• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Big Ten Conference Divisions

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BB73;1715733; said:
On the BTN's expansion show today, Gerry DiNardo proposed two divisions based on traditional strength, and allowed 1 cross-rivalry to be scheduled every year, so things like tOSU-TSUN would happen every year. The SEC did something similar to keep things like Tenn-Bama every year.

Woody Division
tOSU
PSU
4 other teams (I don't remember how he split them)

Bo Division
TSUN
Nebraska
MSU
3 other teams
Click to expand...


Jerry Dinardo needs to just keep doing whatever it is he actually does well and leave the thinking to those equipped to do so.
 
Upvote 0
Actually, I like Dinardo's thought process, although I'd use "Hayes" and "Schembechler" vice "Woody" and "Bo". Also, I'd probably go with "Yost" instead of Schembechler, seeing as he had a bigger overall impact on conference football, and college football as a whole. The "Hayes" and "Yost" divisions could work quite well.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1715733; said:
On the BTN's expansion show today, Gerry DiNardo proposed two divisions based on traditional strength, and allowed 1 cross-rivalry to be scheduled every year, so things like tOSU-TSUN would happen every year. The SEC did something similar to keep things like Tenn-Bama every year.

Woody Division
tOSU
PSU
4 other teams (I don't remember how he split them)

Bo Division
TSUN
Nebraska
MSU
3 other teams
Click to expand...

Problem with doing that is if we got to 16 teams we've got 8 per division, meaning each team playing 7 games against their division with only 1 conference game leftover to play against a cross division school, making that a fixed game isn't the best idea imo, I mean teams in the conference should at least be able to play each other once in awhile. Now you could add more conference games but I dont think thats such a hot idea until the BCS is officially donezo and replaced by a 4 team power conference playoff (where we wouldn't be penalized for beating up on each other as a conference)
 
Upvote 0
HonuBuck;1715748; said:
Actually, I like Dinardo's thought process, although I'd use "Hayes" and "Schembechler" vice "Woody" and "Bo". Also, I'd probably go with "Yost" instead of Schembechler, seeing as he had a bigger overall impact on conference football, and college football as a whole. The "Hayes" and "Yost" divisions could work quite well.
Click to expand...
You can't have a division casual fans can't spell, but I agree their first names don't work.

How can they work well when those two belong in the same division?
 
Upvote 0
HonuBuck;1715748; said:
Actually, I like Dinardo's thought process, although I'd use "Hayes" and "Schembechler" vice "Woody" and "Bo". Also, I'd probably go with "Yost" instead of Schembechler, seeing as he had a bigger overall impact on conference football, and college football as a whole. The "Hayes" and "Yost" divisions could work quite well.
Click to expand...


Knowing that The Game pits OSU and scUM on the last week of the season for the right to go to the B10 CCG instead of directly for the B10 championship is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than knowing they have a rematch the next week in the B10 CCG.

No to OSU and scUM being split up, a thousand times no.
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1715750; said:
You can't have a division casual fans can't spell, but I agree their first names don't work.
Click to expand...
I think most fans can spell "Yost".

jwinslow;1715750; said:
How can they work well when those two belong in the same division?
Click to expand...
A team doesn't have to belong in the division which is named after someone who was related to that team. If Ohio State and Michigan must be in the same division and we use names of influential coaches as the division names, and the team associated with that coach must be in that division, then I'd begrudgingly say that Yost would get the nod over Hayes. After whom would the other division be named?
 
Upvote 0
This plan could be called "Great Lakes Division" and "Great Plains Division".

BTW, saying Northwestern is in "close proximity" to Lake Michigan is like saying Ohio State is in "close proximity" to High Street. :lol:

MaxBuck;1715476; said:
Wetted States:
OSU
UM
MSU
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern*

(Nearly) Landlocked States:
Nebraska
Iowa
PSU
Illinois
IU
Purdue

*granted wetted state status because of close proximity to Lake Michigan

This admittedly stupid way of breaking up the conference has one benefit: near equal football strength.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
No divisions, just a couple of protected rivalries. Best two teams play at the end of the year. If it's a rematch, so be it. Better than the possibility of having a 7-5 team play in your conference championship. I'd also be in favor of no conference championship and everyone playing an extra game.
 
Upvote 0
from twitter:

BretBielema
I contacted the Big 10 office about hopefully scheduling Nebraska as a last game rival on a yearly basis. Possible starting a trophy game.

Also from Stewart Mandel's twitter:
slmandel
"In determining divisions, Delany said first priority will be 'competitive fairness.' Second is maintaining rivalries. Third is geography."

This would indicate that PSU won't be in the same half as scUM/OSU. But OSU/MSU/scUM will have to be together. As will Indiana/PU. Minnesota/Wisconsin. Hmm...but Minnesota/scUM might have to go. Might end up being:

scUM
Ohio State
Michigan State
Purdue
Illinois
Indiana

Northwestern
PSU
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin

Alas, the Land Grant rivalry will be a thing of the past. :shake:
 
Upvote 0
ghost of tibor said:
from twitter:

BretBielema
I contacted the Big 10 office about hopefully scheduling Nebraska as a last game rival on a yearly basis. Possible starting a trophy game.

Also from Stewart Mandel's twitter:
slmandel
"In determining divisions, Delany said first priority will be 'competitive fairness.' Second is maintaining rivalries. Third is geography."

This would indicate that PSU won't be in the same half as scUM/OSU. But OSU/MSU/scUM will have to be together. As will Indiana/PU. Minnesota/Wisconsin. Hmm...but Minnesota/scUM might have to go. Might end up being:

scUM
Ohio State
Michigan State
Purdue
Illinois
Indiana

Northwestern
PSU
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin

Alas, the Land Grant rivalry will be a thing of the past. :shake:
Click to expand...
If that's based on competitve fairness, then I don't get it. Ohio State is obviously going to be the most competitve team in either side. But I don't see a problem with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State being in the same division.

Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska would be a pretty strong division in itself. If you throw Penn State in a division with them, now I think you overload that division. Who would be Ohio State's competition in our division? Michigan? Ha! I think Penn State/Ohio State is turning into a little rivalry in it's own.

Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue

Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Minnesota
Northwestern

Sure the first division is a little bit stronger, but it's fair enough. The bottom feeders are spread out. And I feel right now there are 6 teams that have legit shots at BCS games every year (OSU, PSU, SCUM, NU, Wisky, and Iowa) Granted Michigan is way down right now, but Penn State was way down 10 years ago. I think all in all these six schools will dominate the conference for years to come. Those 6 teams would be split evenly.

And even though Illinois and Ohio State have a rivalry, that got ruined a few years ago when the Big Ten decided not the schedule them for the first time in almost a century. So since they don't play every year anymore as it is, I doubt it matters now that they be in the same division.

Not that I think there is any chance of this happening, but even if you added Notre Dame and Texas down the road...you could just put Notre Dame in the east and Texas in the west, and not have to change any other teams. If we do add a few more teams on the east coast, then things could get tricky with divisions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Quoting from the other thread:

JXC;1715958; said:
Nebraska/OU used to be one of the biggest rivalrys in college football, and now they aren't even in the same conference anymore and the rivalry is dead. Amazing what can happen in just over 10 years.
Click to expand...

The NU/OU game was destroyed the moment the Big 12 went to divisions. Separating Nebraska and OU was a huge mistake, and put the OU/Texas game on a higher footing, leaving Nebraska with Colorado as their big game. I am not sure how you give Nebraska another nationally relevant rival in the Big Ten, but it's vital. Iowa or Wisconsin may not be the answer. Maybe Penn State is? Put them together in the same division and the rivalry will build naturally based on the importance of that game.

It's also a cautionary tale for the Big Ten. Do NOT separate Michigan and Ohio State into different divisions, even if The Game is preserved. Again, the model there is the Red River Rivalry game. There's no shame in having it be for all of the marbles in one division, with a CCG to follow, just don't make it some semi-irrelevant inter-divisional matchup. The Game must have consequences, both for the winner and loser. That's why Texas-OU matters and OU-NU doesn't anymore.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top