Buckeyes, General

Leaders, Legends, and Balance: A Look Into Big Ten Division Realignment

Carlos Hyde

Last week, someone on Twitter (I believe it was the OSU Alumni handle) linked to this BTN.com poll that had an idea for three different division configurations with the additions of Maryland and Rutgers set for the 2014 season. As I browsed the three different options, I had mixed emotions about each different one. I’ll get to that more in a second, but what makes for a good pair of divisions in the Big Ten Conference? Is it two perfectly balanced divisions? Is it about maintaining rivalries at all costs? Is it about geographic integrity? Oddly enough, these were the three questions I asked myself and they’re actually the three factors that BTN.com asks you to rank in their survey (Competitive balance, preserving rivalries, and geography). I spent some time looking at all of this to see if I could come up with something more ideal than the options set before me.

To delve into the competitive balance argument, I found this Plain Dealer database that, among other benchmarks, compared the records of Big Ten teams since Penn State entered as the 11th conference team in 1993. I think this is an excellent barometer to use. It’s not too short of a time to be inflated by one great recruiting class or one coach’s lucky streak. It’s also not so far back that it brings pre-WWII games and games without the forward pass into the equation. Here’s the PD chart (updated with the 2012 season and adding Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers’s overall records).

Big Ten Games Overall Titles
Team W L T Pct W L T Pct
Ohio State 124 35 1 0.780 200 51 1 0.797 10
Nebraska 194 63 0 0.755
Wisconsin 96 61 3 0.611 174 76 4 0.696 6
Michigan 109 51 0 0.681 172 76 0 0.694 5
Penn State 102 58 0 0.638 171 76 0 0.692 3
Iowa 81 78 1 0.509 138 105 1 0.568 2
Michigan State 80 79 1 0.503 134 109 1 0.551 1
Purdue 72 85 3 0.459 121 118 3 0.506 1
Northwestern 70 90 0 0.438 118 122 1 0.492 3
Maryland 113 123 0 0.479
Rutgers 100 123 1 0.448
Minnesota 50 110 0 0.313 104 135 0 0.435
Illinois 51 108 1 0.321 91 143 1 0.389 1
Indiana 36 124 0 0.225 78 153 0 0.338

Note: Ohio State’s vacated wins from 2010, including their Big Ten Title as well Penn State’s vacated wins and titles from 2005 and 2008 are included in the table above.

 

What does the chart tell us? Basically, there are five haves and nine have-nots in terms of sustained success in the last 20 years. Ohio State reigns supreme, but Wisconsin and Penn State have had equal amounts of success as Michigan has. In addition, Nebraska is eclipsed only by Ohio State in their overall winning percentage from their Big 12 days that included three national titles.

Let’s start with the option from that survey that I wish worked, but that I just don’t like: The East-West.

East: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers

West: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota

No, No, NO! Maryland and Rutgers do not belong in the same half of the conference. As an OSU fan (and Michigan, Michigan State, and Indiana fans would agree), I don’t want to see both Maryland and Rutgers every single season at the expense of seeing a Wisconsin, Illinois, or Purdue. I think it’s important to put these two in separate divisions and make the cross-division protected rivalry between those two newcomers. Sure, Penn State will only see one of them every single year (and they could be one of the reasons these two schools were chosen in particular), but there’s only so many matchups that can happen in a 8-game (hopefully 9-game soon) conference slate.

After ruling out the East-West case, it comes down to a matter of if you want Ohio State and Michigan, the two most prolific programs in the conference, in the same division or not. If you do, then the Inner-Outer option looks pretty intriguing. If you don’t, then keeping the divisions as is and adding one to each makes most sense. The stacked division didn’t seem to be a problem in the SEC West (Alabama and LSU) or formerly in the Big 12 South (Texas and Oklahoma).

To me, it comes down to what matters more: protecting “The Game” and keeping Ohio State-Michigan as the last regular season game or accumulating a few more division trophies and having the possibility of meeting again for the Big Ten championship game. As an Ohio State fan, my top priority will always be to have Ohio State-Michigan played as the last regular season game each year. Moving it to the middle of October to appease those who don’t want a rematch in the title game just one week later is not an acceptable compromise to me. While I love the idea of seeing these two face off twice in one year (at least once, anyway), I could see how it occurring too frequently (say, 3-4 times in a decade) could diminish the clout of the game. In the end, what I fear is with the underwhelming attendance at the first two Big Ten Championship games, that Jim Delaney and the conference will look to cash in with the chance for the OSU-Michigan title game and move the regular season matchup accordingly.

So, what did I do for my configuration? I compromised, siding mostly with the Inner-Outer strategy, but switching Illinois for Maryland to break up the two new teams. I’ve broken up what I consider to be the top six programs in the conference (OSU, UM, Wisc, Penn St, Neb, and MSU) into three per division with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th most successful programs all on one side to offset Ohio State and Michigan in the same half, considering the drastic dropoff between Michigan State and the other five. For the record, Iowa and Purdue probably both have a faint argument for the sixth best program, but I went with Michigan State considering their relative success under Dantonio.

Division 1: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern, Indiana, Maryland

Division 2: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Penn State, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Rutgers

Protected Rivalries: Ohio State-Nebraska, Michigan-Minnesota, Michigan State-Penn State, Indiana-Wisconsin, Northwestern-Illinois, Purdue-Iowa, Maryland-Rutgers

Did I protect the rivalries (which I set out to do more than respect the map)? According to ESPN’s Big Ten Blog, I did. I kept my hands off the “Hands Off” category, though I did not make sure that two “Handle With Care” category rivalries were preserved. Oddly enough, they were both Buckeye rivalries, The Illibuck between Ohio State and Illinois and Ohio State-Penn State, which is geographic more than anything. As the spokesman for Ohio State in this article, I think I can safely say that there’s the Michigan rivalry and there’s everything else. Sure, the Illinois game is a long-standing trophy, and Penn State has been a good rivalry for the past nearly 20 years. But, I’m attempting to start a new rivalry between two successful programs, Ohio State and Nebraska. Nobody wants to see Ohio State and Nebraska play just twice every decade (in the current 8-game setup), and that includes the TV folks and both fanbases. Michigan and Minnesota battle for the Little Brown Jug each year, while Northwestern and Illinois is an in-state battle. As I mentioned before, I would have Maryland and Rutgers play each other each season. Michigan State and Penn State used to have a protected matchup in the old no-division configuration. Then, I paired Purdue with Iowa and Indiana with Wisconsin. These are far from ideal, but with Wisconsin’s two biggest rivals in their division in Minnesota and Iowa, they should be satisfied.

One more final thing, I’m not nearly as repulsed at the Leaders and Legends division names as most are, but I’m completely fine with changing them and have no real tie to them emotionally. Given that my proposed realignment doesn’t fit any sort of geographic configuration I’m aware of, it would take the creative minds at the Big Ten to come up with something better.

So, how did I do? Take the survey yourself and give your input, and let us hear about it in the comments!

(Photo: Jay LaPrete/AP)

n');
  • AMC

    We agree on all your points regarding OSU and Michigan being in the same division (and your point that the B1G is likely to mess that up even if realignment occurs). I’m fine with East-West. Yes playing Maryland and Rutgers every year would stink, but it would allow OSU alumni on the east coast to easily get to those games and support the team. And while those two programs stink, OSU currently plays Indiana and Illinois every year in divisional games – I know that OSU-Illinois has the Illibuck trophy, but is that matchup really any better (football wise) than OSU-Maryland? Also, I have to take issue with your protecting the OSU-Nebraska game. If you’re looking for competitive balance, that throws things off. I say just keep it simple and do it based on geography.

  • nobody

    agree with east-west, how can that not be the new alignment? Any other alignment would require too much unnecessary travel.

  • REEPJP

    I’m a fan of the geography split as well. Don’t get me wrong, I love the OSU-Michigan game being the last game every year, but if they do get split up in different divisions I could possibly be talked into having it as the first game of the year. As if the anticipation for the first game of the year isn’t big enough, imagine if you were prepping for the school up North all summer?

    Even if you lose the first game of the year to your biggest rival, you know that if you win the rest of your games an opportunity to redeem yourself in the championship game will most likely exist.

  • mgbode

    as seen by the possible new Big East w/ SD State, Boise, etc, travel just doesn’t matter that much for football.

  • mgbode

    Delaney is not giving up a potential Ohio State v. Michigan title game, so any breakup with them in the same division is not going to happen.

  • mgbode

    also, if you are going to protect a rivalry here, then why wouldn’t it be the newly heightened Wisconsin/OSU.

  • Jaker

    YOU CAN’T FORGET THE ILLIBUCK!!!! THAT WEIRD TURTLE LIKE TROPHY IS WHY WE PLAY THE SEASON!!!!

  • Garry_Owen

    But one of the best parts about The Game is having an opportunity to ruin TTUN’s season.

  • Garry_Owen

    I like a division of “Overlords” vs. “Underlings.” 5 vs. 9
    B1G Overlords: OSU, scUM, Wisc, PSU, Nebraska.
    B1G Underlings: Everyone else.
    I don’t care about scheduling.

  • REEPJP

    This still gives you that opportunity…some years multiple times if you fail the first time……1.) You give them their first loss and they never recover from it, crushing their fans’ unrealistic pre-season expectations. 2.) You beat them one of the 5 times they’ll lose all year and their season would have been ruined already if you played them the last game. 3.) You play them in the Championship game and assuming they won the first time get redemption and a 2nd opportunity to prevent them from an undefeated season.

  • mgbode

    what is funny is that if you break that up top7/bottom7 (add Iowa & MichSt to overlords), then it is Purdue that is the only team over .500 of the underlings as per the article above.

  • OHoosier

    Indiana’s rival is Purdue, not Wisconsin. IU (and I imagine Purdue) would riot if they don’t play every year.

  • thepaledragon

    East-West clearly makes the most sense. Keeps the best rivalries together, is relatively balanced, and makes branding a lot easier. Case in point: Can you name the teams in the SEC divisions? Pac-12? Old Big 12? Of course. Now, can you name the teams in each ACC division? I am a huge college football fan and I confess I cannot. For fans outside of B1G territory, our divisions are as much of a mystery, aside from calling them “Where is Wisconsin?” and “Why is Wisconsin here?”

    Ohio State-Michigan HAS to be the last week of the season and it makes the most sense to make it a divisional game. Almost every year they would be playing for a berth in the B1G Championship. Perfect.

    As for getting to play teams in the other division, I assume that a 9 game conference schedule is imminent, like the Pac 12 does now.

  • Kirk

    They play in the same division in my setup. So, they already play every year.

  • http://www.facebook.com/george.hetzel.75 George Hetzel

    “What does the chart tell us?”
    That the Big 10 just added two programs only slightly better than Minnesota.

  • Matt S

    You’re forgetting that the 14 team league will almost assuredly mean that the conference schedule will be bumped up to 9 games (the PAC and SEC already do this, the ACC will likely do this as well). What that means is you play your 6 division mates, 1 protected cross-division school, and face the other 6 teams in the opposite division once every three years. Which to me is about the limit to still being a conference. Past that, and you’re basically two conferences with a scheduling arrangement and a championship game.

    Also, you should flip Maryland and Rutgers in your layout. Rutgers has a natural rivalry with Penn State – those are the teams that really drive the New York market for football. You need to develop that rivalry by keeping them in the same division.

    And it should be obvious that Wisconsin and Nebraska need to face each other as little as possible, so that we never again have to be subjected to those Noid costumes.