notre Dame.

OK

(04-20-2013 08:10 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That will allow FSU to be part of the party and also allows the conference to sit at 19 and have a stare down contest with Notre Dame.

That worked really well at 11, did it not?

I could see Delany and Swarbrick actually doing that