NCAA Conference Realignment

[CubbieBum]

Really, when setting up divisions, the last thing to be looking at is how good the programs are, especially historically.

 

IMO, the only things you don't break up are Indiana-Purdue and Michigan-MSU-OSU-PSU. Problem is, between Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois, there aren't really many "huge" rivalries, but there are also no good geographical dividing lines.

 

Going off that I would say Illinois should definitely be in with Indiana and Purdue. I would then put the three most west teams in that division (Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin). The only problem is the two Illinois teams are separated but from what I've observed it's not a big rivalry at all. It seems like a rivalry where the two schools say well we are in the same state so we should dislike each other so let's call it a rivalry even though the fans don't care too much.

[DanzaSlap]

So if we're worried about how teams are going to be years down the line, the best way to determine who'll be good is by looking at results from 70 years ago.

 

City College of New York is the only team to win both the NIT and the NCAA Tournament in the same year. Maybe the Big 10 can try to get the greatest historical basketball program ever in CCNY.

[UMFan83]

I love all the people here acting as if women's basketball isn't important and thus shouldn't factor in on divisions. I don't care much about women's basketball but when determining divisions they should have equal weight (if basketball goes to divisions).

 

I also don't understand why anyone would say how good teams are shouldn't factor into who goes in what division. Having lopsided divisions ruins the whole point of a championship game. The Big 12 hasn't had many good title games because for the most part the South has been a lot better than the North this decade.

 

No women's basketball shouldn't have an impact. You said that Purdue and Indiana shouldn't be in the same division because they are the 2 most prestigious teams in the Big Ten, when if you asked 10 Big Ten fans who have been some of the best women's teams historically in the Big 10, 7 would say I don't know, 2 would punch you in the face for asking such a pointless question, and one fan would be a superfan of one college and name their team because they won the Big Ten and went to the Sweet 16 in 1988 or something. To have prestige means to have the respect of the general populace and the general populace could give 2 craps about women's basketball. Why do people care about preserving rivalries and making sure the divisions are of equal competitiveness? Not because rivalries are fun...its money. Men's basketball brings in money, Men's basketball rivalries bring in money, and competitive divisions bring in money. Big Ten Titles in 1940 don't bring in money, and women's basketball doesn't bring in money.

 

Purdue is the Vanderbilt of the Big Ten so get over it.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I love all the people here acting as if women's basketball isn't important and thus shouldn't factor in on divisions. I don't care much about women's basketball but when determining divisions they should have equal weight (if basketball goes to divisions).

 

I also don't understand why anyone would say how good teams are shouldn't factor into who goes in what division. Having lopsided divisions ruins the whole point of a championship game. The Big 12 hasn't had many good title games because for the most part the South has been a lot better than the North this decade.

 

Non-revenue sports matter about less than 1 percent when it comes to conference realignment. Female non-revenue sports(monotonous monotonous) matter less than zero percent. No one cares that MSU and OSU and Purdue's women's hoops end up in the same division in a realignment. There is no money in it, and if it makes sense for the revenue sports, it will be done without a moment's thought to the Big 10's golf programs.

 

No one said that the strength of the teams shouldn't factor in. Everyone is rightly shredding your "you couldn't possibly put IU and Purdue in the same basketball division, how unfair" argument.

 

The truth of the matter is, if the Big 10 adds a western team(let's say Mizzou for argument's sake) and divides it at the IL/IN line, the eastern division will probably have more star power in both sports. However, with Iowa/Wisconsin/Mizzou in the western half there wouldn't be a huge competitive imbalance with a potential football championship game.

[CubbieBum]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

And seriously guys I have already pointed out Purdue is tied for the second most Big Ten titles in men's basketball since 1980, not 1940. Again that is 1980 with an eight not a four.

[CubbieBum]

Purdue is the Vanderbilt of the Big Ten so get over it.

 

That is about as ignorant as it gets. Vanderbilt has a whopping three SEC titles. They do however have the same school colors which is probably why you said that. I've got to say that is just an awesome reason and it really adds a lot of great wisdom to this thread. Your reasoning is sound but you picked the wrong Big Ten team with black and gold as their colors.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop.

[CubbieBum]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop.

 

It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works.

[UMFan83]

Purdue is the Vanderbilt of the Big Ten so get over it.

 

That is about as ignorant as it gets. Vanderbilt has a whopping three SEC titles. They do however have the same school colors which is probably why you said that. I've got to say that is just an awesome reason and it really adds a lot of great wisdom to this thread. Your reasoning is sound but you picked the wrong Big Ten team with black and gold as their colors.

 

I was actually in a mood to rile someone up after Cutler's second INT so I chose that. I was exaggerating a bit. They are more like the Texas A&M of the Big Ten.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop.

 

It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works.

 

Please find me any evidence that women's athletics has played any role in any actual or proposed conference realignment, when the women's sports interests ran counter to what would be best for revenue sports.

 

Hint: You will be looking until the end of time.

[UMFan83]

 

And seriously guys I have already pointed out Purdue is tied for the second most Big Ten titles in men's basketball since 1980, not 1940. Again that is 1980 with an eight not a four.

 

And how many Final Fours and National Titles have they had since then? It's about the entire resume. No one's saying Purdue has been horrible, just that its extremely idiotic that you would single out Purdue as school that is more prestigious at basketball than schools like MSU that has won multiple national titles vs. Purdues mythical one in 1932, or Michigan who has been to 3 times as many Final Fours as Purdue has in it's history.

[SouthSideRyan]

Thread title change to "CubbieBum embarrasses himself AGAIN" plz

[UMFan83]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop.

 

It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works.

 

Yeah but Indiana and Iowa have a huge men's wrestling rivalry, how are we going to account for that? What about Minnesota and Penn State and their epic women's gymnastics rivalry? Man this is gonna get confusing.

[UMFan83]

Dammit, I just realized that Wisconsin and Illinois are the two most prestigious fencing programs in the Big Ten historically. What are we gonna do about that?

[SouthSideRyan]

It's called equality UM, maybe if you worked in an athletic department like the Bum you'd get that.

[Derwood]

SEC is the only major conference with division play. The Big East has like 47 teams and no divisions. It would only matter in football (and I'm fairly sure there are no women's football teams, but maybe Professor CubbieBum can edumicate me on that).

 

Add Pitt, go with:

 

East

-----

Penn State

Pittsburgh

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Indiana

 

West

-----

Iowa

Illinois

Northwestern

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Purdue

 

There's no way not to split up Indiana and Purdue unless you go away from geography (Indiana is the dividing line of the conference). If you ask a school like Missouri, you put them in the west and move Purdue to the East.

 

Done and done.

[SouthSideRyan]

Considering your only argument seems to pertain to Big 10 titles, why is Purdue ahead of the other 3 schools with the same # of titles since 1980 (weirdass cutoff point)

[CubbieBum]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop.

 

It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works.

 

Please find me any evidence that women's athletics has played any role in any actual or proposed conference realignment, when the women's sports interests ran counter to what would be best for revenue sports.

 

Hint: You will be looking until the end of time.

 

Maybe just maybe I did a 90 page assignment for the dreaded J102 class at Ball State on Title IX. And maybe for the 90 page assignment I talked to Senators active in the Title IX issue, including Nanci Pelosi, as well as AD's from the MAC. Maybe one of the topics I discussed with every AD was how much they listen to the women coaches and whether or not they get equal say on department wide decisions. Maybe every single one of them said women get 100% equal say. Finally maybe two of the AD's said they must listen because all it takes is one coach to go to the media and they would get a lot of negative press that they really don't want.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

SEC is the only major conference with division play.

 

And the Big 12.

 

And the ACC.

[Derwood]

SEC is the only major conference with division play.

 

And the Big 12.

 

And the ACC.

 

In basketball.

[SouthSideRyan]

You guys are looking at it as fans rather than as the people who have to actually make the decision. Women sports will demand an equal say in the divisions and the school presidents will listen because they know they will get major headaches and really bad press otherwise.

 

This is embarrassing. They will not have any say. You are the only person who remotely thinks so. Please stop.

 

It's called equality in athletics and it weighs very heavily on athletic directors. Anyone who thinks the women coaches won't be demanding a say in the divisions, and causing problems if they don't get it, doesn't know how an athletic department works.

 

Please find me any evidence that women's athletics has played any role in any actual or proposed conference realignment, when the women's sports interests ran counter to what would be best for revenue sports.

 

Hint: You will be looking until the end of time.

 

Maybe just maybe I did a 90 page assignment for the dreaded J102 class at Ball State on Title IX. And maybe for the 90 page assignment I talked to Senators active in the Title IX issue, including Nanci Pelosi, as well as AD's from the MAC. Maybe one of the topics I discussed with every AD was how much they listen to the women coaches and whether or not they get equal say on department wide decisions. Maybe every single one of them said women get 100% equal say. Finally maybe two of the AD's said they must listen because all it takes is one coach to go to the media and they would get a lot of negative press that they really don't want.

 

Well did you or not? Enough of this maybe [expletive].

[Magnetic Curses]

that's some hard-hitting investigative reporting right there, hoss.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

SEC is the only major conference with division play.

 

And the Big 12.

 

And the ACC.

 

In basketball.

 

The Big 12 doesn't seed their tournament by division, but they schedule by division. Home and home against everyone in your division, one game against everyone in the other division.

 

It doesn't look like the ACC does that though.

[Derwood]

SEC is the only major conference with division play.

 

And the Big 12.

 

And the ACC.

 

In basketball.

 

The Big 12 doesn't seed their tournament by division, but they schedule by division. Home and home against everyone in your division, one game against everyone in the other division.

 

It doesn't look like the ACC does that though.

 

Big 12 standings also aren't listed by division. It's just 12 teams, top to bottom.

 

So divisions really only matter in football, and a geographic east/west split (esp. if you add Pitt) would have the historically best teams in the East (and would prevent the conference pipe dream of an OSU/UM title game every year). I don't know how else you would split it, though, unless you just threw teams into a hat

[USSoccer]

Wow, how did you mentally prepare yourself for interviewing the sitting Speaker of the House for your undergrad paper on Title IX?

 

Oh yeah. Nancy Pelosi is a Congresswoman. Not a Senator.

 

Your degree is in journalism, right?