NCAA Conference Realignment

[TruffleShuffle]

that wouldn't happen... if you have 5 division games and 1 guaranteed cross-division game, you'd play 2 out of 5 games against the other teams in the opposite division, or 2 games against each every 5 years. if you divide them by geography with no cross-division games guaranteed, then you'd play 3 times every 5 years. so the difference is that you face each non-divisional (non-rival) team once more every 5 years.

I am very much opposed to adding unnecessary guaranteed games, and it absolutely does not need to happen. People seem to think Michigan/OSU HAS to happen every year, and putting them in the same division ensures it will happen.

 

i guess what it boils down to is if you're okay with putting PSU, OSU and UM in the same division. if you are, then it's an easy split (PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, purdue, Indiana in one; NWern, Illinois, UW, minnesota, iowa, nebraska in the other). a lot of people are opposed to putting the three highest-profile football powers in the same division, though.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

that wouldn't happen... if you have 5 division games and 1 guaranteed cross-division game, you'd play 2 out of 5 games against the other teams in the opposite division, or 2 games against each every 5 years. if you divide them by geography with no cross-division games guaranteed, then you'd play 3 times every 5 years. so the difference is that you face each non-divisional (non-rival) team once more every 5 years.

I am very much opposed to adding unnecessary guaranteed games, and it absolutely does not need to happen. People seem to think Michigan/OSU HAS to happen every year, and putting them in the same division ensures it will happen.

 

i guess what it boils down to is if you're okay with putting PSU, OSU and UM in the same division. if you are, then it's an easy split (PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, purdue, Indiana in one; NWern, Illinois, UW, minnesota, iowa, nebraska in the other). a lot of people are opposed to putting the three highest-profile football powers in the same division, though.

I'm very comfortable with it. There's a lot more parity in the Big 10 than there ever was in the Big 12.

[UMFan83]

I guess I just don't see the big deal in UM/PSU/OSU in the same division. I mean from Michigan and OSU's perspective, they already have to pay both those teams in 8 out of every 10 seasons. They already have to compete with those 2 teams for Big 10 and National titles. And while you might not get any UM-OSU, OSU-PSU, or PSU-UM conference championship games, there are more than enough good potential title opponents in the other division IMO. I think the worry that it would be like the old Big 12 North is legitimate, but I don't think Wisconsin and Iowa are better 2-3 teams than Missouri and Kansas State.

 

Nebraska = Nebraska

Wisconsin > Missouri

Iowa > Kansas State

Illinois > Colorado

Minnesota = Kansas (maybe slight edge to minnesota)

Northwestern > Iowa State

 

But of course I'm wearing Big 10 homer glasses.

[Guest]

I guess I just don't see the big deal in UM/PSU/OSU in the same division. I mean from Michigan and OSU's perspective, they already have to pay both those teams in 8 out of every 10 seasons. They already have to compete with those 2 teams for Big 10 and National titles. And while you might not get any UM-OSU, OSU-PSU, or PSU-UM conference championship games, there are more than enough good potential title opponents in the other division IMO. I think the worry that it would be like the old Big 12 North is legitimate, but I don't think Wisconsin and Iowa are better 2-3 teams than Missouri and Kansas State.

 

Nebraska = Nebraska

Wisconsin > Missouri

Iowa > Kansas State

Illinois > Colorado

Minnesota = Kansas (maybe slight edge to minnesota)

Northwestern > Iowa State

 

But of course I'm wearing Big 10 homer glasses.

 

I think the worst a Big 12 homer would change there is Wisconsin/Mizzou, Illinois/CU, and Minnesota/KU, and not more than > to = or vice versa. Bob is right, the Big 10 has a lot more parity than the Big 12.

[TruffleShuffle]

I'm very comfortable with it. There's a lot more parity in the Big 10 than there ever was in the Big 12.

 

you're looking at the big xii the way things turned out in the 2000s, not the way it was when the conference was formed. in football, colorado was good every year and occasionally contended for a national title when the conference was formed in 1996; nebraska was a powerhouse and one of the top teams in the nation almost every year. kansas st had won at least 9 games in each of the past four seasons.

 

in the south, oklahoma's best season since 1988 had been 9-3 and a gator bowl appearance, and they were downright bad when the conference started play. texas tech was usually average or worse. oklahoma st had been bad since 1989 and the success in the '80s looked like an exception to the rule. aTm and texas were the only good programs at that time.

[Derwood]

I think you have to put UM/OSU in the same division. It's not "fair" to have them apart, but to keep their game every year while the other teams are on a rotation. It's easier to stick them both in the East and have them play each other that way

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I'm very comfortable with it. There's a lot more parity in the Big 10 than there ever was in the Big 12.

 

you're looking at the big xii the way things turned out in the 2000s, not the way it was when the conference was formed. in football, colorado was good every year and occasionally contended for a national title when the conference was formed in 1996; nebraska was a powerhouse and one of the top teams in the nation almost every year. kansas st had won at least 9 games in each of the past four seasons.

 

in the south, oklahoma's best season since 1988 had been 9-3 and a gator bowl appearance, and they were downright bad when the conference started play. texas tech was usually average or worse. oklahoma st had been bad since 1989 and the success in the '80s looked like an exception to the rule. aTm and texas were the only good programs at that time.

You may want to take another look at Colorado's history. The only blip in their mediocrity was a very good stretch of 7-8 years. They've been pretty terrible since the Big 12 was formed.

[Guest]

I'm very comfortable with it. There's a lot more parity in the Big 10 than there ever was in the Big 12.

 

you're looking at the big xii the way things turned out in the 2000s, not the way it was when the conference was formed. in football, colorado was good every year and occasionally contended for a national title when the conference was formed in 1996; nebraska was a powerhouse and one of the top teams in the nation almost every year. kansas st had won at least 9 games in each of the past four seasons.

 

in the south, oklahoma's best season since 1988 had been 9-3 and a gator bowl appearance, and they were downright bad when the conference started play. texas tech was usually average or worse. oklahoma st had been bad since 1989 and the success in the '80s looked like an exception to the rule. aTm and texas were the only good programs at that time.

 

Which is exactly why you don't want to move teams to divisions that don't make sense for "competitive balance" purposes.

[snoodmonger]

Iowa news making fun of Nebraska for being hicks. Couldn't someone else make this same video about Iowa?

 

http://www.whotv.com/videobeta/5a734dc1-f5b6-4fb8-9e01-500739adc4b8/Sports/A-Cornhusker-Fan-gives-His-Take-on-Big-10-Expansion-6-13-2010-

 

it'd be a tough sell. Iowa from about I-35 east is significantly different than Nebraska (and by different, I mean better). Outside of the CWS and steak, Omaha has almost nothing going for it. It's a [expletive] hole.

 

Iowa making fun of any other state for being hickish is a tough sell to me. I'm not saying it's more hickish than nebraska. But it just seems stupid for Iowa to get into that kind of name calling. Almost every midwest/plains state is basically a hick state.

[bukie]

Really, I would say the two most important factors when setting up divisions would be to maintain the biggest yearly rivalries for revenue generation purposes and minimize travel costs.

 

To cover the first part in the Big Ten, you keep IU-PU together, and you keep OSU-UM-MSU together (and, to a lesser extent, UI-NW).

 

To cover the second part, you keep PSU with the teams close by, and the divisions work themselves out. An "eastern" division of IU-PU-PSU-OSU-UM-MSU, and a "Central/Western" division of NW-UI-IA-UW-NU-MN.

[TruffleShuffle]

You may want to take another look at Colorado's history. The only blip in their mediocrity was a very good stretch of 7-8 years. They've been pretty terrible since the Big 12 was formed.

 

yes, SINCE THE BIG 12 WAS FORMED. that's what i'm talking about. from what i see here: https://admin.xosn.com/pdf1/133593.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=600

 

colorado was sometimes good, sometimes bad through most of their first 75 years or whatever, then they were horrible through much of the '80s then very good from the late '80s through the mid '90s. there's really nothing to differentiate a team like colorado and iowa as far as their track record of success from beginning through the start of the 12 team league, except that iowa has been mostly good over the past 9 years and colorado was really good in the 9 years before the big xii was formed.

[Tracer Bullet]

Iowa news making fun of Nebraska for being hicks. Couldn't someone else make this same video about Iowa?

 

http://www.whotv.com/videobeta/5a734dc1-f5b6-4fb8-9e01-500739adc4b8/Sports/A-Cornhusker-Fan-gives-His-Take-on-Big-10-Expansion-6-13-2010-

 

it'd be a tough sell. Iowa from about I-35 east is significantly different than Nebraska (and by different, I mean better). Outside of the CWS and steak, Omaha has almost nothing going for it. It's a [expletive] hole.

 

Iowa making fun of any other state for being hickish is a tough sell to me. I'm not saying it's more hickish than nebraska. But it just seems stupid for Iowa to get into that kind of name calling. Almost every midwest/plains state is basically a hick state.

 

almost every state in the midwest makes fun of its neighbors for being hicks. doesn't matter if it's true or even hypocritical.

 

Nebraska is one of the worst hick states in the midwest though.

 

btw - fun fact, espn was going pretty hard after that sports reporter from WHO about a dozen years ago.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

You may want to take another look at Colorado's history. The only blip in their mediocrity was a very good stretch of 7-8 years. They've been pretty terrible since the Big 12 was formed.

 

yes, SINCE THE BIG 12 WAS FORMED. that's what i'm talking about. from what i see here: https://admin.xosn.com/pdf1/133593.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=600

 

colorado was sometimes good, sometimes bad through most of their first 75 years or whatever, then they were horrible through much of the '80s then very good from the late '80s through the mid '90s. there's really nothing to differentiate a team like colorado and iowa as far as their track record of success from beginning through the start of the 12 team league, except that iowa has been mostly good over the past 9 years and colorado was really good in the 9 years before the big xii was formed.

I guess I fail to see where you're going with this. There is a hell of a lot more parity in the Big 10 than Big 12. There is now, and there was in 1996.

[TruffleShuffle]

I guess I fail to see where you're going with this. There is a hell of a lot more parity in the Big 10 than Big 12. There is now, and there was in 1996.

 

if you are talking across divisions, then i completely disagree. if you're talking about from top to bottom then i do agree.

[dew1679666265]

In a 6-6 conference, you can't really have 2 schools in each division that play every year - it mucks up everyone else's schedule.

 

The SEC does it. Tennessee/Alabama play every year despite being in separate divisions, UGA/Auburn is the same, UF/LSU, MSU/UK, Ark/SC, Miss/Vandy.

 

SEC teams play the other 5 intra-division games and 3 against the opposite division – two that rotate, one that remains steady.

 

I don't know that only UM/OSU being the repeating game would work, but they could set up "rivalry" type games like that between divisions. UT/Bama, UF/LSU and Auburn/UGA are all very heated rivalries.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I guess I fail to see where you're going with this. There is a hell of a lot more parity in the Big 10 than Big 12. There is now, and there was in 1996.

 

if you are talking across divisions, then i completely disagree. if you're talking about from top to bottom then i do agree.

If division play were happening this upcoming season with the 12 teams, the west (geographically) would have 3 of the top 4 teams. How often did that ever happen in the Big 12?

[hawkeyecub]

there's really nothing to differentiate a team like colorado and iowa as far as their track record of success from beginning through the start of the 12 team league, except that iowa has been mostly good over the past 9 years and colorado was really good in the 9 years before the big xii was formed.

 

I see a difference. CU was terrible and then had a tremendous 7 years before returning to their more natural state. Iowa has been pretty consistent over 30 years. I'm pretty sure they have the third best record in the Big Ten since Hayden Fry arrived in '79. They don't have the status CU had in their run but 4 top 8 national finishes in 8 years isn't too far off.

 

I think the Big Ten is less at risk to go down than the Big 12 North schools were. I think it's a little more stable with longer track records. KSU and Wisconsin were very similar historically but Wisconsin has been able to survive their legendary coach's departure while KSU went down and is still a question mark.

[soapy]

If they split the big ten east-west like that IU won't win a conference football game for about the next five years.

 

 

 

Well...they may not anyway.

[MSG T]

I absolutely love seeing a Penn State fan sticking up for Michigan. Michigan is on it's way back up for sure.

 

penn state football, 2000-04: 26-33, 16-24 conference record, 1 bowl appearance.

2005-09: 51-13, 29-11 conference record, 5 bowl appearances

 

people were basically throwing dirt on the psu program and saying they'd never recover until paterno retired and they brought in mostly new staff. the last five years they and ohio st have been the class of the conference. it's hard to keep great college football programs down for long.

 

if, instead of cutting it in half, you start from 2002, is their record significantly different than Iowa's? Iowa had a couple great seasons in the early part of the decade, a rough stretch (aided by injuries) and then a strong finish. Still won about 2/3 of their games since 2002. OSU stands alone in the Big Ten right now. There isn't a clear 2nd.

 

 

Since 2000 Iowa has won three more games than PSU, been to two more bowl games, won one more bowl game, been to the same number of BCS games and won the same number (they're both 1-1) and, here's the kicker, they are 6-1 against PSU the last 10 years. Who's more dominant?

 

Honestly, I'd probably put Wisconsin in 2nd the last 10 years, with Iowa 3rd and PSU 4th. And I hate Wisconsin. And that's also considering Iowa is 6-4 against Wisconsin the last 10 years.

[MSG T]

I absolutely love seeing a Penn State fan sticking up for Michigan. Michigan is on it's way back up for sure.

 

penn state football, 2000-04: 26-33, 16-24 conference record, 1 bowl appearance.

2005-09: 51-13, 29-11 conference record, 5 bowl appearances

 

people were basically throwing dirt on the psu program and saying they'd never recover until paterno retired and they brought in mostly new staff. the last five years they and ohio st have been the class of the conference. it's hard to keep great college football programs down for long.

 

if, instead of cutting it in half, you start from 2002, is their record significantly different than Iowa's? Iowa had a couple great seasons in the early part of the decade, a rough stretch (aided by injuries) and then a strong finish. Still won about 2/3 of their games since 2002. OSU stands alone in the Big Ten right now. There isn't a clear 2nd.

 

 

Since 2000 Iowa has won three more games than PSU, been to two more bowl games, won one more bowl game, been to the same number of BCS games and won the same number (they're both 1-1) and, here's the kicker, they are 6-1 against PSU the last 10 years. Who's more dominant?

 

Honestly, I'd probably put Wisconsin in 2nd the last 10 years, with Iowa 3rd and PSU 4th. And I hate Wisconsin. And that's also considering Iowa is 6-4 against Wisconsin the last 10 years.

[TruffleShuffle]

Since 2000 Iowa has won three more games than PSU, been to two more bowl games, won one more bowl game, been to the same number of BCS games and won the same number (they're both 1-1) and, here's the kicker, they are 6-1 against PSU the last 10 years. Who's more dominant?

 

in the last 10 years? iowa. in the last 7 years or 5 years? penn st. in the last 20 years? penn st. in the last 30 years? penn st.

 

10 years was a good number for you to choose though.

[Tracer Bullet]

Since 2000 Iowa has won three more games than PSU, been to two more bowl games, won one more bowl game, been to the same number of BCS games and won the same number (they're both 1-1) and, here's the kicker, they are 6-1 against PSU the last 10 years. Who's more dominant?

 

in the last 10 years? iowa. in the last 7 years or 5 years? penn st. in the last 20 years? penn st. in the last 30 years? penn st.

 

10 years was a good number for you to choose though.

 

you chose 10 years. you just divided it in a way beneficial to PSU.

 

Saying PSU and OSU (together) have been the class of the Big Ten looks a little ridiculous. PSU was supposed to dominate when they joined. They've been right with the rest of the 2nd tier behind the single dominant team.

[TruffleShuffle]

Since 2000 Iowa has won three more games than PSU, been to two more bowl games, won one more bowl game, been to the same number of BCS games and won the same number (they're both 1-1) and, here's the kicker, they are 6-1 against PSU the last 10 years. Who's more dominant?

 

in the last 10 years? iowa. in the last 7 years or 5 years? penn st. in the last 20 years? penn st. in the last 30 years? penn st.

 

10 years was a good number for you to choose though.

 

you chose 10 years. you just divided it in a way beneficial to PSU.

 

i divided it in a logical way. they were mostly bad for a five year stretch; four of those years they finished below .500. then in the five-year stretch after that they were only good and had, at worst, a 9-4 record.

 

there's no reason to be discussing this anyway. the point i was trying to make was that very good college football programs don't tend to stay bad for a long time. i don't know what point the iowa defender is trying to make.

[TruffleShuffle]

Saying PSU and OSU (together) have been the class of the Big Ten looks a little ridiculous. PSU was supposed to dominate when they joined. They've been right with the rest of the 2nd tier behind the single dominant team.

 

people were basically throwing dirt on the psu program and saying they'd never recover until paterno retired and they brought in mostly new staff. the last five years they and ohio st have been the class of the conference. it's hard to keep great college football programs down for long.

[Tracer Bullet]

Since 2000 Iowa has won three more games than PSU, been to two more bowl games, won one more bowl game, been to the same number of BCS games and won the same number (they're both 1-1) and, here's the kicker, they are 6-1 against PSU the last 10 years. Who's more dominant?

 

in the last 10 years? iowa. in the last 7 years or 5 years? penn st. in the last 20 years? penn st. in the last 30 years? penn st.

 

10 years was a good number for you to choose though.

 

you chose 10 years. you just divided it in a way beneficial to PSU.

 

i divided it in a logical way. they were mostly bad for a five year stretch; four of those years they finished below .500. then in the five-year stretch after that they were only good and had, at worst, a 9-4 record.

 

there's no reason to be discussing this anyway. the point i was trying to make was that very good college football programs don't tend to stay bad for a long time. i don't know what point the iowa defender is trying to make.

 

we all understood your original point, but the point about being the class of the big ten I think hurts your overall point b/c it makes you just look like a homer. I was pointing out that Iowa is just one of 5 teams that make up the 2nd tier of teams behind OSU, the existence of which makes division based on anything but geography even more pointless.

 

while it might be true that good programs don't stay bad for a long time, this isn't the typical lull for UM. Michigan's going through 2 consecutive really bad seasons, including a brutal loss to a I-AA team and its first significant sanctions in my memory. And the cupboard wasn't empty when Rich Rod showed up, he just ran a bunch of players out of town. That might be the players fault (I don't think so), but it doesn't bode well for his ability to work with a diverse group of people. In any case, I don't know too many UM fans that think they're winning 10+ games this year (or next, most likely).

 

But I think ultimately TT is right. Messing with logical divisions to gain "competitive balance" is probably not a good idea, given the way CFB tends to play out. Most likely, over the next 10 years, we're going to see OSU, PSU, or UM v. Nebraska, Iowa, or Wisconsin in the conference title game with 1-2 unforeseen contenders in there. That's pretty much in line with what you'd expect if it were still the Big 10 (of 11) with no title game, so I don't see any reason to mess with it.