B10: East vs West Disparity?

[melscott62]

The east teams have no one to blame but themselves.  You can't get blown out by average teams.  The simple fact of the matter is that was not a great Ohio State team.  Even their fans admit so.  The big 10s top end teams were all very disappointing this year.  They don't need to worry about the West... they will have their hands full soon enough. 

[gossamorharpy]

3 minutes ago, melscott62 said:

The east teams have no one to blame but themselves.  You can't get blown out by average teams.  The simple fact of the matter is that was not a great Ohio State team.  Even their fans admit so.  The big 10s top end teams were all very disappointing this year.  They don't need to worry about the West... they will have their hands full soon enough. 

Who's complaining?  I literally have not read one gripe from Ohio state fans 

 

The conference does need to take a hard look at 9 conf games.  Its great from a competition standpoint but until the playoff expands to 8 teams and the champ is guaranteed in there is no point in putting your conference, as a whole, in a situation where its a tougher road to the top 4 than what other conferences have to face.

 

 

[funhusker]

4 hours ago, BIG ERN said:

Ohio State got WAXED the past two seasons by a West team and that's why they have been left out - Iowa and Purdue. We own Michigan State. I still think the East is better but it's overblown.

100% nailed it!

 

Ohio State and the B1G can blame the West Division for keeping OSU out of the playoff.  Just not for the reasons they claim.

[junior4949]

When we belonged to the Big 12, there were three blue blood programs.  With an odd number, it stands to reason why it was lopsided.  In the B1G, there are four blue blood programs.  I've always wondered why they put three in one division and one in the other?  If the B1G is successful in getting OU and Texas, this will all work itself out.  If they don't, then it would stand to reason to move Michigan.  At the end of the day, I'd say we're in a good spot if they leave things the way they are.  Winning this division is easier than the other one.  Take Wisconsin last year.  They didn't even have to play a couple of the better teams in the B1G.  If they would have taken care of business in the title game, they were in the playoff. 

[beorach]

I don't follow how there's any confusion over this because it's a simple matter of the most talented teams, per recruiting and poll rankings alike, being in the East.  I was tickled to see how the divisions were set up because I assumed we wouldn't be playing those perennial contenders every year.  It felt like we were being given an easier road back to where Nebraska has historically belonged.  Scheduling is another matter, though.  Look at the series with Michigan for one example.  We couldn't simply trade off locations for our games.  They get three home games before we get to host a second time.

[Saunders]

The SEC West won the CCG 8 straight times (with far worse blowouts) from 2009-2016, and they weren't freaking out about balancing divisions.

[Enhance]

The overall record may be comparable between the east/west but there's no debating the balance of power is weighted in the east. The top four programs in the conference (in terms of history, hardware, recruiting, etc.) are tOSU, Michigan, PSU and Nebraska. Those are also probably the four 'best jobs,' in the correct order in the conference, too. Three of them are in the east. Simply put - the east has more programs better positioned to be routine players at the elite level of college football. The west does not.

 

To @Saunders point, I think the difference is partly perception, partly reality. The SEC east has several nationally prominent programs. The B1G west doesn't. And the recruiting rankings are far more comparable in the SEC than the B1G. According to Rivals, and using only these two conferences, here are the best recruiting teams of the past five years:

 

B1G East:

- Ohio State (#2)

- Michigan (T#18 - there's one ranking of 55 here that heavily skews their data - they've had three top 5 classes in the last five years)

- Penn State (#21)

- Michigan State (#27)

- Maryland (#37)

B1G West

- Nebraska (#22)

- Wisconsin (#40)

- Iowa (#49)

 

SEC East

- Georgia (#5)

- Florida (#10)

- Tennessee (#12)

- South Carolina (T#18)

- Kentucky (T#25)

- Missouri (#38)

- Vanderbilt (#45)

SEC West

- Alabama (#1)

- LSU (#4)

- Auburn (#7)

- Texas A&M (#9)

- Ole Miss (T#16)

- Mississippi State (#23)

- Arkansas (T#25)

 

The SEC west is certainly top heavy but they appear to be on a much more fair playing field overall.

[Mavric]

5 minutes ago, Enhance said:

The overall record may be comparable between the east/west but there's no debating the balance of power is weighted in the east. The top four programs in the conference (in terms of history, hardware, recruiting, etc.) are tOSU, Michigan, PSU and Nebraska. Those are also probably the four 'best jobs,' in the correct order in the conference, too. Three of them are in the east. Simply put - the east has more programs better positioned to be routine players at the elite level of college football. The west does not.

 

I think part of this issue is people are arguing two different things - without really realizing it. 

 

People who are saying the East is clearly better are basically pointing to the overall better teams being in the East.  Which is true.  But all that says is that the East is harder to win, which isn't necessarily the same thing as saying it is the overall better division.  The East also has three pretty bad teams which gets overlooked by the East apologists but definitely affects the balance of power between the divisions.

 

The issue is the East is nothing close to a bell curve.  They have four good teams and three really bad teams - Sagarin has the East teams rated 4,5,10,30,57,65,121.  The West is a pretty natural bell curve with teams rated 11,33,36,37,49,56,110.  So the top four teams in the East are rated higher than all but one team in the West.  But there are also three teams in the East that are rated lower than all but one team in the West.  Put another way, six of the West teams are between the East #3 and the East #5.

 

When you actually play that out on the field, the result is that the divisions win a very similar amount of games against each other.  Obviously the match-ups are not balanced so it's not a perfect measure but it gives a decent idea.

[Landlord]

On 12/7/2018 at 12:37 PM, melscott62 said:

Things can change quickly.  Look at our tenure in the big 12. 

 

Look at the entire history of the Big 12. The original dominance of the north was an anomaly/flash in the pan. It quickly corrected itself.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

When you actually play that out on the field, the result is that the divisions win a very similar amount of games against each other.  Obviously the match-ups are not balanced so it's not a perfect measure but it gives a decent idea.

 

Another result is also that all the teams in the West lose almost every game to the top 3 teams in the East. This math might be off by 1-2 on either end but over the last 5 years the entire West is something close to 9-36 vs OSU/Mich/PSU