In the past 40 seasons of college football, the five highest win totals belong to Nebraska, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Michigan and Penn State.
Finding power and tradition in Jim Delany’s new Big Ten will not be a problem; however, splitting the league into divisions for football requires diligence.
Competitive balance, rivalry preservation and geographic proximity all factor in divisional alignment, Delany said.
No plan is perfect, but here’s a format the Big Ten should consider. First, the logic behind the plan:
• The Big Ten boasts four heavyweights. Each has a national title since 1985. And even during a down decade, as the 2000s were for Nebraska, Michigan and Penn State, each finished top 30 in winning percentage.
Two Big Ten programs qualify as solid, but not spectacular. Neither Wisconsin nor Iowa has demonstrated the long-term consistency of the top four, but each is gaining ground. Wisconsin, for instance, is better than Penn State since 1996. Iowa is better than Michigan since 2001.
• During the past 30 years, those top six schools have dramatically outperformed Michigan State, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern and Indiana. There’s a clear line.
In fact, since 1980, none of the bottom six has a winning record. Michigan State is the best of the bunch.
• The Big Ten is full of rivalry games. And each school, no matter how poor in football, cherishes certain duels.
Michigan-Ohio State. Penn State-Michigan State. Minnesota-Wisconsin. Purdue-Indiana. Northwestern-Illinois.
But the most important rivalries are almost always contested between teams from bordering states. Thus, the safest way to preserve rivalries is to divide teams with geography in mind.
It just so happens a 12-team Big Ten breaks up geographically as well as any league in the country. Six teams are west of Chicago, the conference headquarters. Six teams are east.
It just so happens three of the top programs are west of Chicago, and three east. Therefore, the divisions should split at the Illinois/Indiana border.
The West division: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern.
The East division: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana.
Divisional winners meet in the Big Ten championship game.
OK, here’s the wrinkle: Top programs in the East would meet the West’s top programs more often than usual.
Nebraska, for example, would play two of the East elite — Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan — every year. Same for Iowa and Wisconsin.
The powers in the West would play only one of the East’s bottom three — Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana.
Same goes for Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan. They’d face Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin two of every three years. And Minnesota, Northwestern and Illinois just one of every three years.
A Nebraska schedule might look like this:
Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue (non-division game), Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State (non-division) and Ohio State (non-division).
An Ohio State schedule might look like this:
Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State, Illinois (non-division), Michigan, Penn State, Iowa (non-division), Nebraska (non-division).
For each powerhouse, that’s two enticing home games and two attractive road games.
Look at it another way: Every season, each Big Ten school (from Indiana to Nebraska, Northwestern to Penn State) would play exactly four of the traditionally prominent programs.
What are practical alternatives within the Big Ten’s current eight-game template?
Perhaps Penn State joins Nebraska and Iowa, and Wisconsin heads east with Ohio State and Michigan. That’s been discussed. Put two traditional giants in each division.
But any slight advantage in competitive balance — Penn State would be a bit higher on the pecking order than the Badgers — is lost because it disrupts rivalries.
Penn State, if possible, should stay with Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State. Same for Wisconsin and its rivals, Minnesota and Iowa.
Our system preserves the sentimental clashes. It reduces travel. It makes the top teams’ path to an undefeated season almost identical. It gives a competitive boost to programs like Northwestern and Illinois; they never have to play more than one of the East powers in the same season.
And it maximizes the allure of Big Ten powerhouses, supplying 12 showdowns each year between top-six programs.
The key to this model: The top six need to remain strong. In a different league, that’s not a safe assumption. But numbers suggest Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa will stay ahead of their peers over the long haul.
During the next days and weeks, wise minds at the Big Ten will surely examine scheduling and divisional models. They should make decisions carefully.
In 1996, the Big 12 began a format that omitted Oklahoma from Nebraska’s schedule two of every four years. That move disrupted one of college football’s best rivalries.
And the Huskers never forgave the Big 12.
LINK
Dirk Chatelain's Big Ten divisional model
- Thread starter Nexus
- Start date
I wrote this in another thread the other day...it preserves virtually every traditional Big 10 rivalry of relevance.
It is based on a NINE game schedule...
Actually THREE divisions would be great. If you have three divisions with a permanent "rival" in the other two divisions you could play nine conference games and only miss out on two teams every year...the next year they would each be back on the schedule. This would allow the geography, traditional Big 10 rivalry games, "strength of schedule," and a conference championship game to all be viable. It could look something like this...
East Div; Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Mid Div; Indiana, Illini, Northwestern, Perdue
West Div; Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin.
Permanent "rival teams" NEBRASKA (Penn St, NWU) - IOWA (OSU, Illini) - MINN (Michigan, Perdue) - WISC (Mich St, Indiana)
You play each team in your division and your two "rivals" every year. You play four of the other six teams and only miss two teams each year but back on next year. This allows the student-athletes, families and fans the opportunity to visit opposing campuses in the athletic career.
Championship game is decided by Big Ten tiebreaker rules...best record, common opponents, BCS rank, etc... Yes Vern, the Middle Div is weak..but they still have to go thru the other two divisions to do anything that matters. This is just for scheduling.
Any thoughts? Not sure if NCAA only allows for two divisions??
Late
It is based on a NINE game schedule...
Actually THREE divisions would be great. If you have three divisions with a permanent "rival" in the other two divisions you could play nine conference games and only miss out on two teams every year...the next year they would each be back on the schedule. This would allow the geography, traditional Big 10 rivalry games, "strength of schedule," and a conference championship game to all be viable. It could look something like this...
East Div; Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State
Mid Div; Indiana, Illini, Northwestern, Perdue
West Div; Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin.
Permanent "rival teams" NEBRASKA (Penn St, NWU) - IOWA (OSU, Illini) - MINN (Michigan, Perdue) - WISC (Mich St, Indiana)
You play each team in your division and your two "rivals" every year. You play four of the other six teams and only miss two teams each year but back on next year. This allows the student-athletes, families and fans the opportunity to visit opposing campuses in the athletic career.
Championship game is decided by Big Ten tiebreaker rules...best record, common opponents, BCS rank, etc... Yes Vern, the Middle Div is weak..but they still have to go thru the other two divisions to do anything that matters. This is just for scheduling.
Any thoughts? Not sure if NCAA only allows for two divisions??
Late
74Hunter
Banned
I agree. I keep hearing that PSU and NU will be put in the same Division with Iowa and Wisc. Traditionally, that would make the East much more difficult, but it you look at the results over the past few years, it makes the West more difficult. If the power of the conference shifts, then consider re-alignment.
ESPY
Starter
Read Chatelain's article & went :clap .
Read your idea for 3 divisions & went :wacko: b/c it's like a BCS poll within a conference. Remember how annoying it was in '08 when Texas, TT & OU were essentially tied atop the Big 12 South? IMO the 3 division idea would produce that kind of confusion all the time. The less a conference depends on the BCS standings, the better off it will be.
upon further review....(Its funny how logic works after a six pack!)
I agree three divisions may not be the best. I guess the same thing could be done with two divisions with a nine game schedule.
The real questions in my opinion are...1. Do we have to continue with a FOUR game non con schedule...I mean is it necessary $$$ for the program? And 2. From the Big Ten boards I have been lurking at alot of folks want to continue on with the schools they are "locked" in permanently with...Do we establish permanent cross-divisional rivals? That may be one way to keep some percieved "competetive balance" with the traditional powers.
I loved Dirks overall idea as well. Can't wait to see how it all shakes out!
Later
I agree three divisions may not be the best. I guess the same thing could be done with two divisions with a nine game schedule.
The real questions in my opinion are...1. Do we have to continue with a FOUR game non con schedule...I mean is it necessary $$$ for the program? And 2. From the Big Ten boards I have been lurking at alot of folks want to continue on with the schools they are "locked" in permanently with...Do we establish permanent cross-divisional rivals? That may be one way to keep some percieved "competetive balance" with the traditional powers.
I loved Dirks overall idea as well. Can't wait to see how it all shakes out!
Later