Michigan OSU split

[gratefullred]

If Michigan and OSU are talking about a split, I'd bet that is how it will be and Im OK with that. They are the bread winners for the Big 10, and they will make the decisions.

[schuhbdoo]

lot's of big# teams play for a trinket. But this thread is on the mark. An east west geographic split allows Nebraska to punch her own ticket into the title game each year. I can't see the conference allowing that to happen.

 

 

NU will punch it's ticket to the title game in any division unless they put NU and OSU in the same division. Bo Pelini has this team back in the top 10 this pre-season and will always have NU ready to play defense. This is Bo's 3rd year and I don't think Bo fears too many opponents. I doubt NU and OSU land in the same division, so I say going forward NU will be playing in the conference championships going forward. If Bo leaves then I don't think I will feel the same way.

[huKSer]

 

I don't understand why I hear that this split is equal so often. It clearly isn't. You can say that Wisconsin and Iowa are good right now all you want, it doesn't matter. A simple look at the history shows that.

 

AP or Coaches National Titles (since 1945)

Nebraska 5, Minnesota 1, Iowa 0, Wisconsin 0, NW 0, Illinois 0

Ohio St 5, Michigan St 2, Penn St 2, Michigan 2, Indiana 0, Purdue 0

Total 6 vs. 11*

Yes, I count 1997 twice

 

Win % since 1945

Nebraska (.702), Wisconsin (.526), Iowa (.516), Minn (.472), Illinois (.451), NW (.364)

Ohio St (.749), Penn St (.736), Michigan (.717), Michigan St (.569), Purdue (.511), Indiana (.380)

Averages 0.505 vs. 0.610

Difference 0.105

 

Very good research. The problem with all this statistical analysis is . . . why 1945? I understand that it is a good start because it is the beginning of "the modern era". You can get many different results by starting at different years. Why not start with the beginning of two platoon football? Or the easing up on blocking rules? Or the start of the Big Ten conference, or when they dropped Chicago or added PS? The start of the BCS? Remember 1999 was so last millenium.

 

Someone posted previously that going back 10 years (on average) gives some of the best general predictions for the next ten years. Going back beyond that the results become less predictive for the next 10 years.

 

As far as the "good right now, it doesn't matter" Army's record probably compares favorably with the middle of the Big Ten (top if you look at national championships) if you go back to 1940. So they would be a good addition to the Big Ten right now? Being good right now does matter because you don't load your team in a time machine to play the 1950 Minnesota team.

[irafreak]

It will NOT be a east-west split and Wisc and Iowa will be split..Nowhere has anyone said that

Neb. Mich. MSU Wisc and Iowa will all be in the same div..NOT going to happen...It will start

with UM and Neb in one Div..OSU and PSU in another..Wisc and Iowa split between the Two Divs and the

rest of the teams filled in

I was referring to the article at the top. It mentioned that Neb, Mich, MSU, Wisc, Iowa, Minn...

 

And I agree that 1945 is too far back. You can say Iowa and Wisconsin are chumps in the big picture but they're two teams that have been turning out hardnosed football for 10+ years now. Is anyone here going to argue that having Minnesota and Purdue or Indiana and Illinois (northwestern) is the same as playing Iowa and Wisconsin?

[VA Husker Fan]

Or let's look at the geographic split if it was done this year, wrt AP pre-season rankins

 

West: NU #8, Iowa #9, Wisconsin #12

East: OSU #2, PSU #19

 

Nobody else got a vote.

 

The East isn't exactly tipping the scales heavily here.

[HuskerinLibertyMO]

So is it that there is disagreement with the criteria that Delany and the Big Ten have set forth for the divisions or is it that they are just being ignored?

 

It seems it has been pretty clear that the priorities were:

1. Competitive Balance

2. Saving as many rivalries as possible

3. Geography

 

Delany later said they would focus on the past 17 years in determining the competitive balance, yet many are still arguing geography and looking at periods other than 17 years.

 

If tOSU and U of M are considering being in different divisions and giving up their year end game for one in October it would appear that they are very serious in doing what they can about helping achieve competitive balance.

 

People argue geography from the fan's travel perspective, I find it hard to believe that the conference is that concerned with that. As Husker fans we may not like that because we have been used to having schools closer to us than the Big Ten likely will have, but I can't see that being an issue in determining divisional alignment. SHould it be? Sure. Will it be? Very doubtful.

 

If tOSU and U of M are splitting then it is highly likely that NU and PSU will be split and so will Iowa and Wiscy. Those are the most successful programs in the past 17 years and since NU and tOSU have been the two most successful I'd wager that NU will be with U of M than with tOSU and I can't imagine a scenario where Iowa is not in with NU. So that would have NU, UofM and Iowa in the same division and tOSU, PSU and Wiscy in the other.

 

I can't recall exactly how the next 6 broke down, but I doubt MSU and U of M are split. Isn't Wiscy and Minnesota one of the longest standing rivalries? That would make it tough to split them up. The remaining four I'm not sure but I would think NW and Illinois would stay together so Purdue and Indiana could. That one might be more geographical in the final decision thus NW & Illinois with NU, UofM, Iowa, & MSU.

 

Inevitably there will be arguments, but that set up sure seems to do a good job of meeting all their criteria.

[Manhattan]

The East West Split does the best to preserve rivalries:

 

The trifecta Iowa-Wisconsin-Minnesota

Northwestern-Illinois

Future Nebraska Rivalry with Iowa/Wisconsin

 

Purdue-Indiana

M*ch*gan-Michigan State

Ohio State-M*ch*gan

Ohio State-Penn State

 

I also don't think that a historical look at national championships (6 v. 11) means much. As pointed out, Minnesota was a front-runner in the 1940s and early 1950s, but should that count for power now? What about Michigan State in the 50s and 60s? They were one of the best teams in that time period. What about M*ch*gan and Nebraska now? What about Iowa and Wisconsin now? History changes too frequently to base it off of historical success. There are some major players we can easily separate - Nebraska, Ohio State, M*ch*gan, and Penn State is a stretch - but otherwise, things change. If we played the East-West split in 2010, the West division would destroy most of the East division.

[MGoBlue]

While Michigan and osu wont play twice every year, the year it does happen it would cheapen 'The Game'. Nebraska fans should understand this better than most with the way the B12 messed with the OU game.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Or let's look at the geographic split if it was done this year, wrt AP pre-season rankins

 

West: NU #8, Iowa #9, Wisconsin #12

East: OSU #2, PSU #19

 

Nobody else got a vote.

 

The East isn't exactly tipping the scales heavily here.

 

That's true this year. But the perception is that the power of the Big Integer is in the east; the Big2 eOSU and M as parents, with perennial outsider Penn St as the eccentric uncle as #3.

 

Now there is variance on any given year but that is the perception and probably accurate in the long run. No one expects Wisc and Iowa to be good for a long time which means one of the top3 must go West if they want two balanced divisions.

[drewbudd]

I picked 1945 because that was the year that I had records readily available. Yea, I could've picked any date. It could've been all time, it could've just been the past 10 years, but I picked 1945 because it supports the point I am trying to make.

 

History changes too frequently to base it off of historical success.

 

This is what I am trying to address. I gave the example of the formation of the Big 12 divisions, where the North was seen as the power. After all, we had Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas State all in one division. Although Oklahoma and Texas were in the South, they had been down for a few years. The North has obviously dominated during the entire history of the Big 12, winning nearly every Big 12 championship. Right? What?! They haven't??? What happened? Oh, Oklahoma and Texas are good again. Which is why history is important. Kansas State and Colorado are not historical powers. Then went down and never came back. Does anyone here expect to see KSt or Colorado competing for a National Championship anytime soon? Maybe in the next 10 years? 20 Years? I don't see it. They might have a nice 3 or 4 year stretch somewhere in there, but nothing more. Things change quickly in football, which is exactly why you have to base things like this on HISTORICAL success. Historical Powers have been good teams more than once or twice in their history, so chances are they will be good again. Do people expect Michigan to be good again or has everyone given up? Did everyone give up on Nebraska and forget about us for the past 9 years?

 

Or let's look at the geographic split if it was done this year, wrt AP pre-season rankins

 

West: NU #8, Iowa #9, Wisconsin #12

East: OSU #2, PSU #19

 

Nobody else got a vote.

 

The East isn't exactly tipping the scales heavily here.

 

That's true this year. But the perception is that the power of the Big Integer is in the east; the Big2 eOSU and M as parents, with perennial outsider Penn St as the eccentric uncle as #3.

 

Now there is variance on any given year but that is the perception and probably accurate in the long run. No one expects Wisc and Iowa to be good for a long time which means one of the top3 must go West if they want two balanced divisions.

 

Exactly! Sure, Wisconsin and Iowa are great this year. They will probably be good for the net few years. But, will they both be this good (or better) in 10 years? If they have 5 down years, will you expect them to come back strong and be a dominant team for 10 years?

[BigRedPowerWagon]

You also have the chance to alter your history. Its never to late to start dominating. Lets say iowa keeps this thing rolling. They start averaging 9 - 10 win seasons and make bcs bowls 8 out of 10 years. Wouldnt you call that successful. Then they wouldnt be a lower tier team anymore because they would be getting top 150 recruts every year. What im saying is that if you can somehow keep the machine rolling you can take any problem and turn it around.

[irafreak]

I picked 1945 because that was the year that I had records readily available. Yea, I could've picked any date. It could've been all time, it could've just been the past 10 years, but I picked 1945 because it supports the point I am trying to make.

 

History changes too frequently to base it off of historical success.

 

This is what I am trying to address. I gave the example of the formation of the Big 12 divisions, where the North was seen as the power. After all, we had Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas State all in one division. Although Oklahoma and Texas were in the South, they had been down for a few years. The North has obviously dominated during the entire history of the Big 12, winning nearly every Big 12 championship. Right? What?! They haven't??? What happened? Oh, Oklahoma and Texas are good again. Which is why history is important. Kansas State and Colorado are not historical powers. Then went down and never came back. Does anyone here expect to see KSt or Colorado competing for a National Championship anytime soon? Maybe in the next 10 years? 20 Years? I don't see it. They might have a nice 3 or 4 year stretch somewhere in there, but nothing more. Things change quickly in football, which is exactly why you have to base things like this on HISTORICAL success. Historical Powers have been good teams more than once or twice in their history, so chances are they will be good again. Do people expect Michigan to be good again or has everyone given up? Did everyone give up on Nebraska and forget about us for the past 9 years?

 

Or let's look at the geographic split if it was done this year, wrt AP pre-season rankins

 

West: NU #8, Iowa #9, Wisconsin #12

East: OSU #2, PSU #19

 

Nobody else got a vote.

 

The East isn't exactly tipping the scales heavily here.

 

That's true this year. But the perception is that the power of the Big Integer is in the east; the Big2 eOSU and M as parents, with perennial outsider Penn St as the eccentric uncle as #3.

 

Now there is variance on any given year but that is the perception and probably accurate in the long run. No one expects Wisc and Iowa to be good for a long time which means one of the top3 must go West if they want two balanced divisions.

 

Exactly! Sure, Wisconsin and Iowa are great this year. They will probably be good for the net few years. But, will they both be this good (or better) in 10 years? If they have 5 down years, will you expect them to come back strong and be a dominant team for 10 years?

I see your point. It's a good one. No one could predict Nebraska hiring a madman at AD. I guess they could re-evaluate every so many years. It's just too bad that you have to have two 6 team divisions. I would still like to see the top 2 teams play for the CCG.

[redblooded]

Gut feeling: splitting OSU/Michigan into separate divisions is a bad idea.

 

I don't really know what they'd be going for there, but if its to get them a chance to play it twice... Things like that just have a way of not working out like you wish.

[RedDenver]

While Michigan and osu wont play twice every year, the year it does happen it would cheapen 'The Game'. Nebraska fans should understand this better than most with the way the B12 messed with the OU game.

Ding ding ding!!! This whole discussion of splitting OSU-UM reminds me almost exactly of the same discussions about OU-NU when the B12 was formed. If winning the regular season game doesn't really mean much (split divisions means it's just another W or L in the conference), then the importance of the game is dramatically reduced. The OU-UT game retains much of it's meaning and importance because it often determines who wins the B12 south.

[huKSer]

Here's a link to the Cleveland paper arguing against splitting M and OS. article

 

This is the theoretical analysis

GUESSING AT THE BIG DIVIDE

Here’s one example of how Big Ten divisions could be determined if Ohio State and Michigan are on opposite sides. Penn State and Nebraska, as other members of the best four teams since 1993, would likely be split as well, with Wisconsin and Iowa separated as the fifth and sixth teams in that time period.

 

Hayes Division: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana

Schembechler Division: Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Illinois

 

THE WHAT-IF CHAMPS

Given the breakdown above, here’s what Big Ten Championship games would have been if Nebraska had joined the conference and the title game created in 1993:

1993: Ohio State/Wisconsin vs. Nebraska

1994: Penn State vs. Nebraska

1995: Ohio State vs. Northwestern/Nebraska

1996: Ohio State vs. Northwestern/Nebraska

1997: Penn State vs. Michigan/Nebraska

1998: Ohio State/Wisconsin vs. Michigan

1999: Wisconsin vs. Michigan State

2000: Purdue vs. Northwestern/Nebraska

2001: Ohio State vs. Illinois/Nebraska

2002: Ohio State vs. Iowa

2003: Ohio State vs. Michigan

2004: Wisconsin vs. Michigan

2005: Penn State vs. Michigan

2006: Ohio State vs. Michigan

2007: Ohio State vs. Michigan

2008: Penn State vs. Michigan State

2009: Ohio State vs. Iowa

 

OSU-Michigan title matchups: 2007, 2006, 2003, 1998 (maybe)

 

Potential title game appearances: Ohio State 10, Michigan 7, Nebraska 7, Penn State 4, Wisconsin 4, Northwestern 3, Iowa 2, Michigan State 2, Purdue 1, Illinois 1