B1G Expansion and more Conference Realignment

IA State Husker said:
Husker John said:
Let’s add Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, and Mizzou and call it a day…….

B1G West

1. Nebraska

2. Iowa

3. Wisconsin

4. Minnesota

5. Kansas

6. Missouri

7. Illinois

8. Northwestern

9. Purdue

B1G East

1. Indiana

2. Michigan

3. Michigan State

4. Ohio State

5. Penn State

6. Rutgers

7. Maryland

8. Virginia

9. North Carolina
Click to expand...
I like your teams, but how about this for divisions:

B1G West

Nebraska

Kansas

Missouri

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

B1G Central

Michigan

Michigan State

Northwestern

Illinois

Purdue

Indiana

B1G East

Ohio State

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina
Click to expand...
Breaking those schools into pods would look something like:

Western:

Nebraska

Kansas

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

North:

Sparty

Northwestern

Illinois

Missouri

Central:

Ohio State

TSUN

Purdue

Indiana

Atlantic:

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Muck said:
WoodyHayes1951 said:
I don't think NCAA bylaws are going to be particularly relevant when the Big Ten,SEC, Pac-12 and secret conference #4(probably Big XII) leave the NCAA.

probably going to have 3 levels of Championships in Division I.

1. FCS Champion

2. FBS leftovers Champion

3. Big Ten/SEC/Pac 12/4th conference Champion
Click to expand...
Personally I don't think there's a cabal of schools foolish enough to risk the political fall out of splitting away from the NCAA.... or give up NCAA BB tournament money.
Click to expand...


I didn't say for all sports. Just football. The NCAA already doesn't crown a FBS champion. Wouldn't be that much different.

 
Muck said:
Breaking those schools into pods would look something like:

Western:

Nebraska

Kansas

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

North:

Sparty

Northwestern

Illinois

Missouri

Central:

Ohio State

TSUN

Purdue

Indiana

Atlantic:

Penn State

Rutgers

Maryland

Virginia

North Carolina
Click to expand...
Sold. Where do I sign?

 
My plan is similar to Muck's and IA State Husker's, with a few tweeks....

Expand to 20 teams (yes 20), and split into four five-team divisions as follows:

WEST - Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska

WEST CENTRAL - Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin

EAST CENTRAL – Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Virginia

EAST – Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, Penn State, Rutgers

*Please note: All new members are part of the AAU, which will appease the Big Ten brass. And many of the important rivalries (Ohio State-Michigan, Indiana-Purdue, Kansas-Missouri, Duke-North Carolina) are kept intact by this arrangement.

Each year on a rotating basis, the divisions pair up to form two “super divisions.” For example, in 2014 the West and West Central divisions would pair up, as would the East and East Central divisions. Then in 2015, it would be West and East Central in one super division and East and West Central in the other. The ten teams in each super division play the other teams in their respective super division round-robin style (ala the new Big XII), for a total of nine conference games – also appeasing the Big Ten brass. The winners of each super division then play in the Big Ten Championship game. Viola!

I know, this arrangement sounds a little far-fetched, but just think about it for a minute. First off, it greatly expands the footprint of the Big Ten and adds massive amounts of fuel to the revenue-making machine that this conference has become. Secondly, rather than being stuck with two stagnant divisions where one side can become far more dominant than the other (think old Big XII North), this arrangement keeps the balance of power in check. Thirdly, even though some of the new teams don’t bring much to the table football-wise (but really, neither did Rutgers or Maryland), it’s balanced out by the fact that the new Big Ten would easily remain the most dominant basketball conference in the country. And lastly, I realize that several of the teams in my hypothetical conference have recently moved to, or are committed to moving to, other conferences. But I find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t at least pick up the phone and listen if Jim Delaney were to call.

 
schriznoeder said:
My plan is similar to Muck's and IA State Husker's, with a few tweeks....
Click to expand...
FWIW it wasn't my plan, I was just showing how the teams that Husker John & IA State Husker were discussing could be broken down into pods.

One question on your set-up...

Are you talking about a full rotation of the pods? Something like:

2017: W+WC & E+EC

2018: W+E & WC + EC

2019: W + EC & E + WC

That would let you play every team in the conference at least once every three years (using your annual rotation) and have them at home one out of every six.

BTW why did you choose Pitt & UVA to be in the EC pod?

 
Sorry, Muck - didn't mean to put words in your mouth. To answer your questions... 1) Yes, my plan calls for a full rotation like you illustrated above. 2) In regards to Pitt and UVA, are you asking why I chose them over say Louisville and West Virginia to be in the EC Division? Or are you asking why I chose to put them in the EC rather than the E or WC?

 
People, people

It has occurred to me that we are looking at this expansion issue from entirely WRONG angles.

The next two schools that will be added to the B1G are:

Texas A & M and Grambling

These are the only schools that will add value to our marching bands!

 
schriznoeder said:
Sorry, Muck - didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
Click to expand...
No worries, I just wanted to clarify that my ideal 20 doesn't necessarily consist of the teams listed.

To answer your questions... 1) Yes, my plan calls for a full rotation like you illustrated above. 2) In regards to Pitt and UVA, are you asking why I chose them over say Louisville and West Virginia to be in the EC Division? Or are you asking why I chose to put them in the EC rather than the E or WC?
Click to expand...
The latter. Louisville & WVU aren't potential members AFAIC.

FWIW If I were going to put those team in 4x5 pods it would probably look something like:

Competitive Balance:

Central: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Pitt, Indiana

Northern: TSUN, Sparty, Northwestern, Rutgers, Illinois

Eastern: Penn State, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, Duke

Western: Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Minnesota

Regional rivalries:

Northeast: Ohio State, Penn St, Purdue, Indiana, Pitt

Central: TSUN, Sparty, Northwestern, Illinois, Missouri

Western: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota

Southeast: North Carolina, Rutgers, Virginia, Maryland, Duke

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.

 
IA State Husker said:
I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.
Click to expand...
There was serious discussion to drop football in the 1970s

 
Muck said:
schriznoeder said:
Sorry, Muck - didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
Click to expand...
No worries, I just wanted to clarify that my ideal 20 doesn't necessarily consist of the teams listed.

To answer your questions... 1) Yes, my plan calls for a full rotation like you illustrated above. 2) In regards to Pitt and UVA, are you asking why I chose them over say Louisville and West Virginia to be in the EC Division? Or are you asking why I chose to put them in the EC rather than the E or WC?
Click to expand...
The latter. Louisville & WVU aren't potential members AFAIC.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. I chose to put Pitt and UVA in the EC division mostly based on geography, but you could easily swap Penn State and Virginia. in fact, that might actually be a more appealing option. I just thought it would be little strange to have a division made up entirely of B1G newcomers (Rutgers, Maryland, UVA, Duke, UNC). In regards to competitive balance, that's the beauty of my rotating system - it helps ensure that no one division ever becomes too dominant, while also keeping intact many of the important geographical rivalries.

 
IA State Husker said:
I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.
Click to expand...
I'm somewhat split when it comes to competitive balance. When Nebraska first joined and we were talking about divisions I started looking into the historical performance of teams. It soon became apparently that most teams tend to have a general level of success that they don't deviate from over the long term. While there may be some highs & lows the majority of schools tend to

There have actually only been a very small number of schools that have bootstrapped themselves to the next level of performance for a sustained period....the Wisconsins, Northwesterns, Kansas States, Virginia Techs, Oregons & Miamis are actually the exception rather than the norm.

To be honest what I found to be the best way to determine a team likely to have sustained success was to look at FB spending by the athletic department. There is a very correlation between the two. There is also a lot of inertia involved with FB success; good teams tend to stay good while bad teams tend to stay bad.

Another aspect of 'competitive balance' that gets overlooked is that equal access to the more successfull/brand name teams is beneficial to those who don't typically enjoy much success. The general consensus is that Ohio State, TSUN & PSU will all end up in the east and over the long run it's possible that will actually hurt some of the western teams. It means Minnesota & Illinois won't be on national TV quite as often & that attendance may sag with only a single marquee team (Nebraska) in their division.

So yeah I agree that 'competitive balance' isn't something that can be absolutely planned in advance there is a level that can (and should) be taken into account when planning long term divisions.

schriznoeder said:
Thanks for the clarification. I chose to put Pitt and UVA in the EC division mostly based on geography, but you could easily swap Penn State and Virginia. in fact, that might actually be a more appealing option. I just thought it would be little strange to have a division made up entirely of B1G newcomers (Rutgers, Maryland, UVA, Duke, UNC). In regards to competitive balance, that's the beauty of my rotating system - it helps ensure that no one division ever becomes too dominant, while also keeping intact many of the important geographical rivalries.
Click to expand...

Thanks, got it!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IA State Husker said:
I think that trying to use competitive balance as a criteria for divisions is a fool's errand. Maybe it could be important for the top 2 or 4 schools, but aside from that we should have used geography and rivalries as primary factors. dominance or futility in football is in constant flux, and has been affected by many factors in the last 10 or 20 years. Wisconsin and Kansas State were doormats for most of thier existence, but both have had periods of excellence recently. Miami "appeared" out of nowhere in the early eighties, but now is considered a football blueblood. It is too hard to predict the future to make bizarre arrangements based on competitive balance. I think Wisconsin belongs in the western group no matter how you slice it. And Michigan and Ohio State should be in the same division.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be exact, but you can look at recruiting rankings and figure out who the top, middle, and bottom will be in the long run. The Big2 always have the highest ranked class in the conference even when they are down. The top recruiting classes from this past NSD are roughly what they would have been 50 years ago.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top