Jon Miller's Divional breakdown

DIVISION B

Penn State (W 19-17 Capital One Bowl)

Nebraska (W 33-0 Holiday Bowl

Iowa (W 24-14 Orange Bowl)

Minnesota (L 13-14 Insight Bowl)

Wisconsin (W 20-14 Champ Sports Bowl)

Northwestern (L 35-38 Outback Bowl)

Could be a rather fierce division, not a CU replacement in the lot :P

 
Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.

 
balance of power is a little overrated...remember the north was suppose to dwarf the south in the big 12 when we started... :laughpound

 
Well given that these divisions are probably only going to be active for 2 years basing it on current power isn't a bad thing.

 
BarronCoBucky said:
Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.
Click to expand...
If that happens and the toughest team we have to beat is Iowa, might as well start looking for hotel rooms in Indy for our 2011 visit to the Big10 CCG.

 
billdozer15 said:
BarronCoBucky said:
Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.
Click to expand...
If that happens and the toughest team we have to beat is Iowa, might as well start looking for hotel rooms in Indy for our 2011 visit to the Big10 CCG.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the dilemma, do we want geographically coherent sub-conf divisions or do we want evenly matched divisions?

Personally I'd rather see a clean East-West split and I would argue that Iowa isn't the only other contender in the East; Wisky is always strong and NW has a nasty history of upsetting great seasons. All of that said I still don't think that the Huskers would fall past 2nd even in the worst of years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is going to be interesting to see how they eventually do breakdown the divisions. There will be at least one, maybe even two or three teams that aren't going to like what it looks like I am betting.

Personally, I would lean more towards geographical divisions, trying to leave long lasting rivalries intact with maybe allowing a rivalry game here or there if needed. That would be more than the Big 12 did for us when it came to Oklahoma, even though I know it was Oklahoma that nixed the whole idea in the end.

The balancing of power method is flawed for one reason, power seems to shift through the years...those that are the strongest now won't necessarily be in 10 or 15 years.

 
HuskerTrucker said:
It is going to be interesting to see how they eventually do breakdown the divisions. There will be at least one, maybe even two or three teams that aren't going to like what it looks like I am betting.

Personally, I would lean more towards geographical divisions, trying to leave long lasting rivalries intact with maybe allowing a rivalry game here or there if needed. That would be more than the Big 12 did for us when it came to Oklahoma, even though I know it was Oklahoma that nixed the whole idea in the end.

The balancing of power method is flawed for one reason, power seems to shift through the years...those that are the strongest now won't necessarily be in 10 or 15 years.
Click to expand...
Agreed....just out of curiosity who do you diehard Huskers see as your eventual rival(s)? Someone already posted an article floating UW, U of M and Iowa as possibilities but how do you all see it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Delaney already said that geography will be a lesser concern than balance of power and maintaining rivalries. Penn State is in the position that it has to fly to everything already anyway and all of their rivalries were manufactured. They have developed a pretty good one with Iowa over the past decade and would be a natural one with Nebraska. All of that is why Penn State might end up in the western division even though they are the eastern most school - at least for the 2 years until we actually add some Big East teams.

 
BarronCoBucky said:
HuskerTrucker said:
It is going to be interesting to see how they eventually do breakdown the divisions. There will be at least one, maybe even two or three teams that aren't going to like what it looks like I am betting.

Personally, I would lean more towards geographical divisions, trying to leave long lasting rivalries intact with maybe allowing a rivalry game here or there if needed. That would be more than the Big 12 did for us when it came to Oklahoma, even though I know it was Oklahoma that nixed the whole idea in the end.

The balancing of power method is flawed for one reason, power seems to shift through the years...those that are the strongest now won't necessarily be in 10 or 15 years.
Click to expand...
Agreed....just out of curiosity who do you diehard Huskers see as your eventual rival(s)? Someone already posted an article floating UW, U of M and Iowa as possibilities but how do you all see it?
Click to expand...
That is really hard to say. There are a lot of people that believe Iowa would be the natural "rivalry", but I think I am with the ones that say that rivalries have to be built over time. Don't think you can just pick a team and announce to them that they are now your rivals. Colorado fans constantly did that with us, and we laughed them off, because we didn't feel they had done enough to be a rival. The chemistry of what is a rivalry would be an interesting study. I would start by looking at the Oklahoma-Nebraska games in the days of the Big 8. But there are plenty of other good ones too, including in the Big Ten. It should be fun.

 
BarronCoBucky said:
Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.
Click to expand...
Saying that Illinois will likely be more powerful than Penn State is like saying Kansas State will be more powerful than Oklahoma. It just isn't going to happen. One season? Maybe, but nothing more.

 
Manhattan said:
BarronCoBucky said:
Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.
Click to expand...
Saying that Illinois will likely be more powerful than Penn State is like saying Kansas State will be more powerful than Oklahoma. It just isn't going to happen. One season? Maybe, but nothing more.
Click to expand...
I don't think its unreasonable to account for power shifts. College football is a dynamic sport and schools are constantly moving up and down the pecking order. I didn't mean to imply that the Illini would surpass PSU anytime soon but it's always possible. Something as simple as a coaching change can make everything different. Look no further than PSU itself...before Jo Pa the Nittany Lions were nothing to write home about...same with FSU and Bowden. On the flip-side of that you can see plenty of powerful programs that have fallen from past glory...Miss, Miami, A & M etc...

Going way out on a limb and drawing conf. lines on such temporary standings when we have a more obvious geographic division to work with just seems like a bad idea to me.

 
BarronCoBucky said:
Manhattan said:
BarronCoBucky said:
Swap PSU and Illinois and it makes sense. It seems like its tailored to fit the current balance of power which is always subject to change.
Click to expand...
Saying that Illinois will likely be more powerful than Penn State is like saying Kansas State will be more powerful than Oklahoma. It just isn't going to happen. One season? Maybe, but nothing more.
Click to expand...
I don't think its unreasonable to account for power shifts. College football is a dynamic sport and schools are constantly moving up and down the pecking order. I didn't mean to imply that the Illini would surpass PSU anytime soon but it's always possible. Something as simple as a coaching change can make everything different. Look no further than PSU itself...before Jo Pa the Nittany Lions were nothing to write home about...same with FSU and Bowden. On the flip-side of that you can see plenty of powerful programs that have fallen from past glory...Miss, Miami, A & M etc...

Going way out on a limb and drawing conf. lines on such temporary standings when we have a more obvious geographic division to work with just seems like a bad idea to me.
Click to expand...

I think it's not being based so much on current power as it is historical power. Penn St., OSU, Michigan and Nebraska are all in the top ten winningest college football teams of all time. I think putting three of them in one division could be a mistake. And yes teams are constantly going up and down in power, but I think these schools with their traditions and higher expectations are more likely to rebound quickly. Having to play Penn St. and Iowa every year will definitely be more challenging then playing in the Big 12 north.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top