Potential Layout of New Big Ten
By Paul Myerberg // Jun 12, 2010
And here come the Cornhuskers. Is the Big Ten ready to move into six-team divisions?
First, Nebraska shook up the college football world. Now that the program’s move to the Big Ten is official, how will the Cornhuskers shake up the layout of the nation’s oldest conference?
One thing is sure: the Big Ten will break into two divisions, each of which will hold six teams. This would allow the conference to play a conference title game, though Jim Delany has yet to affirm that logical decision.
But what of these two divisions? How should the Big Ten split up its current stable of 12 teams? Will the conference separate Ohio State and Michigan? Would it dare ask that pair to play in the same six-team division as Penn State? Who would stand as a natural rival to the newly-arrived Cornhuskers? Let’s make an early guess as to how each six-team division will look. Again, an early — very early — guess as to the most likely scenarios.
First option: By Historic Rivalries
White Division
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Penn State
Illinois
Minnesota
Blue Division
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Northwestern
Purdue
The beauty of this alignment is that it allows the Big Ten to keep its meaningful, long-standing rivalries. Not to say the Big Ten cannot alter its scheduling to allow, say, Illinois and Northwestern play on a yearly basis; however, doing so would prevent a White Division team, for instance, from playing each team from the Blue Division over a three-year span. The Big 12 eschewed yearly affairs between long-time rivals from different divisions, leaving teams like Nebraska and Oklahoma to play only twice over a four-year span.
Nevertheless, this divisional breakdown would allow for the maximum number of Big Ten rivalries to continue. In the first division, Minnesota and Wisconsin will meet on a yearly basis; so will Iowa and Minnesota. The Hawkeyes and Nebraska could also begin what looks like a natural rivalry.
In the latter grouping, Ohio State will continue to face Michigan in the regular season finale. Michigan and Michigan State will continue to meet yearly; likewise for Purdue and Indiana.
Not to say some rivalries won’t be lost: Penn State and Michigan State — though it’s not the most meaningful series in the conference — is an example. Rivalries like this can continue, of course, just not every year.
The problem with this layout is the unbalanced nature of the two divisions, at least by today’s standards. Ohio State and Michigan are standard bearers on a national level, obviously, but the quartet of Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern and Michigan State do not bring cachet to the Blue Division. On the other hand, the White Division can tout four teams currently capable of winning at least nine games on a yearly basis: Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin. It is only a slight stretch to say all four are perennially in the national title hunt.
Second option: By Geography
Plains Division
Iowa
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota
Lakes Division
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Not too much change from the above split, but with one important revision: Penn State joins Michigan and Ohio State in one six-team division. I’d be shocked if those three historically elite programs agreed to be joined in the same division. Obviously, such a grouping would mean two of the three would not be able to achieve its yearly goal: playing in the Rose Bowl. I predict that Ohio State and Michigan will play in the same division; I don’t think the Big Ten would add Penn State to the mix.
In addition, as in the first scenario, there is not an equal split between the two divisions. As noted, the Lakes Division would be very top-heavy: the aforementioned trio would dominate divisional play, leaving the remaining three programs — Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue — scrambling to reach .500 in conference play.
The Plains Division is far more competitive, of course. Five of the six programs reached bowl play in 2009, and Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska enter the 2010 season with realistic B.C.S. hopes. Yet I fear this alignment would result in a scenario similar to what we saw in recent years from the Big 12: the Lakes would be similar to the Big 12 South, dominating both on the field and the media’s perception of the conference, while the Plains would rival the Big 12 North: overshadowed, overlooked and under appreciated. How did that work out for the Big 12?
Third option: By Competitive Balance
Paterno Division
Iowa
Nebraska
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Minnesota
Hayes Division
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Ohio State
Northwestern
Purdue
Forget about geography; forget about travel costs: if the Big Ten opted to separate the conference in the fairest, most equal fashion possible, this would be the correct alignment. The Paterno Division — I’m low on imagination — would have three perennial top 25 programs: Iowa, Nebraska and Penn State. It would have two programs that annually battle for seven or eight wins in Michigan State and Minnesota; each are also capable, from time to time, of challenging for a Rose Bowl berth. The Paterno Division also has one program, Illinois, that disappoints on nearly a yearly basis.
In the same vein, the Hayes Division has three top programs: Ohio State, Michigan and Wisconsin. It has two programs that are in bowl contention on a yearly basis in Northwestern and Purdue. And it has its also-ran in Indiana. Perhaps the Hayes Division is stronger at its top than the Paterno: Ohio State will be the face of the conference, its best shot at a national championship in most years. But the bottom third of the Paterno is slightly stronger: I’d take Michigan State, Minnesota and Illinois over Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana.
Regardless, this represents the most competitively balanced alignment. You cannot discount the importance of geographic proximity, of course. Yet in a perfect world, the new 12-team Big Ten would be wise to consider breaking up its two divisions in such an equal manner.
Tags: Big Ten, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Home
Comments
Leave a Comment
Follow us
RSS | 
Twitter
I think the only sensible way to break down the divisions is geographically. Trying to break the divisions up on a competitive balance basis is a bad idea, because team strength is not constant.
The ACC broke its divisions up on that basis, and hoped that they would get Florida State/Miami championship games every year. The conference did not know that Miami’s entrance into the ACC would coincide with their program falling off a cliff. Likewise, while Michigan is traditionally a strong team, they are a mere shadow of their former selves right now, and are probably years away from being conference standard bearers again. Breaking up on non-geographical lines can also lead to absurd travel requirements (In your first option Penn. St. would be seperated from every other team in its division by over 600 miles!).
The biggest knock on a competitive balance arrangement is that the teams change in their quality. This can lead to both absurd power and geographic imbalances. I point again to the ACC, the Coastal division was much stronger last season, and probably will be again this year. As a result, the conference has neither competitive balance, nor geographic coherence. If Wisconsin reverted to pre-Alavarez form, Ohio St. got slapped by the NCAA for violations, and Michigan continued to struggle, would you shake up the divisions?
Your concerns over a Big Ten West/Plains becoming a little brother division like the Big 12 North are overblown for several reasons. First, the populations of the states in the Big Ten are much more balanced than in the Big 12. The number of high school players produced by the State of Texas dwarfs any other state in the Big 12, this built in advantage puts all of the schools far away from Texas at a big disadvantage. Second, with the equal division of revenue, the Big 10 ensures that no school or small group of schools gets a gigantic financial advantage.
A Big Ten split East/West would play out like the SEC. Three of the four best historic programs in the SEC reside in the eastern division (florida, georgia, and tennessee), but the western division has better depth and has more than held its own in inter division competition and in the championship game (after the Florida dominated 90s, the divisions evenly split the 00s).
Likewise a Big Ten East/Lakes would have three of the four best programs from a historic perspective, but any review of the history books suggests that the odds of having just one season where all three of Michigan, Penn. St., and Ohio St. are all national championship quality are pretty low (before Michigan went off the rails, remember how much Penn. St. was struggling?). While Penn. St., Ohio St. and Michigan have some structural advantages, there is no rule that says they must continue to be good.
This Penn-State-in-West plan is ridiculous! First of all, Penn State is not that much better that Wisconsin (not at all over that past 12 years) to justify such a forced setup. Wisconsin should have its natural rivals in the West and Penn State its rivals in the East. If UF, UGA and Tenn. can all be in the SEC East (with UF and UGA playing FSU and GT to boot), and Bama, LSU and Auburn can be in the SEC West, then UM, OSU and PSU can all be in the same division.
When it all comes down to it isn’t this all about who’s the baddest on the block, and wouldn’t the Big Ten want the nation talking about the Lakes Divsion in the same hushed reverential tones as the SEC East. Of course it does. And if PSU lets itself be jammed into playing unappealling division games for decades to come just to please OSU and UM then they are wimps of the highest magnitude. At that point they would deserve to be openly treated as the red-haired stepchildren that everyone already know they are. Let Michigan or OSU move out west if it means that much to them. Whew!
In an attepmt to compare apples to apples, since PSU came into the Big Ten (1993) vs. since the Beginning of the Alverez Era (1990), here are the numbers:
Wisconsin, .642 winning percentage, 3 Big Ten Titles.
Penn State, .703 winning percentage, 3 Big Ten Titles.
A .061 difference in w/p in no way justifies moving PSU out of the Eastern div., especially when it’s only done to please OSU and UM.