Jon Miller's Divional breakdown

[huKSer]

Just throwing this out

 

Since Big Ten traditionally has not had divisions, could you have conference play and have the top two teams meet?

 

Also, if there are divisions, how about the division records be the main factor for declaring a champion? In Kansas football glory years (both of them) their out of division foes were the 3 weakest teams from the south. What if Iowa handily beat all the teams in their division, but narrowly lost to OS, UM and PS. Then Wisc while losing to Iowa, barely wins against the other teams in division, along with Ind, MS, Purdon't. Which team would best represent?

[Manhattan]

Just throwing this out

 

Since Big Ten traditionally has not had divisions, could you have conference play and have the top two teams meet?

 

 

Pretty sure that it is NCAA rules that if you have 12+ members in a conference, you have to have two divisions and a championship game.

[psylentbob]

It is going to be interesting to see how they eventually do breakdown the divisions. There will be at least one, maybe even two or three teams that aren't going to like what it looks like I am betting.

 

Personally, I would lean more towards geographical divisions, trying to leave long lasting rivalries intact with maybe allowing a rivalry game here or there if needed. That would be more than the Big 12 did for us when it came to Oklahoma, even though I know it was Oklahoma that nixed the whole idea in the end.

 

The balancing of power method is flawed for one reason, power seems to shift through the years...those that are the strongest now won't necessarily be in 10 or 15 years.

Agreed....just out of curiosity who do you diehard Huskers see as your eventual rival(s)? Someone already posted an article floating UW, U of M and Iowa as possibilities but how do you all see it?

 

That is really hard to say. There are a lot of people that believe Iowa would be the natural "rivalry", but I think I am with the ones that say that rivalries have to be built over time. Don't think you can just pick a team and announce to them that they are now your rivals. Colorado fans constantly did that with us, and we laughed them off, because we didn't feel they had done enough to be a rival. The chemistry of what is a rivalry would be an interesting study. I would start by looking at the Oklahoma-Nebraska games in the days of the Big 8. But there are plenty of other good ones too, including in the Big Ten. It should be fun.

I don't think an Iowa/Nebraska is really much of a forced rivalry. Huskers and Hawkeyes have been running smack with each other for years and we rarely even played. Much of Nebraska's population is in the east closer to Iowa rather than to the west with Colorado. If Iowa maintains their program and Nebraska comes back it WILL be THE rivalry.

[sd'sker]

It is going to be interesting to see how they eventually do breakdown the divisions. There will be at least one, maybe even two or three teams that aren't going to like what it looks like I am betting.

 

Personally, I would lean more towards geographical divisions, trying to leave long lasting rivalries intact with maybe allowing a rivalry game here or there if needed. That would be more than the Big 12 did for us when it came to Oklahoma, even though I know it was Oklahoma that nixed the whole idea in the end.

 

The balancing of power method is flawed for one reason, power seems to shift through the years...those that are the strongest now won't necessarily be in 10 or 15 years.

Agreed....just out of curiosity who do you diehard Huskers see as your eventual rival(s)? Someone already posted an article floating UW, U of M and Iowa as possibilities but how do you all see it?

 

That is really hard to say. There are a lot of people that believe Iowa would be the natural "rivalry", but I think I am with the ones that say that rivalries have to be built over time. Don't think you can just pick a team and announce to them that they are now your rivals. Colorado fans constantly did that with us, and we laughed them off, because we didn't feel they had done enough to be a rival. The chemistry of what is a rivalry would be an interesting study. I would start by looking at the Oklahoma-Nebraska games in the days of the Big 8. But there are plenty of other good ones too, including in the Big Ten. It should be fun.

I don't think an Iowa/Nebraska is really much of a forced rivalry. Huskers and Hawkeyes have been running smack with each other for years and we rarely even played. Much of Nebraska's population is in the east closer to Iowa rather than to the west with Colorado. If Iowa maintains their program and Nebraska comes back it WILL be THE rivalry.

there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to start a rivalry.

[88Husker1]

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 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

[BarronCoBucky]

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 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

Now that's a cool idea...it would create tons of whining and moaning around the CCG but still an interesting concept. I like how the divisions all have teams of similar skill level save for Minn in the West and conform to some kind of geographic regions...its a "best of both worlds" kind of thing

[Notre Dame Joe]

Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.

 

NostraDame Joe predicts that the only thing "tailored" is maximizing scUM/eOSU's chances of going to the Conference title game, that will be held in their state.

 

An East vs West with PSU mysteriously with the West accomplishes that.

[Huskertone14]

I would rather just do the East-West divisions with a 9 game conference schedule. The teams in ( ) are the annual cross-division games.

 

West:

 

Illinois (Purdue)

Iowa (Ohio State)

Minnesota (Michigan State)

Nebraska (Penn State)

Northwestern (Indiana)

Wisconsin (Michigan)

 

 

East:

 

Indiana (Northwestern)

Michigan (Wisconsin)

Michigan State (Minnesota)

Ohio State (Iowa)

Penn State (Nebraska)

Purdue (Illinois)

 

I'd rather have Penn State in a yearly cross division rivalry game than an in-division game just b/c I think if they are in-division it will be a lot more difficult to win the division, if they are not in the same division it is not necessarily going to decide the division crown. But it has the potential to be a great cross-divisional rivalry game, and should be played every year.

[Caven]

It they went that route then Nebraska would more than likely end up with Ohio State as all of Ohio State's current big games are with teams already in the east. Minnesota would get Michigan as they have a big trophy game that they would love to get back on a yearly basis. Given what has happened over the past decade Iowa would more than likely get Penn State and the Illinois and Indiana schools are paired up. There is a possibility that Iowa gets Indiana due to some long ago history and Wisconsin gets Penn State but with 1 cross divisional rivalry I just don't see Nebraska getting Penn State like they want simply because of Ohio State not having anything much going on with the other western schools.

[jimindallas]

DIVISION B

 

Penn State (W 19-17 Capital One Bowl)

Nebraska (W 33-0 Holiday Bowl

Iowa (W 24-14 Orange Bowl)

Minnesota (L 13-14 Insight Bowl)

Wisconsin (W 20-14 Champ Sports Bowl)

Northwestern (L 35-38 Outback Bowl)

 

Could be a rather fierce division, not a CU replacement in the lot

That would be great. Penn State every year would lead to a great rivalry.