How big of an advantage is it to finish your season later rather than earlier?
Jim Delaney and the rest of the Big Ten asked this question this past offseason and decided it would be to their advantage to extend their regular season by one week, adding a "bye week" to each team's schedule.
In years past, most Big Ten teams would play a 12-game schedule that ended by the third weekend in November. This year, however, Big Ten teams look to finish their regular season a week later, in compliance with the standards the rest of the BCS Conferences have set.
The last two years have seen Ohio State waiting 50-plus days between the Michigan game and the BCS Title game. Regardless who you are, being expected to play the best game of your life after not playing a game in over 50 days is not an easy task—and it has showed.
Ohio State's underachieving was not the main reason for the Big Ten's decision, but it was the most publicized side effect of the Big Ten's schedule.
While stretching out the season an extra week is a start, some critics argue it is not enough. In addition to long layoffs between the regular season finale and the bowl game, Big Ten teams have been vulnerable to being leapfrogged by teams whose only true advantage was that they played into December.
After the epic Ohio State-Michigan game in 2006, Michigan was ranked No. 2 in the rankings (Coaches, AP, and BCS) released immediately following the game. Having just seen an incredible game between two great teams, the computers and humans agreed Michigan was worthy of the No. 2 spot.
The following week, however, USC leapfrogged Michigan after a convincing win over No. 6 Notre Dame, and there weren't too many complaints. The general consensus was that USC had truly earned their No. 2 spot.
Unfortunately, USC lost the following week to rival UCLA, and their dreams were limited to the Rose Bowl. Michigan was sure to reclaim their No. 2 spot, right?
Thanks to a win in the SEC Championship Game and some strategic campaigning by coach Urban Meyer, Florida slipped ahead of Michigan in the final BCS Rankings.
Michigan was quite possibly the second-best team of the regular season in 2006. What, aside from their late loss to Ohio State, proved most detrimental to their ranking?
The fact that Florida, ranked behind Michigan all year, played two games after Michigan finished their season.
Extending the Big Ten schedule one week does help the problem, but critics are quick to point out that the top teams in the SEC, Big 12, and ACC will still be playing a week more than the top teams in the Big Ten. The absence of a conference championship is ominously haunting the Big Ten, and some wonder if a conference championship game would be prudent.
Before analyzing this idea, let's identify the logistics of the matter: The Big Ten would have to add one more team.
In order to have a Conference Championship—in which two division winners would face each other—the Big Ten would need two divisions. Unfortunately, conferences need 12 teams to have such a system. The Big Ten only has 11 right now.
49 comments Last one added 9 months ago — Leave a Comment
Kent Moore 11 months ago
Why do you have to split the Divisions by rivalries or by geography? Just split them into two equal divisions. Instead of calling the Divisions "East" and "West," call them by some generic name (Think ACC):
The Midwest Division:
- Michigan
- Indiana
- Wisconsin
- Purdue
- Illinois
- Notre Dame/Pitt/Syracuse/Kentucky/etc.
The Heartland Division:
- Ohio State
- Penn State
- Northwestern
- Iowa
- Michigan State
- Minnesota
Now you have Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions. Maybe we could see the rivalry being played twice in one year (The regular season and Conference Championship Game)
NOTE -- I personally think Conference Championship Games are not necessary most of the time. They are mostly played just to bring in revenue and have no real meaning to the sport. People say they 1.) shake up the National Title seen (obviously) and 2.) that these games are for conference pride.
1.) Of course it is going to shake up the National Title seen. Its an extra game that normally pins two highly ranked teams.
2.) Where is the pride of an undefeated team playing against a 3 or even 4 loss team in the conference championship game? Makes no sense.
I've said this before. The only time a Conf. Championship Game is neccessary is when you have to teams in the conference with identical records at the end of the season. Also, the two teams must not have played each other during the regular season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kent Moore 11 months ago
scene instead of seen.
There are a few bricks missing from my building today.
Edit Comment Cancel
CB 11 months ago
I LOVE the article and the comment. You are on to something. All big ten fans have been thinking something along these lines, but never have been able to put it into concise words. Keep writing, Ill keep reading.
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 11 months ago
Ned, let me thank you for a well thought out article. I would encourage you to continue to pursue this idea as I believe it is something that will happen eventually.
You've got good comment here from Kent, who is making a name for himself among B/R writers of Big 10 action, and it leads down to the same conclusion. The conference title games are here to stay, in football, basketball, and baseball. It can be called unnecessary for having different records aligned to play but this is money, this is fame, this is exposure. The Big10 and PAC10 have only 2 of the 10 BCS championships. This tells me they will expand and try to wrest the majority of crowns from the conference title-game conferences. The days of the non-title game conferences are numbered, they will be gone like Gone With The Wind, and people 25 years from now will say "can you believe there used to be no divisions in Major League Baseball for nearly a century"? "Just American and National League pennant races?" Unbelievable will be the answer. Then, "can you believe the college conferences didn't have a title game until the 1990s"? "Simply primitive, we have it all so much better now."
Keep up the good work, Ned.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tyler Jones 11 months ago
Good work and very interesting, but I disagree. These were all issues when the SEC added Arkansas and South Carolina. That the East would be that much better than the West with Tenn., Florida and georgia (LSU and others were not the programs at that time that they are today). Since then, things have turned out fine.
Plus, just because you're playing in different divisions doesn't mean you loose those rivalries all together. You'd still have 3 games out of division, but in conference.
I know you said you didn't want to delve in it, but there's no way kentucky would leave the SEC, or Missouri the Big 12. Why would a team leave one BCS conference for another (the Big east doesn't count. the only reason they're BCS is because when they created it, Miami & BC were still there.)?
Also, the factor you didn't highlight about 2006, was that Michigan and OSU had already played. I'm sure it would've been great for Big Ten fans, but no one else really wanted to see a repeat of that game for the title. It was kind of like, "Both of you had your shot when you played each other already." You could argue that 'as long as it's the best 2 teams why does it matter?'. You could, if Florida didn't rip Ohio State a new one.
If the Big Ten doesn't want a conference title because it keeps 2 BCS bowl teams, then that's cheap. It's like saying, "We want to keep it easy on everyone so we look better." It doesn't make sense either. The SEC almost always has a 2nd BCS bowl team, especially when one is playing for the title. The Big 12 too.
I do like the article, I just disagree. I can't stand that Notre Dame won't join a conference just because of their fat NBC contract. I think if they'd be willing, it'd be great for the Big Ten. That won't happen anytime soon, and that's ND's fault, not the Big ten.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Staab 11 months ago
Lots of articles written in the past few months about the possibility of a Big Ten expansion and conference championship. By far, this is one of the best written.
If NBC ever drops ND, I wouldn't be surprised if ND tried to get their football program into the Big Ten, the only problem is that in every other sport, they play in the Big East conference.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kent Moore 11 months ago
Top choices of teams that would be a great fit for the Big Ten:
- Notre Dame: Right Smack Dab in the middle of Big Ten country
- Pitt: Would bring back the Pitt/Penn State Rivalry
- WVU: Ohio and West Virginia aren't the friendliest of neighbors (I grew up along the Ohio River so I know this from first hand experience). Plus with Rich Rod in Michigan...it could potentially lead to a big rivalry.
- Syracuse: Pretty much the location of the school.
- Missouri: I got nothing as to why they should join the Big Ten.
The top choice has got to be Notre Dame. No Conference affiliation right now so they are the perfect fit.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Staab 11 months ago
ND is above and beyond any other contender for membership in the Big Ten, problem is, could their football team play in the Big Ten (lets just say hypothetically, if NBC drops their contract) and in turn, get the rest of ND sports teams to jump from the BE to the Big Ten? Domer football already has an established rivalry with MSU and scUM as it is, not to mention potential rivalries against Ohio State and maybe Penn State or Wisky, and of course, the in-state schools (IU, Purdue)
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 11 months ago
i once spent the better part of a work day (trying to avoid work) trying to realign the big 10 with ND included. looks like you went to some of the same steps.
if only i'd been smart enough to make an article out of it.
great job!
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 11 months ago
Justin, we've all spent a day here or there getting out of work figuring out such things as Big10 alignment, the Bowls, the NCAA tourney. We're right there with you.
I once heard "only a good man wears the LSU shirt......"
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 11 months ago
baby tate,
that quote is ok by me!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Scott 11 months ago
Eventually, having a conference championship will be a requirement to being a BCS conference. The lack of a conference championship is always the reason when there is BCS "contraversy". One day the Rose Bowl will wake up and realize that nobody outside of the Big 10 and PAC 10 considers it to be the "grandaddy" of bowl games. Finally, when we (eventually) go to a playoff system in college football, the conference championships will be unavoidable.
Might as well get on board and get used to it now. What have you got to lose? A conference chamionship means more money for the conference, more exposure for the programs involved, and less contraversy. It's a no-brainer.
Great article but I just don't buy the premise that tradition makes it impossible.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Hoppes 11 months ago
"Unfortunately, conferences need 12 teams to have such a system."
Is this an NCAA rule? If not, why do you have to have 12 teams them to go 6/6? Why can't you go 5/6? Works fine in MLB to have different number of teams in divisions, and there are 4 to 6.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lawrence Duffy 11 months ago
Yeah this is an NCAA rule. That's why the ACC had to add Miami, BC, and Va Tech to get a conference title game. Also, the way the ACC does it, each team would play every division opponent once, a permanent rival in the other division every year (this would solve it if Michigan and OSU ever split divisions), and 2 rotating home-and-home series against teams in the other division.
If it were up to me, I would want Notre Dame in the Big Ten. But that won't happen until at least 2015 when their current NBC contract is up. What Big 10 teams should do when ND is renegotiating with NBC is to tell them that either you join the Big Ten or we don't play you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brendan Monaghan 11 months ago
Good article, but the Big Ten shouldn't add a 12th team- any 12th team, it would seem- just for the sake of having a money-making championship game. First of all, yes, it would devalue the rivalry game between Michigan and Ohio State. As an ex-Husker fan, the worst thing the Big XII did was destroy the traditional Nebraska-Oklahoma rivalry by putting them in different divisions. On the other hand, you'd have to create some sort of system like the ACC/SEC where each team has a "special" game where they play a team in the other division every year.
When the Big XII voted to create a championship game, the only coach to vote against it was Tom Osborne. He predicted that sooner or later, this game would cost a team a shot at the national title. Not only did it happen to his Huskers in the inaugural game of 1996, but it happened again to unbeaten Kansas State in 1998, (arguably) the Texas Longhorns in 2001, and it should have knocked out the Sooners in 2003. There's no question this would happen in a Big Ten Championship Game (which doesn't even mention the added potential for injuries).
The bottom line is that my Buckeyes didn't get thrashed in back-to-back national title games because of the long layoff, and extending the season to the last possible date won't change things by itself. The best team in the nation should be able to win a championship game anytime, anywhere. Could it be instead that the USC's, the Floridas, and the LSU's are just better teams than the Ohio States, the Michigans, and the Illinois'? And wait, Michigan beat Florida last year in the Outback Bowl, and waited just as long as all the other Big Ten teams to play a football game. How did that happen?
Edit Comment Cancel
Mark 11 months ago
Just because your rival is in a different division does not mean that a that you can't play them every year. For example, Auburn and Georgia are in different SEC divisions; however, they still play each other every year. A problem arises when a team has three rivals in the different division, but, in your above scenario, none of the teams do.
And there is no rule that you have to split the division geographically or by rival.
Edit Comment Cancel
Rob Sansing 11 months ago
interesting point re: auburn & georgia and all the hand wringing over losing "traditional rivals". when the SEC split, other than alabama, auburn's biggest rivalry games were georgia, tennessee & florida-- all of whom moved to the other division and off auburn's schedule. auburn almost never played LSU or ole miss, and, of course, arkansas was new to the league. while it's a shame auburn doesn't have those great games against the vols & gators every year, no one would question that auburn vs LSU has become a "big game". and because of coach tuberville's ties to arkansas & ole miss, those games have some interesting history now. my point being, don't be afraid of change. new rivalries will rise from the ashes.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brian Scott 11 months ago
"And wait, Michigan beat Florida last year in the Outback Bowl, and waited just as long as all the other Big Ten teams to play a football game. How did that happen?"
Tebow played with a broken arm and stayed in the pocket with no running backs.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alex Kanous 11 months ago
How about a Big 10 North/South split?
North:
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Michigan
Penn State
New Team
South:
Iowa
Northwestern
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Ohio State
It makes for a somewhat tougher north division, but nearly as bad as the east/west geographic split.
As for the idea of a 12th team, I've been rather partial to the idea of adding Pittsburgh. The team once had a great rivalry with PSU and it would keep the conference within the same set of states that currently comprise the Big 10 - even cementing the somewhat tenuous relationship it currently has with the state of Pennsylvania.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brendan Monaghan 11 months ago
haha, I think Joe Pa would veto adding Pitt to the Big Ten.
Edit Comment Cancel
Adam Rothlisberger 11 months ago
Notre Dame would be the obvious choice but that school is too stupid to join a conference... they make enough money as it is being independent and keeping all their rivalries with a few good teams and the terrible military schools... I don't really care for the whole conference championship game because in the end the two best teams in the conference aren't always guaranteed to be playing in it anyways.... what I would like to see the Big 10 do is get rid of Northwestern because they are pretty much worthless in everything... and just make it an actual Big 10 again and that way every team plays a round robin like the PAC 10 does.
Edit Comment Cancel
Raj Kamruddin 11 months ago
We play Navy each year. That was a promise made when the World War almost shut down the university. Navy helped ND and with it was a lifetime contract. The rest of the traditional rivalries are not weak. U$C, Michigan, Georgia Tech, UCLA, Purdue, michigan State, Boston College, Pitt, Pen State, stanford. These teams we have been playing for over 80 years now.
If a university such as ND is making enough money as it is being independent which goes towards univeristy enrichment, why are they stupid?? While most think college football is the only reason for existence for a university, ND uses the revenue and endowments towards many other areas.
I also wouldnt say Northwestern is worthless at everything. Maybe football and basketball, but they have had successfull teams in other sports. I think the Girls Lacrosse team has won the championship a few years in a row now.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Staab 11 months ago
Lets not forget that the Big Ten was first established as an academic alliance, the sports conference just happened to be secondary (but now the roles seem to be reversed).
As far as academics are concerned, Northwestern is one of the best schools in the Midwest, if not the country.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tiffany Davies 11 months ago
As many, many others have mentioned, Notre Dame is probably the most obvious geographical choice for a new team. BUT, the problem with ND is that both their lovely NBC contract and their overly large egos wouldn't be able to be the #1 attention gettern a conference, especially behind a rivalry like OSU-Mich. Personally, I'd boot out Northwestern or Minnesota or bring in a 12th team. Then the name becomes a bit of a problem though. Here's my pick for 'divisions':
Division A--
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa
Penn State
Minnesota
Division B--
Purdue
OSU
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
I think those two divisions are pretty equal, you've got 3 good teams per division (UMich/Wisconsin/PSU, OSU/MSU/Illinois), and at least 2 mediocre (IU/Iowa/Minnesota, Purdue/Northwestern). The only key that the playoff matchups would have to cross division lines, which is a bit nontraditional, but could work.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kent Moore 11 months ago
If every conference went to 12+ teams, then they should make the first weekend in December "Conference Championship Weekend (if neccessary)"
Edit Comment Cancel
BabyTate 11 months ago
Bingo. Just like March.
Kent, you're on to something there.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alex Ferguson 11 months ago
Love the article. Still think Big Ten needs a Championship game though.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kevin Luchansky 11 months ago
nice work man, great read. I think adding Pitt to the Big Ten makes the most sense and could be the easiest to maneuver
Edit Comment Cancel
Nathan Blunck 11 months ago
it was a good article and you were on point with the fact that we need to add a 12th team, but you really need to think about the teams you suggested.
Missouri-No way the Big 12 lets them leave, especially now since they're becoming relevant.
Kentucky-The SEC won't let them leave either.
Notre Dame-Makes the most sense with Indiana and Purdue in the conference already, but they have something like a 30 year schedule, so that'd be down right impossible.
Rutgers and Syracuse are just ridiculously far east for the rest of the conference.
My suggestion would be to bring in a team in a smaller conference. Why not go after Western Michigan? I've read a few people saying Pitt would be a good fit. Why not?
Go after Pitt, Western Michigan, or another small conference power close enough to the existing teams to not make travel that much worse-I can't imagine any MAC team turning down an invite to the Big 10.
Hopefully Big 12 and SEC fans can read this and see how hard it would be to add a team and they can't stop giving us so much crap about it. Again, well written article, i don't think i could have gone through that many scenarios and kept them straight.
Edit Comment Cancel
Adam Rothlisberger 11 months ago
You mention small school power teams.... Western Kentucky is new to Division 1A in football... it will take them time to compete in football in the Big 10 much like that likes of Troy State who is now called Troy... but in the end it would work out nicely and then there could be a Big 10 with 12 teams which makes no sense.. and they could split it into north and south divisions very easily by putting the teams that are geographically in the north in one division and the teams in the south geographically in another division... they would have to somehow choose which one gets Purdue and which one get Indiana though.
North--
Michigan
Michigan St.
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Purdue
South--
Ohio State
Illinois
Penn State
Indiana
Northwestern
Western Kentucky
Edit Comment Cancel
Nathan Blunck 11 months ago
i said western michigan, not western kentucky
Edit Comment Cancel
Adam Rothlisberger 11 months ago
I know..... i guess i forgot to mention that I was putting a new team into the mix instead of Western Michigan... Western Michigan could come in and compete faster than Western Kentucky... but the fact that Western Kentucky is independent and looking for a conference is why I mentioned them.. plus I don't want another Michigan school in the Big 10... there are already two and that is plenty.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nathan Blunck 11 months ago
now i got it. western kentucky is interesting. they didn't do too badly with their schedule last year and i could almost see them being an indiana type school (really up and down) and they might be able to compete with minnesota. it's an interesting option.
Edit Comment Cancel
Adam Rothlisberger 11 months ago
Just something to think about... Minnesota was terrible last year but the coach is doing a good job there... and Adam Weber has the tools to be an outstanding quarterback if he gets some weapons around him.... sorry.. im no gopher fan I just hear people putting down Minnesota an awful lot lately just because of one horrible year with a first year coach....
Edit Comment Cancel
Nathan Blunck 11 months ago
minnesota has been down for more than one year. they didn't even win consistently with marion barber and laurence maroney in the backfield. i hope they can get it going, and i do think they're on the right track, but it's going to take another 2-3 years before results are seen, in my opinion. and i just got my athlon sports preview magazine out and western kentucky has an agreement with the Sun Belt conference to join in 2009, so i guess it's all a moot point. it's been fun talking to you so far. it's kinda weird that we've had our own little conversation within the thread. we'll see how the season plays out, good luck to you. Go Hawks
Edit Comment Cancel
Trey Bradley 11 months ago
Here's the solution... eliminate these games from each of the following Big Ten team's schedule.
Ohio State: Youngstown St
Illinois: Louisiana-Lafayette
Michigan: Toledo
Wisconsin: Cal Poly
Penn St: Coastal Carolina
Iowa: Florida Intl
Indiana: Murray St
Mich St: Florida Atl
Purdue: Northen Colorado
Northwestern/Minnesota: well... any opponent's a fair opponent for these two
Get rid of the garbage scheduling in an already shallow conference in terms of talent, and suddenly you can play a full round robin! No conference championship game necessary. 2 non-conference games... one easy, one challenging... 10 conference games... 1 bye week.
Done.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kristofer Green 11 months ago
Great idea, Trey! Except they would have to lose 2 teams off the schedule. Still very realistic considering every Big Ten team has at least two cupcakes on their schedule. This would still allow UM, MSU, and Purdue to play Notre Dame every year.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 11 months ago
The Big Ten has a conference championship....it's every game.
I don't like conference championships for the very reason you pointed out...sometimes the top two teams (ie, Mich and OSU) don't get in the cc. It places more emphasis on the division than the conference.
I like Trey's idea! Get rid of the freaking cupcakes and schedule a BCS conference team like Ohio State has with USC.
Great article, it's my POTD!
Edit Comment Cancel
Raj Kamruddin 11 months ago
ND WILL NEVER EVER EVER JOIN THE BIG 10. ND rejected the Big 10 few years back. IF... ND ever joined a confernce which it has no plans since they place a big importance on being independent, the school would join the Big East. All of our other sports play in the Big East. Our home footbal officials are from the Big East. Notre Dame is part of the commitee to help find the next commisioner of the Big East after the 2009 season. ND also has come to aid Big East by agreeing to play Big East teams in upcoming years after some teams left the conference. That is why ND has home and away/nuetral site games. Big East commisioner has had alot of conversations about getting ND to join the conference. ND has alot of ties with Big East.
Also makes more sense for ND to be part of Big East over Big 10 for recruiting. We draw from midwest due to location, but also alot of kids from east coast because of our games in Big East area. That is why ND wants so many nuetral site games so that alumni base and recruits can see ND.
On the topic of a confernce championship. I think it would be great if possible. Just split up Ohio State and Michigan.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 11 months ago
This brings up some interesting points. I had several thoughts but see that some other comments have covered some of them extensively. Here are the others.
Using names like Heartland and Midwest (besides just sounding stupid (no offense to the author)) are problematic. Ask most college fans who is in the SEC East and they can tell you. Ask who is in the ACC Coastal and they don't have a clue. Geographic names work best but can cause some split issues (such as putting Penn State in the West). But hey, we are talking about a conference with 11 teams that calls itself the Big Ten so what can I say? Personally, I think the North/South split is more balanced and the Big Ten can model the SEC as for keeping traditional rivalries in place with some constant inter-divisional games that don't rotate.
I would agree that Ohio State and Michigan must be in different divisions for strength balancing. And that leads me to the biggest problem that a Big Ten champ. game would face. Let's say that most years Ohio State and Michigan win their divisions (remember there would be no more ties as a tie-breaking system would have to determine who played in that game). If their rivalry is kept intact during the season (be it the last game or some other game), there is a good chance of a split during the season with one winning in the regular season and the other winning the champ. game. The losing team would more than occasionally have a beef with the result as they might could argue that they lost the champ. game by a field goal but blew the other team out during the reg. season. Also, what if both teams were healthy during reg. season but the reg. season winner loses the champ. game primarily because of an inordinate amount of injuries? On top of this, do we really want to see Michigan and Ohio State play on consecutive Saturdays most years (as it would be unlikely that they would move their schedules around for this)?
Finally, I think it would be interesting to contemplate where they would play the champ. game should it occur. You've got Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, even Pittsburgh (although that's getting into Big East territory) all with NFL stadiums and hotel capacity that could host the game. Would it rotate like the ACC or would it stay in one place like the SEC? There certainly are a lot of options...perhaps more than in any other conference.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 11 months ago
One other thing...
It would be unbecoming of a league with the clout of the Big Ten to be inviting any team that had a direction in their name (Western Michigan, Western Kentucky). This is one of the largest, oldest, proudest conferences around. They have been without a 12th team this long. A 12th team is not worth diluting the value of the conference. If they can't get ND, they should go for West Virginia, Syracuse, Rutgers, or Pitt. Those are close by, extend the reach of the conference eastward, and are in major media markets. For those that say West Virginia isn't a major media market, remember that the whole state follows just one school. Besides, Missouri and Kentucky are unlikely to leave very good situations. The conferences would not have to enforce anything to keep them. But these other schools listed would be stepping up.
Edit Comment Cancel
Shane Melvin 11 months ago
The Big Ten inst sure what to do cuz they still arnt sure on how many teams they have......or is it that they dont have?!?!?! Big10------Eleven teams,,,,,,,how retarded!
Edit Comment Cancel
Jonathon Loughridge 11 months ago
I would split the league North/South. It would look like this:
Big Ten North:
Michigan
Michigan St.
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
New Team
Big Ten South
Ohio St.
Penn St.
Illinois
Indiana
Purdue
Iowa
This would work if you had the biggest rivalries that are inter-division as permanent games on the schedule.
Edit Comment Cancel
Adam Rothlisberger 11 months ago
only problem there is that Iowa is more north than Northwestern....
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 11 months ago
Jonathon,
I also suggested a North/South breakdown but didn't get into specifics. I think you are right on here. Providing the new team is from the North, this works. However, if the new team fits more likely in the South, I think Penn State or Iowa makes the most sense as far as who is geographically more north of the South teams. However, that would cause travel imbalances given the North teams would be travelling a lot and the South teams would be fairly compact.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jonathon Loughridge 11 months ago
My breakdown was only tentative. If you think Northwestern and Iowa should switch, fine by me.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jonathon Loughridge 11 months ago
The only problem would be the conference name...it couldn't be the Big Ten anymore since there are twelve teams...how about the Big North?
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan J. 10 months ago
The Big Ten should hold out for Notre Dame. As far as I'm concerned, none of the other schools that are traditionally thrown around in the expansion conversation are worthy.
Once Notre Dame joins, the league can be split in any way, and it doesn't have to be based on geography. Perhaps even placing traditional rivals in separate divisions and simply locking in one cross-divisional game each year (I think the SEC currently does something similar).
As for a potential conference title game, I think it has to be played in a dome, considering such a game would be taking place in early December. To me it would make sense to rotate it between Indianapolis, Detroit, and Minneapolis.
That being said, I don't think a conference title game is a necessity, at least not as long as the current BCS system is in place. Sure the extra money from holding the title game would be nice, but it may not be worth it if it costs a team in the conference a shot at the national title game. However things could change if/when college football moves to a playoff.
Edit Comment Cancel
mike moran 9 months ago
Just a few thoughts, its interesting that big 10 fans comment on how great the confernce is and how much notre dame sucks, yet most want ND in as 12th member. The only thing ND has in common with the big ten is geography.Every other aspect they fit much better with the BE basketball schools or even the acc schools.(size of student body socially, alumni base etc).ND prides itself on being a catholic institution and loves the idea of competing against its like minded "sister" schools like (marquette, providence georgetown and villanova) in olympic sports. I think they would also like to be in a conference where they could compete against the only other 1a fb catholic school in the nation in Boston College.The best scenario for ND should they join a conference, remain with the current big east bb schools for all sports other then fb. Join with the newly split BE FB schools as a fb only member in a conference that some how included BC & Penn St.
Many also dont want michigan and osu in the same division becuse it would mean one of them couldnt be in the conf champ game.Plus penn st would make the east division too strong. This sounds like osu, pen st and michigan are the class of the big 10 and everybody else is far behind. I think mich/osu in the same division would be GREAT for the rest of the conference and make it stronger. It would also make that rivalry much more intense.If you are a recruit at wisconsin, minnesota or iowa , for example, wouldn't it be great to hear you have a chance (if you win your division) to play osu or michigan for conf champ?Sounds much better then you may play osu if we get by michigan or vica versa. Eventually these schools would attract better recruits since they have a better shot at winning the conf title. Then the big ten would be more then osu, michigan, sometimes penn st and wisconsin and the 7 "other" schools (or 8 since they may expand)
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.