|
Re: Best Guess as to New Divisions
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2013 12:24 PM
Re: Best Guess as to New Divisions
Im just gonna round up to 16 and add UNC and Virginia just to show how it would work.
Pod 1 - Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin
Pod 2 - Ohio St, Illinois, Purdue, North Carolina
Pod 3 - Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Northwestern
Pod 4 - Penn St, Maryland, Rutger, Virginia
(outside of Pod 1, i dont think thats how the Pods would be set up, but its just for show now)
Every 2 years it rotates
Years 1&2
Pod 1 & Pod 2 vs Pod 3 & 4 in the conference title games
- Teams in Pod 1 would play every team in Pod 2. Teams in Pod 3 would play every team in Pod 4.
-Team with best record would of Pod 1/2 would play best record of Pod 3/4.
- Assuming they'd go to 9 conference games, that would mean 2 games vs team not in your "super pod" ill call it.
- Teams would have a protected cross over, but it would only matter 4 out of 6 years. So year where OSU and Michigan are in the same pod, OSU & Michigan would play 2 non cross over Big ten teams in a home-home. The other 4 years they would have their game protected and play another Big Ten team in a different pod.
Years 3&4
Pod 1 & Pod 3 vs Pod 2 & Pod 4 in the conference title game
Years 5&6
Pod 1 & Pod 4 vs Pod 2 & Pod 3 in the conference title game
So Ohio St in this instance over a 6 year period
4 teams - Every single year- 3 teams in their Pod (whoever that end up being) & Michigan
4 teams - 4 out 6 years
8 Teams - 2 out of 6 years
I would be crazy schedule, but it wouldnt really be that different than what has happened in the past for Big Ten teams witht eh sceduling rotation.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 5:19 PM
new B1G divisions
Read this on an Ozone thread.
East
OSU
UM
PSU
Rutgers
Maryland
Indiana
west
Wisky
Minny
Iowa
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern
MSU and Purdue are the only two being debated at this point.
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa, not panic stricken and screaming like everyone else in the car. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 5:46 PM
Re: new B1G divisions
I think its obvious that competitive balance would put MSU in the West and Purdue in the east. I would then have UM and MSU play each other every year. I would have OSU play Wisconsin every year and Nebraska play PSU every year. I would then rotate all of the other games between divisions. That would keep an OSU v UM rematch but allow the best games but destroy some of the bad games with trophies (Illibuck, Old Brown jug.)
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 5:57 PM
Re: new B1G divisions
I wish they would find a way to split the 4 newbies (psu,neb,md,rut) and the original 10 so it feels less like we have joined a different conference. WhatheBuck wrote: Read this on an Ozone thread.
East
OSU
UM
PSU
Rutgers
Maryland
Indiana
west
Wisky
Minny
Iowa
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern
MSU and Purdue are the only two being debated at this point. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:12 PM
RE: new B1G divisions
Ya I love how every division proposal just throws tOSU with the new guys as if we dont care to play Illinois Iowa Minny or Northwestern. I realize they arent my must see games for any given season but I do not necessarily feel it is right for everyone to just throw tOSU in a division with next to no conference brethren for the sake of splitting the powers.
This proposed alignment doesnt even spread the powers evenly.
Im not sure what is right or what will happen but I see tOSU with the new guys every time
"To suspect your own mortality is to know the beginning of terror; to learn irrefutably that you are mortal is to know the end of terror." |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:18 PM
RE: new B1G divisions
it's because we're in the Eastern part of the conference and most of the additions have been there....I feel PSU is a B10 team....only feel Maryland and Rutgers are new....no big deal for me. hidownthai95 wrote: Ya I love how every division proposal just throws tOSU with the new guys as if we dont care to play Illinois Iowa Minny or Northwestern. I realize they arent my must see games for any given season but I do not necessarily feel it is right for everyone to just throw tOSU in a division with next to no conference brethren for the sake of splitting the powers.
This proposed alignment doesnt even spread the powers evenly.
Im not sure what is right or what will happen but I see tOSU with the new guys every time |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:21 PM
Re: new B1G divisions
no way psu, michigan and osu will be in the same division
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:34 PM
RE: new B1G divisions
I understand the geography and agree with you that PSU is a B1G team in my eyes. I kind of liked the inner outer alignment even if it was less practical for the outer teams. If that makes me selfish so be it. tOSU got the shaft in the last alignment so this time being vocal about the desires will hopefully yield a little less shafting. The east west split gives us two exciting B1G teams a year. I think we would get those two games in almost any split. buckeye4573 wrote: it's because we're in the Eastern part of the conference and most of the additions have been there....I feel PSU is a B10 team....only feel Maryland and Rutgers are new....no big deal for me.
hidownthai95 wrote: Ya I love how every division proposal just throws tOSU with the new guys as if we dont care to play Illinois Iowa Minny or Northwestern. I realize they arent my must see games for any given season but I do not necessarily feel it is right for everyone to just throw tOSU in a division with next to no conference brethren for the sake of splitting the powers.
This proposed alignment doesnt even spread the powers evenly.
Im not sure what is right or what will happen but I see tOSU with the new guys every time "To suspect your own mortality is to know the beginning of terror; to learn irrefutably that you are mortal is to know the end of terror." |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:37 PM
RE: new B1G divisions
Could care less about playing most of those west teams. Most are snoozer of games. Get tOSU in the east so we can recruit more fertile areas.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:50 PM
RE: new B1G divisions
I understand this sentiment and mostly agree. Although I dont exactly cheer for recruiting during games. I do cheer for good games and Maryland and Rutgers arent exactly formidable foes. Will they rise up to a competitive level? Im sure they will after some time and I have no doubt there will be years they are very formidable. But Id rather have Iowa and Wisky on the schedule for good a game. If asked to pick I guess for the good of the conference Id say go east west or whatever lets the western side be mostly B1G and the new guys get their stadiums filled up by tOSU and PSU. I see the benefits for all involved this way. I just dont see a way to split the powers evenly, keep PSU in the east and no rematch for tOSU and scUM. those three criteria appear to be mutually exclusive (except for inner outer) WinchesterBUCK wrote: Could care less about playing most of those west teams. Most are snoozer of games. Get tOSU in the east so we can recruit more fertile areas. "To suspect your own mortality is to know the beginning of terror; to learn irrefutably that you are mortal is to know the end of terror." |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2013 7:53 PM
RE: new B1G divisions
If u put osu, michigan and psu in the same division you're almost certainly going to have a season or stretch of seasons when the three best teams in the league are in the same division. I highly doubt that will ever be the case in the other division. I highly doubt you'll see Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan state being the three best.teams in the league.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2013 1:04 AM
Re: Best Guess as to New Divisions
buckeye9chuck wrote:
rayb678 wrote:
OSU84 wrote:The majority opinion among sportswriters (not that they know anything) is that the Big Ten will go geographic and put Ohio St and Michigan in the same division. Hope so.
From past conference votes, it seems like the B1G likes to work towards unanimous votes when deciding on any conference issue. I can't see Nebraska agreeing to a divisional format that puts OSU, UM, and PSU in an opposite division... especially given their history with a similar format in the B12. I think it's more likely that the rest of the conference agrees with Nebraska (they all need games with the Big 4 to boost their own exposure) instead of a format pitting 3/4 of the traditional powers in a single division. Looks like we need to bring in another football power to pair up with Nebraska. In the next round of expansion we strongly need to consider Oklahoma, Tennesse, Texas, FSU, or of course ND. Some of the above are more east than west but any of them could be matched in a division with Nebraska. why would Tennesse leave the SEC...  If Texas goes anywhere it will be with Oklahoma to the P12. The B1G's best of the what's left would be UV (much more a B1G type school), and North Carolina, but I find it very hard to imagine them leaving the ACC with all the basketball tie ins they have. So maybe UV and G Tech. I think FSU tries to get into the SEC, if not they are in trouble to find a place outside of the ACC. NIXUS (effort), AGNITIO (knowledge), CIVITAS(citizenship)
Last edited 1/31/2013 1:04 AM by SETIBuckeye
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2013 7:28 AM
Re: Best Guess as to New Divisions
--------------------------------------------- --- SETIBuckeye wrote: buckeye9chuck wrote:
rayb678 wrote:
OSU84 wrote:The majority opinion among sportswriters (not that they know anything) is that the Big Ten will go geographic and put Ohio St and Michigan in the same division. Hope so.
From past conference votes, it seems like the B1G likes to work towards unanimous votes when deciding on any conference issue. I can't see Nebraska agreeing to a divisional format that puts OSU, UM, and PSU in an opposite division... especially given their history with a similar format in the B12. I think it's more likely that the rest of the conference agrees with Nebraska (they all need games with the Big 4 to boost their own exposure) instead of a format pitting 3/4 of the traditional powers in a single division. Looks like we need to bring in another football power to pair up with Nebraska. In the next round of expansion we strongly need to consider Oklahoma, Tennesse, Texas, FSU, or of course ND. Some of the above are more east than west but any of them could be matched in a division with Nebraska. why would Tennesse leave the SEC... If Texas goes anywhere it will be with Oklahoma to the P12. The B1G's best of the what's left would be UV (much more a B1G type school), and North Carolina, but I find it very hard to imagine them leaving the ACC with all the basketball tie ins they have. So maybe UV and G Tech. I think FSU tries to get into the SEC, if not they are in trouble to find a place outside of the ACC. --------------------------------------------- Big12 wants FSU in the worst way.... |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2013 12:44 PM
RE: Best Guess as to New Divisions
bigtim1960 wrote:
buckeye9chuck wrote: My guess would be:
1st division
tOSU
tTUN
MSU
MARY
Rutgers
PSU
Ind
2nd
Nebraska
Wisky
NW
Iowa
Illinois
Purdue
Minn
The only true rivalry broken up is the Indiana-Purdue rvialry and my guess is that the B1G can live with that. I don't think that will happen. Besides being the battle of Indiana between IU & Purdue The Old Oaken Bucket ranks up there with Paul Bunyans Axe -Little Brown Jug as most notable rivalry trophies in the B1G
I would like to see Ttun & tOSU in the same division. I don't think it will happen. The problem with your divisions is most of the traditional powers are in the east. Some way this needs to change without causing chaos for the entire conference. The only way to do this is to have either Ttun or tOSU in the east the other in the west. Most likely tOSU will remain in the east since all the new expansion seems to be to the east and south east. It would be nice to get another power in the west so OSU and TTUN could be in the same division. I agree. I think that Michigan will be kept in the West, once all voices are heard. Nebraska was added as a traditonal CFB power. If they're only playing one of OSU/PSU/UM each year, they suffer along with the CCG and its ratings. In my opinion, the scenario that will be adopted keeps Michigan in the West with Nebraska. Michigan will be OSU's annual crossover, and PSU will be Nebraska's annual crossover. The big 4 need to play each other as often as possible. These are the "national" games that the conference envisioned when Nebraska was invited. If the CCG is a dud, it was all for naught. On the bright side, though, OSU would have an eastern presence annually in the most fertile recruiting areas, and Michigan's recruiting in Ohio (which they've always needed) will likely suffer in the long run. I think The Game is moved forward about 4 weeks to ensure there's not a rematch too soon, and PSU becomes the last regular season game (with Nebraska's last game coming against either Iowa or Michigan; Michigan's last regular season game would be Nebraska or MSU). The B1G then has good match ups for rivalry week AND the CCG. If leveraging the conference for TV $$ and exposure (and therefore, continued long-term viabilty) is the goal, the above scenario is probably best case. Let's face it, OSU fans and boosters aren't going to lose interest in OSU football, and neither will UM's fans by being in different divisions or with The Game moved forward. East & West divisions, with a slanted line (as opposed to a vertical East/West split): Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, NW, MSU, UM and Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, OSU, PSU, MD, Rutgers ....with 9 conference games.
Last edited 2/2/2013 1:05 PM by rayb678
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2013 2:04 PM
Re: Best Guess as to New Divisions
Mich/Hoke are moved to the MAC (lost to a bad Toledo team, so MAC would probably take them)
MAC North: 1. E. Mich,2. C. Mich,3. Mich,4. W. Mich,5. Toledo, and 6. Ann Arbor high school (Mich has played this team) "my new rival is Arbor High School" (refuses to say Ann Arbor) |
|
Reply |
Quote |
