- 07/08/2010, 11:11PM ET
BS&B:TrustinFoley said 07/08, 11:11 PM
Geography is a more logical choice for several reasons
Current Big Ten without Nebraska
East- PSU, tOSU, Michigan, MSU, Purdue, and Indiana
West- Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota
1. College football is cyclical. The "equal" divisions that are setup in 2011 may not be equal in 2014. Once the divisions are setup they will not be easily changed. The strength of football programs change all the time.
For example, in 2006 Michigan was challenging for a Big Ten and a national title. Now they are coming off of a 5-7 season and only one Big Ten victory. Up until 2008, Northwestern was the academic school that the weakling in the Big Ten football schedule. Now they have gone to back to back bowls, back to back 5-3 Big Ten records and with overall records of 9-4 and 8-5 respectively.
2. Most of the big time rivalries would end up in the same division. In the east tOSU and Michigan would play every year. Wisconsin and Minnesota would be guaranteed to play for Paul Bunyon's Ax. Most of those Big Ten rivalry trophies would not go away. The tradition of the Big Ten would stay intact.
DJRoxalot said 07/09, 04:10 AM
I dont think it should be split at all. Leave it as is. If it aint broke, dont fix it....Besides in your scenario, the East is much much stronger than the West....
"For example, in 2006 Michigan was challenging for a Big Ten and a national title. Now they are coming off of a 5-7 season and only one Big Ten victory."
Um, lets see. They hired a new coach who is installing a gimmicky offense. Not to hard to see there would be a bit of a transition as he brought new players in and others decided to transfer out.
"Up until 2008, Northwestern was the academic school that the weakling in the Big Ten football schedule."
Pat Fitzgerald is 27-21 in 4 SEASONS, not exactly the weakling that you make them out to be.
Um, they also went to the Rose Bowl in 1995 as they became a team to be reckoned with before losing to USC, 41-32.
In 1996 they followed up by winning a lot of close games and becoming the "Cardiac Cats."
In 1998 under new coach Randy Walker they earned their 3rd Big Ten title in 6 years.
Good luck. A friend of Tnerb is a friend of mine.
BS&B:TrustinFoley said 07/09, 09:42 AM
In the history of Div 1-A football, Michigan has the most victories and Northwestern has the most losses. The recent reversals prove my point about cyclical nature of college football.
"I dont think it should be split at all. Leave it as is. If it aint broke, dont fix it"
It is broken and does need fixing is the primary reason for adding Nebraska. The current system of scheduling that the Big Ten is the worst in college football. If the system is left alone it negates all of the advantages of having 12 teams and adds all of the weakness.
Advantages of twelve teams
The division format allows the Conference Championship game. The best team in each division plays each other, boosting the winner???s SOS. In the Big Ten, this would be a huge event that would draw a lot of money and would propel the winner into a great position to be selected for the BCS championship game.
The current system would not have a Conf Champ game.
Weakness of twelve teams
Not all the teams play each other every year. This could lead to split conference titles, ie ties. Ties are un-American and are not for football. This has happened in the Big Ten 5 times in the last ten years.
DJRoxalot said 07/09, 11:24 AM
"In the history of Div 1-A football, Michigan has the most victories and Northwestern has the most losses. The recent reversals prove my point about cyclical nature of college football."
Here's a thought:
The Wildcats have found better coaches in recent years.
And the Wolverines coaching has declined?
Naaaah, that couldnt be it, huh?
Gary Barnett, Randy Walker and Pat Fitzgerald are much better coaches than the Wildcats have had. Thats an easy explanantion for them getting better.
"Not all the teams play each other every year. This could lead to split conference titles, ie ties."
Wrong. If a team tied with a conference record of 7-1 for 1st place say, they have tie-breakers in place to determine the True Champion. In the Big 12 a few years ago, Texas, OU and Oklahoma State all tied for first but they were able to determine a True Big 12 South Champion.
And they advanced to play the North winner. No confusion there.
"This has happened in the Big Ten 5 times in the last ten years."
And they were able to determine a champion to go to the Rose Bowl.....
BS&B:TrustinFoley said 07/09, 01:58 PM
???The Wildcats have found better coaches in recent years.???
There are many factors that contribute to a successful NCAAF program. Coaching is not the single all important factor for the recent success of Northwestern and the decline of Michigan. Change in coaching is just one reason why NCAAF is cyclical.
??????all tied for first but they were able to determine a True Big 12 South Champion.???
The Big XII used bad tiebreakers to determine a representative for the Championship game. The Big Ten has much better tiebreakers by using BCS rankings to eliminate down to two teams and using head to head as the final factor.
???And they were able to determine a champion to go to the Rose Bowl???
While division titles may be determined by tiebreakers in the Division/Conf Championship game format, the overall conference champ is determined by a game on the field. I prefer a championship game over tiebreakers.
It would be highly advantageous for the Big Ten to split up their divisions by geography. For the Big 10 not to split into divisions would be a huge mistake. By not splitting, they would be accepting all of cons for a 12 team conference and none of the pros.
|3||7#bag _ Com||996||338||74||73.4%|
|7||Goodell: Fannation Savior||644||429||71||59.4%|
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia