NCAA Conference Realignment

[DanzaSlap]

Fourth place is still pretty historic.

[XZero771679666304]

 

I'm pretty sure most fans would mention Purdue considering they are currently in the top five and have gotten a good amount of press for three seasons in a row. That said I could care less what a Big Ten fan on the street thinks because a large majority don't know much and are more casual fans than anything else.

 

Purdue has finished second two years in a row and are the favorite at this point this season. The eight years or so before that weren't very good (although they did have some good seasons) but that is really the only stretch where they weren't consistently a good team in their history. So to sum up in the last couple years they have done well, in the last decade not so much and in the years before that they have done as well as anyone.

 

Do you mean the stretch of 40 years (1941-1981) wherein they won 2 total B10 titles (one of them shared)? I mean, other than the last decade, which was of course the only time they weren't consistently good?

 

I see what you mean.

[biittner77]

So this thread was really 7 pages of one person insanely defending Purdue as a top 2 in the Big 10 or is there something else?

[Derwood]

So this thread was really 7 pages of one person insanely defending Purdue as a top 2 in the Big 10 or is there something else?

 

if you put CubbieBum on ignore and then go back and reread the thread, there are a few good posts

[fromthestretch]

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.

 

I worked in college athletics for several years. Women's sports don't always get equal say. Publicly, the schools may want you to believe they do. However, when the ultimate decision is made, 99.9999% of the time it's made based on who brings in the most money. While women's basketball (and volleyball to a certain extent) is a revenue sport for many Big Ten schools, the amount of revenue they bring in compared to men's basketball and football isn't much.

 

At Purdue, women's basketball has a bit more leverage, simply due to their success in the past 15 years or so. However, they still take a backseat to men's basketball.

 

The conference will certainly take women's basketball under consideration if/when they do any realignment. They aren't going to totally screw them over. That said, their level of influence over these decisions is not nearly as great as you would like to think.

[bukie]

In an attempt to get the thread back on topic (if there ever really was a topic)...

 

As far as I'm concerned, any team up for consideration must have the following:

 

1) A football program that compares favorably to an average Big Ten program

2) A basketball program that compares favorably to an average Big Ten program

3) An academic rating that is at least average among current Big Ten conference schools

 

I don't think the conference is necessarily looking for another Northwestern (high-end academics, low-end major sports), so I expect the school will have to have a better athletics program. However, they're also not looking for a Cincy or Louisville.

 

Notre Dame is and likely always will be the best fit athletically and academically, but there is a constant political power struggle between ND and the Big Ten. Missouri is another name that comes up frequently in discussion due to rivalries with existing Big Ten schools and comparable academic and athletic programs. Syracuse has been another previously mentioned possibility. Also, if the academics are acceptable, a school like Pitt would be another possibility.

 

Whatever way the Big Ten goes, the plan is to split into divisions (at least in football). If the added team is on the western half of the conference a la Missouri, the divide is pretty easily done East/West with Minnesota-Wisconsin-Iowa-Illinois-Northwestern-New Team in the West division, and Penn State-Ohio State-Michigan State-Michigan-Indiana-Purdue in the East division.

 

If, on the other hand, the new team added is east of, say, Indianapolis, then the divisions become a bit tougher to divide and preserve natural geographical rivalries. I don't see the Big Ten splitting Indiana and Purdue, or Michigan and Michigan State. So, perhaps they go a "North/South" route, and put Minnesota-Wisconsin-Michigan-MSU-PSU-New Team/OSU in one division with Iowa-Illinois-Northwestern-Indiana-Purdue-New Team/OSU in the other. It may not look balanced by current football program quality, but that's not really a good basis for divisional creation, anyway.

[Derwood]

Pitt would fit right in

 

Nationwide rankings

 

Northwestern - 12

Michigan - 27

Illinois - 39 (T)

Wisconsin - 39 (T)

Penn State - 47

Ohio State - 53

PITT - 56

Purdue - 61

Minnesota - 61

Indiana - 71

Michigan State - 71

Iowa - 71

[Guest]

Pitt would fit right in

 

Nationwide rankings

 

Northwestern - 12

Michigan - 27

Illinois - 39 (T)

Wisconsin - 39 (T)

Penn State - 47

Ohio State - 53

PITT - 56

Purdue - 61

Minnesota - 61

Indiana - 71

Michigan State - 71

Iowa - 71

Rankings of what? Quality of pizza on campus?

[Derwood]

Pitt would fit right in

 

Nationwide rankings

 

Northwestern - 12

Michigan - 27

Illinois - 39 (T)

Wisconsin - 39 (T)

Penn State - 47

Ohio State - 53

PITT - 56

Purdue - 61

Minnesota - 61

Indiana - 71

Michigan State - 71

Iowa - 71

Rankings of what? Quality of pizza on campus?

 

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings

[UMFan83]

I worked in college athletics for several years. Women's sports don't always get equal say. Publicly, the schools may want you to believe they do. However, when the ultimate decision is made, 99.9999% of the time it's made based on who brings in the most money. While women's basketball (and volleyball to a certain extent) is a revenue sport for many Big Ten schools, the amount of revenue they bring in compared to men's basketball and football isn't much.

 

At Purdue, women's basketball has a bit more leverage, simply due to their success in the past 15 years or so. However, they still take a backseat to men's basketball.

 

The conference will certainly take women's basketball under consideration if/when they do any realignment. They aren't going to totally screw them over. That said, their level of influence over these decisions is not nearly as great as you would like to think.

 

Exactly. They aren't going to be like "Well we should identify the historical best teams in the Big Ten so we can assure they aren't in the same division. So Indiana has the best history in the Big Ten thats for sure, now we need a second team. Geez its hard to turn down Ohio State's past and current success, but Purdue won a couple Big Ten titles in the 1930's, and of course their woman's team is amazing. Let's make sure Indiana and Purdue are in separate divisions so we can ensure balance between the 2 divisions. Of course because of this we'll have to separate Michigan and Ohio State, but their rivalry has run its course anyways."

[Guest]

Pitt would fit right in

 

Nationwide rankings

 

Northwestern - 12

Michigan - 27

Illinois - 39 (T)

Wisconsin - 39 (T)

Penn State - 47

Ohio State - 53

PITT - 56

Purdue - 61

Minnesota - 61

Indiana - 71

Michigan State - 71

Iowa - 71

Rankings of what? Quality of pizza on campus?

 

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings

cool.

 

Not sure I understand the point of ranking universities as a whole as opposed to college by college, but it sells magazines I'm sure.

[Exile on Waveland]

Pitt would fit right in

 

Nationwide rankings

 

Northwestern - 12

Michigan - 27

Illinois - 39 (T)

Wisconsin - 39 (T)

Penn State - 47

Ohio State - 53

PITT - 56

Purdue - 61

Minnesota - 61

Indiana - 71

Michigan State - 71

Iowa - 71

Rankings of what? Quality of pizza on campus?

 

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings

 

I think you'll find the Big Ten is primarily concerned with the doctrinal research capabilities of any would-be addition. While Pitt may stack up based on overall rankings, I'm not sure that's the pertinent issue for the conference. (Note: I am completely ignorant of Pitt on this point.) Quickly scanning, wikipedia, it looks like Pitt would fulfill this criterion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Universities (Second Note: That list is also interesting for who it excludes, as I know several professors doubt that school's ability to compare research-wise).

[hawkeyecub]

I still don't really want this to happen and don't think it will happen for a while. If it does, I've heard Mizzou might be the most likely but it's all speculative. The divisions would be awfully tricky.

[CubbieBum]

I worked in college athletics for several years. Women's sports don't always get equal say. Publicly, the schools may want you to believe they do. However, when the ultimate decision is made, 99.9999% of the time it's made based on who brings in the most money. While women's basketball (and volleyball to a certain extent) is a revenue sport for many Big Ten schools, the amount of revenue they bring in compared to men's basketball and football isn't much.

 

At Purdue, women's basketball has a bit more leverage, simply due to their success in the past 15 years or so. However, they still take a backseat to men's basketball.

 

The conference will certainly take women's basketball under consideration if/when they do any realignment. They aren't going to totally screw them over. That said, their level of influence over these decisions is not nearly as great as you would like to think.

 

Exactly. They aren't going to be like "Well we should identify the historical best teams in the Big Ten so we can assure they aren't in the same division. So Indiana has the best history in the Big Ten thats for sure, now we need a second team. Geez its hard to turn down Ohio State's past and current success, but Purdue won a couple Big Ten titles in the 1930's, and of course their woman's team is amazing. Let's make sure Indiana and Purdue are in separate divisions so we can ensure balance between the 2 divisions. Of course because of this we'll have to separate Michigan and Ohio State, but their rivalry has run its course anyways."

 

Just to clarify I did put each pair together I just said its not really all that fair but it must be done. Keeping rivalries alive would be my No. 1 criteria to making divisions. Rivalries are college sports to me. Without them I don't think college sports would be nearly as popular.

 

The trophy games in the Big Ten are:

 

Illinois-Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy)

Indiana-Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket)

Indiana-Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)

Iowa-Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)

Iowa-Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)

Minnesota-Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe)

Michigan-Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy)

Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)

Illinois-Ohio State (Illibuck)

Illinois-Purdue (Purdue Cannon)

Minnesota-Penn State (Governor's Victory Bell)

Michigan State-Penn State (Land Grant Trophy)

 

I don't think it is possible to keep all trophy games in the same division plus the biggest rivalry doesn't even have a trophy. Based on these though I would want the divisions done as follows.

 

Illinois-Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin-New Team

Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue-Indiana

 

That would keep 8 of them alive plus Michigan-OSU. Now if I made them using some Purdue bias I would switch Northwestern and New Team for Indiana and Purdue. That would keep both rivalry games alive for Purdue and keep them out of the OSU-Michigan-PSU division.

 

Oh and if the new team comes from the west it would also be split geographically. Missouri is now the team I want most because of the rivalries they have and all that.

Edited December 14, 2009 by CubbieBum

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Based on these though I would want the divisions done as follows.

 

Illinois-Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin-New Team

Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue-Indiana

 

Incredible.

[Garwilly]

Based on these though I would want the divisions done as follows.

 

Illinois-Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin-New Team

Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue-Indiana

 

Incredible.

 

 

But...

 

IU and Purdue in the same division causes the same problem in basketball since both are historically the best in the Big Ten.

[illiniguy]

Based on these though I would want the divisions done as follows.

 

Illinois-Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin-New Team

Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue-Indiana

 

Incredible.

I'm all for that breakdown. All for it.

[MSG T]

Based on these though I would want the divisions done as follows.

 

Illinois-Northwestern-Iowa-Minnesota-Wisconsin-New Team

Michigan-Michigan State-Ohio State-Penn State-Purdue-Indiana

 

Incredible.

 

If they bring in a good team(say Pitt), I agree. Putting Iowa in the tougher division sucks. 4 crappy teams in the lower division and only 2 in the upper really sucks.

[MSG T]

BTW, I all for not expanding and playing a full round robin, even if it means fewer OOC games.

[TruffleShuffle]

BTW, I all for not expanding and playing a full round robin, even if it means fewer OOC games.

 

that would be 10 conference games; nobody is going to agree to that.

 

i suspect that they'd put michigan and ohio st in opposite sides; they're the two most traditional powers and i think michigan-ohio st is kind of the "dream scenario" for the conference. if pitt were in there, i think a "fair" split would be:

 

michigan

michigan st

wisconsin

northwestern

minnesota

iowa

 

ohio st

pitt

penn st

indiana

purdue

illinois

 

sort of splits out like northwest and southeast. each team could play all five teams in their division every year plus three others from the other side, with certain teams guaranteed to play each year to preserve rivalries (michigan-ohio st, illinois-northwestern, indiana-michigan st)... they could throw out the bogus trophies/"rivalry games" like penn st-minnesota and penn st-michigan st, for all i care.

[Derwood]

I don't see the need to split Ohio State and Michigan. They'd still play "the game" as the final regular season game each year, and if/when Michigan becomes good again, that game may be decide who goes to the championship game.

 

It's not like the SEC said "we HAVE to split up Alabama and Auburn" (for example).

[shnsajax]

I don't see the need to split Ohio State and Michigan. They'd still play "the game" as the final regular season game each year, and if/when Michigan becomes good again, that game may be decide who goes to the championship game.

 

It's not like the SEC said "we HAVE to split up Alabama and Auburn" (for example).

 

Texas and OU play in the same division.

[jersey cubs fan]

You'd have to have Michigan/OSU in the same division.

[Derwood]

You'd have to have Michigan/OSU in the same division.

 

agreed. A division with OSU, Michigan, PSU and Pitt would be so awesome

[hawkeyecub]

Reportedly this really is getting serious and they're going to have an announcement this afternoon that they're looking at adding a 12th team. Of the speculated teams, I hope it's Mizzou.