Legends and Leaders, Chapter 1: Geographically challenged

[n.e.husker]

CHICAGO — The Big 12 split North-South. The Southeastern Conference divided East-West. The Atlantic Coast Conference gerrymandered its divisions into a maze few people today outside of Tobacco Road can name with authority.

 

At a defining moment in the history of the nation’s oldest athletics conference, Big Ten Conference officials and the schools’ athletics directors last summer had options for slicing its 12-team football league into two parts.

 

Most college athletics conferences divided based on geography, and that legacy nationwide remains ambiguous. It works in the SEC where five different schools almost evenly distributed in the two divisions have won BCS football titles since 1998. It failed in the Big 12, where the southern schools — specifically Texas — commanded more power than its northern counterparts.

 

“We actually had models of other conferences we didn’t feel had done as good of job, and we were able to see the consequences there were as a result of that,” Michigan Athletics Director David Brandon said.

 

Big Ten officials studied how other leagues divided themselves and saw how geography often deterred competitive balance. It also spurred discontent among membership. Carving the league in half at the Illinois-Indiana border was the simple solution with six teams in the Eastern time zone, six teams in the Central time zone.

 

http://thegazette.com/2011/07/19/legends-and-leaders-chapter-1-geographically-challenged/

[VA Husker Fan]

At the start of the Big 12, the power was in the north, with Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas State, and even Kansas. It didn't take long to shift, but nobody can claim the power was in the south from 96-98.

[kchusker_chris]

just like no one can claim Ohio State dominated Michigan through the 90's. these things shift. trying to give competitive balance to a sport that is (of late) fairly roller-coaster is difficult. The main thing they did is ensure the perennial doormats don't have to play too many of this historically dominant programs. Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nebraska...a couple of those 5 will be down every year - but the majority of the time they will in the top half. Minnesota, Purdue, Indianna, Northwestern...probably always be in the bottom half with a brief run (Kansas 2007) every once in a while. Iowa, Michigan St, Illinois...somewhere in the middle.

 

There should be a bit more parity in the Big10 though w/ the revenue splits. There are less variables to the sucess of one team over another. Texas/OU however were and are extending the gap between them and the rest of the conference. What was $20 million a year is now 50. 10 years from now Texas could have $150 million in revenues more than K-State and KU. That's a big gap. I wouldn't expect OU/Texas to ever be outside of the top half going foward for this very reason.

[Landlord]

At the start of the Big 12, the power was in the north, with Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas State, and even Kansas. It didn't take long to shift, but nobody can claim the power was in the south from 96-98.

 

 

This "Big XII North sucks" thing didn't start until around 2003/2004 or so. We weren't yet mediocre, Kansas State was still playing strong, Missouri was gaining, Colorado was finally dying down, and Iowa State had a few decent years around the top 25.

[n.e.husker]

Legends and Leaders, Chapter 2: Balance of Power

 

CHICAGO — When Big Ten officials discarded geography as the basis for football realignment, competitive equality quickly became the primary tenet.

 

League officials brought volumes of comparable statistics on the 12 football members for viewing as the realignment deliberations began. Big Ten officials Mark Rudner and Mike McComiskey spent 30 to 45 days before the meetings analyzing and compiling data to guide the decision-making process. Among the criteria included BCS bowls and appearances, BCS rankings, conference titles, conference and non-conference winning percentages against bowl subdivision opponents, Sagarin rankings, bowl appearances and bowl victories.

 

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany established 1993 as the analysis start date. Penn State joined the league that year, the initial Bowl Coalition — the forerunner of the BCS — was formed one year earlier and scholarships had dropped from 95 to 85 by 1994.

 

http://thegazette.com/2011/07/20/legends-and-leaders-chapter-2-balance-of-power/

[bshirt]

At the start of the Big 12, the power was in the north, with Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas State, and even Kansas. It didn't take long to shift, but nobody can claim the power was in the south from 96-98.

 

 

This "Big XII North sucks" thing didn't start until around 2003/2004 or so. We weren't yet mediocre, Kansas State was still playing strong, Missouri was gaining, Colorado was finally dying down, and Iowa State had a few decent years around the top 25.

 

That's right.

 

KSU was playing their best cfb "ever", Colorado was ending a strong run & Missou was coming on strong. If NU didn't go into the toilet with Clownahan the North/South would have been close to even for the first decade.

[deedsker]

Reasons the North Sucks isn't true:

 

KSU: Micheal Bishop (97-98); Ell Roberson and Darren Sproles (03-04)

CU: Chris Brown and Daniel Graham (01)

KU: Reesing and Co. (07) National title contender? Not really, but very good.

ISU: Seneca Wallace (01-02) Remember them in the top 10 at one point? Troy Davis got 2nd in the heisman in 96.

MU: Brad Smith (even though his teams sucked); Chase Daniel and a whole lot of receivers that rocked (07-08); Gabbert and more receivers (10)

NU: (97-01)

 

The North held a lot in the beginning. Don't forget the North has had all 6 teams show something special at a given time.

[General Blackshirt]

Reasons the North Sucks is true:

 

2010: South

2009: South

2008: South

2007: South

2006: South

2005: South

2004: South

2003: North

2002: South

2001: North

2000: South

 

Since 2000, the South is 9-2. Before that really isn't that bad either, they're 2-2. The North sucked. That's just how it is.

[HuskerTrucker]

At the start of the Big 12, the power was in the north, with Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas State, and even Kansas. It didn't take long to shift, but nobody can claim the power was in the south from 96-98.

 

 

This "Big XII North sucks" thing didn't start until around 2003/2004 or so. We weren't yet mediocre, Kansas State was still playing strong, Missouri was gaining, Colorado was finally dying down, and Iowa State had a few decent years around the top 25.

 

uh....and....this wouldn't have anything at all to do with the fact that Callahan was here? Nebraska carried the North up to that point for the most part. Then after Callhan was gone, we went into recovery mode....

 

Callahan changed the traditional attitude that Nebraska fans had of "if we lose a game the season is over" to "well, at least we had a winning record", and we may never go back to that attitude that we expect to win every game thanks to him IMHO.