Revisiting the Big Ten Split
By Paul Myerberg // Sep 1, 2010
Jim Delany took a big chance splitting up Ohio State and Michigan, two longtime rivals.
Way back on June 12, way back when the Countdown had barely broken into double-digits, I took an early look at how the Big Ten might split following the addition of Nebraska in 2011. In that post, I assumed the conference would realign itself along one of three scenarios: by historic rivalries, by geography or by competitive balance. In my mind, each divisional split offered the 12-team conference some semblance of continuity, the deciding factor behind any eventual decision. Each scenario had its drawbacks, each its positives. Now that the divisional split is final — we think — let’s take a look at how my original projection compares with the real thing.
So here’s how the divisions will play out, beginning in 2011:
Division I
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Division II
Indiana
Illinois
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Wisconsin
We see Nebraska in the first division, of course, and Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions. The latter is the biggest storyline, with the burgeoning rivalry between the Cornhuskers and Iowa one of the many positive side effects stemming from Nebraska’s addition to the conference.
How does the new alignment match up with a split along historic rivalries? Back in June, I suggested such a split would fall thusly:
Rivalry Division I
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Penn State
Wisconsin
Rivalry Division II
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Northwestern
Purdue
The difference? Michigan and Ohio State aren’t being separated, obviously — even if the long-standing rivals will continue to meet yearly, as the Big Ten has suggested. In my idea of a split along rivalries, the second division was clearly weaker than the first: Iowa, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin; as compared to Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State.
What if the Big Ten had opted to go by geography, as I suggested in June?
Geographical Division I
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Geographical Division II
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Again, Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division. I don’t think anyone could have predicted that the Big Ten would split up the two programs, though it began to seem like a foregone conclusion in the last week. Of the three scenarios I presented in June, this was the most intriguing: I liked the idea of Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin sharing one division; as well as the idea of Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State battling for the top spot in the Big Ten’s second grouping.
Thirdly, I though the Big Ten might split by competitive balance; of course, this is the goal of any conference. How did I predict that alignment to fall?
Balanced Division I
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Penn State
Balanced Division II
Indiana
Michigan
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Wisconsin
Roughly the same, with some slight tweaks. Michigan is with Iowa and Nebraska in the first division; again, I never assumed that the Big Ten would split up the Wolverines and Buckeyes. Before going any further, however, let’s agree on this: college football is cyclical, meaning today’s powerhouse is tomorrow’s cellar dweller — and vice versa.
Having said that, it seems like the 2011 alignment favors Nebraska, the conference’s newest addition. Do you agree? Now, we don’t know which teams Nebraska will face in Big Ten play — which teams from the opposite division — but the road to a divisional title looks far easier than it would have been if the Cornhuskers had been grouped with Ohio State and Penn State, not to mention Wisconsin.
It’s also worth noting that there exists the possibility that the Big Ten will eschew a traditional schedule, where a team would play each of its five divisional rivals and alternate through the six teams in the opposite division. Instead, the Big Ten might simply schedule each team as if there were no divisional split, yet hold each team’s final conference record against the rest of its division when selecting two participants for the conference title game.
The big loser? I can’t help but feel a touch of nostalgia for the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry, which will still go far in determining conference supremacy — and bragging rights — but will likely lose some juice if played in October, not on the final weekend of the season.
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
So much to discuss here…
First off, I’d say if anyone has a right to complain, it’s Wisconsin. It’s split off from its natural rivals, both Iowa and Minnesota, and doesn’t get a new geographic rival in Nebraska, either. Also, it loses Northwestern, the closest team by proximity, although I doubt Badger fans will complain about that. I’m surprised Delany & Co. didn’t switch Minnesota and Illinois, thus preserving Wisconsin vs Minnesota and Illinois vs Northwestern as division rivals.
Secondly, as a Northwestern alum and fan, I have to say, I’m very happy with how things turned out. Ohio State and Penn State out of our division, a weakened Michigan in. Rivals Iowa (8-5 since 1995), Michigan St. (5-6 over the same period) and Minnesota (6-5) who seem manageable compared to OSU and PSU. A protected rivalry with Illinois (10-5). Games the next two years with Indiana. Nebraska seems the most imposing of the bunch, but it’s just one game. The rest of the teams in our division seem….beatable for Fitz and crew.
Thirdly, I’m disappointed as a Big Ten fan that Michigan and Ohio State weren’t kept in the same division. An earlier matchup to prevent a rematch in the Big Ten Championship Game just won’t have the same appeal. It’s supposed to be a cold weather game!
http://www.huskers.com//pdf8/709131.pdf?SPID=22&MSMD=31&SPSID=1&DB_OEM_ID=100
They’ve got that game slated for the last game before the championship
Paul, since I haven’t expressed this yet, thank you very much for all you do for this blog and college football fans everywhere. You’re a credit to your profession. And a special thank you from me and from all other Cub fans who happen to love college football. Without you, this baseball season would have been just interminable.
@Mike
That’s good news, I didn’t see that. Good for them for maintaining the rivalry at the end of the season.
Yep, from what the Big Ten Network pundits were saying, the game is at the end of the year still.
Should have had them in the same division but oh well.
From an Iowa fan’s prospective, I realize that we couldn’t get everything that we wanted. Regardless, this is a nice second-best scenario. We keep Minnesota and gain a new rivalry with Nebraska that for at least 2011-2012 will be played on the last Saturday on the schedule. The cross-division Purdue rivalry is “meh”, but at least it isn’t Indiana. I’m also glad that there’s a sensible geographic split.
Paul, as a non-baseball fan, all I had this summer was the World Cup. You saved the rest of it with your astounding amount of daily content. Thanks!
“Nebraska seems the most imposing of the bunch, but it’s just one game. The rest of the teams in our division seem….beatable for Fitz and crew.”
-wildcat6
Wow ‘Cat you sure are confident about you team. Don’t get to cocky. It’s Just NU.
@IowaCityHawks
Northwestern’s records vs since 1995:
Ohio St. 1-9
Penn St. 3-8
Iowa 8-5
Michigan 4-8
Michigan St. 5-6
Minnesota 6-5
Nebraska 0-1 (bowl)
Nothing cocky about it – the numbers speak for themselves. “Beatable” doesn’t mean I’m saying we’re going to win.
Maybe I should at least give you credit for calling us “Just NU” instead of jNWU.
I wanted to keep it civil, with all the jNWU and Ioa kindergarten B.S. I think NU fans should stop the ’95 argument it’s 2010 How many bowl wins do you have in the last 5 years? Isn’t that what’s all about? The final goal? National media hype?