Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[BuckTwenty]

OSU-UM are together to preserve the rivalry. MSU & PSU are logical additions to that division for other rivalries.

If I were MSU or either of the other 2 schools in that division, I'd be p*ssed. That's a stacked division, assuming scUM can come back to its former glory. Besides, no one wants Texas having an easy route to a CCG. Respectfully, I know you gotta keep the rivalries, but I don't think you can put the top 3 teams in the current Big 10 in the same division and assume it's not gonna end up like the Big 12 North/South.

Do we even need divisions?? Can we just use a conference table and pick the 2 best teams based on wins/losses (and rank, if there's a tie) to play in the CCG?

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

They have to be thrilled at the prospect of adding 3 B12 or BEast defenses :p

And don't think I didn't see your post on shaggybevo.

IT'S NOT A RIVALRY DAMMIT!

 

[Jaxbuck]

In terms of a greater than 12 team conference split into 2 divisions can't you lock one non divisional foe in every year and therefore eliminate the need to put OSU and scUM in the same division?

 

[jwinslow]

And don't think I didn't see your post on shaggybevo.

If I were MSU or either of the other 2 schools in that division, I'd be p*ssed.

MSU & the other two will be overwhelmed regardless. By tagging along with Big Brother they are at least relevant 1-2 weeks a year (the other being if PSU continues to be a manufactured rivalry).

That's a stacked division, assuming scUM can come back to its former glory. Besides, no one wants Texas having an easy route to a CCG. Respectfully, I know you gotta keep the rivalries, but I don't think you can put the top 3 teams in the current Big 10 in the same division and assume it's not gonna end up like the Big 12 North/South.

So do you send PSU to the west and risk OSU only playing them about 2-3 times a decade? What if PSU is the powerhouse instead of UM? Now you have a stacked conference in the west, with two powerhouses in Texas & PSU and three next-tier challenges in aTm, Wisky & Iowa... possibly a fourth in Missou.

Meanwhile OSU keeps owning UM and the next best team is who? Sparty? Purdue? Big East team?

Do we even need divisions?? Can we just use a conference table and pick the 2 best teams based on wins/losses (and rank, if there's a tie) to play in the CCG?

That would be ideal (since the #2 team often gets left out in the divisional format), but then you run into the problem of inequal schedules. With divisions, everyone plays else in that division. It's imperfect, but it's a consistent playing field for each division.

 

[jwinslow]

In terms of a greater than 12 team conference split into 2 divisions can't you lock one non divisional foe in every year and therefore eliminate the need to put OSU and scUM in the same division?

Then you run the risk of a rematch in successive weeks. If OSU-UM were played midseason like the Red River Shootout, this would be less of a concern.

 

[Jaxbuck]

Then you run the risk of a rematch in successive weeks. If OSU-UM were played midseason like the Red River Shootout, this would be less of a concern.

Yeah but mathematically you can do it right?

The Game is going to be blown to hell no matter what, that's a given. If we are going to do it I'd rather see them get the divisions right more so than try and pretend OSU/scUM is still what it (theoretically) used to be.

 

[BB73]

In terms of a greater than 12 team conference split into 2 divisions can't you lock one non divisional foe in every year and therefore eliminate the need to put OSU and scUM in the same division?

5 divisional games, plus 3 of the 6 from the other side, make up the conference schedules for the 12-team leagues.

Tennessee-Bama do this (playing every year), played on the "Third (or 4th) Saturday in October".

Oklahoma-Nebraska decided to allow that once great rivalry to die when the Big 12 formed, and only play each other half the time.

 

[jwinslow]

The Game is going to be blown to hell no matter what, that's a given. If we are going to do it I'd rather see them get the divisions right more so than try and pretend OSU/scUM is still what it (theoretically) used to be.

So what do you do then? Put UM & Texas in the same division?

1) What if divisional foe Penn State becomes a bigger game than Michigan given the implications?

2) Doesn't that make their division stacked, especially if the next coach returns UM to glory? The Texas division likely has the best second tier schools as well in Wisky & Iowa (and perhaps aTm).

 

[Dryden]

Divisional alignment depends alot on whether Notre Dame joins in +3 or +5 expansion format. ND and Texas by themselves make a loaded western division to offset Ohio State and Michigan in the east, and that annual matchup would be big dollars for both programs. It would more than offset ND having to give up the USC game, and it'd be a bigger national event for Texas than the RRS.

 

[Jaxbuck]

5 divisional games, plus 3 of the 6 from the other side, make up the conference schedules for the 12-team leagues.

Tennessee-Bama do this (playing every year), played on the "Third (or 4th) Saturday in October".

Oklahoma-Nebraska decided to allow that once great rivalry to die when the Big 12 formed, and only play each other half the time.

That's the one that made me ask. I couldn't remember if it was truly every year or not.

Point being I'd be willing to deal with a possible rematch by separating OSU and scUM if it meant making better long term division decisions. We are going to have to suck on it somewhat if we expand no matter what, lets put more emphasis on avoiding some of the B12's mistakes than just trying to accommodate The Game.

 

[BuckTwenty]

So do you send PSU to the west and risk OSU only playing them about 2-3 times a decade? What if PSU is the powerhouse instead of UM? Now you have a stacked conference in the west, with two powerhouses in Texas & PSU and three next-tier challenges in aTm, Wisky & Iowa... possibly a fourth in Missou.

Meanwhile OSU keeps owning UM and the next best team is who? Sparty? Purdue? Big East team?

I guess that's what I'm saying, assuming that we play each team in the other division on a rotating schedule. scUM will be back. Even if they don't, they're still scUM. Records don't matter with them in The Game. It's not that I don't want to be in a harder division, far from it. I'm mad no matter which team is in the division with only one "powerhouse" team. It should be even.

This is also assuming that Texas joins the conference. What if they don't? Do you still have OSU/PSU/scUM in the same conference? Because that might as well be the Big 12 South in regards to strength within the conference at the top.

That would be ideal (since the #2 team often gets left out in the divisional format), but then you run into the problem of inequal schedules. With divisions, everyone plays else in that division. It's imperfect, but it's a consistent playing field for each division.

Agreed. Then again, nothing is perfect in college football, BCS included. (except maybe the 2002 Buckeyes! )

 

[Jaxbuck]

So what do you do then? Put UM & Texas in the same division?

1) What if divisional foe Penn State becomes a bigger game than Michigan given the implications?

2) Doesn't that make their division stacked, especially if the next coach returns UM to glory? The Texas division likely has the best second tier schools as well in Wisky & Iowa (and perhaps aTm).

It all depends on what teams come actually in (if any). I'm just saying in general don't have an over weighted division split just to make sure OSU and UM are in the same division.

 

[jwinslow]

I guess that's what I'm saying, assuming that we play each team in the other division on a rotating schedule. scUM will be back. Even if they don't, they're still scUM. Records don't matter with them in The Game. It's not that I don't want to be in a harder division, far from it. I'm mad no matter which team is in the division with only one "powerhouse" team. It should be even.

I agree that UM is a powerhouse even when they are struggling because they will rebound. I have major doubts about whether PSU would be a top-tier team in a Big-14 with Texas, A&M & either Missouri or ND added.

If there are only 3 major powers (Tex, OSU, UM) you probably can't balance the division perfectly. With the proposed west/east split, you have more top teams but less depth to fight through, whereas Texas has lot of good 8-4 types to battle against.

This is also assuming that Texas joins the conference. What if they don't? Do you still have OSU/PSU/scUM in the same conference? Because that might as well be the Big 12 South in regards to strength within the conference at the top.

No, you would definitely split it up in that format. If ND is the only power added, they might send UM to the domer division (that is a major rivalry as well).

 

[jwinslow]

It all depends on what teams come actually in (if any). I'm just saying in general don't have an over weighted division split just to make sure OSU and UM are in the same division.

I agree with that. If Texas' potential division is garbage, then send someone over there to balance things out (preferrably PSU).

 

[Piney]

MSU & the other two will be overwhelmed regardless. By tagging along with Big Brother they are at least relevant 1-2 weeks a year (the other being if PSU continues to be a manufactured rivalry).So do you send PSU to the west and risk OSU only playing them about 2-3 times a decade? What if PSU is the powerhouse instead of UM? Now you have a stacked conference in the west, with two powerhouses in Texas & PSU and three next-tier challenges in aTm, Wisky & Iowa... possibly a fourth in Missou.

Meanwhile OSU keeps owning UM and the next best team is who? Sparty? Purdue? Big East team?
That would be ideal (since the #2 team often gets left out in the divisional format), but then you run into the problem of inequal schedules. With divisions, everyone plays else in that division. It's imperfect, but it's a consistent playing field for each division.

Agree with you JWin.

Why do we keep assuming PSU can maintain being a powerhouse? Joe Pa will eventually step down and who knows what happens WHEN that happens. So really I do not mind seeing UM & PSU with Ohio St. I also think people are really selling Iowa & Wisconsin short. Those are two VERY solid programs that next year are considered the #2 & #3 Big 10 teams next year.

In addition if we do end up going to 14 with Texas bringing TAMU that is ALOT of solid above average to really good teams in Texas's division with the only doormats being Illinois & Minnesota.

Divisional alignment depends alot on whether Notre Dame joins in +3 or +5 expansion format. ND and Texas by themselves make a loaded western division to offset Ohio State and Michigan in the east, and that annual matchup would be big dollars for both programs. It would more than offset ND having to give up the USC game, and it'd be a bigger national event for Texas than the RRS.

This is one thing that got me wondering... IF ND came to the Big 10, what OOC rivalries do they keep? I can easily see them keeping USC every year and then rotating Army/Navy and sprinkling in their 'other' rivals. Cuz really... beside the Big10 teams, isn't USC their big rival? It would also be interesting if ND is in the 'West' and UM, MSU & Purdue are in the 'East' As they would lose alot of their annual Big 10 rivalries.

But another point about ND. If Texas & TAMU is a package deal and we are looking for a 14th team. Does the Big 10 have the balls to approach ND and tell them "We are looking for a 14th and final team to join the Big 10, this is your last chance to EVER join the Big 10"?