https://www.landof10.com/iowa/big-ten-re...-divisions

Quote:In the geographic setting, Michigan State preferred to play in the West, as did Purdue. Indiana also was under consideration. The Spartans’ move made the most sense. Michigan State wanted to face Northwestern every year to maintain a Chicago presence for recruiting and its alumni base.

There was one condition at the time, however. Michigan State was not allowed to maintain its rivalry with Michigan. The Spartans could not agree to that, and rightly so. Also, with Penn State still reeling from the Jerry Sandusky scandal and Michigan wildly inconsistent, league officials needed Michigan State to battle Ohio State every year. For the Buckeyes to face Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana and Purdue each season, plus unknowns in Penn State and Michigan, putting Michigan State in the West Division might have hurt the league’s image rather than help it.

League officials did agree to Purdue’s condition of playing Indiana every year, however. So the Big Ten realigned geographically by campus for the 2014 season.

Since the divisional structure was put in place in 2011, Ohio State remains the strongest program at 50-8, while Wisconsin (45-13) is second and Michigan State (40-18) is third.

If the Spartans head West, whichever team comes through a gauntlet of Wisconsin-Michigan State-Iowa, plus Nebraska and Northwestern, would be a worthy opponent for the East champion. Considering Michigan’s Upper Peninsula stretches as far west as the Mississippi River’s longitudinal line, it’s not wrong geographically, either.

This time, league officials need to protect the Michigan-Michigan State rivalry as an annual event. There also should be a guarantee for Purdue to play Illinois every year. The Big Ten should realign for the 2020 season and finish the final weekend with a dynamite slate of Iowa-Nebraska, Ohio State-Michigan and Michigan State-Wisconsin, plus other rivalry games.

LOL, no.

This guy's fan-fiction history of the Big Ten fits right at home on message boards, though. Put it on the same shelf with standard message board claims like, "My school's fans buy 45,000 tickets to every bowl game, and [school I obsessively hate] only sells 200 tickets to their bowl games!"

I don't see why the conference would have prevented the Michigans from having a protected crossover but allowed the Indianas to.

(06-01-2018 07:35 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I don't see why the conference would have prevented the Michigans from having a protected crossover but allowed the Indianas to.

Because stating otherwise doesn't advance the Spartans got screwed narrative.

While not a Spartan myself my father-in-law is and they consider Michigan as their biggest rival followed by Ohio St and Penn St. A move west with a protected rivalry with the Wolverines would separate them from the other two teams they care about.

If the quality of East and West become increasingly different then it might be a necessity but I'd prefer that Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa start playing like title contenders and we leave the divisions the same

(06-01-2018 07:35 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I don't see why the conference would have prevented the Michigans from having a protected crossover but allowed the Indianas to.

Because everyone wants to play Michigan. Nobody really cares about IU and PU in football.

(06-01-2018 07:35 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I don't see why the conference would have prevented the Michigans from having a protected crossover but allowed the Indianas to.

Because when the decision was made, the Big Ten did not know yet they were going to do "parity scheduling". 4 teams in the west thought they would play Mich 3 times in 6 years. instead 1 team (Wisc) ended up playing Mich 6 times in 6 years and everybody else only playing Mich twice in 6 years.

That's why they didn't want Mich to have a protected crossover at the time. All the teams in the west thought they would get to play Mich more often. As it turned out, it didn't matter because the Big Ten went to parity scheduling.

Trading MSU and Purdue does create a new issue of who does MSU play on the final day of the regular season. They can't play Mich that day.

My favorite idea is to have MSU play NW ON THE FINAL Saturday and then have PSU play MD. That means ILL would have to play Rutgers.

(06-01-2018 04:14 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 07:35 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I don't see why the conference would have prevented the Michigans from having a protected crossover but allowed the Indianas to.

Because when the decision was made, the Big Ten did not know yet they were going to do "parity scheduling". 4 teams in the west thought they would play Mich 3 times in 6 years. instead 1 team (Wisc) ended up playing Mich 6 times in 6 years and everybody else only playing Mich twice in 6 years.

That's why they didn't want Mich to have a protected crossover at the time. All the teams in the west thought they would get to play Mich more often. As it turned out, it didn't matter because the Big Ten went to parity scheduling.

By parity scheduling, you're referring to how the protected crossovers in the 2016-21 schedules match up opponents roughly by football strength? I wonder why they went that route if there was significant desire for diversity in interdivisional play.

In any case, if MSU desired Chicago access, they got it through their protected crossover. Although I'm guessing they were matched up with NW more because both of them happen to be the #4 school in their division.

(06-01-2018 04:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  Trading MSU and Purdue does create a new issue of who does MSU play on the final day of the regular season. They can't play Mich that day.

My favorite idea is to have MSU play NW ON THE FINAL Saturday and then have PSU play MD. That means ILL would have to play Rutgers.

Michigan and Michigan State don't play on the last day of the season already. Michigan plays Ohio State. Michigan State historically played Penn State once they joined the conference up until the conference split into Legends and Leaders. Now they are in a rotation with Maryland and Rutgers to end each other's season (or so I have been told).

Exactly, other than Pur-Indy, the annual cross-over opponent
was determined by the recent historical strength of each program. So from 2016-2021, the annual cross-overs ended up being

OSU-Neb
Mich-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MSU-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

If they were redone today with the same divisions based on the last 6 years, I imagine Wisc and MSU would move up and Neb and Mich would move down, and the annual cross-overs would look something like this

OSU-Wisc
MSU-Iowa
PSU-Neb
Mich-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

Now, if MSU and Pur traded divisions, then the annual cross-overs would look maybe like this

Mich-MSU
OSU-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MD-Neb
Pur-NW
INDY-ILL
Rut-Minn

But again this invites the question. Other than Mich-MSU, why even have the annual crossover opponent?

(06-01-2018 05:37 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 04:18 PM)goofus Wrote:  Trading MSU and Purdue does create a new issue of who does MSU play on the final day of the regular season. They can't play Mich that day.

My favorite idea is to have MSU play NW ON THE FINAL Saturday and then have PSU play MD. That means ILL would have to play Rutgers.

Michigan and Michigan State don't play on the last day of the season already. Michigan plays Ohio State. Michigan State historically played Penn State once they joined the conference up until the conference split into Legends and Leaders. Now they are in a rotation with Maryland and Rutgers to end each other's season (or so I have been told).

That rotation peaves me. Penn St and Mich St have created a bit of a rivalry and that match up is more likely to have division title and national playoff implications. Make the two new comers play annually.

(06-01-2018 05:52 PM)goofus Wrote:  Exactly, other than Pur-Indy, the annual cross-over opponent
was determined by the recent historical strength of each program. So from 2016-2021, the annual cross-overs ended up being

OSU-Neb
Mich-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MSU-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

If they were redone today with the same divisions based on the last 6 years, I imagine Wisc and MSU would move up and Neb and Mich would move down, and the annual cross-overs would look something like this

OSU-Wisc
MSU-Iowa
PSU-Neb
Mich-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

Now, if MSU and Pur traded divisions, then the annual cross-overs would look maybe like this

Mich-MSU
OSU-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MD-Neb
Pur-NW
INDY-ILL
Rut-Minn

But again this invites the question. Other than Mich-MSU, why even have the annual crossover opponent?

With an 8 game league schedule and no protected crossovers, any schools that wish to can easily fit each other into a four game OOC schedule when they aren't slated to play each other in conference.

This is going to sound stupid, but hear me out: PSU hates the Land Grant Trophy!! It’s not so much as rivalry with Michigan State I don’t think, but PSU really despises that trophy. But since MSU coach George Perles came up with the trophy, PSU and MSU are afraid to discontinue it for fear that it might hurt his feelings. The US Post Office came up with a stamp commemorating both PSU & MSU as the first land grant institutions, and I believe that would be a far superior trophy compared to the monstrosity they compete for now. If they want, they can add a gold medallion with Sparty on one side & the PSU lion on the other.

(06-02-2018 03:06 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-01-2018 05:52 PM)goofus Wrote:  Exactly, other than Pur-Indy, the annual cross-over opponent
was determined by the recent historical strength of each program. So from 2016-2021, the annual cross-overs ended up being

OSU-Neb
Mich-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MSU-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

If they were redone today with the same divisions based on the last 6 years, I imagine Wisc and MSU would move up and Neb and Mich would move down, and the annual cross-overs would look something like this

OSU-Wisc
MSU-Iowa
PSU-Neb
Mich-NW
MD-Minn
Rut-ILL
Indy-Pur

Now, if MSU and Pur traded divisions, then the annual cross-overs would look maybe like this

Mich-MSU
OSU-Wisc
PSU-Iowa
MD-Neb
Pur-NW
INDY-ILL
Rut-Minn

But again this invites the question. Other than Mich-MSU, why even have the annual crossover opponent?

With an 8 game league schedule and no protected crossovers, any schools that wish to can easily fit each other into a four game OOC schedule when they aren't slated to play each other in conference.

That's an interesting idea but would be unfair to Indy and Purdue using the current divisions. Or unfair to Mich and MSU if MSU moved to the west. Not sure if anybody else would need to play extra games OOC.

Also if the Big Ten did away with protected crossovers and went with 8 conference games, they would need to go to a 7 year rotation instead of 6 years. Each team in opposite divisions would play only twice in 7 years. So cross -division teams wanting to play every year would have to play 5 times OOC in 7 years.

Still, if you could get Indy and Purdue to agree to it, it actually could work.

https://www.landof10.com/iowa/iowa-ad-ga...ball-games

We got some clarification on this question about the Big Ten potentionally reducing the conference games from 9 to 8.

Iowa AD Gary Barta says this has not been discussed. The Big Ten has no plans to go back to 8 conference games.

What has been discussed is getting rid of "parity scheduling" or the protected cross-over so that Nebraska does not have to play OSU every season. Instead they are talking about just doing a regular cross-over rotation. This would make it less likely that Nebraska ends up playing 3 of the big 4 from the east in 1 year

(06-05-2018 12:23 AM)goofus Wrote:  https://www.landof10.com/iowa/iowa-ad-ga...ball-games

We got some clarification on this question about the Big Ten potentionally reducing the conference games from 9 to 8.

Iowa AD Gary Barta says this has not been discussed. The Big Ten has no plans to go back to 8 conference games.

What has been discussed is getting rid of "parity scheduling" or the protected cross-over so that Nebraska does not have to play OSU every season. Instead they are talking about just doing a regular cross-over rotation. This would make it less likely that Nebraska ends up playing 3 of the big 4 from the east in 1 year

That link didn't work for me. I think this is the article from Land of 10 about conference games you were referencing.

I can understand the frustration of Nebraska about having to play everyone in their division and then also 3 of the top 4 in the east. It should make for a fun (very tough) schedule but when the season is over the fans probably see less wins than they want (expect).

Part of me says : "to be the best you have to beat the best" and not just padding the schedule with Maryland, Rutgers and Indiana. But what I expect will happen is that Nebraska will have 1 or 2 of the top east teams and then also 1 or 2 of the bottom every year. Have a good mix of everyone, play everyone in the conference more often.

Just get rid of the dumb parity scheduling cross division game--