pianoknight

How long do "Legends" and "Leaders" last?

Recommended Posts

They have opportunity for a perfect East/West split, but they didn't do it. Personally, I think it's more appealing to have Ohio State and Michigan battle for a spot in the championship game rather than repeat the game two weeks in a row.

WEST

Nebraska (Crossover each year with Penn State)

Iowa (Crossover each year with Purdue)

Minnesota (Crossover each year with Michigan)

Wisconsin (Crossover each year with Michigan State)

Northwestern (Crossover each year with Indiana)

Illinois (Crossover each year with Ohio State)

EAST

Purdue (Crossover each year with Iowa)

Indiana (Crossover each year with Northwestern)

Michigan State (Crossover each year with Wisconsin)

Michigan (Crossover each year with Minnesota)

Ohio State (Crossover each year with Illinois)

Penn State (Crossover each year with Nebraska)

1. Guarantees all but two rivalries each season (Illinois/Purdue & Minnesota/Penn State).

2. Strength of each division seems pretty even.

3a. Hold the championship game centrally, rotating between Lucas Oil Stadium (East) and Soldier Field (West)...

3b. Or be unique and make it a home game for the higher-ranked team.

4. It only took me ten minutes to think of the whole thing.

You want to know why the Big Ten didn't go for that? The East Division is incredibly top heavy, with the West Division being a relative sisters of the poor. It's like the old Big XII Conference, only worse. (It also ramps up the chances of some mutually assured destruction fratricide dicking the Conference out of an at large BCS bid or a BCS championship shot.) Also, Indiana at least would like to at least pretend they can aspire to a better bowl than the Pizza Bowl, or possibly be able to aspire for a bowl without scheduling 4 baby seals to club annually out of Conference.

Combined 2010 regular season record of the West: 44-28

Combined 2010 regular season record of the East: 45-27

Teams from the West that have been to BCS games: (4) Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois

Teams from the East that have been to BCS games: (4) Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Purdue

The Big Ten, and most other major conferences, are not designed for parity. The Indianas of the world are just out of luck, unless they want to focus on building the program up to elite status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have opportunity for a perfect East/West split, but they didn't do it. Personally, I think it's more appealing to have Ohio State and Michigan battle for a spot in the championship game rather than repeat the game two weeks in a row.

WEST

Nebraska (Crossover each year with Penn State)

Iowa (Crossover each year with Purdue)

Minnesota (Crossover each year with Michigan)

Wisconsin (Crossover each year with Michigan State)

Northwestern (Crossover each year with Indiana)

Illinois (Crossover each year with Ohio State)

EAST

Purdue (Crossover each year with Iowa)

Indiana (Crossover each year with Northwestern)

Michigan State (Crossover each year with Wisconsin)

Michigan (Crossover each year with Minnesota)

Ohio State (Crossover each year with Illinois)

Penn State (Crossover each year with Nebraska)

1. Guarantees all but two rivalries each season (Illinois/Purdue & Minnesota/Penn State).

2. Strength of each division seems pretty even.

3a. Hold the championship game centrally, rotating between Lucas Oil Stadium (East) and Soldier Field (West)...

3b. Or be unique and make it a home game for the higher-ranked team.

4. It only took me ten minutes to think of the whole thing.

You want to know why the Big Ten didn't go for that? The East Division is incredibly top heavy, with the West Division being a relative sisters of the poor. It's like the old Big XII Conference, only worse. (It also ramps up the chances of some mutually assured destruction fratricide dicking the Conference out of an at large BCS bid or a BCS championship shot.) Also, Indiana at least would like to at least pretend they can aspire to a better bowl than the Pizza Bowl, or possibly be able to aspire for a bowl without scheduling 4 baby seals to club annually out of Conference.

Combined 2010 regular season record of the West: 44-28

Combined 2010 regular season record of the East: 45-27

Teams from the West that have been to BCS games: (4) Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois

Teams from the East that have been to BCS games: (4) Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Purdue

The Big Ten, and most other major conferences, are not designed for parity. The Indianas of the world are just out of luck, unless they want to focus on building the program up to elite status.

IU has never really had a focus on football, basketball has been king. Even when Bloomington North and South were killing everyone else in the state in football in the 90's, IU was unable to get many people from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have opportunity for a perfect East/West split, but they didn't do it. Personally, I think it's more appealing to have Ohio State and Michigan battle for a spot in the championship game rather than repeat the game two weeks in a row.

WEST

Nebraska (Crossover each year with Penn State)

Iowa (Crossover each year with Purdue)

Minnesota (Crossover each year with Michigan)

Wisconsin (Crossover each year with Michigan State)

Northwestern (Crossover each year with Indiana)

Illinois (Crossover each year with Ohio State)

EAST

Purdue (Crossover each year with Iowa)

Indiana (Crossover each year with Northwestern)

Michigan State (Crossover each year with Wisconsin)

Michigan (Crossover each year with Minnesota)

Ohio State (Crossover each year with Illinois)

Penn State (Crossover each year with Nebraska)

1. Guarantees all but two rivalries each season (Illinois/Purdue & Minnesota/Penn State).

2. Strength of each division seems pretty even.

3a. Hold the championship game centrally, rotating between Lucas Oil Stadium (East) and Soldier Field (West)...

3b. Or be unique and make it a home game for the higher-ranked team.

4. It only took me ten minutes to think of the whole thing.

You want to know why the Big Ten didn't go for that? The East Division is incredibly top heavy, with the West Division being a relative sisters of the poor. It's like the old Big XII Conference, only worse. (It also ramps up the chances of some mutually assured destruction fratricide dicking the Conference out of an at large BCS bid or a BCS championship shot.) Also, Indiana at least would like to at least pretend they can aspire to a better bowl than the Pizza Bowl, or possibly be able to aspire for a bowl without scheduling 4 baby seals to club annually out of Conference.

Combined 2010 regular season record of the West: 44-28

Combined 2010 regular season record of the East: 45-27

Teams from the West that have been to BCS games: (4 teams totaling 9 app. Currently 4-4 with 1 app. TBD)

Wisconsin (3 app. Currently 2-0 with 1 app. TBD)

Nebraska (2 app. Currently 1-1)

Iowa (2 app. Currently 1-1)

Illinois (2 app. Currently 0-2)

Teams from the East that have been to BCS games: (4 teams totaling 16 app. Currently 7-8 with 1 app. TBD)

Ohio State (9 app. Currently 5-3 with 1 app. TBD)

Michigan (4 app. Currently 1-3)

Penn State (2 app. Currently 1-1)

Purdue (1 app. Currently 0-1)

That's equal for me. I think the West Champion would have a good shot to beat the East Champion year in and year out, which wasn't the case in the Big 12 for several years. The Big Ten, and most other major conferences, are not designed for parity. The Indianas of the world are just out of luck, unless they want to focus on building the program up to elite status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

Leaders and Legends is pompous, pretentious, arrogant, obnoxious, and completely fitting for the Big Ten. I forget who said it, the Big Ten has said this is who we are, we know who we are, you know who we are, we know that you know who we are, and this is what you are getting. I hate it, I think its terrible... but its fitting to the Big Ten's mentality.

Oh, and to answer the question about how long it will last... probably until they expand to 16 teams... because then they will have to think of 2 more division names, and I don't think they can think of 2 more arrogant L words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same conference is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

They've been in the same conference since 1916...

And anyone who thinks they should be in different divisions is, for lack of a better term, an idiot. Conference rivals should never play more than once a season, just like Texas and Oklahoma never do. Just like Auburn and Alabama never do. Just like Florida and Georgia never do. Just like USC and UCLA never do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: Double Post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have opportunity for a perfect East/West split, but they didn't do it. Personally, I think it's more appealing to have Ohio State and Michigan battle for a spot in the championship game rather than repeat the game two weeks in a row.

WEST

Nebraska (Crossover each year with Penn State)

Iowa (Crossover each year with Purdue)

Minnesota (Crossover each year with Michigan)

Wisconsin (Crossover each year with Michigan State)

Northwestern (Crossover each year with Indiana)

Illinois (Crossover each year with Ohio State)

EAST

Purdue (Crossover each year with Iowa)

Indiana (Crossover each year with Northwestern)

Michigan State (Crossover each year with Wisconsin)

Michigan (Crossover each year with Minnesota)

Ohio State (Crossover each year with Illinois)

Penn State (Crossover each year with Nebraska)

1. Guarantees all but two rivalries each season (Illinois/Purdue & Minnesota/Penn State).

2. Strength of each division seems pretty even.

3a. Hold the championship game centrally, rotating between Lucas Oil Stadium (East) and Soldier Field (West)...

3b. Or be unique and make it a home game for the higher-ranked team.

4. It only took me ten minutes to think of the whole thing.

You want to know why the Big Ten didn't go for that? The East Division is incredibly top heavy, with the West Division being a relative sisters of the poor. It's like the old Big XII Conference, only worse. (It also ramps up the chances of some mutually assured destruction fratricide dicking the Conference out of an at large BCS bid or a BCS championship shot.) Also, Indiana at least would like to at least pretend they can aspire to a better bowl than the Pizza Bowl, or possibly be able to aspire for a bowl without scheduling 4 baby seals to club annually out of Conference.

Combined 2010 regular season record of the West: 44-28

Combined 2010 regular season record of the East: 45-27

Teams from the West that have been to BCS games: (4) Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois

Teams from the East that have been to BCS games: (4) Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Purdue

The Big Ten, and most other major conferences, are not designed for parity. The Indianas of the world are just out of luck, unless they want to focus on building the program up to elite status.

Let's go by historic powers-East has 3, West has 1, and that 1 is still digging out from a disastrous stretch. Iowa and Wisconsin are on that next tier, but Iowa vacilates too often between "what the hell" good seasons and self destructing due to one cause or another (latest culprit: drugs) and pre-Alvarez Wisconsin was mediocre at best (and post-Alvarez Wisconsin is only good if they have good RBs). A Big XII repeat is too easy for this to be truly acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same conference is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

They've been in the same conference since 1916...

And anyone who thinks they should be in the same division is, for lack of a better term, an idiot. Conference rivals should never play more than once a season, just like Texas and Oklahoma never do. Just like Auburn and Alabama never do. Just like Florida and Georgia never do. Just like USC and UCLA never do.

How nice of you to pick and choose rivalries. Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee are just as heated historically and were not diminished in the slightest by the potential of a rematch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

Like I said in the other thread, that's like putting the Celtics and Lakers in the same division.

Michigan/Ohio State is success based championship rivalry, not a geographic rivalry. Michigan's geographic rival is Michigan State, that's why they're in the same division, and why flipping one of them to the other is a bad idea.

Any plan where Michigan/OSU can't play each other for the championship is awful; any plan where they don't play each other every year is awful. The new alignment is solid. I still can't get why anyone cares if they play each other twice; if teams playing each other twice is a problem, then you shouldn't have a postseason championship game.

The current alignment seems fine. Although I guess Wisconsin and Northwestern would be better off swapped. Anyway, it doesn't have to be perfect to name them East/West; we once had the Braves in the AL West, and Falcons in the AFC West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine how intense the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry would be if they didn't play each other at all. They would just sit there, fuming at each other, waiting to burst but never having the opportunity to release. It would be epic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same conference is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

They've been in the same conference since 1916...

And anyone who thinks they should be in the same division is, for lack of a better term, an idiot. Conference rivals should never play more than once a season, just like Texas and Oklahoma never do. Just like Auburn and Alabama never do. Just like Florida and Georgia never do. Just like USC and UCLA never do.

Before the Big XII, Oklahoma and Texas were rivals, but in different conferences. What occurred was the Oklahoma/ Nebraska Big 8 rivalry was destroyed with their expansion as it was only scheduled half the time Nebraska was in the Big XII. The ACC is set up so that there is the possibility that FSU/Miami, BC/VaTech, and even UNC/NC State would play twice.

Now, the SEC separated an annual game in Alabama/Tennessee by division. They still play each other just not always on The Third Saturday in October every year.

As for the names, in the NCAA 2010 thread, I talked about how the Big Ten was even thinking of names which could be perceived as very national/"outside the box" (Stars Division; Stripes Division).

They had to do something like this or that not to hurt the feelings of coaches (regardless of sport) not named Paterno, Hayes, or Schembechler who were just as important to the history of the conference, especially since Bo never won a national title.

Michigan: Yost

Nebraska: Osbourne, Devaney

MSU: Daugherty, Munn

Minn.: Bierman

Ill: Zuppke

And that does not hit the other sports, but those may not play in divisions. I remember the Big East Six and Big East Seven mess after they absorbed teams. Not good.

I think that this will last a while and teams will be known by division not than ACC football is known for in terms of who is in what division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

Like I said in the other thread, that's like putting the Celtics and Lakers in the same division.

Michigan/Ohio State is success based championship rivalry, not a geographic rivalry. Michigan's geographic rival is Michigan State, that's why they're in the same division, and why flipping one of them to the other is a bad idea.

Any plan where Michigan/OSU can't play each other for the championship is awful; any plan where they don't play each other every year is awful. The new alignment is solid. I still can't get why anyone cares if they play each other twice; if teams playing each other twice is a problem, then you shouldn't have a postseason championship game.

The current alignment seems fine. Although I guess Wisconsin and Northwestern would be better off swapped. Anyway, it doesn't have to be perfect to name them East/West; we once had the Braves in the AL West, and Falcons in the AFC West.

I would be really curious to know when the Braves were in the AL West and the Falcons in the AFC West...

The alignment and divison names could be better, but as long as I can cheer on the Badgers beating the Illini every year, that gives me something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The names have grown on me. I like them. And there's no way they'll change until the divisions are shaken up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

Like I said in the other thread, that's like putting the Celtics and Lakers in the same division.

OR Yankees/Red Sox...oh wait

My idea for divisions:

Animals: Gophers, Badgers, Wolverines, Hawkeyes, Wildcats, Nittany Lions

People/Nuts: Huskers, Boilers, Hoosiers, Spartans, Illini, Buckeyes

Crossover: Mich/OSU, Ill/NW, MSU/PSU, Iowa/NU, Minn/Pur, Wiscy/IU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how much people think there's an Ohio State/Michigan hard-on in the Big Ten, i'm surprised no one has thought of doing Schembechler Division & Hayes Division...

Thats actually what I thought they'd to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering how much people think there's an Ohio State/Michigan hard-on in the Big Ten, i'm surprised no one has thought of doing Schembechler Division & Hayes Division...

Thats actually what I thought they'd to.

Seconded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same conference is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

They've been in the same conference since 1916...

And anyone who thinks they should be in the same division is, for lack of a better term, an idiot. Conference rivals should never play more than once a season, just like Texas and Oklahoma never do. Just like Auburn and Alabama never do. Just like Florida and Georgia never do. Just like USC and UCLA never do.

How nice of you to pick and choose rivalries. Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee are just as heated historically and were not diminished in the slightest by the potential of a rematch.

I mean, sure there's a point there, but let's not pretend that either of those rivalries are on par with Auburn/Alabama or Florida/Georgia. I don't think the possibility of Ohio State and Illinois playing twice is a problem, but that's a second-tier rivalry. I think first-tier intra-conference rivalries should only happen once a year. They're special. If you want to make your conference championship game, you've got to beat your rival or you're basically out. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, sure there's a point there, but let's not pretend that either of those rivalries are on par with Auburn/Alabama or Florida/Georgia. I don't think the possibility of Ohio State and Illinois playing twice is a problem, but that's a second-tier rivalry. I think first-tier intra-conference rivalries should only happen once a year. They're special. If you want to make your conference championship game, you've got to beat your rival or you're basically out. Simple as that.

I seriously don't understand this Michigan-Ohio State thing at all. If this is the Most Intense Rivalry In Sports, shouldn't a rematch for the conference championship ratchet the intensity to unprecedented levels? If some of the NFL's greatest rivalries can be staged up to three times a year, why can't this?

"Hey, do you think it would be cool if Michigan and Ohio State played for the championship?"

"no, it should only be used to extrapolate which school has higher academic standards and undergraduate alcohol tolerance, duh"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same conference is a good idea is an idiot. An idiot. An IDIOT.

They've been in the same conference since 1916...

And anyone who thinks they should be in the same division is, for lack of a better term, an idiot. Conference rivals should never play more than once a season, just like Texas and Oklahoma never do. Just like Auburn and Alabama never do. Just like Florida and Georgia never do. Just like USC and UCLA never do.

How nice of you to pick and choose rivalries. Auburn-Georgia and Alabama-Tennessee are just as heated historically and were not diminished in the slightest by the potential of a rematch.

I mean, sure there's a point there, but let's not pretend that either of those rivalries are on par with Auburn/Alabama or Florida/Georgia. I don't think the possibility of Ohio State and Illinois playing twice is a problem, but that's a second-tier rivalry. I think first-tier intra-conference rivalries should only happen once a year. They're special. If you want to make your conference championship game, you've got to beat your rival or you're basically out. Simple as that.

I'd hardly describe the oldest major college football rivalry in the South, and another rivalry that is STILL only known by the date on which is once was annually played (Third Saturday in October) as being inferior to the Iron Bowl or The World's Biggest Drinking Game. The alumni are just as likely to lynch you for sucking in the former games as the latter.

-----------------------------------------------

I think the concern is that somehow a "2006" scenario will roll around where both teams are undefeated going into the Game, and with division titles already locked up, the first game will somehow be diminished.

This ignores, of course, that such a thing will be a statistical rarity and that the opportunities for SWEET SWEET REVENGE and likely dicking your rival out of a BCS title game slot from the loser (or trying to avoid such things from the winner) make for far more interest among the alumni. Speaking of which, the whole "MNC" thing kind of lends an importance to winning both in such a situation, n'est-ce pas? Additionally it is far more likely that you will still see one team knocking the other out of the championship game through victory, or one team facing a must win scenario to even have a prayer of a rematch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.