• 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
Oh8ch;2307433; said:
Then I realized - there is no strong argument for balanced divisions (not if you are OSU at least).
Click to expand...
I disagree. I've come around to the view that geographic reasonableness and maintenance of the primacy of The Game are more important than competitive balance between divisions. But the pro-OSU argument for competitive balance, in my view, is not based on whether the championship game will be hard or easy. It's about how hard it will be to get to the championship game. Geographically balanced divisions will make it harder for OSU to reach the CCG than competitively balanced divisions would. OSU will make their share of CCG appearances regardless, but they'll make fewer CCG appearances when the bulk of the top conference teams are in their division, than they would if the divisions were split by program caliber.
 
Upvote 0
MaliBuckeye;2307468; said:
When the SEC was configured, there were huge concerns that Florida/Georgia/Tennessee would be in the same division- the "west" wasn't yet the powerhouse that it currently is.

Seems to have worked out OK for them.
Click to expand...

I think the SEC & B1G are poor comparisons in that regard due to how the power is distributed. While the SEC only has one true 'king' in Alabama it has a large number of schools who are only a step below the elites; Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn & now Aggie. The B1G on the other hand has four true kings (Ohio State, TSUN, Nebraska & PSU) but there is a larger gap between them and the second tier teams (Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa etc). So an imbalance among the top B1G teams will have a larger long term influence on how competitive the divisions are than it would in the SEC. If you stick 'Bama, LSU, Florida & Auburn in one division there isn't as much of a drop off with Georgia, Tennessee, Aggie & Arkansas in the other (over the long term) as there would be if the B1G tried to balance Ohio State, TSUN, UNL & PSU on one side with Wiscy, Sparty, Iowa & Northwestern on the other.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
MaliBuckeye;2307468; said:
When the SEC was configured, there were huge concerns that Florida/Georgia/Tennessee would be in the same division- the "west" wasn't yet the powerhouse that it currently is.

Seems to have worked out OK for them.
Click to expand...

The SEC decided in 1990 to go to divisions in football starting with the 1992 season. At that time, Alabama was a strong program (in fact, won the 1992 national title), Auburn was also a strong program (had a couple down years in 1991 and 1992, but went 11-0-0 in 1993), and LSU was a mediocre program. Conversely, Spurrier had just gotten to Florida and were mediocre before that, Georgia was also mediocre, and Tennessee was the only consistently strong program of those three. So, looking at the state of SEC football in 1990 when the decision to expand and divide into divisions was made, I doubt there were "huge concerns" about an imbalance caused by having Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee in the same division.

EDIT: In fact, in the five seasons to the decision to expand/split, the conference champs were Tennessee in 1985, LSU in 1986, Auburn in 1987, Auburn/LSU in 1988, and Alabama/Auburn/Tennessee in 1989. Neither Florida nor Georgia won the SEC while Auburn won it three times, LSU twice, and Alabama once.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Rutgers & Maryland welcome to the B1G!

Now shut up & assume the position. You're never winning squat.

Buckeye Maniac;2316950; said:
From what I've seen, the discussion is between Purdue and Sparty, not Purdue and Indiana.
Click to expand...

That appears to have changed over the past few weeks.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye Maniac;2316950; said:
From what I've seen, the discussion is between Purdue and Sparty, not Purdue and Indiana.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to link it because it's ESPN, but I saw a story on another site from the ESPN Big Ten blogger (Rittenburg) and he said it was Purdue and Indiana. It was a story from today (Tuesday).

Heck, I'd love it if it was Michigan State and Purdue, because the West is not close.
 
Upvote 0
VBSJ;2316960; said:
I'm not going to link it because it's ESPN, but I saw a story on another site from the ESPN Big Ten blogger (Rittenburg) and he said it was Purdue and Indiana. It was a story from today (Tuesday).

Heck, I'd love it if it was Michigan State and Purdue, because the West is not close.
Click to expand...

Yea, after I posted that I saw the new rumors.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86;2316978; said:
Well, the east coast is where all the TVs are at, after all...


(or at least the targeted tvs for expansion)
Click to expand...

Yeah, everyone on the other coast is at the beach surfing.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS7SUFz36lg"]Surfin' Safari-The Beach Boys-1962 - YouTube[/ame]

:biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
After Monday, Ohio State still fifth in overall record (win pct.) and sixth in conference record (win pct.) since the 1993-94 basketball season (the academic year Penn State started Big Ten football play).

Football (since 1993)
Overall
1. Ohio State (.796)
2. Nebraska (.752)
3. Penn State (.692)
4. TTUN (.691)
5. Wisconsin (.690)
6. Iowa (.568)
7. Sparty (.553)
8. Purdue (.508)
9. Northwestern (.494)
10. Maryland (.477)
11. Minnesota (.433)
12. Rutgers (.430)
13. Illinois (.389)
14. Indiana (.342)

Conference
1. Ohio State (.778)
2. Nebraska (.728)
3. TTUN (.681)
4. Penn State (.638)
5. Wisconsin (.609)
6. Iowa (.509)
7. Sparty (.503)
8. Purdue (.459)
9. Northwestern (.438)
10. Maryland (.400)
11. Illinois (.322)
12. Minnesota (.313)
13. Rutgers (.306)
14. Indiana (.225)

Men's Basketball (since 1993-94)
Overall
1. Sparty (.710)
2. Illinois (.668)
T-3. Maryland (.665)
T-3. Wisconsin (.665)
5. Ohio State (.644)
6. Purdue (.641)
7. Indiana (.603)
8. Minnesota (.582)
9. TTUN (.581)
10. Iowa (.561)
11. Nebraska (.530)
12. Penn State (.469)
13. Rutgers (.454)
14. Northwestern (.427)

Conference
1. Sparty (.685)
2. Wisconsin (.609)
3. Purdue (.594)
4. Maryland (.584)
5. Illinois (.579)
6. Ohio State (.553)
7. Indiana (.541)
8. TTUN (.491)
9. Minnesota (.450)
10. Iowa (.447)
11. Nebraska (.381)
12. Penn State (.315)
13. Rutgers (.309)
14. Northwestern (.262)

Combined Standings (Average Four Standings)
1. Ohio State
2. Wisconsin
3. Sparty
4. TTUN
5. Purdue
6. Nebraska
7. Maryland
T-8. Penn State
T-8. Illinois
10. Iowa
11. Minnesota
12. Indiana
13. Northwestern
14. Rutgers
 
Upvote 0
Legends & Leaders GONE ?

BIPsFW_CYAAYaGo.png:large


Heres hoping so!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top