New Divisions: ESPN We are in the West of course.

[Notre Dame Joe]

I would still consider us a power football team.

I think so too. I mean, are we really that bad that a team that should've been playing for the National title had to play 4 quarters to beat us? Sure we have bad games, and we have great games too. But we're not exactly Iowa St or Kansas as some claim us to be.

 

It's the perception of the B1g, combined with the perception that now you play in the lower half of the conference. I think this will hinder NU's east coast recruiting.

[Wisconsin33]

As a Wisconsin fan, I have a couple of thoughts on the new divisions :

 

1. I can't believe how quick people have been to discredit Iowa as if it is some kind of bottom feeder school to be thrown in with the likes of Purdue, Minnesota and Illinois. One poor season and some how their program is completely discredited and taken out of the conversation for competing for Big Ten Titles? Give me a break! That is just bad analysis. If you think Iowa will just "go away" (we could all only be so lucky) you're crazy. It's a strong program and Kirk Ferenz is obviously a good coach.

 

2. Too much is being made of the "Big 4 Helmet Schools" and how that will impact competition in the league. Another example of lazy analysis. How about looking at some real numbers as they pertain to how competition in this league goes. Here's a few that might make you think twice: Wisconsin has 4 more wins than Michigan over the last 20 years. Purdue has about an even series with Ohio State in the last 5 years. Northwestern won 10 games last year including a bowl game. Illinois has been to the Rose Bowl more recently than Michigan. Iowa has won 8 of the last 11 vs. Penn State. 3/4 teams in the Big Ten Championship Game have come from the West the other was Michigan State. Nebraska is the only "helmet school" to make it to the Indy so far. Wisconsin has won the last 3 league titles in a row. The last 2 outright. Wisconsin has won 4 of the last 6 meetings against Michigan. Penn State has won the Big Ten once in it's entire tenure here. Michigan has won it 5 total times since then and Wisconsin has won it 6 times.

 

3. Perhaps I am biased, but I also have trouble with this prognosis that Wisconsin is for some reason "trending down" like almost everyone seems to be saying. HOW? Because we're not a historical helmet school who won AP voter-boner National Championshps? Because we have a new coaching staff? Did I miss something that said winning 3 consecutive conference titles is no longer considered a positive trend? Are signing our highest rated recruting class ever this Winter and securing 4 Four Star recruits from our State after our Head Coach left this Spring not positive trends? Does being the only B1G school to have a 1st Round NFL Draft pick not count as a good thing anymore? Does consistantly selling out your 80,000 seat stadium finishing brand-new renovations to your football facilites set to open in 2013 and 2014 mean your program is trending down?

 

No. The truth is, we've been hearing this garbabe from Michigan and Ohio State for the last 20 years. "Wisconsin had it's moment, now the Badgers are naturally going to "trend down" because the traditional powers are surely going to rise back to their rightful places."

 

Heard it in 1994 after winning our first Rose Bowl in 40 years.

Heard it in 1998 after winning the conference and a 2nd Rose Bowl.

Heard it in 1999 after winning the conferende and a 3rd Rose Bowl.

Heard it in 2000 when Ron Dayne left.

Heard it in 2002 when we missed a bowl game.

Heard it in 2005 when Calhoun and Evans left.

Heard it in 2006 when Barry Alvarez retired from coaching

Heard it in 2008 when we had a 7-6 season.

Heard it in 2009 when PJ Hill left.

Heard it in 2010 when John Clay left.

Heard it in 2011 when Paul Chryst and JJ Watt left.

Hearing it once again with Bielema and Ball leaving.

 

It's been 20 years for god sakes. Why is this time special for correctly predicting yet another inevitable Wisconsin downward trend?

[Count 'Bility]

As a Wisconsin fan, I have a couple of thoughts on the new divisions :

 

1. I can't believe how quick people have been to discredit Iowa as if it is some kind of bottom feeder school to be thrown in with the likes of Purdue, Minnesota and Illinois. One poor season and some how their program is completely discredited and taken out of the conversation for competing for Big Ten Titles? Give me a break! That is just bad analysis. If you think Iowa will just "go away" (we could all only be so lucky) you're crazy. It's a strong program and Kirk Ferenz is obviously a good coach.

 

2. Too much is being made of the "Big 4 Helmet Schools" and how that will impact competition in the league. Another example of lazy analysis. How about looking at some real numbers as they pertain to how competition in this league goes. Here's a few that might make you think twice: Wisconsin has 4 more wins than Michigan over the last 20 years. Purdue has about an even series with Ohio State in the last 5 years. Northwestern won 10 games last year including a bowl game. Illinois has been to the Rose Bowl more recently than Michigan. Iowa has won 8 of the last 11 vs. Penn State. 3/4 teams in the Big Ten Championship Game have come from the West the other was Michigan State. Nebraska is the only "helmet school" to make it to the Indy so far. Wisconsin has won the last 3 league titles in a row. The last 2 outright. Wisconsin has won 4 of the last 6 meetings against Michigan. Penn State has won the Big Ten once in it's entire tenure here. Michigan has won it 5 total times since then and Wisconsin has won it 6 times.

 

3. Perhaps I am biased, but I also have trouble with this prognosis that Wisconsin is for some reason "trending down" like almost everyone seems to be saying. HOW? Because we're not a historical helmet school who won AP voter-boner National Championshps? Because we have a new coaching staff? Did I miss something that said winning 3 consecutive conference titles is no longer considered a positive trend? Are signing our highest rated recruting class ever this Winter and securing 4 Four Star recruits from our State after our Head Coach left this Spring not positive trends? Does being the only B1G school to have a 1st Round NFL Draft pick not count as a good thing anymore? Does consistantly selling out your 80,000 seat stadium finishing brand-new renovations to your football facilites set to open in 2013 and 2014 mean your program is trending down?

 

No. The truth is, we've been hearing this garbabe from Michigan and Ohio State for the last 20 years. "Wisconsin had it's moment, now the Badgers are naturally going to "trend down" because the traditional powers are surely going to rise back to their rightful places."

 

Heard it in 1994 after winning our first Rose Bowl in 40 years.

Heard it in 1998 after winning the conference and a 2nd Rose Bowl.

Heard it in 1999 after winning the conferende and a 3rd Rose Bowl.

Heard it in 2000 when Ron Dayne left.

Heard it in 2002 when we missed a bowl game.

Heard it in 2005 when Calhoun and Evans left.

Heard it in 2006 when Barry Alvarez retired from coaching

Heard it in 2008 when we had a 7-6 season.

Heard it in 2009 when PJ Hill left.

Heard it in 2010 when John Clay left.

Heard it in 2011 when Paul Chryst and JJ Watt left.

Hearing it once again with Bielema and Ball leaving.

 

It's been 20 years for god sakes. Why is this time special for correctly predicting yet another inevitable Wisconsin downward trend?

Nice take.

 

They're Iowa (shivers. gags).

[SWBadger]

First post. Badger fan. I joined because of this thread. I just wanted to tell you how delusional Husker fans are if they think they are in any position to look down on Wisconsin in the new order of things.

 

About the time I decided to do this, the thread got more realistic. Yes, by golly, there are plenty of Husker fans out there who understand reality...

 

As to the new alignment, I would argue that it is as balanced as something like this can be. Yes, the East is probably a bit stronger, but not enough to justify all the handwringing.

 

Here is the way I look at it:

 

What counts, to a conference, first and foremost, is... conference championships. Here is the data on championships/co-championships since Penn State joined the league:

 

OSU: 9

Wisconsin: 6

Michigan: 5

Northwestern: 3

Iowa: 2

Michigan State: 1

Purdue: 1

Illinois: 1

Penn State: 1

 

OSU is clearly the power of the conference. We cannot say that they are ascendant, because they were never that far down. Wherever they go the greatest power resides. After that it is close. Add Nebraska to the mix above, and the West should be represented well in the statistic that matters most, conference championships.

 

People seriously underestimate Northwestern. Pat Fitzgerald appears to be there for the long term, and as long as he is there Northwestern will be an important factor in the conference.

 

Wisconsin is ascendant. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to be surprised. Anybody who thinks that Nebraska is the class of the West has a very short memory, indeed. Our coaching change will result in a better program, not a decline, and it will be apparent right away. Watch and see.

 

Michigan is ascendent. But it isn't proven that they will be all the way back to where they were. Time will tell.

 

Penn State has not been as successful as their image. Penn State hasn't really mattered all that much ever since it joined the conference. One conference championship in 20 years, all but one of those years under Paterno, hardly qualifies as a conference power. Now they have real problems with image and scholarship limits. I see no evidence that they will contribute to an East-West imbalance.

 

The wild card in all of this is... Nebraska. If you guys will please get it together the West will be just fine. More than any other school, the balance of the conference is up to you. *You* are the question mark. Not Wisconsin. Not even Michigan, really. If you elevate just a bit, the West will be fine.

 

So quit crying about being in an inferior division, do your part, get your act together, be the OSU of the West, get back to excellence. You are pretty close.

 

I wish you great success. I look forward to a long and competitive series.

 

[StPaulHusker]

First post. Badger fan. I joined because of this thread. I just wanted to tell you how delusional Husker fans are if they think they are in any position to look down on Wisconsin in the new order of things.

 

About the time I decided to do this, the thread got more realistic. Yes, by golly, there are plenty of Husker fans out there who understand reality...

 

As to the new alignment, I would argue that it is as balanced as something like this can be. Yes, the East is probably a bit stronger, but not enough to justify all the handwringing.

 

Here is the way I look at it:

 

What counts, to a conference, first and foremost, is... conference championships. Here is the data on championships/co-championships since Penn State joined the league:

 

OSU: 9

Wisconsin: 6

Michigan: 5

Northwestern: 3

Iowa: 2

Michigan State: 1

Purdue: 1

Illinois: 1

Penn State: 1

 

OSU is clearly the power of the conference. We cannot say that they are ascendant, because they were never that far down. Wherever they go the greatest power resides. After that it is close. Add Nebraska to the mix above, and the West should be represented well in the statistic that matters most, conference championships.

 

People seriously underestimate Northwestern. Pat Fitzgerald appears to be there for the long term, and as long as he is there Northwestern will be an important factor in the conference.

 

Wisconsin is ascendant. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to be surprised. Anybody who thinks that Nebraska is the class of the West has a very short memory, indeed. Our coaching change will result in a better program, not a decline, and it will be apparent right away. Watch and see.

 

Michigan is ascendent. But it isn't proven that they will be all the way back to where they were. Time will tell.

 

Penn State has not been as successful as their image. Penn State hasn't really mattered all that much ever since it joined the conference. One conference championship in 20 years, all but one of those years under Paterno, hardly qualifies as a conference power. Now they have real problems with image and scholarship limits. I see no evidence that they will contribute to an East-West imbalance.

 

The wild card in all of this is... Nebraska. If you guys will please get it together the West will be just fine. More than any other school, the balance of the conference is up to you. *You* are the question mark. Not Wisconsin. Not even Michigan, really. If you elevate just a bit, the West will be fine.

 

So quit crying about being in an inferior division, do your part, get your act together, be the OSU of the West, get back to excellence. You are pretty close.

 

I wish you great success. I look forward to a long and competitive series.

I think you make some good points. I think you have to look at it from a Husker perspective. We were in a conference with divisions. At the start, it seemed fairly equal. But as time went on, you could see that Oklahoma and Texas were making the South Division stronger and getting a lot more of the top recruits. Pretty soon all of the other southern schools started looking up as well. In the end, it was made into a divisional rivalry and things got disproportional.

 

Husker fans see similarities in the East-West. You have basically 3 big time schools on the East and will use that as a recruiting advantage on kids on the East Coast. Where the West division is really the Mid-West with no real prime recruiting grounds except maybe Chicago. Which I know is a good area.

 

With having Michigan and Michigan State in the same division as Nebraska along with the protected crossover game with PSU, it allowed us to recruit better on the East because kids knew they would head back that direction to have family see them a few times per year.

 

I think Husker fans see what some B1G fans don't see because they have not been in this situation before.

[WoodyHayes1951]

The thing is the B1G East doesn't have an effective monopoly with 4 schools in the same state with the same political goals.

[StPaulHusker]

The thing is the B1G East doesn't have an effective monopoly with 4 schools in the same state with the same political goals.

I wouldn't go so far to suggest that they would conspire against the West division. But the recruiting pitch would be the same words coming out of every coaches mouth when they talked to a player. Stay in the East.

[Joe_5700]

First post. Badger fan. I joined because of this thread. I just wanted to tell you how delusional Husker fans are if they think they are in any position to look down on Wisconsin in the new order of things.

 

About the time I decided to do this, the thread got more realistic. Yes, by golly, there are plenty of Husker fans out there who understand reality...

 

As to the new alignment, I would argue that it is as balanced as something like this can be. Yes, the East is probably a bit stronger, but not enough to justify all the handwringing.

 

Here is the way I look at it:

 

What counts, to a conference, first and foremost, is... conference championships. Here is the data on championships/co-championships since Penn State joined the league:

 

OSU: 9

Wisconsin: 6

Michigan: 5

Northwestern: 3

Iowa: 2

Michigan State: 1

Purdue: 1

Illinois: 1

Penn State: 1

 

OSU is clearly the power of the conference. We cannot say that they are ascendant, because they were never that far down. Wherever they go the greatest power resides. After that it is close. Add Nebraska to the mix above, and the West should be represented well in the statistic that matters most, conference championships.

 

People seriously underestimate Northwestern. Pat Fitzgerald appears to be there for the long term, and as long as he is there Northwestern will be an important factor in the conference.

 

Wisconsin is ascendant. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to be surprised. Anybody who thinks that Nebraska is the class of the West has a very short memory, indeed. Our coaching change will result in a better program, not a decline, and it will be apparent right away. Watch and see.

 

Michigan is ascendent. But it isn't proven that they will be all the way back to where they were. Time will tell.

 

Penn State has not been as successful as their image. Penn State hasn't really mattered all that much ever since it joined the conference. One conference championship in 20 years, all but one of those years under Paterno, hardly qualifies as a conference power. Now they have real problems with image and scholarship limits. I see no evidence that they will contribute to an East-West imbalance.

 

The wild card in all of this is... Nebraska. If you guys will please get it together the West will be just fine. More than any other school, the balance of the conference is up to you. *You* are the question mark. Not Wisconsin. Not even Michigan, really. If you elevate just a bit, the West will be fine.

 

So quit crying about being in an inferior division, do your part, get your act together, be the OSU of the West, get back to excellence. You are pretty close.

 

I wish you great success. I look forward to a long and competitive series.

 

I only read the first line in your post. Nobody on here (with a brain) who watched the last 3 meetings between NU UW thinks that. We can look back at our past success all we want, but we all know we have much to prove to be on equal footing on the playing field with UW present day.

[Notre Dame Joe]

The Badgers are getting restless.

[StPaulHusker]

First post. Badger fan. I joined because of this thread. I just wanted to tell you how delusional Husker fans are if they think they are in any position to look down on Wisconsin in the new order of things.

 

About the time I decided to do this, the thread got more realistic. Yes, by golly, there are plenty of Husker fans out there who understand reality...

 

As to the new alignment, I would argue that it is as balanced as something like this can be. Yes, the East is probably a bit stronger, but not enough to justify all the handwringing.

 

Here is the way I look at it:

 

What counts, to a conference, first and foremost, is... conference championships. Here is the data on championships/co-championships since Penn State joined the league:

 

OSU: 9

Wisconsin: 6

Michigan: 5

Northwestern: 3

Iowa: 2

Michigan State: 1

Purdue: 1

Illinois: 1

Penn State: 1

 

OSU is clearly the power of the conference. We cannot say that they are ascendant, because they were never that far down. Wherever they go the greatest power resides. After that it is close. Add Nebraska to the mix above, and the West should be represented well in the statistic that matters most, conference championships.

 

People seriously underestimate Northwestern. Pat Fitzgerald appears to be there for the long term, and as long as he is there Northwestern will be an important factor in the conference.

 

Wisconsin is ascendant. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to be surprised. Anybody who thinks that Nebraska is the class of the West has a very short memory, indeed. Our coaching change will result in a better program, not a decline, and it will be apparent right away. Watch and see.

 

Michigan is ascendent. But it isn't proven that they will be all the way back to where they were. Time will tell.

 

Penn State has not been as successful as their image. Penn State hasn't really mattered all that much ever since it joined the conference. One conference championship in 20 years, all but one of those years under Paterno, hardly qualifies as a conference power. Now they have real problems with image and scholarship limits. I see no evidence that they will contribute to an East-West imbalance.

 

The wild card in all of this is... Nebraska. If you guys will please get it together the West will be just fine. More than any other school, the balance of the conference is up to you. *You* are the question mark. Not Wisconsin. Not even Michigan, really. If you elevate just a bit, the West will be fine.

 

So quit crying about being in an inferior division, do your part, get your act together, be the OSU of the West, get back to excellence. You are pretty close.

 

I wish you great success. I look forward to a long and competitive series.

 

I only read the first line in your post. Nobody on here (with a brain) who watched the last 3 meetings between NU UW thinks that. We can look back at our past success all we want, but we all know we have much to prove to be on equal footing on the playing field with UW present day.

I do think we know we are delusional because we won a contest a few weeks ago, didn't we?

[SWBadger]

First post. Badger fan. I joined because of this thread. I just wanted to tell you how delusional Husker fans are if they think they are in any position to look down on Wisconsin in the new order of things.

 

About the time I decided to do this, the thread got more realistic. Yes, by golly, there are plenty of Husker fans out there who understand reality...

 

As to the new alignment, I would argue that it is as balanced as something like this can be. Yes, the East is probably a bit stronger, but not enough to justify all the handwringing.

 

Here is the way I look at it:

 

What counts, to a conference, first and foremost, is... conference championships. Here is the data on championships/co-championships since Penn State joined the league:

 

OSU: 9

Wisconsin: 6

Michigan: 5

Northwestern: 3

Iowa: 2

Michigan State: 1

Purdue: 1

Illinois: 1

Penn State: 1

 

OSU is clearly the power of the conference. We cannot say that they are ascendant, because they were never that far down. Wherever they go the greatest power resides. After that it is close. Add Nebraska to the mix above, and the West should be represented well in the statistic that matters most, conference championships.

 

People seriously underestimate Northwestern. Pat Fitzgerald appears to be there for the long term, and as long as he is there Northwestern will be an important factor in the conference.

 

Wisconsin is ascendant. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to be surprised. Anybody who thinks that Nebraska is the class of the West has a very short memory, indeed. Our coaching change will result in a better program, not a decline, and it will be apparent right away. Watch and see.

 

Michigan is ascendent. But it isn't proven that they will be all the way back to where they were. Time will tell.

 

Penn State has not been as successful as their image. Penn State hasn't really mattered all that much ever since it joined the conference. One conference championship in 20 years, all but one of those years under Paterno, hardly qualifies as a conference power. Now they have real problems with image and scholarship limits. I see no evidence that they will contribute to an East-West imbalance.

 

The wild card in all of this is... Nebraska. If you guys will please get it together the West will be just fine. More than any other school, the balance of the conference is up to you. *You* are the question mark. Not Wisconsin. Not even Michigan, really. If you elevate just a bit, the West will be fine.

 

So quit crying about being in an inferior division, do your part, get your act together, be the OSU of the West, get back to excellence. You are pretty close.

 

I wish you great success. I look forward to a long and competitive series.

I think you make some good points. I think you have to look at it from a Husker perspective. We were in a conference with divisions. At the start, it seemed fairly equal. But as time went on, you could see that Oklahoma and Texas were making the South Division stronger and getting a lot more of the top recruits. Pretty soon all of the other southern schools started looking up as well. In the end, it was made into a divisional rivalry and things got disproportional.

 

Husker fans see similarities in the East-West. You have basically 3 big time schools on the East and will use that as a recruiting advantage on kids on the East Coast. Where the West division is really the Mid-West with no real prime recruiting grounds except maybe Chicago. Which I know is a good area.

 

With having Michigan and Michigan State in the same division as Nebraska along with the protected crossover game with PSU, it allowed us to recruit better on the East because kids knew they would head back that direction to have family see them a few times per year.

 

I think Husker fans see what some B1G fans don't see because they have not been in this situation before.

 

 

 

The effect of the division alignment on Eastern recruiting is a topic of discussion in Badgerland, too. I am a numbers person. I look at data. In the end, I don't think I accept the argument that Eastern recruiting will be hurt due to the division setup.

 

Ohio is the most fertile recruiting ground in the Big 10. Wisconsin was in the same division as OSU. Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, all members of the Leaders, had more Ohio recruits this year than Wisconsin. Wisconsin has played OSU almost continuously for over a decade. We have only minor Ohio presence to show for it. Ditto Pennsylvania, and we have played Penn State most years, too, and were in the same division as them. Ditto for New Jersey. So, I would like to see an argument - made on the basis of data - that demonstrates that such a claim is true. I will argue that what matters to recruiting (assuming great athletic facilities for all) is winning, winning, winning, coaching ties to recruits, and geographical proximity to good recruits.

 

Yes, I don't understand the problems with the Big 12 North. But I drive through Texas, and I see huge cities, $60M high school football stadiums, and the like. I go via Norman, OK, and note that it is pretty close to big D (just like Ann Arbor is in the halo of Ohio high school football). My conclusion is that Texas and Oklahoma will always get top recruits, not by virtue of what division they are in, but by virtue of what I claim is important.

 

I drive through Nebraska 4X/year, minimum. I don't see many people. I don't see a lot of large population centers in nearby surrounding states. I don't see $60M high school football stadiums. The only thing I see in Nebraska is enormous passion for Cornhusker football. By an accident of birth, Nebraska is going to be out at the end of any physical chain of humanity in any conference it is in, Big 10, Big 12 or otherwise. This makes it harder, no matter which division. Seems to me that the answer for schools like ours, Wisconsin or Nebraska, has to be to throw a net over all the local talent, then recruit nationally wherever one can find them. We simply do not have the fortunate situations of OSU/Michigan and Texas/OU.

 

Perhaps the situations with other Big 12 schools that have led to an imbalance are school-specific, as opposed to being due to division alignment? Oklahoma State had a Phil Knight'ish experience, K-State's fortunes went up and down not with division alignment but rather with Bill Snyder, etc. Colorado, ugh. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Parity scheduling also plays into this, if you really believe that division alignment is important to your success. Stay good, and you get continued exposure to the top teams in the East.

 

All I know is, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, grin. Nebraska was a great get for the Big 10. I will be shocked if there isn't mutual success for both Nebraska and the conference, and if the Big 10 West doesn't acquit itself well in years to come.

`

[StPaulHusker]

First post. Badger fan. I joined because of this thread. I just wanted to tell you how delusional Husker fans are if they think they are in any position to look down on Wisconsin in the new order of things.

 

About the time I decided to do this, the thread got more realistic. Yes, by golly, there are plenty of Husker fans out there who understand reality...

 

As to the new alignment, I would argue that it is as balanced as something like this can be. Yes, the East is probably a bit stronger, but not enough to justify all the handwringing.

 

Here is the way I look at it:

 

What counts, to a conference, first and foremost, is... conference championships. Here is the data on championships/co-championships since Penn State joined the league:

 

OSU: 9

Wisconsin: 6

Michigan: 5

Northwestern: 3

Iowa: 2

Michigan State: 1

Purdue: 1

Illinois: 1

Penn State: 1

 

OSU is clearly the power of the conference. We cannot say that they are ascendant, because they were never that far down. Wherever they go the greatest power resides. After that it is close. Add Nebraska to the mix above, and the West should be represented well in the statistic that matters most, conference championships.

 

People seriously underestimate Northwestern. Pat Fitzgerald appears to be there for the long term, and as long as he is there Northwestern will be an important factor in the conference.

 

Wisconsin is ascendant. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to be surprised. Anybody who thinks that Nebraska is the class of the West has a very short memory, indeed. Our coaching change will result in a better program, not a decline, and it will be apparent right away. Watch and see.

 

Michigan is ascendent. But it isn't proven that they will be all the way back to where they were. Time will tell.

 

Penn State has not been as successful as their image. Penn State hasn't really mattered all that much ever since it joined the conference. One conference championship in 20 years, all but one of those years under Paterno, hardly qualifies as a conference power. Now they have real problems with image and scholarship limits. I see no evidence that they will contribute to an East-West imbalance.

 

The wild card in all of this is... Nebraska. If you guys will please get it together the West will be just fine. More than any other school, the balance of the conference is up to you. *You* are the question mark. Not Wisconsin. Not even Michigan, really. If you elevate just a bit, the West will be fine.

 

So quit crying about being in an inferior division, do your part, get your act together, be the OSU of the West, get back to excellence. You are pretty close.

 

I wish you great success. I look forward to a long and competitive series.

I think you make some good points. I think you have to look at it from a Husker perspective. We were in a conference with divisions. At the start, it seemed fairly equal. But as time went on, you could see that Oklahoma and Texas were making the South Division stronger and getting a lot more of the top recruits. Pretty soon all of the other southern schools started looking up as well. In the end, it was made into a divisional rivalry and things got disproportional.

 

Husker fans see similarities in the East-West. You have basically 3 big time schools on the East and will use that as a recruiting advantage on kids on the East Coast. Where the West division is really the Mid-West with no real prime recruiting grounds except maybe Chicago. Which I know is a good area.

 

With having Michigan and Michigan State in the same division as Nebraska along with the protected crossover game with PSU, it allowed us to recruit better on the East because kids knew they would head back that direction to have family see them a few times per year.

 

I think Husker fans see what some B1G fans don't see because they have not been in this situation before.

 

 

 

The effect of the division alignment on Eastern recruiting is a topic of discussion in Badgerland, too. I am a numbers person. I look at data. In the end, I don't think I accept the argument that Eastern recruiting will be hurt due to the division setup.

 

Ohio is the most fertile recruiting ground in the Big 10. Wisconsin was in the same division as OSU. Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, all members of the Leaders, had more Ohio recruits this year than Wisconsin. Wisconsin has played OSU almost continuously for over a decade. We have only minor Ohio presence to show for it. Ditto Pennsylvania, and we have played Penn State most years, too, and were in the same division as them. Ditto for New Jersey. So, I would like to see an argument - made on the basis of data - that demonstrates that such a claim is true. I will argue that what matters to recruiting (assuming great athletic facilities for all) is winning, winning, winning, coaching ties to recruits, and geographical proximity to good recruits.

 

Yes, I don't understand the problems with the Big 12 North. But I drive through Texas, and I see huge cities, $60M high school football stadiums, and the like. I go via Norman, OK, and note that it is pretty close to big D (just like Ann Arbor is in the halo of Ohio high school football). My conclusion is that Texas and Oklahoma will always get top recruits, not by virtue of what division they are in, but by virtue of what I claim is important.

 

I drive through Nebraska 4X/year, minimum. I don't see many people. I don't see a lot of large population centers in nearby surrounding states. I don't see $60M high school football stadiums. The only thing I see in Nebraska is enormous passion for Cornhusker football. By an accident of birth, Nebraska is going to be out at the end of any physical chain of humanity in any conference it is in, Big 10, Big 12 or otherwise. This makes it harder, no matter which division. Seems to me that the answer for schools like ours, Wisconsin or Nebraska, has to be to throw a net over all the local talent, then recruit nationally wherever one can find them. We simply do not have the fortunate situations of OSU/Michigan and Texas/OU.

 

Perhaps the situations with other Big 12 schools that have led to an imbalance are school-specific, as opposed to being due to division alignment? Oklahoma State had a Phil Knight'ish experience, K-State's fortunes went up and down not with division alignment but rather with Bill Snyder, etc. Colorado, ugh. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Parity scheduling also plays into this, if you really believe that division alignment is important to your success. Stay good, and you get continued exposure to the top teams in the East.

 

All I know is, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, grin. Nebraska was a great get for the Big 10. I will be shocked if there isn't mutual success for both Nebraska and the conference, and if the Big 10 West doesn't acquit itself well in years to come.

`

Very good points. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

The effect of the division alignment on Eastern recruiting is a topic of discussion in Badgerland, too. I am a numbers person. I look at data. In the end, I don't think I accept the argument that Eastern recruiting will be hurt due to the division setup.

 

Ohio is the most fertile recruiting ground in the Big 10. Wisconsin was in the same division as OSU. Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, all members of the Leaders, had more Ohio recruits this year than Wisconsin. Wisconsin has played OSU almost continuously for over a decade. We have only minor Ohio presence to show for it. Ditto Pennsylvania, and we have played Penn State most years, too, and were in the same division as them. Ditto for New Jersey. So, I would like to see an argument - made on the basis of data - that demonstrates that such a claim is true. I will argue that what matters to recruiting (assuming great athletic facilities for all) is winning, winning, winning, coaching ties to recruits, and geographical proximity to good recruits.

 

`

 

I think you've proved it. The big east schools of the big ten already have winning traditions and a powerful but occassionally soiled brand. But now they've drawn a line in the sand through the middle of your conference and said there are two regions, us and them. If you wanted to help out Michigan and Ohio at the expense of Wisconsin and Nebraska, I don't know any better way you could do that except for a geographic east/west split without regard to competitive balance.

[VectorVictor]

The thing is the B1G East doesn't have an effective monopoly with 4 schools in the same state with the same political goals.

 

The Big XII didn't have that, either, if that's the comparison you're trying to draw. It just had Texass, dirty oil money, and a bunch of jealous Big 8 bitches (Oklahoma included) that, for some unfathomable reason, some of our more disgruntled posters around her anguish over not playing yearly.

[husker_99]

This is going to be a disaster and it's stupid to keep realigning divisions. Sure we now have less competition in the west but will that prepare us for the east champion? history says no.

 

The East/West thing makes sense. Wisconsin has no national championships but we have been a major player for most of the past 20 years. If we'd had Martinez, we'd have beaten Stanford...

 

Iowa is also strong. In today's terms, they are the equal of Penn State. Without the scandal.

 

Minnesota has 6 national championships, though the program is in a dormant phase. But who knows... maybe they can become decent.

 

Illinois has Red Grange, one of the greatest football players of all time at any level. They also won a couple of NCs and though not consistently good, now and then they recruit their state well and have the ability to win 10 games.

 

Purdue... there is sporadic history there. they will struggle in the West most years.

 

Northwestern -- they finally won a bowl game and have been competitive over most of the last 10-15 years. they will never beat the huskers when the huskers are good, but they will compete with you most other years.

I think you Big 10 people put too much emphasis on the past and somehow try to spin it like it's relevant today. It's not. Only Wisc and NW will probably be our toughest teams to play. The Leaders/Legends division were more competively balanced.