New B1G Divisions

[Creighton Duke]

Ya know, now that I think about it, this is the EXACT replica of the old Big 12 divisions:

Illinois = Kansas, kinda got good for a second, went back to sucking

Iowa = Colorado, thinks they're cool/good, decent second-tier tradition, always loses to Nebraska

Minnesota = Iowa State, comes around every blue moon, never sustains anything

Nebraska = well, Nebraska

Northwestern = Mizzou, very recent upstart who will quickly slip back into being an afterthought

Wisconsin = K-State, recent upstart that will cause problems a lot of the time, preference for JUCO QBs

Purdue or Indiana = combine together, could be Kansas

Maryland = Texas Tech, ....outlier?

Michigan = Oklahoma, tradition, rivalry with OSU is similar to OU-UT rivalry

Michigan State = OK State, OU's little bro that they don't really care that much about. Decent...sometimes

Ohio State = Texas, tradition, runs the show

Penn State = Texas A&M, tradition but rarely at ELITE level

Rutgers = Baylor, recently got kinda good...probably short-lived

 

[strigori]

Its more balanced than some people think. Wiscy has 3 rings in a row, as well as being continually at the top of the conference for more than a decade, they just don't have the sexy history, football history there only really starts with Alverez being hired. Iowa is historically about even with Michigan State. They both hover around 7 or 8 wins with a jump to 10 every now and then, and miss a bowl game about as often. And people are completely ignoring Northwestern, who came pretty damned close to 12-0 in the regular season last year. As long as Fitzgerald is there they will be more dangerous to us then MSU with Dantonio. Illinois, Purdue and Indiana are all pretty interchangeable. Rutgers and Maryland are not exactly powerhouses either. I expect them to hover around 7 wins a year. Don't kid yourself, O'Brian coached his a$$ off last year, but the talent deficit is going to start hitting them, it won't even be as bad this year. Wait for 2014 to about 2025. They have a few more years of a bowl ban, and they might not make it back to one for close to a decade.

I see two power teams in each division a couple very good teams, in each, and three also-rans.

 

[corncraze]

I hate these. No parity at all. This is just like the Big 12 North and South. Once again we will be in the weak division no one cares about.

Wisconsin has won back-to-back-to-back Conference titles.

I understand. Wisconsin would be the other strong team in the division... right now at least.

What I was alluding to was that the East would be loaded with three tradition powers (Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State) and a solid mid-major (Michigan State). Meanwhile, our division has us, Wisconsin and Northwestern - who is on a similar level as MSU.

Back to Wisconsin, they are not a traditional power and honestly were lucky to even play in the conference championship this year (they were third in the division). Granted they kicked the living crap out of us in the CCG, I have no idea how, but I can honestly say that they were not as good as Ohio State, Michigan or Penn State this year. Furthermore, they have a new coach. There are a lot of questions around Wisconsin right now.

There is no parity with this proposed alignment.

 

[huskered17]

I guess it does sounds like our Big-12 North days, the way all the talk is of the power being in the east, with this set up. The power I see is OSU and Mich, with Mich ST popping up once in awhile. PSU is done. This may be their last year with a winning record, for a long time. Our side looks like its Wis and Neb, with NW popping up once in awhile. Once every ten years or so, one of those other schools [east/west] will put together a good team, but it looks like the top six will be the ones I named. Granted those east teams have a bigger advantaged in recruiting, but they can't sign everyone. Should be some good players left for the rest of us. I like this set up. It is better than having to beat Mich,Mich st, NW and Wis, week after week. They through everything they had at us, for two years. Now lets even the playing field.

GBR!!!

 

[HuskerNationNick]

Our new division reminds me of the Big 12 division... We will be favorites to win ours, with the exception of maybe Wisconsin here and there.

Very similar to a comment on the ESPN article - except they switched the teams around

Yeah, but if Wisconsin was in our division, they wouldn't have even went to the CCG. Hell, they would have ended 4th in our division, behind Nebraska, Michigan and Northwestern. Must be rough being defaulted into going to the CCG over two teams with better records. They did beat us, but at least we can say we actually earned it with a better record than our division.

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Its more balanced than some people think. Wiscy has 3 rings in a row, as well as being continually at the top of the conference for more than a decade, they just don't have the sexy history, football history there only really starts with Alverez being hired. Iowa is historically about even with Michigan State. They both hover around 7 or 8 wins with a jump to 10 every now and then, and miss a bowl game about as often. And people are completely ignoring Northwestern, who came pretty damned close to 12-0 in the regular season last year. As long as Fitzgerald is there they will be more dangerous to us then MSU with Dantonio. Illinois, Purdue and Indiana are all pretty interchangeable. Rutgers and Maryland are not exactly powerhouses either. I expect them to hover around 7 wins a year. Don't kid yourself, O'Brian coached his a$$ off last year, but the talent deficit is going to start hitting them, it won't even be as bad this year. Wait for 2014 to about 2025. They have a few more years of a bowl ban, and they might not make it back to one for close to a decade.

I see two power teams in each division a couple very good teams, in each, and three also-rans.

Agree. Posters here are understandably wary of power shifts within the conference, but the B1G is NOT the Big XII. The culture is completely different. Texas took every opportunity to consolidate power and resources at the expense of the rest of the conference. Ohio State and Michigan may be football juggernauts, but they share equal space at the table with Indiana and Minnesota. Also the recruiting advantage of West vs East is less dramatic than Texas vs Cold Snowy North. Ohio is a recruiting destination, but so is Chicago. The Big XII was doomed from the start as two culturally disparate conferences merged. Keep in mind, also that the Old Big 8 Teams were actually much stronger than the South in the beginning of the "marriage".

Also think of the travel advantages within this now larger conference. It only makes sense to play the closest teams more frequently. Wisconsin makes more sense playing Nebraska/Minnesota/Iowa every year. Those are their regional rivals. Also, now we won't ever have to see Michigan/Ohio State as a back-to-back rematch in the Title Game.

I like it. I like it a lot.

 

[MichiganMan]

total bs i get stuck playing maryland and rutgers every year.

 

[jaws]

total bs i get stuck playing maryland and rutgers every year.

You get stuck?

Its more balanced than some people think. Wiscy has 3 rings in a row, as well as being continually at the top of the conference for more than a decade, they just don't have the sexy history, football history there only really starts with Alverez being hired. Iowa is historically about even with Michigan State. They both hover around 7 or 8 wins with a jump to 10 every now and then, and miss a bowl game about as often. And people are completely ignoring Northwestern, who came pretty damned close to 12-0 in the regular season last year. As long as Fitzgerald is there they will be more dangerous to us then MSU with Dantonio. Illinois, Purdue and Indiana are all pretty interchangeable. Rutgers and Maryland are not exactly powerhouses either. I expect them to hover around 7 wins a year. Don't kid yourself, O'Brian coached his a$$ off last year, but the talent deficit is going to start hitting them, it won't even be as bad this year. Wait for 2014 to about 2025. They have a few more years of a bowl ban, and they might not make it back to one for close to a decade.

I see two power teams in each division a couple very good teams, in each, and three also-rans.

Agree. Posters here are understandably wary of power shifts within the conference, but the B1G is NOT the Big IX. The culture is completely different. Texas took every opportunity to consolidate power and resources at the expense of the rest of the conference. Ohio State and Michigan may be football juggernauts, but they share equal space at the table with Indiana and Minnesota. Also the recruiting advantage of West vs East is less dramatic than Texas vs Cold Snowy North. Ohio is a recruiting destination, but so is Chicago. The Big IX was doomed from the start as two culturally disparate conferences merged. Keep in mind, also that the Old Big 8 Teams were actually much stronger than the South in the beginning of the "marriage".

Also think of the travel advantages within this now larger conference. It only makes sense to play the closest teams more frequently. Wisconsin makes more sense playing Nebraska/Minnesota/Iowa every year. Those are their regional rivals. Also, now we won't ever have to see Michigan/Ohio State as a back-to-back rematch in the Title Game.

I like it. I like it a lot.

I think it is best having Michigan and OSU in the same division. I don't think it is good to have a chance playing that game back to back. Also, Sparty is still Sparty and Penn State isn't the power it once was.

 

[nebraskafaninwi]

People need to relax and realize that the divisions will change some again when the conference expands by two more teams. If the two schools are from the East then they will move a couple of teams over to our side of the divisions.

When it comes to balance of power, we already found out that became a disaster last season. Doing the divisions by geography is the best way to go about this.

When the SEC started divisions the East was the power with TN, Florida, and Georgia. Now the West is the power. That is bound to change in the future. Heck, Georgia came one play away from taking down Alabama.

Over the next 20 years you will see some seasons where the new B1G divisions will go from the West being stronger to the East being stronger and some years where they are about equal. College football has always been cyclical and that will never change. Just like how the SEC was not the power conference it is right now and it will eventually fade some as another conference takes over for a while.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I know that the divisional alignments are based off of football, but looking at it from a men's basketball standpoint, I would like to see Indiana in the "West" division to balance things out from that area. Otherwise all you have is Wisconsin and Possibly Illinois in that division for marquee teams. Gophers are on the outside a little but not quite there.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

Biggest difference between the Big XII North and the Big Ten West?

Chicagoland with a population of almost 10 million people.

Illinois is also 1 of the 3 best recruiting spots in the current Big Ten along with DC/MD/NVA and Ohio.

 

[GSG]

I know that the divisional alignments are based off of football, but looking at it from a men's basketball standpoint, I would like to see Indiana in the "West" division to balance things out from that area. Otherwise all you have is Wisconsin and Possibly Illinois in that division for marquee teams. Gophers are on the outside a little but not quite there.

Mel from Cincinnati writes: Adam,I really enjoy reading the blog, thanks for all you do. First of all, I'm really glad to see an East/West alignment. Purdue in the West makes sense for football, although I think Indiana would be OK as well. Have you heard whether or not other sports e.g. basketball would also be using a divisional alignment? If so then I would think Indiana would be a much better choice for the West Division, to provide at least some balance in that sport. Right now from a basketball standpoint, the proposed divisions would put most of the traditionally strong basketball teams in the East.
Adam Rittenberg: For the record, this isn't my uncle Mel in Cincinnati (although I do have one). Basketball divisions don't appear to be on the table because all teams qualify for the Big Ten tournament, so there's really no point. I know athletic directors are seriously considering increasing the number of conference games in hoops so teams can play each other as much as possible in an expanded league. But all of the division discussions taking place pertain only to football.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/73381/big-ten-mailblog-202

 

[Creighton Duke]

Its more balanced than some people think. Wiscy has 3 rings in a row, as well as being continually at the top of the conference for more than a decade, they just don't have the sexy history, football history there only really starts with Alverez being hired. Iowa is historically about even with Michigan State. They both hover around 7 or 8 wins with a jump to 10 every now and then, and miss a bowl game about as often. And people are completely ignoring Northwestern, who came pretty damned close to 12-0 in the regular season last year. As long as Fitzgerald is there they will be more dangerous to us then MSU with Dantonio. Illinois, Purdue and Indiana are all pretty interchangeable. Rutgers and Maryland are not exactly powerhouses either. I expect them to hover around 7 wins a year. Don't kid yourself, O'Brian coached his a$$ off last year, but the talent deficit is going to start hitting them, it won't even be as bad this year. Wait for 2014 to about 2025. They have a few more years of a bowl ban, and they might not make it back to one for close to a decade.

I see two power teams in each division a couple very good teams, in each, and three also-rans.

Agree. Posters here are understandably wary of power shifts within the conference, but the B1G is NOT the Big IX. The culture is completely different. Texas took every opportunity to consolidate power and resources at the expense of the rest of the conference. Ohio State and Michigan may be football juggernauts, but they share equal space at the table with Indiana and Minnesota. Also the recruiting advantage of West vs East is less dramatic than Texas vs Cold Snowy North. Ohio is a recruiting destination, but so is Chicago. The Big IX was doomed from the start as two culturally disparate conferences merged. Keep in mind, also that the Old Big 8 Teams were actually much stronger than the South in the beginning of the "marriage".

Also think of the travel advantages within this now larger conference. It only makes sense to play the closest teams more frequently. Wisconsin makes more sense playing Nebraska/Minnesota/Iowa every year. Those are their regional rivals. Also, now we won't ever have to see Michigan/Ohio State as a back-to-back rematch in the Title Game.

I like it. I like it a lot.

Is ANY conference the Big 9?

 

[Blackshirt316]

This divisional alignment will cripple the conference. It's guaranteed.

You don't build conference strength by putting the top 6 recruiting areas in one division.

Nebraska and possibly Wisconsin will be able to recruit Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey etc. to compete with the East, but the 2nd and 3rd tier of the West will continually get weaker while the 2nd and 3rd tier of the east will get stronger leading to inequallity of the talent in the divisions. All the planning they are doing to equalize brand names, rivalries etc. is moot if long term competitive balance is lost.

Geographic talent equality NEEDS to be the priority and it seems to be the least important factor in their midset and it's going to be a major downfall here.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I know that the divisional alignments are based off of football, but looking at it from a men's basketball standpoint, I would like to see Indiana in the "West" division to balance things out from that area. Otherwise all you have is Wisconsin and Possibly Illinois in that division for marquee teams. Gophers are on the outside a little but not quite there.

Mel from Cincinnati writes: Adam,I really enjoy reading the blog, thanks for all you do. First of all, I'm really glad to see an East/West alignment. Purdue in the West makes sense for football, although I think Indiana would be OK as well. Have you heard whether or not other sports e.g. basketball would also be using a divisional alignment? If so then I would think Indiana would be a much better choice for the West Division, to provide at least some balance in that sport. Right now from a basketball standpoint, the proposed divisions would put most of the traditionally strong basketball teams in the East.
Adam Rittenberg: For the record, this isn't my uncle Mel in Cincinnati (although I do have one). Basketball divisions don't appear to be on the table because all teams qualify for the Big Ten tournament, so there's really no point. I know athletic directors are seriously considering increasing the number of conference games in hoops so teams can play each other as much as possible in an expanded league. But all of the division discussions taking place pertain only to football.

http://espn.go.com/b...en-mailblog-202

Well, guess that's that.