Legends, Leaders, and Weak Non-Conference Games: Time to Clean It Up, Big 10/12!

As a college football fan who lives in a predominantly Big 10 area (Wisconsin) but who does not have a Big 10 team as his favorite, I guess I'm a bit of an outsider on this page.  Please pardon my intrusion. But that doesn't mean that I don't have my opinions on what the Big 10 - or other conferences or teams for that matter—might do to improve themselves.

Lets start with "Legends" and"Leaders."  I don't know of anyone who thinks this was a great choice for the names of the new divisions.  Unless you are among the most die-hard of fans, you probably can't name—off the top of your head—which teams are in which division.

This is usually a nice thing to know when discussing division races and possible championship game possibilities.

How about "Big 10 East" and "Big 10 West"?  Since seven of the 12 teams are in Wisconsin (1), Illinois (2), Indiana (2) and Michigan (2), lets use an imaginary, straight line drawn through Lake Michigan and down along the border of the Illinois/Indiana state lines.  Every school east of this line would be in the "East Division."

The East Division would include: Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State and Penn State. The remaining schools, all west of this line would be in the "West Division." Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska and Northwestern.

Not only would it be easier to remember which schools were in which division with this alignment, but the competitive balance within each of these divisions isn't too bad either, based on where each team is competitively at this moment in time. 

On to what is probably a more sensitive subject for Big 10 fans: Non-Conference scheduling.  I am a believer that to have a true conference champion the schedules played by each school need to be as similar as possible, whenever possible. 

The Big 10 is ideally set up for this scenario.  Each team could play every other Big 10 team once, which is 11 games.  Add one non-conference "warmup" game at the beginning of the season, and a true championship game will be played at season's end.

In addition, it is my observation that, with few exceptions, Big 10 non-conference games tend to be "gimmie" games for many teams and do little to really ready these teams for the rigors of a Big Ten schedule, or even a National Championship run, once that schedule begins. 

Wisconsin, for instance—since I am most familiar with them—play at least three or four pretty weak teams at the beginning of each season and they look like world beaters, with talk of National Championships and Heisman trophies.

Suddenly the conference schedule kicks in and we find out that maybe they are just another above average, but not great team. 

Wouldn't they be better off to schedule tougher competition prior to the Big 10 schedule kicking in to ready themselves and test themselves a bit more?  It is not lost on me that Wisconsin was warming up against Northern Illinois the same day that Michigan State was getting schooled by Notre Dame.

Is it a surprise then, that Michigan State may have been a little more battle tested, and therefore "upset" Wisconsin when push came to shove?

I don't mean to pick on just Wisconsin.  I see this happening with other Big 10 teams as well, though certainly not all.  And bottom line, strength of schedule does count for something if a National Championship is a goal, and not just winning the Big 10. 

There are enough "gimmie" games within the Big 10 for the top teams to play without weakening the schedule further with the Northern Illinois and other "directional" schools coming into Big 10 stadiums as sacrificial lambs. 

But then maybe I'm all wet considering what Boise State gets away with schedule wise while still getting lots of love from the media and in the B.C.S. rankings.  Who knows?

The unfortunate side effect of my proposal would be that certain annual non-conference rivalry games would be affected, such as Notre Dame vs. Purdue, Michigan and Michigan State.  If the Big 10 teams played only one non-conference game per year prior to the Big 10 schedule kicking in, obviously all three of these teams could not continue their rivalries with Notre Dame each year as they do now.

So there definitely is a down side to what I propose.  I'm just brainstorming.  But, perhaps at least trying to get a little closer to a more balanced conference schedule, where more Big 10 teams actually play each other rather than so many non-conference opponents—while still preserving as many traditional non-conference rivalries as possible—would not be an entirely bad thing for increasing Big 10 competitiveness within the conference and at a national level.

I'd like the thoughts of you, the true Big 10 fans.  Thanks for indulging me.