Big Ten alum

<p>I’d propose more of a Northwest-Southeast division, with the Northwest consisting of Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois, and the Southeast consisting of Rutgers, Penn State, Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, and Northwestern. (Yes, I know Evanston is north of Champaign-Urbana, but for Rutgers and Penn State Evanston is a much easier travel date than Champaign-Urbana). You could easily allow each school to schedule one out-of-division traditional rivalry game to preserve the Mich9igan-Ohio State match-up.</p>

<p>This division consolidates a lot of traditional rivalries in-division: Michigan-Michigan State, Michigan-Wisconsin, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Minnesota-Iowa, Purdue-Indiana, as well as the recent but intense Penn State-Ohio State rivalry and the anticipated Penn State-Rutgers rivalry. It provides considerable geographic contiguity within the divisions, though each school would need to schedule some out-of-division conference games. It splits up the traditional football powerhouses (Michigan in the Northwest and Penn State and Ohio State in the Southeast) and provides rough parity between the divisions. After the “Big Three” football powers, I’d say that Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan State—all in the same division as Michigan–have fielded the most competitive football teams recently. Minnesota and Iowa in the Northwest are up-and-down teams, highly capable of knocking off a strong opponent or even contending for the division title some years, as are Purdue and occasionally Northwestern in the Southeast. Indiana has lagged of late, and Rutgers has enjoyed some success in another conference but is a bit of a wild card in the Big Ten until it establishes how it holds up against a steady diet of Big Ten competition. Thus while the Southeast with Penn State and Ohio State arguably would be a stronger football division at the very top, the Northwest division arguably has slightly greater strength through the middle and lower levels.</p>

<p>I think this division works for basketball, too. Michigan State (in the Northwest) is top dog, followed by Illinois and Wisconsin in the Northwest, along with Ohio State, Purdue, and Indiana (bad now, but they won’t stay there) in the Southeast. Minnesota and Michigan in the Northwest show signs of becoming competitive, and as in football Iowa is capable of the upset or strong year in basketball, making for a relatively strong division top-to-bottom. Penn State in the Southeast is a much improved basketball team that could compete with the aforementioned top Southeast division teams, and Rutgers, while still a wild card, is likely to be pretty good against Big Ten basketball competition. Northwestern has long seemed pretty hopeless in basketball, through they came close to making the NCAA tournament this year and in any case, they’ve got to go somewhere. Overall, then, these basketball divisions seem fairly evenly matched, with the biggest marquee names (Michigan State and Indiana) divided between the two divisions.</p>

<p>^^ I don’t think the divisions matter for any sport other than football.</p>

<p>bclintonk, how does your proposed system fit the Michigan-Ohio State football rivalry?</p>

<p>tenisghs- this was in bc’s post</p>

<p>You could easily allow each school to schedule one out-of-division traditional rivalry game to preserve the Mich9igan-Ohio State match-up.</p>

<p>Interesting ideas here. Years ago, the B10 always had the spot saved for Notre Dame, kept offering, but ND always said no, hence Bo Schembechler and his “to hell with Notre Dame” :)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>ND not joining the B10 has nothing to do $$ - it’s a wash moneywise w/ the B10 maybe making even more if the projected revenue from the the B10 Network play out.</p>

<p>The reason why ND hasn’t joined the B10 is b/c the majority of alums don’t want it (while the ND faculty actually voted to join the conf.).</p>

<p>The one thing that may get ND alums to change their mind is if the FB continues to stink every 3-4 years when it breaks in a new QB.</p>

<p>By joining a conf., the QB (and other inexperienced players) get some game-time experience against lesser opponents (usually at least 3 games) under their belt before having to face conf. foes.</p>

<p>ND, otoh, ends up playing the likes of UM, MSU, etc. early.</p>

<p>But even so, it’s an unlikely scenario (esp. since ND should have a pretty good season due to having a pretty soft schedule - a lot of the teams on their schedule are breaking in new QBs/RBs).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Texas is no farther away than Miami is from BC.</p>

<p>And while it’s unlikely that Texas will make a switch, UT has long been unhappy w/ the TV revenues that the B12 has been bringing in and the B10 has already made an overture to UT.</p>

<p>Mizzou is a stronger draw in its markets in both FB and BB than Rutgers - but neither school really brings much to the table to the B10.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You have to get the sports package. </p>

<p>Adding Rutgers will not get the B10 Network on expanded basic and thus makes no sense for the B10 to add Rutgers.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s b/c PSU is too busy taking the best talent out of Maryland.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>NY and Delaware don’t have much FB talent and PSU already owns Maryland.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Iowa St. has a mediocre FB program and adding them wouldn’t bring in a new market (plus, doesn’t match academically).</p>

<p>WVa’s market isn’t big enough and doesn’t match academically.</p>

<p>Mizzou is a better match on all 3 fronts, but not good enough to warrant expansion.</p>

<p>k&s- I read Texas is not possible because the politicians in Texas will not allow Texas and A&M to be in separate conferences.</p>

<p>Oh- Long Island and Rockland and Westchester counties have some good football players.</p>

<p>People in Texas care more about losing the rivalry w/ OU than A&M and in the grand scheme of things $$ ultimately is what matters.</p>

<p>As for LI, Westchester, etc. - yeah, there are a few BCS quality recruits but not many relative to the state’s pop. base.</p>

<p>From 2004-08, NY ranked 21st w/ regard to having the most BCS recruits.</p>

<p>I agree with you about the Texas-Oklahoma game but the local pols will still want to keep A&M and Texas together. I also agree that PSU has been getting a lot of kids from Maryland.</p>

<p>Never spent much time in Texas but I suspect Texas v. A & M is one of those lopsided rivalries, more important to A & M than to Texas. Same as Michigan v. Michigan State, always Michigan State’s biggest rivalry game of the year but probably #3 for Michigan after Ohio State and Notre Dame in that order.</p>