Big Ten AD's say East/West split not a given

[Nexus]

 

 

LINCOLN — Under the Big Ten’s current football scheduling format, conference teams meet every other conference team at least six times in every eight-year span.

 

Purdue Athletic Director Morgan Burke likes it that way. And he hopes the Big Ten can preserve something similar once Nebraska comes aboard in 2011.

 

“I think the most important thing is that each Big Ten school needs to play each other on as much of a regular basis as possible,” Burke said. “You don’t want to have static groupings that limit the number of times people might play other teams in the league. I think that’s bad for the league.”

 

Burke and others will soon get their chances to state opinions and float ideas about scheduling. Commissioner Jim Delany e-mailed Big Ten athletic directors this week to see when all could meet in Chicago — ideally before the July 4 weekend — to discuss how the league might split into divisions or craft schedules when it goes to 12 teams.

 

“I think there are lots of different ways to do it,” Burke said, “and they’ve probably been put on every blog site that gives a darn about it.”

 

About the only consensus is that at least a rough draft or some skeleton of a schedule needs to be in place soon, because the Big Ten will be tearing up league schedules already completed for 2011 through 2013.

 

“We may have some ideas when we come out of there,” Wisconsin Athletic Director Barry Alvarez said. “You’ve got to move.”

 

The alignment of divisions is one of the most intriguing elements to be decided — and the most common sentiment is for an East-West split.

 

Not so fast, say both Alvarez and Minnesota Athletic Director Joel Maturi.

 

“I have a gut feeling — and this is Joel Maturi guessing, this is no discussion — but I don’t think it’ll be done just geographically,” Maturi said. “A lot of fans tend to think it will. Competitively, longtime rivalries are going to be looked at and tried to be protected. We all have a different view of what that might be.”

 

If you drew a line down the middle of the expanded conference, Nebraska would configure with Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Northwestern in the West. Many then point out, however, that the East would pool Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.

 

“I think everybody just thinks the natural way is East-West — you do it geographically,” Alvarez said. “I don’t know if that’s the right answer. I want to sit down with the conference office and the rest of the people and hear everyone else’s thoughts on this.”

 

The Big 12 has operated since 1996 with six-team North and South divisions. Nebraska played every North team every season, and met South opponents on a two-year-on, two-year-off basis.

 

In the Big Ten model with an 11-team league, each school had two teams it played every season. It would play six of the other eight teams in a season, and those eight would rotate off the schedule in pairs for two-year stints. For example, Iowa annually plays Minnesota and Wisconsin, then draws six of the other eight teams six times over eight years.

 

Could such a schedule be maintained with two six-team divisions?

 

“I don’t know,” Burke said. “That’s what we’re going to sit and talk about. It probably could, it just depends on how you set it up.

 

“I want to make sure our schedules are balanced from a competitive standpoint. We need to make sure they’re fair. And I just want to make sure that if we’re to split into divisions that you don’t have some barriers that say you only play people on the other side of the division fence on a very infrequent basis.”

 

Expansion to 12 teams and a divisional split, of course, would set up the Big Ten for a conference championship game in football. To which Burke throws out something else to watch when the athletic directors get together.

 

“I don’t think people should assume right now,” he said, “that it’s a foregone conclusion that there will be a championship game.”

 

 

LINK

 

 

 

 

[highlander27]

I'm a college football fan first and foremost... I think the East/West conference scenario sets up best. Yes, you have OSU, Michigan, Penn State in one division. Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska isn't exactly a walkover in it's own right, and fits nicely with the Cornhuskers having some natural rivals right off the bat. I don't see how you can split the conference any other way without making it look really stupid.

[MichiganMan]

I'm a college football fan first and foremost... I think the East/West conference scenario sets up best. Yes, you have OSU, Michigan, Penn State in one division. Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska isn't exactly a walkover in it's own right, and fits nicely with the Cornhuskers having some natural rivals right off the bat. I don't see how you can split the conference any other way without making it look really stupid.

exactly. and no one cares about all time winning records. when you start boosting about titles before you were even born you start to sound like notre dame fans

[Nexus]

I'm a college football fan first and foremost... I think the East/West conference scenario sets up best. Yes, you have OSU, Michigan, Penn State in one division. Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska isn't exactly a walkover in it's own right, and fits nicely with the Cornhuskers having some natural rivals right off the bat. I don't see how you can split the conference any other way without making it look really stupid.

 

I haven't seen you post until now so with that in mind, welcome to HuskerBoard!

 

My two cents on the matter is simply this: DON'T OVER THINK IT.

 

Sometimes the obvious works best.

[Saw3131]

Sounds to me like they are thinking hard about getting PSU/Nebraska going as a year in year out game. Yes PSU/TOSU and PSU/UM have been great rivalries, but I think PSU fans have been looking for something of their own since they joined. TOSU/UM game is still what the 2 fan bases live for. That has nothing to do with how great PSU is. It just is what it is. Putting PSU/Nebraska as the other huge match up sounds like a great idea to me. And it gives both PSU and Nebraska the marquee game they both deserve that doesn't get overshadowed at all by TOSU/UM game.

 

PSU fans will have to weigh in if I'm completely off base about my impressions.

[PSU1995]

I *think* I'd be OK with PSU-Nebraska each year as the last game of the regular season. Frankly, I never really thought the PSU-MSU match-up was that exciting. I have nothing against MSU, but it never really felt like a great way to end the season. With PSU-Nebraska, you probably have a large contingent of alums my age and older that will recall 1994 and favor the match-up.

 

How do you address PSU v OSU/UM? I think if you can create a rotation where PSU plays either OSU or UM each year you still satisfy the desire to pair up with one of these two schools. We'd be playing one of them every year, it just rotates which one.

 

Plus, if PSU is powering through their division and OSU / UM are doing the same...we'd play the other divisional powerhouse during the Championship game anyway. Yeah, there's a chance two teams could play each other more than once but I don't think that's a big deal.

 

PSU-Nebraska to end the season, every season.

PSU v OSU or UM every season, but not both in one season unless the pairing is via the B10 Championship.

 

 

...I think that could work.

[corncraze]

O I want Penn state every year!

[RedDenver]

I have a concern about having divisions: the conference gets split and you end up with comparisons between the North/South or East/West which aren't good for the conference. I'm thinking of both the B12 and the SEC. The media spend an inordinate amount of time analyzing which division with each conference is better which generates a feeling of uneven playing fields. The B12 really suffered under this and greatly detracted from the camaraderie of the conference. B12 South fans would root against the North teams and vice versus. I'd much prefer a system similar to what's in place now in the Big Ten with some protected rivalries and then rotating which of the remaining teams play one another.

[Bradr]

My only concern with this is the 1000+ mile drive/flight for the teams. Every year? Football maybe, but I don't see how this works for all the non-revenue sports.

 

Geographics cannot be underestimated when considering the overall traveling expenses involved here.

[deedsker15]

My only concern with this is the 1000+ mile drive/flight for the teams. Every year? Football maybe, but I don't see how this works for all the non-revenue sports.

 

Geographics cannot be underestimated when considering the overall traveling expenses involved here.

 

i think it works just for football...you don't have to do it the same way with b-ball and the others

[husker98]

As much as i hate the SEC i think we need too take their lead here on how too create the divisions without destroying tradition.

 

I'm betting Delany and the Presidents are trying too figure out a way too divide the conference but protect the traditional rivalries.

 

They don't want what happened too the NU OU rivalry happening too any of their rivalries in a split.

[Saw3131]

Well right now the way it works is that there are 2 "protected" rivalries for each team. They play every year no exceptions. I'll do TOSU since that's what I know. For us we play PSU and UM every year. The UM game ending the season. For the rest of the league, 2 teams drop off the schedule for 2 years and then back on for 6 (I think). We do not play Purdue or MSU this coming season. I am not a scheduling genius so bare with me. I believe provisions were made to teams like Indiana that they would get at least 1 of the 'big 3' every year at home for the big payday (fill the stadium and good TV slot). I could be completely wrong there though. But, as conservative a league as we're viewed as around the country, the Big Ten is actually an innovator. Instant replay, the BTN, etc. Don't be surprised if the league figures out a way to get a CCG without going to divisions (get an exception to the NCAA rule) as it's always been very important to the Big Ten presidents and AD's to play everyone else as much as possible. That's what made the conference strong. Maybe we add another league game and continue the ways it's gone. Another 'protected' rivalry so you have 3 teams you see every year. I don't know and I'm not doing the stuff in my head. You guys that love to figure out scheduling stuff like this amaze me. It frys my brain trying to figure this stuff out. lol

[Saw3131]

I *think* I'd be OK with PSU-Nebraska each year as the last game of the regular season. Frankly, I never really thought the PSU-MSU match-up was that exciting. I have nothing against MSU, but it never really felt like a great way to end the season. With PSU-Nebraska, you probably have a large contingent of alums my age and older that will recall 1994 and favor the match-up.

 

How do you address PSU v OSU/UM? I think if you can create a rotation where PSU plays either OSU or UM each year you still satisfy the desire to pair up with one of these two schools. We'd be playing one of them every year, it just rotates which one.

 

Plus, if PSU is powering through their division and OSU / UM are doing the same...we'd play the other divisional powerhouse during the Championship game anyway. Yeah, there's a chance two teams could play each other more than once but I don't think that's a big deal.

 

PSU-Nebraska to end the season, every season.

PSU v OSU or UM every season, but not both in one season unless the pairing is via the B10 Championship.

 

 

...I think that could work.

 

Yeah the PSU/MSU game always seemed manufactured to me. Kind of a letdown game considering neither team really focused on the other as their big 'rival'. PSU/OSU has turned into a great rivalry, but it's never going to be the season ending climax game because of OSU/UM. PSU/Nebraska, on the other hand, is "must watch" TV even if both teams are having a down year, let alone that most years, it'll be an incredibly important game.

[clone]

I *think* I'd be OK with PSU-Nebraska each year as the last game of the regular season. Frankly, I never really thought the PSU-MSU match-up was that exciting. I have nothing against MSU, but it never really felt like a great way to end the season. With PSU-Nebraska, you probably have a large contingent of alums my age and older that will recall 1994 and favor the match-up.

 

How do you address PSU v OSU/UM? I think if you can create a rotation where PSU plays either OSU or UM each year you still satisfy the desire to pair up with one of these two schools. We'd be playing one of them every year, it just rotates which one.

 

Plus, if PSU is powering through their division and OSU / UM are doing the same...we'd play the other divisional powerhouse during the Championship game anyway. Yeah, there's a chance two teams could play each other more than once but I don't think that's a big deal.

 

PSU-Nebraska to end the season, every season.

PSU v OSU or UM every season, but not both in one season unless the pairing is via the B10 Championship.

 

 

...I think that could work.

 

 

 

I want iowa/PSU every year that will prevent:

 

PSU is powering through their division

 

I like this one -

 

Iowa

PSU

WIS

NEB

ILL

IND

[UGAHusker]

One thing that is important to remember when splitting into divisions (well, I guess to people who are fans of sports other than football) is that the divisions stand for EVERY sport. This is why, amongst other reasons, I think that geography is the only way to go. So lets say you're Penn State and you are the one team from the East with Neb, Wis, Iowa, Ill, and Minn. It's hard enough traveling that far for division football games, but basketball would be a nightmare (home and home with every team in the division). The SEC model for football (geography, 1 protected rivalry from the other division, 2 rotating interdivision opponent) is the ONLY way to go.