The "Perfect New B10 Alignment?"

[IndyIUFan66]

I think the B10 should be aligned as closely to an East/West alignment as possible. With 14 teams, a natural 2 conference, 7 teams per makes sense as well. It really wouldn't take that much of a tweak.

Would it look something like this:

East / West

Ohio State Michigan
Penn State Wisconsin
Michigan State Nebraska
Purdue Iowa
Indiana Northwestern
Maryland Minnesota
Rutgers Illinois

Basically trading Michigan for Purdue (and having one MI school be in the "West") would seem more balanced. At that point, teams will rise and fall, but can't really overly complain if that change happened, as ultimately you have to be able to beat good teams to win in the B10.

Thoughts?

 

[BigTimeAt69]

I'd say that is a very balanced division.

 

[AutoCat]

Nice idea, but IMHO the "perfect" way to do it would be not have any divisional alignment at all. Top 2 would play in the championship game, if you still wanted to have one.

This would resolve all scheduling and perceived "balance" issues with the current format. Scheduling would instantly become more balanced as you wouldn't be tied to divisional restrictions when setting up the opponent rotation. Teams would play everyone home and away more frequently than we currently have when locked into divisions. Even if you wanted to do a protected rivalry game or two for each team, teams would still be able to face every other team in the conference every 2 (or a maximum of 3) years, depending on if you set up a 6 or 7 game conference schedule.

Some IU-related examples of the divisional schedule problem off the top of my head:
1. Indiana played at Minnesota in 2008, home vs. Minnesota in 2013, then at Minnesota again in 2018. 5 years between games, and 10(!) years between road games at an opponent in the same conference!
2. Indiana has somehow only played Nebraska once (2016) since they joined the conference before the 2011 football season. I understand we'll play them again this year, but the point is still valid.

One my biggest problems with trying to balance things using divisions is team strength being cyclical. Teams that are perceived as being strong today may fall off after only a year or two, or weak teams may get much stronger. Re-balancing divisions based on perceived strengths is a sticky situation because you'd have to establish criteria for what's fair, how often the balancing would be re-visited for future changes, and even if those were addressed to everyone's satisfaction it still wouldn't address the scheduling issue of potentially having a several year gap between games for some conference opponents.

 

[IUCX9]

I think the B10 should be aligned as closely to an East/West alignment as possible. With 14 teams, a natural 2 conference, 7 teams per makes sense as well. It really wouldn't take that much of a tweak.

Would it look something like this:

East / West

Ohio State Michigan
Penn State Wisconsin
Michigan State Nebraska
Purdue Iowa
Indiana Northwestern
Maryland Minnesota
Rutgers Illinois

Basically trading Michigan for Purdue (and having one MI school be in the "West") would seem more balanced. At that point, teams will rise and fall, but can't really overly complain if that change happened, as ultimately you have to be able to beat good teams to win in the B10.

Thoughts?

Only problem is that OSU UM would have to be a protected rival. Then if both won their divisions, would have to play again in the B1G championship game.

I would prefer non directional divisions. Perhaps an inside/outside.

OSU Wisconsin
UM Minnesota
MSU PSU
Indiana Nebraska
Purdue Iowa
Illinois Rutgers
Northwestern Maryland

2 Bluebloods, one cupcake, 4 middle class, in each division.

 

[Bowlmania]

Nice idea, but IMHO the "perfect" way to do it would be not have any divisional alignment at all. Top 2 would play in the championship game, if you still wanted to have one.

This is absolutely the right solution. I know he's on the way out but Delany, late last year, indicated that the conference was, in fact, considering eliminating divisions. Hopefully his successor has the same mindset.

 

[Daydreamer]

Only problem is that OSU UM would have to be a protected rival. Then if both won their divisions, would have to play again in the B1G championship game.

I would prefer non directional divisions. Perhaps an inside/outside.

OSU Wisconsin
UM Minnesota
MSU PSU
Indiana Nebraska
Purdue Iowa
Illinois Rutgers
Northwestern Maryland

2 Bluebloods, one cupcake, 4 middle class, in each division.

Once you let the conference designate who the "bluebloods" are and who the "cupcakes" are, those designations become permanent. Guess which one we are.
There is no degree of gerrymandering the conference schedule that would help or would be meant to help Indiana.

 

[009rdarby]

I think the B10 should be aligned as closely to an East/West alignment as possible. With 14 teams, a natural 2 conference, 7 teams per makes sense as well. It really wouldn't take that much of a tweak.

Would it look something like this:

East / West

Ohio State Michigan
Penn State Wisconsin
Michigan State Nebraska
Purdue Iowa
Indiana Northwestern
Maryland Minnesota
Rutgers Illinois

Basically trading Michigan for Purdue (and having one MI school be in the "West") would seem more balanced. At that point, teams will rise and fall, but can't really overly complain if that change happened, as ultimately you have to be able to beat good teams to win in the B10.

Thoughts?

Keep the current alignment but take MSU West and NW East!

 

[td75]

The current alignments are atrocious. Delany should've been removed from his post for such a bungling.

 

[IndyIUFan66]

Nice idea, but IMHO the "perfect" way to do it would be not have any divisional alignment at all. Top 2 would play in the championship game, if you still wanted to have one.

This would resolve all scheduling and perceived "balance" issues with the current format. Scheduling would instantly become more balanced as you wouldn't be tied to divisional restrictions when setting up the opponent rotation. Teams would play everyone home and away more frequently than we currently have when locked into divisions. Even if you wanted to do a protected rivalry game or two for each team, teams would still be able to face every other team in the conference every 2 (or a maximum of 3) years, depending on if you set up a 6 or 7 game conference schedule.

Some IU-related examples of the divisional schedule problem off the top of my head:
1. Indiana played at Minnesota in 2008, home vs. Minnesota in 2013, then at Minnesota again in 2018. 5 years between games, and 10(!) years between road games at an opponent in the same conference!
2. Indiana has somehow only played Nebraska once (2016) since they joined the conference before the 2011 football season. I understand we'll play them again this year, but the point is still valid.

One my biggest problems with trying to balance things using divisions is team strength being cyclical. Teams that are perceived as being strong today may fall off after only a year or two, or weak teams may get much stronger. Re-balancing divisions based on perceived strengths is a sticky situation because you'd have to establish criteria for what's fair, how often the balancing would be re-visited for future changes, and even if those were addressed to everyone's satisfaction it still wouldn't address the scheduling issue of potentially having a several year gap between games for some conference opponents.

I actually think no conf, top two and play more teams more often would be fine too! Consider my idea if for whatever reason two conferences must remain.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

I think more thought went into the naming of the Divisions in the beginning than The Who is in what division decision.

Was it just me or did anyone else feel the B10 brass had their feelings hurt when the names were rejected? This whole thing has been a bungled effort from the beginning and has done nothing but hurt the conference.

 

[Spartan4ever]

Keep the current alignment but take MSU West and NW East!

Why not put IU in the west and Purdue in the east? The biggest issue I have heard IU fans repeatedly reference is the strength of the east division versus the west division, and how that has been an advantage for Purdue.

Wouldn't playing UW, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Northwestern, and Minnesota be easier, and provide IU with a better chance of winning more conference games?

 

[i'vegotwinners]

drop Neb, PSU, RU, and UMd, from the conf, and play everybody in the conf.

and everybody home and away in bball.

we had it right till the idiots ruined it.

 

[76-1]

Why not put IU in the west and Purdue in the east? The biggest issue I have heard IU fans repeatedly reference is the strength of the east division versus the west division, and how that has been an advantage for Purdue.

Wouldn't playing UW, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Northwestern, and Minnesota be easier, and provide IU with a better chance of winning more conference games?

How about we move Michigan State to the West and purdue to the East...

 

[AutoCat]

This is absolutely the right solution. I know he's on the way out but Delany, late last year, indicated that the conference was, in fact, considering eliminating divisions. Hopefully his successor has the same mindset.

I had not heard that and I hope it's true.

Eliminating divisions entirely is the only way forward that provides a benefit.

 

[CC Mac]

Not counting this coming year we have played Nebraska exactly once in football.
That fact alone tells you what a joke the current conference alignment/scheduling is.

 

[IUCX9]

drop Neb, PSU, RU, and UMd, from the conf, and play everybody in the conf.

and everybody home and away in bball.

we had it right till the idiots ruined it.

I had not heard that and I hope it's true.

Eliminating divisions entirely is the only way forward that provides a benefit.

Not counting this coming year we have played Nebraska exactly once in football.
That fact alone tells you what a joke the current conference alignment/scheduling is.

Although I am a fan of a theoretical conference contraction back to a true BigTEN conference, practicality would dictate this would never happen. There was too much money to made by the BTN when it added the New York market held by Rutgers and MD. Even Nebraska brings in a million TV sets as the Huskers are the only show in the state for any sport. They sold out their 90k seat stadium for the spring game, for crying out loud.

Can Indiana stomach the loss of $10 to $20 million in ANNUAL revenues from those markets for the sake of a more favorable football schedule? I don't think any school, even Indiana would be in favor of that.

 

[76-1]

Although I am a fan of a theoretical conference contraction back to a true BigTEN conference, practicality would dictate this would never happen. There was too much money to made by the BTN when it added the New York market held by Rutgers and MD. Even Nebraska brings in a million TV sets as the Huskers are the only show in the state for any sport. They sold out their 90k seat stadium for the spring game, for crying out loud.

Can Indiana stomach the loss of $10 to $20 million in ANNUAL revenues from those markets for the sake of a more favorable football schedule? I don't think any school, even Indiana would be in favor of that.

In my opinion..., The Genie is out of the bottle as far as expansion goes, so we may as well embrace that fact and double down on it...

I'd like the Big Ten to add:

Oklahoma to the West and Temple in the East while flipping Michigan $tate to the West and p u to the East...

That should even the competitive balance a bit while bringing the National TV following of Oklahoma and the local Philadelphia TV market of Temple into play (more $$$$$)...

You could set up the schedule to have everyone play the other 7 (in division) along with 2 games cross division "seeded" (by most recent 7 year records) best versus best (game 1) and worst versus worst (game 2), leaving 3 games for the individual teams to schedule out of conference...

Everybody but p u and Illinois goes to a Bowl game in this scenario and the Conference starts counting revenue in the Zillions (with a Z)...

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Although I am a fan of a theoretical conference contraction back to a true BigTEN conference, practicality would dictate this would never happen. There was too much money to made by the BTN when it added the New York market held by Rutgers and MD. Even Nebraska brings in a million TV sets as the Huskers are the only show in the state for any sport. They sold out their 90k seat stadium for the spring game, for crying out loud.

Can Indiana stomach the loss of $10 to $20 million in ANNUAL revenues from those markets for the sake of a more favorable football schedule? I don't think any school, even Indiana would be in favor of that.

neither you nor anyone else, including Delany, can prove expansion generated so much as 1 extra dollar in tv revenue.

in fact, prior to adding RU and UMd, the league released BTN revenues for the past yr, every yr, to tout the increased amount BTN made that yr.

that no longer continued after RU and UMd were added, highly suggesting they weren't a per school BTN revenue booster for the league, as had they been, the league would have bragged about it publically, as they always had in the past.

the B10 does still release total payout per school, but no longer breaks down the BTN portion. (which were always much less than the tier 1,2 portions).

the increased revenue this past yr or 2, was due to the expiration of the old tier 1,2 contracts, and the signing of new ones (involving Fox as well in tier 1 and 2 for the 1st time), which always brings a huge jump in revenues, not only for the B10, but all major conferences and all major sports.

there is zero evidence that expansion was responsible for any per school gains, and again, not even Delany could prove or even knows their impact on the new tier 1,2 contracts. (he only knows the immediately before and after of BTN revenues for the RU and UMd geographical areas, and his sudden silence there does not point to hoped for gains).

the only way to know the tier 1,2 impacts, (which are league wide rather than broken down by geographic area like BTN revenues), would be for an alternate universe to also exist in which there was no expansion, and compare the revenues per school of the 2 different universes. (one with expansion. one without).

think of selling a house you bought 15 yrs ago, in a market where selling prices have gone up mostly between 75-85% over that time for homes in the area, with some going up more than others.

1 yr before selling, you did new tile in the tub/shower surround of one of the existing baths.

you then sell the house for 80% more than you originally paid 15 yrs ago.

how much of the increased selling price was due to increased market value of the specific home over the 15 yrs, and how much was due to the new tile in the surround.

absolutely zero way for anyone, including the owner and the RE agents involved, to ever know.

 

[Bowlmania]

This is absolutely the right solution. I know he's on the way out but Delany, late last year, indicated that the conference was, in fact, considering eliminating divisions. Hopefully his successor has the same mindset.

I had not heard that and I hope it's true.

Eliminating divisions entirely is the only way forward that provides a benefit.

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

 

[i'vegotwinners]

In my opinion..., The Genie is out of the bottle as far as expansion goes, so we may as well embrace that fact and double down on it...

I'd like the Big Ten to add:

Oklahoma to the West and Temple in the East while flipping Michigan $tate to the West and p u to the East...

That should even the competitive balance a bit while bringing the National TV following of Oklahoma and the local Philadelphia TV market of Temple into play (more $$$$$)...

You could set up the schedule to have everyone play the other 7 (in division) along with 2 games cross division "seeded" (by most recent 7 year records) best versus best (game 1) and worst versus worst (game 2), leaving 3 games for the individual teams to schedule out of conference...

Everybody but p u and Illinois goes to a Bowl game in this scenario and the Conference starts counting revenue in the Zillions (with a Z)...

as i just pointed out, there is no Genie, and it isn't out of the bottle, so your post is based in a false premise to begin with.

if you want to want to add OU and Temple (God forbid), so be it, but there is zero reason to assume that would bring one added cent per school, and is far more likely that it would be a per school revenue loss after dividing the pie 2 more times.

can we please stop blowing up a once great, now diminished, league set up.

if you want to play OU or Temple, sched them OOC.

 

[76-1]

as i just pointed out, there is no Genie, and it isn't out of the bottle, so your post is based in a false premise to begin with.

if you want to want to add OU and Temple (God forbid), so be it, but there is zero reason to assume that would bring one added cent per school, and is far more likely that it would be a per school revenue loss after dividing the pie 2 more times.

can we please stop blowing up a once great, now diminished, league set up.

if you want to play OU or Temple, sched them OOC.

I doubt you'd see any loss since Oklahoma would bring in a National TV audience following and Temple would bring in another major city...

My post was meant to be much less about revenue and much more about evening out the competitive balance of both divisions.

By moving Michigan State to the West and adding Oklahoma the West just became tougher, top thru middle.

By moving p u to the East and adding Temple, the East, while remaining difficult becomes less of a hardcore meat grinder for the middle...

 

[i'vegotwinners]

https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/12/06/jim-delany-big-ten-divisions-realignment-playoff

Delany should have been fired 20 plus yrs ago, before he destroyed the conference.

because of an ancient pre tv era rule, leagues could only play a CCG if they had at least 12 schools, broke them into divisions, and played a round robin sched within the divisions.

the B12 had that rule changed, when they fell below 12 schools. (the ACC also wanted it changed).

Delany ALWAYS had the power to change that rule, and we could have played a CCG had we wished, decades before we did.

Delany didn't want it changed, because he wanted to leverage the rule to force B10 expansion, and increase his own salary and power in doing so.

he gets credit for the revenue increases that the pay tv and now internet industries generated, but he didn't generate any of them.

only the beneficiary of them. as is every major conference and league, college or pro.

he also gets credited for BTN.

BTN wasn't Delany's idea, it was News Corp Fox's. (who has controlling interest, not the B10).

News Corp/Fox pitched the idea to both the B10 and B12.

U Texas nixed it for the B12, and the B10 took them up because Fox guaranteed them more money than anyone else was offering for that tier.

all Delany did was say yes to someone offering more money than anyone else, and more exposure.

you or i could have made that call.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I doubt you'd see any loss since Oklahoma would bring in a National TV audience following and Temple would bring in another major city...

My post was meant to be much less about revenue and much more about evening out the competitive balance of both divisions.

By moving Michigan State to the West and adding Oklahoma the West just became tougher, top thru middle.

By moving p u to the East and adding Temple, the East, while remaining difficult becomes less of a hardcore meat grinder for the middle...

we already have a national tv audience, Temple doesn't bring squat, and no fan base wants them replacing a traditional B10 foe on the sched.

please stop further destroying an already diminished league, playing your board game.

you want improvement and balance?

then like i suggested. spin off PSU, RU, UMd, and Neb, let them pair off elsewhere, go back to the legacy 10 schools pre PSU, and play everyone every yr in fball, everyone home and away every yr in bball, and still play a CCG in fball if you wish, as does the B12 now.

 

[76-1]

we already have a national tv audience, Temple doesn't bring squat, and no fan base wants them replacing a traditional B10 foe on the sched.

please stop further destroying an already diminished league, playing your board game.

you want improvement and balance?

then like i suggested. spin off PSU, RU, UMd, and Neb, let them pair off elsewhere, go back to the legacy 10 schools pre PSU, and play everyone every yr in fball, everyone home and away every yr in bball, and still play a CCG in fball if you wish, as does the B12 now.

Do you really believe we'll ever go back the old days of only Ten in the Big Ten...? That's not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever...

The divisions, as they are now, clearly seem imbalanced competitively... I typed a scenario where that imbalance might be addressed to a small degree.

Your posts read like you want a serious debate but I'm just here *(in regard to this topic) for the entertainment.

Have a great weekend!

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Do you really believe we'll ever go back the old days of only Ten in the Big Ten...? That's not likely to happen in our lifetimes, if ever...

The divisions, as they are now, clearly seem imbalanced competitively... I typed a scenario where that imbalance might be addressed to a small degree.

Your posts read like you want a serious debate but I'm just here *(in regard to this topic) for the entertainment.

Have a great weekend!

problem is, what you consider entertaining is being taken seriously by those who ruined things in the 1st place, and the solution you offer only ruins the league even more.

and Neb going back to the B12, RU, PSU, UMd going elsewhere, or joining in with a reformed ACC minus the recently added smaller schools that bring little to the ACC, isn't as far fetched as you think.

half the PSU and UMd fans want to be in the ACC now.. RU will be happy in the ACC as well.. and Neb fans won't mind the B12 again, as their B10 experience has not been good at all.

bet you never thought you'd be advancing the idea of RU, Temple, and UMd, in the B10 either.

 

[76-1]

problem is, what you consider entertaining is being taken seriously by those who ruined things in the 1st place, and the solution you offer only ruins the league even more.

and Neb going back to the B12, RU, PSU, UMd going elsewhere, or joining in with a reformed ACC minus the recently added smaller schools that bring little to the ACC, isn't as far fetched as you think.

half the PSU and UMd fans want to be in the ACC now.. RU will be happy in the ACC as well.. and Neb fans won't mind the B12 again, as their B10 experience has not been good at all.

bet you never thought you'd be advancing the idea of RU, Temple, and UMd, in the B10 either.

I can only dream that anyone out there in a decision making capacity takes the time to read what I post on here...

 

[IndyIUFan66]

I wouldn’t want OU or Temple, but I’d take Kansas and Mizzou in the B10 for sure. I am not a fan of Rutgers in B10. Can stomach MD, but they should be ACC. I’d take Iowa St as well. B10 should be MidWest proud.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I wouldn’t want OU or Temple, but I’d take Kansas and Mizzou in the B10 for sure. I am not a fan of Rutgers in B10. Can stomach MD, but they should be ACC. I’d take Iowa St as well. B10 should be MidWest proud.

sounds to me like you guys wish IU had moved to the old B12.

 

[Bowlmania]

Delany should have been fired 20 plus yrs ago, before he destroyed the conference.

because of an ancient pre tv era rule, leagues could only play a CCG if they had at least 12 schools, broke them into divisions, and played a round robin sched within the divisions.

the B12 had that rule changed, when they fell below 12 schools. (the ACC also wanted it changed).

Delany ALWAYS had the power to change that rule, and we could have played a CCG had we wished, decades before we did.

Delany didn't want it changed, because he wanted to leverage the rule to force B10 expansion, and increase his own salary and power in doing so.

he gets credit for the revenue increases that the pay tv and now internet industries generated, but he didn't generate any of them.

only the beneficiary of them. as is every major conference and league, college or pro.

he also gets credited for BTN.

BTN wasn't Delany's idea, it was News Corp Fox's. (who has controlling interest, not the B10).

News Corp/Fox pitched the idea to both the B10 and B12.

U Texas nixed it for the B12, and the B10 took them up because Fox guaranteed them more money than anyone else was offering for that tier.

all Delany did was say yes to someone offering more money than anyone else, and more exposure.

you or i could have made that call.

Ok, great. But back to AutoCat's original point, it would be great if the divisional alignment was ditched.

 

[jsenleo]

we already have a national tv audience, Temple doesn't bring squat, and no fan base wants them replacing a traditional B10 foe on the sched.

please stop further destroying an already diminished league, playing your board game.

you want improvement and balance?

then like i suggested. spin off PSU, RU, UMd, and Neb, let them pair off elsewhere, go back to the legacy 10 schools pre PSU, and play everyone every yr in fball, everyone home and away every yr in bball, and still play a CCG in fball if you wish, as does the B12 now.

I bet you still wear your raccoon coat to all of the games.

 

[IndyIUFan66]

sounds to me like you guys wish IU had moved to the old B12.

Not me, I’m all in B10. Just saying when adding new teams if that was inevitable I like the more MidWest adds, lime NE, KU, Mizzou, Iowa St. That may not be best TV market thinking cap move, but I think hardcore MidWest focus would be a strong brand, close to go to away games, and be very appealing. Not sure I’ll ever be excited playing Rutgers.

 

[AutoCat]

Just to clarify because I don't want to be misunderstood - I'm completely in favor of eliminating the divisions. I'm not in favor of conference contraction. I'm totally fine with the current 14 teams or a hypothetical expansion to >14 teams, if that ever happens.

All I'm saying is that there should be no East/West/North/South/Leaders/Legends divisions at all. For football, all teams would be in one single large grouping - a single 14 team division, if you will. The schedule churn would happen more frequently from year-to-year, with the top two finishers playing in the (optional) championship game.

Thought I'd add this in case there was any confusion on my point.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

I bet you still wear your raccoon coat to all of the games.

only during cold weather.

 

[Euro]

Go back to the original Big Ten and throw the rest out!!!!!

 

[dillonpgp]

East / West

Ohio State Michigan
Penn State Wisconsin
Michigan State Nebraska
Purdue Iowa
Indiana Northwestern
Maryland Minnesota
Rutgers Illinois

Basically trading Michigan for Purdue (and having one MI school be in the "West") would seem more balanced. At that point, teams will rise and fall, but can't really overly complain if that change happened, as ultimately you have to be able to beat good teams to win in the B10.

Thoughts?

Interesting concept but it falls short in one significant way. Any B10 fan (and especially fans of the following two institutions) would agree that Michigan and Ohio State should play every year, but the whining out of East Lansing about Michigan State not being guaranteed a game against its in-state rival would be similar to a B10 schedule leaving out IU and Purdue.

This proposal also penalizes Michigan and Ohio State for having a guaranteed crossover against (currently) the strongest opponents in the conference. Michigan’s closest in-division opponent would be 240 miles away. And the beauty (not to be underestimated) of the current Eastern division are several major research universities who are guaranteed one away game per year to a major alumni base (New York/Rutgers) or the Federal Government (also alumni base...Washington/Maryland). I know from people in Ann Arbor, Columbus and Happy Valley that this is a huge deal.

It would be interesting to see some “pods” of four teams (assuming the league gets to 16) that would start with 3 “in-pod” opponents, perhaps a single guaranteed crossover if needed, and the remaining schedule created in season based on season records to date. (1st place teams play each other).

The challenges are obviously first getting the home/away balanced for revenue purposes and coming to grips with the likelihood that a 4/5 year football player might not play all the other teams in the league at least once during a career.

Pods that write themselves are
WEST: Nebraska/Wisconsin/Minnesota/Iowa
MIDWEST: Indiana/Purdue/Northwestern/Illinois
EAST: Rutgers/Maryland/Penn State
MIDEAST: Michigan/Michigan State/. Ohio state could go here or in the East.

A lot would depend on where the inevitable 15&16 teams are located.

Appreciate the thought provoking post.

 

[Vididiot]

In my opinion..., The Genie is out of the bottle as far as expansion goes, so we may as well embrace that fact and double down on it...

I'd like the Big Ten to add:

Oklahoma to the West and Temple in the East while flipping Michigan $tate to the West and p u to the East...

That should even the competitive balance a bit while bringing the National TV following of Oklahoma and the local Philadelphia TV market of Temple into play (more $$$$$)...

You could set up the schedule to have everyone play the other 7 (in division) along with 2 games cross division "seeded" (by most recent 7 year records) best versus best (game 1) and worst versus worst (game 2), leaving 3 games for the individual teams to schedule out of conference...

Everybody but p u and Illinois goes to a Bowl game in this scenario and the Conference starts counting revenue in the Zillions (with a Z)...

I don't think anybody sees Temple as a B1G school. Every so often they field a very good team, but on the average they are AAC or MAC level at best. They have nothing in common with B1G schools athletically. The only thing going for them is that they play at Lincoln Financial Field which seats 68,500. And adding a team just for their TV market, doesn't that smell of Rutgers? Why double down on our first mistake.

 

[76-1]

I don't think anybody sees Temple as a B1G school. Every so often they field a very good team, but on the average they are AAC or MAC level at best. They have nothing in common with B1G schools athletically. The only thing going for them is that they play at Lincoln Financial Field which seats 68,500. And adding a team just for their TV market, doesn't that smell of Rutgers? Why double down on our first mistake.

Well, I doubt it will happen at all but if we do expand I'd prefer to see some teams that we would routinely have a legitimate shot at beating on a semi-regular basis brought on board...

 

[indy1203]

The current alignments are atrocious. Delany should've been removed from his post for such a bungling.

Why blame Delany? The IU admin. all seemed ok with the alignments.
A letter I received from FG at the time stated, "we want to play the
very best."

 

[Vididiot]

All of you guys advocating a realignment focused on balance seem to forget Leaders and Legends and how unhappy people were with that. Doesn't seem to be the answer.

As far as doing away with divisions completely, that opens up a scheduling nightmare. With 14 teams, every team cannot play every other team. I remember in the predivision days when every few years IU did not play tOSU and UM. Now there will be 4 teams that every team does not play. If UM wins the championship in a year when they played Rutgers, Maryland and Illinois and did not have to play PSU, MSU and Minnesota (let's pretend that Minny has a really good team that year) there will be whining galore. Every year the conversation will be as much about who tOSU, UM, PSU, etc. don't play as much as who they do play. And what about a championship game? Recall that the CG was a reason to have divisions to get into the top 4 (plus the extra $ and TV exposure). The Big 12 couldn't live without one. So do the top 2 teams have to play regardless of the situation? If tOSU wins the B1G outright 9-0, do they have to play 2nd place PSU who finished 8-1 and risk getting knocked out of the tournament? Or is there no CG?

Now that the B1G has expanded to 14, everything is more complicated. There is no easy solution.

 

[UncleMark]

Why blame Delany? The IU admin. all seemed ok with the alignments.
A letter I received from FG at the time stated, "we want to play the
very best."

IU had zero, repeat zero, leverage when it came to football division alignments. Fred used all the pull we might have had to lock in the IU/PU game annually. It's the only protected cross-divisional game in the conference.

His letter to you was, of course, boilerplate.