Getting rid of divisions

[mushroomgod_1]

I understand it can be done now under NCAA rules? If so, it should be, and it's not hard to come up with a good alternative plan.

The only good reason to keep divisions is geography and rivalries, which can easily be preserved.

Each team in the BT could have 2 or 3 preserved game each year:

ILL---NW; PUR..........
IND---PUR; NW.......+ 7 of ILL; IOWA: MD; MN; MICH; MSU; NW; OSU; PSU; RUT; NW; WIS on some sort of rotating basis.
IOWA---NEB; WIS; MN
MD---PSU; RU
MICH---OSU; MSU
MSU---OSU; MICH
MN---WIS; IOWA
NEB---WIS; IOWA
NW---ILL; IU
OSU---PSU; MICH; MSU
PSU---OSU; RU; MD
PUR---ILL; IU
RUT---PSU; MD
WIS---NEB; IOWA; MN

We'd see a little less of MICH; MSU; OSU; PSU; MD; RU
And a little more of ILL; IOWA: MN; NEB; NW; WIS

I like this arrangement better overall. And for IU based on the following: 1. Right now, we really don't have good 'travel' games other than PUR. By that I mean games not too far away, were we can fairly easily get tickets, which we have a decent shot of winning when we have better-than-average teams. With this arrangement, ILL & NW fall into that category; 2. I've personally seen more than enough of OSU, Michigan, and PSU over the years. Also, I see no benefit to playing MD & RUT every year. Under this arrangement, we'd still play those teams 7/12 years but see an equal amount of Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, MN.

This is easy to do.....get er done IU AD.

EDIT---I also see a third reason this would be good, as an IU fan. I'd like to see us play a UK, A UL, or a Cincy every year in NC. Or a Pitt or Missouri. Another regional travel game, which would interest me as much as anyone on our schedule other than Purdue. Under the present arrangement where we get OSU, PSU, MSU, MICH every year it does make it harder to play 1 decent NC game each year.

 

[ORG]

I still like balanced schedules.

 

[Al Bino]

I understand it can be done now under NCAA rules? If so, it should be, and it's not hard to come up with a good alternative plan.

The only good reason to keep divisions is geography and rivalries, which can easily be preserved.

Each team in the BT could have 2 or 3 preserved game each year:

ILL---NW; PUR..........
IND---PUR; NW.......+ 7 of ILL; IOWA: MD; MN; MICH; MSU; NW; OSU; PSU; RUT; NW; WIS on some sort of rotating basis.
IOWA---NEB; WIS; MN
MD---PSU; RU
MICH---OSU; MSU
MSU---OSU; MICH
MN---WIS; IOWA
NEB---WIS; IOWA
NW---ILL; IU
OSU---PSU; MICH; MICH
PSU---OSU; RU; MD
PUR---ILL; IU
RUT---PSU; MD
WIS---NEB; IOWA; MN

We'd see a little less of MICH; MSU; OSU; PSU; MD; RU
And a little more of ILL; IOWA: MN; NEB; NW; WIS

I like this arrangement better overall. And for IU based on the following: 1. Right now, we really don't have good 'travel' games other than PUR. By that I mean games not too far away, were we can fairly easily get tickets, which we have a decent shot of winning when we have better-than-average teams. With this arrangement, ILL & NW fall into that category; 2. I've personally seen more than enough of OSU, Michigan, and PSU over the years. Also, I see no benefit to playing MD & RUT every year. Under this arrangement, we'd still play those teams 7/12 years but see an equal amount of Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, MN.

This is easy to do.....get er done IU AD.

Not a bad idea but SD has little clout when it comes to the BT. He could propose, scream and shout all he wants but we all know who wags the tail in athletics in general but particularly in football.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Not a bad idea but SD has little clout when it comes to the BT. He could propose, scream and shout all he wants but we all know who wags the tail in athletics in general but particularly in football.

Yes, there are a lot of competing interests. That would be the problem.

When push comes to shove, do teams in the West like their easier schedules, or would they like to see a little more of the OSUs, Michigans, and PSUs? Let's say you're MN. You'd still have WIS & IOWA each year. You'd play a little less of Pur, Ill, NW, and Neb, and a little more of OSU, PSU, MSU, MICH, RU & MD.....but not quite as much of RU & MD as the others, because they'd have 3 set games each year v. 2. So it would be, imo, a more interesting but more difficult schedule. Each team would evaluate their situation, so you'd have some dissenters. The huge benefit would be a more balanced schedule for everyone.

Right now, we have 6 divisional games, so teams other than IU & Purdue see teams from the other division 3/7 years. For IU & PUR it's only 2/7. So the present arrangement is really bad for us.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Not a bad idea but SD has little clout when it comes to the BT. He could propose, scream and shout all he wants but we all know who wags the tail in athletics in general but particularly in football.

I wonder if this is on SD's agenda at all?

I know CTA tries to use it to his advantage in recruiting, but to me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

If nothing else, they could at least do 4 divisions instead of just 2

South Division
Ohio St
Indiana
Purdue
Team to be added

East Division
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Team to be added

North Divison
Michigan
Michigan St
Wisconsin
Northwestern

West Division
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Illinois

 

[oldcougar77]

I wonder if this is on SD's agenda at all?

I know CTA tries to use it to his advantage in recruiting, but to me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

I agree with what you've posted in this thread but I'm not optimistic that any change will occur. Mostly because IU is the only school that got hosed by the current arrangement. Everybody in the west is happy. UM, MSU, OSU, and PSU are big fish historically who are in a division with their most traditional rivalries. MD and RU were just excited to get in, and got big games with PSU and OSU as a reward ( though that excitement might wear thin after taking ass-poundings year after year). Eleven of the fourteen schools love the arrangement. I doubt that Maryland and Rutgers have any clout to pursue change since this is what their inclusion created and their pockets are being nicely lined, especially when compared to their previous situations.

I don't know that we ever had any real leverage when these divisions were created. The only other option available was to bail. That was never going to happen ( though I personally would have supported us trying to organize a new conference with some of the basketball powers who were also football cellar-dwellars in the ACC, SEC, and Big 12). I think the B1G would have let us walk without batting an eye.

The guy I really felt for was Kevin Wilson. He had been brought in to build a program and had become the first IU coach to really be promised the resources to succeed and then had 4 automatic losses every year dumped on him with this plan. I've always said that the eventual problems he had notwithstanding, he would have been smart to resign the day this conference alignment was announced.

From the day this came about, I said I would never complain about any coach who could manage a winning record and get us bowl eligibility on a regular basis. I still feel that way. From a resource standpoint, we are the Pittsburgh Pirates locked in a division with the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox. The thing I hate most about it is so rarely seeing our "real" Big Ten rivals in Bloomington. I despise playing Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers every friggin' year and seeing Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin at home once every six or eight years.

 

[Al Bino]

I wonder if this is on SD's agenda at all?

I know CTA tries to use it to his advantage in recruiting, but to me the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

Why should it be on his agenda?
I know I wouldn't want to waste the time and energy pursuing something that has virtually no chance of ever happening.

 

[Fpeaugh2]

I’d love to see divisions eliminated in all conferences. And it’s not just to complain about IU being in the East. I don’t know why you’d have a conference championship without the top 2 teams. The Big Ten and ACC are notorious for having the 5th best team in their conference in the title game with a 17 point spread. That helps no one.

 

[vesuvius13]

I understand it can be done now under NCAA rules? If so, it should be, and it's not hard to come up with a good alternative plan.

The only good reason to keep divisions is geography and rivalries, which can easily be preserved.

Each team in the BT could have 2 or 3 preserved game each year:

ILL---NW; PUR..........
IND---PUR; NW.......+ 7 of ILL; IOWA: MD; MN; MICH; MSU; NW; OSU; PSU; RUT; NW; WIS on some sort of rotating basis.
IOWA---NEB; WIS; MN
MD---PSU; RU
MICH---OSU; MSU
MSU---OSU; MICH
MN---WIS; IOWA
NEB---WIS; IOWA
NW---ILL; IU
OSU---PSU; MICH; MICH
PSU---OSU; RU; MD
PUR---ILL; IU
RUT---PSU; MD
WIS---NEB; IOWA; MN

We'd see a little less of MICH; MSU; OSU; PSU; MD; RU
And a little more of ILL; IOWA: MN; NEB; NW; WIS

I like this arrangement better overall. And for IU based on the following: 1. Right now, we really don't have good 'travel' games other than PUR. By that I mean games not too far away, were we can fairly easily get tickets, which we have a decent shot of winning when we have better-than-average teams. With this arrangement, ILL & NW fall into that category; 2. I've personally seen more than enough of OSU, Michigan, and PSU over the years. Also, I see no benefit to playing MD & RUT every year. Under this arrangement, we'd still play those teams 7/12 years but see an equal amount of Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, MN.

This is easy to do.....get er done IU AD.

EDIT---I also see a third reason this would be good, as an IU fan. I'd like to see us play a UK, A UL, or a Cincy every year in NC. Or a Pitt or Missouri. Another regional travel game, which would interest me as much as anyone on our schedule other than Purdue. Under the present arrangement where we get OSU, PSU, MSU, MICH every year it does make it harder to play 1 decent NC game each year.

I wouldn't bet on any changes with Alverez advising the commish.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

Why should it be on his agenda?
I know I wouldn't want to waste the time and energy pursuing something that has virtually no chance of ever happening.

Not sure why you are saying 'virtually no chance'. PSU, Michigan & MSU may not be pleased with the prospect of having to win the ED to make the BT CG when Iowa and/or Wisky are slipping in with lesser teams. I would think we might be allies with Rutgers & MD. TV might prefer to avoid BT CGs games featuring OSU & NW. And everyone has to recognize that the divisions have been imbalanced for a long time, and there's no self-correction in sight.

Is this a simple majority decision?

Let's put it this way---what argument would the western division teams have against my suggestion other than "We know we have it pretty good now and we don't want to rock the boat"? My plan takes care to preserve the rivalries, and the only reasons for divisions in the first place were rivalries/geography and the NCAA rule requiring divisions.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

If nothing else, they could at least do 4 divisions instead of just 2

South Division
Ohio St
Indiana
Purdue
Team to be added

East Division
Penn State
Maryland
Rutgers
Team to be added

North Divison
Michigan
Michigan St
Wisconsin
Northwestern

West Division
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Illinois

The problem with that is there are certain games you want to see happen each year that might not happen each year----OSU-Mich; OSU-PSU; NW-ILL; Minnesota-Wisconsin....by the time you account for those, you basically end up with my plan anyway.

Now I do see one team that might have a legit gripe with my plan--OSU. I have them playing UM, PSU & MSU each year, dropping lackeys in us, MD & RU. There's a 6/11 chance each that any one of the other schools, including NEB, Wisky, or Iowa, could be on the schedule instead. Presently, there's only 3/7 chance (each) of any one of them being on OSU's schedule. That said, the lackeys in the ED (NW, Illinois, Purdue, MN) in the long run will probably be easier teams to beat than IU, Rutgers & MD. In any event, I could drop MSU-OSU as a saved game.

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I agree with what you've posted in this thread but I'm not optimistic that any change will occur. Mostly because IU is the only school that got hosed by the current arrangement. Everybody in the west is happy. UM, MSU, OSU, and PSU are big fish historically who are in a division with their most traditional rivalries. MD and RU were just excited to get in, and got big games with PSU and OSU as a reward ( though that excitement might wear thin after taking ass-poundings year after year). Eleven of the fourteen schools love the arrangement. I doubt that Maryland and Rutgers have any clout to pursue change since this is what their inclusion created and their pockets are being nicely lined, especially when compared to their previous situations.

I don't know that we ever had any real leverage when these divisions were created. The only other option available was to bail. That was never going to happen ( though I personally would have supported us trying to organize a new conference with some of the basketball powers who were also football cellar-dwellars in the ACC, SEC, and Big 12). I think the B1G would have let us walk without batting an eye.

The guy I really felt for was Kevin Wilson. He had been brought in to build a program and had become the first IU coach to really be promised the resources to succeed and then had 4 automatic losses every year dumped on him with this plan. I've always said that the eventual problems he had notwithstanding, he would have been smart to resign the day this conference alignment was announced.

From the day this came about, I said I would never complain about any coach who could manage a winning record and get us bowl eligibility on a regular basis. I still feel that way. From a resource standpoint, we are the Pittsburgh Pirates locked in a division with the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox. The thing I hate most about it is so rarely seeing our "real" Big Ten rivals in Bloomington. I despise playing Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers every friggin' year and seeing Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin at home once every six or eight years.

Agree that we got screwed worse than anyone else. We'd be "tied" with Rutgers and MD for that 'honor; except, as you say we are losing out on traditional rivals, while they are not. Also, the school we compete with most for recruits, and most want to beat, has a decided advantage in terms of potentially having a better record and being less beat up by the time the OOB comes around.

One thing I do wonder about---are PSU, Michigan & MSU all that thrilled with this arrangement? Particularly, having to beat OSU to get into the BT CG when lesser (in some cases) Wisconsin, Iowa & NW teams made it? In that respect, see the protected games I have involving these teams (esp if we drop the OSU_MSU protected game).

 

[mushroomgod_1]

I understand it can be done now under NCAA rules? If so, it should be, and it's not hard to come up with a good alternative plan.

The only good reason to keep divisions is geography and rivalries, which can easily be preserved.

Each team in the BT could have 2 or 3 preserved game each year:

ILL---NW; PUR..........
IND---PUR; NW.......+ 7 of ILL; IOWA: MD; MN; MICH; MSU; NW; OSU; PSU; RUT; NW; WIS on some sort of rotating basis.
IOWA---NEB; WIS; MN
MD---PSU; RU
MICH---OSU; MSU
MSU---OSU; MICH
MN---WIS; IOWA
NEB---WIS; IOWA
NW---ILL; IU
OSU---PSU; MICH; MSU
PSU---OSU; RU; MD
PUR---ILL; IU
RUT---PSU; MD
WIS---NEB; IOWA; MN

We'd see a little less of MICH; MSU; OSU; PSU; MD; RU
And a little more of ILL; IOWA: MN; NEB; NW; WIS

I like this arrangement better overall. And for IU based on the following: 1. Right now, we really don't have good 'travel' games other than PUR. By that I mean games not too far away, were we can fairly easily get tickets, which we have a decent shot of winning when we have better-than-average teams. With this arrangement, ILL & NW fall into that category; 2. I've personally seen more than enough of OSU, Michigan, and PSU over the years. Also, I see no benefit to playing MD & RUT every year. Under this arrangement, we'd still play those teams 7/12 years but see an equal amount of Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, MN.

This is easy to do.....get er done IU AD.

EDIT---I also see a third reason this would be good, as an IU fan. I'd like to see us play a UK, A UL, or a Cincy every year in NC. Or a Pitt or Missouri. Another regional travel game, which would interest me as much as anyone on our schedule other than Purdue. Under the present arrangement where we get OSU, PSU, MSU, MICH every year it does make it harder to play 1 decent NC game each year.

One other aspect about this---I feel like the divisions are becoming somewhat stale, as well as imbalanced. As a fan I'd like to see more games between Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska and OSU/PSU/Michigan/MSU.

 

[BusdriverE]

Dolson should partner with the Nebraska AD, after all, Frost wants to stop playing all the tough teams in the west and play "the Indiana teams".......only problem is, Wabash and DePauw aren't in the B10

 

[Radio Zero]

Dolson should partner with the Nebraska AD, after all, Frost wants to stop playing all the tough teams in the west and play "the Indiana teams".......only problem is, Wabash and DePauw aren't in the B10

They did take on Fordham this year. Maybe in future schedule the Earlham College Fightin’ Quakers?

 

[Big Red Crimson Buffalo]

Divisions in college football make no sense anymore. Outdated concept. The old “geographic ties” went out the window as soon as they started expanding conferences. We have teams that are in our division that are 13 hour drives from B-town.
Throw them all in one mix and let 1 and two play for a conference title.
There are no geographic boundaries anymore.

 

[td75]

I've always felt that Jim Delany and the BT braintrust anticipated that the BT West would eventually somehow catch up to the BT East.

If you've paid attention to the SEC divisions, they occasionally equal out. We see it now with a surging Georgia team. They are number one in the country and help raise the perception of the SEC East.

The problem with that approach is that nobody in the BT West recruits well enough for that to consistently happen. Georgia, Florida and even Tennessee, reel in heavy duty recruiting classes.

The Big Ten conference is shady...One thing I've always felt about the BT is that their shadiness resides in the front offices. The SEC typically has corruption at the individual school levels which is bad enough, but there's always been something fishy emanating from the Big Ten front offices if you ask me. Of course this doesn't even include the perverts in this conference, how pathetic.

 

[UncleMark]

I for one wish people would quit whining like a bunch of middle school girls about the mean ol' Big Ten and how they screwed us with the too tough division alignment. There was a time when Wisconsin was awful and Nebraska was dominant. Changes can happen in the B1G East, too. It's up to us to do what we have to to get to the top.

 

[CaptainZigZag]

I understand it can be done now under NCAA rules? If so, it should be, and it's not hard to come up with a good alternative plan.

The only good reason to keep divisions is geography and rivalries, which can easily be preserved.

Each team in the BT could have 2 or 3 preserved game each year:

ILL---NW; PUR..........
IND---PUR; NW.......+ 7 of ILL; IOWA: MD; MN; MICH; MSU; NW; OSU; PSU; RUT; NW; WIS on some sort of rotating basis.
IOWA---NEB; WIS; MN
MD---PSU; RU
MICH---OSU; MSU
MSU---OSU; MICH
MN---WIS; IOWA
NEB---WIS; IOWA
NW---ILL; IU
OSU---PSU; MICH; MSU
PSU---OSU; RU; MD
PUR---ILL; IU
RUT---PSU; MD
WIS---NEB; IOWA; MN

We'd see a little less of MICH; MSU; OSU; PSU; MD; RU
And a little more of ILL; IOWA: MN; NEB; NW; WIS

I like this arrangement better overall. And for IU based on the following: 1. Right now, we really don't have good 'travel' games other than PUR. By that I mean games not too far away, were we can fairly easily get tickets, which we have a decent shot of winning when we have better-than-average teams. With this arrangement, ILL & NW fall into that category; 2. I've personally seen more than enough of OSU, Michigan, and PSU over the years. Also, I see no benefit to playing MD & RUT every year. Under this arrangement, we'd still play those teams 7/12 years but see an equal amount of Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, MN.

This is easy to do.....get er done IU AD.

EDIT---I also see a third reason this would be good, as an IU fan. I'd like to see us play a UK, A UL, or a Cincy every year in NC. Or a Pitt or Missouri. Another regional travel game, which would interest me as much as anyone on our schedule other than Purdue. Under the present arrangement where we get OSU, PSU, MSU, MICH every year it does make it harder to play 1 decent NC game each year.

So in essence , you want close, winnable games for the away schedule Bold strategy Cotton.

 

[elijawon]

I for one wish people would quit whining like a bunch of middle school girls about the mean ol' Big Ten and how they screwed us with the too tough division alignment. There was a time when Wisconsin was awful and Nebraska was dominant. Changes can happen in the B1G East, too. It's up to us to do what we have to to get to the top.

I can agree some about the whining, but it would be nice to change the divisions some. It has gotten a bit stale for me. Or maybe the conference is just too dang big. I enjoy more balanced conference schedules.

 

[SoccerSammy]

I for one wish people would quit whining like a bunch of middle school girls about the mean ol' Big Ten and how they screwed us with the too tough division alignment. There was a time when Wisconsin was awful and Nebraska was dominant. Changes can happen in the B1G East, too. It's up to us to do what we have to to get to the top.

B.S.... Look at decades of history.... Having OSU/UM/PSU in the same division is garbage and you know it.

 

[Wiedersehen]

I understand it can be done now under NCAA rules? If so, it should be, and it's not hard to come up with a good alternative plan.

The only good reason to keep divisions is geography and rivalries, which can easily be preserved.

Each team in the BT could have 2 or 3 preserved game each year:

ILL---NW; PUR..........
IND---PUR; NW.......+ 7 of ILL; IOWA: MD; MN; MICH; MSU; NW; OSU; PSU; RUT; NW; WIS on some sort of rotating basis.
IOWA---NEB; WIS; MN
MD---PSU; RU
MICH---OSU; MSU
MSU---OSU; MICH
MN---WIS; IOWA
NEB---WIS; IOWA
NW---ILL; IU
OSU---PSU; MICH; MSU
PSU---OSU; RU; MD
PUR---ILL; IU
RUT---PSU; MD
WIS---NEB; IOWA; MN

We'd see a little less of MICH; MSU; OSU; PSU; MD; RU
And a little more of ILL; IOWA: MN; NEB; NW; WIS

I like this arrangement better overall. And for IU based on the following: 1. Right now, we really don't have good 'travel' games other than PUR. By that I mean games not too far away, were we can fairly easily get tickets, which we have a decent shot of winning when we have better-than-average teams. With this arrangement, ILL & NW fall into that category; 2. I've personally seen more than enough of OSU, Michigan, and PSU over the years. Also, I see no benefit to playing MD & RUT every year. Under this arrangement, we'd still play those teams 7/12 years but see an equal amount of Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Illinois, MN.

This is easy to do.....get er done IU AD.

EDIT---I also see a third reason this would be good, as an IU fan. I'd like to see us play a UK, A UL, or a Cincy every year in NC. Or a Pitt or Missouri. Another regional travel game, which would interest me as much as anyone on our schedule other than Purdue. Under the present arrangement where we get OSU, PSU, MSU, MICH every year it does make it harder to play 1 decent NC game each year.

What’s our record against the West? What’s it vs the East?