(04-20-2013 08:45 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(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

The situation at 19 will be much different than the situation at 11. I am not saying that the result will be any different but I am sure the Big Ten would pause at 19 to test the waters with Notre Dame before filling that final slot.

(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.

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.

Last season showed that PSU has not faded from power. Even with the current sanctions this past recruiting class was top notch. PSU will be fine.

Bingo, on the division set up and what it means. That BIG is keeping all options open. It can expand east and just move In to the west. It can expand west and just move Pur east. Or it can expand in both directions and just add to each division.

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about Rose Bowl predictions. Silly me...

It doesnt seem too bad.

Lets face it, Ohio State and Michigan are going to be the favorites to win the East most years with MSU and PSU as dark horses most years.

On the other side, Nebraska and Wisconsin are going to be the favorites to win the West most years with Iowa as the dark horse most years.

Not too bad

I still don't understand why Michigan State didn't demand to be in the west with IU and purdue in the east. As for future expansion to 16, moving IU west doesn't help things, makes things worse with the east having more power teams. Of course, that assumes 2 eastern adds but if its 2 western adds, than you can move purdue east, which works. I guess it just depends on who gets added.

(04-20-2013 10:15 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I still don't understand why Michigan State didn't demand to be in the west with IU and purdue in the east.

I actually think they probably did. They've put emphasis on the west before (especially Chicago) and they'd be a lot more competive. That would have meant they get a locked crossover with Michigan though and that would mean the rest of the west (which only has one of the of the biggest 4 names in division already) would have fewer games against them.

(04-20-2013 10:15 AM)bluesox Wrote:  As for future expansion to 16, moving IU west doesn't help things, makes things worse with the east having more power teams. Of course, that assumes 2 eastern adds but if its 2 western adds, than you can move purdue east, which works. I guess it just depends on who gets added.

I don't think there is any thinking here beyond 14. They'll deal with that when/if it comes. If they go to 16 though, they'll almost definitely use pods. Two fixed divisions means playing the other division too infrequently. Playing them more is why 9 conference games is coming and why only Purdue-Indiana is a locked crossover.

(04-20-2013 09:33 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it was going to be about Rose Bowl predictions. Silly me...

That wouldn't be realignment related.

We've had non CR related threads in here before, and probably will again. So that's not really an issue...

(04-20-2013 06:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  We've had non CR related threads in here before, and probably will again. So that's not really an issue...

Yeah...but it's ME!

Completely imbalanced alignment. Purdue and MSU need to be swapped out IMO. Preserve a perma-cross game.

(04-21-2013 07:53 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  Completely imbalanced alignment. Purdue and MSU need to be swapped out IMO. Preserve a perma-cross game.

Actually I disagree.

Ohio State - Nebraska
These are the two predominant programs historically for both divisions. Right now Ohio State is the better program and will likely stay that way but the Big Ten is about tradition not just the today and now.

Michigan - Wisconsin
Some will argue that Michigan could be listed above instead of OSU but they have some proving to do. Currently Wisconsin is the one with the Rose Bowl visits. Scales tip towards Wisconsin and that evens the comparison to this point.

Penn State - Iowa
This is where I as an Iowa fan will speak up for the responsibility of Iowa and that they have not been living up to it thus far. Historically speaking though, Iowa has had Penn State's number and definitely is the number three team in that West division. They need to get back on track but they Are equivalent to Penn State.

Michigan State - Northwestern
Now, brand wise people are going to be all over this comparison but Northwestern has been impressive lately, including in Bowls. MSU, not so much. This is a very even comparison in a more contemporary fashion

Rutgers - Illinois
Yes, Rutgers had a good year last year but we shall see how they do in the Big Ten. For now Illinois wins this match up

Indiana - Purdue
Not much history of winning for either program. Purdue is seemingly building up though right now and so is Indiana. About as even of a comparison as possible.

Maryland - Minnesota
Program wise, its a toss up.


Strictly speaking in competitive terms, this completely geographical division set up is surprisingly well balanced. People are just thinking in terms of the East being more valuable in recruiting. Over time that would definitely benefit the East division but once again....these divisions are temporary. You can choose to not believe that and that is fine.

I agree the divisions are very unbalanced over the long haul. Wisconsin has been good lately, but if they are down for a few years, they won't be thought of any differently than most the other west programs (as opposed to Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, and Penn State which have to be down for a real long time to be thought of no differently). 5 of the top 6 states in population are all in the east, 3 of the 4 name programs are, most the good recruiting grounds are too. It's still better than any set-up which required more locked crossovers (since there are so many teams, we need to limit those to ensure we play everyone else fairly regularly), but inner-outer was the way to go in my opinion as it balanced things a lot more. That said, this is a good set-up for season ending games, limits locked crossovers, and puts Ohio State/Michigan in division.

That said, if there was ever a point for Wisconsin to make the jump from been good in the Big Ten for awhile to national name program, it's now, but that will still require a national championship or a few Rose Bowl victories.

I completely agree that this set up as a long term set up is not a very strong one for the conference. To me this set up is a statement that the conference will stick with geographic set ups for divisions and that could be very good when negotiating with certain schools.

That is why I love this set up. It says so much about the future of the conference. Seems only Big Ten fans understand the conference well enough to see these subtle nuances of this set up in order to understand what this means for the future of the conference.

Michigan has more of an emphasis in Chicago than MSU.

I think UNC is one of the few schools in history where everybody is happy where they are but fans of other conferences constantly include them in their fantasy plans. LOL

I don't see the division alignment having anything to do with future expansion; however, it does make it easier. The most important thing is that they protected their rivalry games.

Competitive balance is a funny thing, sometimes you have to let it play out. There was a period when Nebraska and Colorado were the two best programs in the Big 8/12. Tennessee and Florida were better than just about every SEC West program in the 1990's.

The Big Ten is will always have Ohio State-Michigan, Michigan State-Michigan, Ohio State-Michigan State, Penn State-Michigan, Penn State-Ohio State, and Penn State-Michigan. Those are arguably there biggest conference games while the west keeps their closest rivals together. If the conference really wants to have Michigan-Nebraska or Ohio State-Wisconsin every season they still can do that too. What this likely means is that games like Maryland-Minnesota, Rutgers-Nebraska, Penn State-Illinois might only be played once every three season but I think most can live with that result.

The Big Ten had it wrong the first time and they got it right now. The ACC still hasn't figured out their division. Mountain West has it right and I hope the American Athletic Conference follows the Big Ten model but places Cincinnati in the east and UCF in the west.

(04-21-2013 09:54 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  The Big Ten had it wrong the first time and they got it right now. The ACC still hasn't figured out their division. Mountain West has it right and I hope the American Athletic Conference follows the Big Ten model but places Cincinnati in the east and UCF in the west.

UCF in the West makes the most sense I think because of the tradition they have playing the former CUSA schools. At least for the time being until some more realignment plays out.

(04-21-2013 09:54 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I don't see the division alignment having anything to do with future expansion; however, it does make it easier. The most important thing is that they protected their rivalry games.

Competitive balance is a funny thing, sometimes you have to let it play out. There was a period when Nebraska and Colorado were the two best programs in the Big 8/12. Tennessee and Florida were better than just about every SEC West program in the 1990's.

The Big Ten is will always have Ohio State-Michigan, Michigan State-Michigan, Ohio State-Michigan State, Penn State-Michigan, Penn State-Ohio State, and Penn State-Michigan. Those are arguably there biggest conference games while the west keeps their closest rivals together. If the conference really wants to have Michigan-Nebraska or Ohio State-Wisconsin every season they still can do that too. What this likely means is that games like Maryland-Minnesota, Rutgers-Nebraska, Penn State-Illinois might only be played once every three season but I think most can live with that result.

The Big Ten had it wrong the first time and they got it right now. The ACC still hasn't figured out their division. Mountain West has it right and I hope the American Athletic Conference follows the Big Ten model but places Cincinnati in the east and UCF in the west.

In the end, manufactured rivalry games just don't make as much sense as geographical rivalries. The Big Ten figured that out finally, as you point out.

(04-21-2013 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I completely agree that this set up as a long term set up is not a very strong one for the conference. To me this set up is a statement that the conference will stick with geographic set ups for divisions and that could be very good when negotiating with certain schools.

That is why I love this set up. It says so much about the future of the conference. Seems only Big Ten fans understand the conference well enough to see these subtle nuances of this set up in order to understand what this means for the future of the conference.

I see it, and have said so... incredibly awesome plan by the B1G... On a lighter Sunday note. how are you enjoying LA these days. Great, great folks over there. You will get really sick of the purple and yellow car flags soon though. everyone in LA has at least two, and they fly them...lol

(04-21-2013 10:31 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(04-21-2013 08:55 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I completely agree that this set up as a long term set up is not a very strong one for the conference. To me this set up is a statement that the conference will stick with geographic set ups for divisions and that could be very good when negotiating with certain schools.

That is why I love this set up. It says so much about the future of the conference. Seems only Big Ten fans understand the conference well enough to see these subtle nuances of this set up in order to understand what this means for the future of the conference.

I see it, and have said so... incredibly awesome plan by the B1G... On a lighter Sunday note. how are you enjoying LA these days. Great, great folks over there. You will get really sick of the purple and yellow car flags soon though. everyone in LA has at least two, and they fly them...lol

Spending the winter down here was great, I live in Lafayette, home town of the Ragin Cajuns. I see just as much red and black as I do purple and yellow although there is still a strong LSU presence here. Hell, LSU has a health clinic right across the street from Cajun Field.

Loving the weather now, ask me again in the middle of the summer.

Expansion will come from the east.