Link: http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-ten-schedule-divisions-realignment-rivalries
The best way for the Big Ten to fix its divisions? Get rid of divisions.
by Alex Kirshner, Matt Brown and Bill Connelly - SB Nation
The B1G's old divisions made no sense. The new ones are unbalanced. Doing away with the whole concept would make the conference more competitive, more fair and more fun.
Conference growth has led to all sorts of problems with scheduling, including unbalanced divisions and schedule difficulty, long waits to play certain opponents and the challenges of retaining various rivalries.
The 14-team Big Ten deals with all of those. Since just lopping four teams isn't really an option, there has to be a way to help. Right?
Luckily, we might have figured it out.
This week, our colleagues proposed a radical change for the SEC, banishing divisions entirely in favor of three protected rivalries per team. That same approach could work just as well for the Big Ten, placing three annual rivalry games per team and ensuring everybody plays the other 10 conference schools three times every five years.
Here's what the first part might look like:
Team (Three Protected Rivals)
Illinois (Northwestern - Ohio State - Purdue)
Indiana (Northwestern - Purdue - Rutgers)
Iowa (Minnesota - Nebraska - Wisconsin)
Maryland (Northwestern - Penn State - Rutgers)
Michigan (Minnesota - Michigan State - Ohio State)
Michigan State (Michigan - Nebraska - Penn State)
Minnesota (Iowa - Michigan - Wisconsin)
Nebraska (Iowa - Michigan State - Wisconsin)
Northwestern (Illinois - Indiana - Maryland)
Ohio State (Illinois - Michigan - Penn State)
Penn State (Maryland - Michigan State - Ohio State)
Purdue (Illinois - Indiana - Rutgers)
Rutgers (Indiana - Maryland - Penn State)
Wisconsin (Iowa - Minnesota - Nebraska)
Getting rid of divisions would be extra good in the Big Ten, where they'll almost always be unbalanced.
The Big Ten is moving to nine conference games this year. Each team will face its six divisional opponents, plus three of the seven teams in the other division.
This isn't entirely fair, because the Big Ten East happens to be loaded with the best recruiters and most of the best programs.
One of us is an Ohio State fan whose team is going to win the East often, and the other is a Maryland fan whose team might never win it. We both agree it's not fair, and so do S&P+ rankings over the last decade, which might be even less balanced if not for NCAA sanctions at Penn State and two failed Michigan coaching hires.
10-year S&P+ average | 10-year average rank
East
Ohio State (19.4 | 9.4)
Michigan State (11.1 | 25.6)
Penn State (11.4 | 26.8)
Michigan (10.9 | 29.9)
Rutgers (0.6 | 61.3)
Maryland (0.4 | 64.5)
Indiana (-2.9 | 76.2)
East Average (7.3 | 42.0)
West
Wisconsin (11.7 | 24.0)
Nebraska (10.5 | 28.3)
Iowa (6.7 | 41.9)
Illinois (1.5 | 58.3)
Minnesota (1.2 | 61.8)
Purdue (-0.8 | 69.4)
Northwestern (-1.0 | 70.8)
West Average (4.3 | 50.6)
The average West team is almost nine spots worse in S&P+ than the average East team.
On the flip side, this would give West teams the chance to show their success isn't just the product of playing in the division that appears easier.
This setup manages to protect every rivalry that matters, and some that don't.
The reality of the post-expansion Big Ten is that there aren't many more serious rivalries that warrant protection, all those trophies be damned.
This allows us to have some fun, and we can do things like protect the annual Suburban Under Armour Institutions Just Outside Major U.S. Cities Bowl between Maryland and Northwestern. We also leave space for X-rated content like Purdue vs. Rutgers, Purdue vs. Illinois, and Purdue vs. Indiana for the Old Oaken Bucket.
Other games we're protecting include these:*
- Wisconsin vs. Minnesota (Paul Bunyan's Axe)
- Minnesota vs. Michigan (Little Brown Jug)
- Nebraska vs. Wisconsin (Freedom Trophy)
- Iowa vs. Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)
- Penn State vs. Michigan State (Land Grant Trophy)
- Iowa vs. Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
- Northwestern vs. Illinois (Land of Lincoln Trophy**)
We do regret not making space to protect the burgeoning blood feud between Michigan and Rutgers, two of the country's most spirited antagonists.
* We're most devastated not to be protecting Minnesota and Nebraska's $5 Bits of Broken Chair Trophy, one of the most prestigious accolades any team can win. Hopefully the off years in that series will make the trophy even more profoundly meaningful than it already is, if that's possible.
** The Big Ten has too damned many of these things, and we accept no liability for that.
The Big Ten prides itself on a big map, and this system taps into it.
When the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers, it didn't do it because the league needed visits to College Park and Piscataway.
The league wanted to have its footprint covering the D.C. and (generously speaking) New York markets, just like its addition of Nebraska stretched the league's map westward.
If you're going to adopt wide geography, you might as well put both feet in. Separating the league into East and West for football (a sport with about four conference road trips per year, almost all on weekends) and not doing it for basketball (with nine, often on school nights) is nonsense. If you want to be a national league, be a national league.
Here's an example of how one team's scheduling would work. You don't get easy, clean, odd-year-and-even-year schedules like in the SEC mock-up, but here we go:
Michigan
Year 1: Ohio State, at Michigan State, Minnesota, at Wisconsin, Nebraska, at Illinois, Rutgers, at Maryland, Northwestern
Year 2: at Ohio State, Michigan State, at Minnesota, Penn State, at Nebraska, Iowa, at Rutgers, Purdue, at Indiana
Year 3: Ohio State, at Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, at Iowa, Illinois, at Purdue, at Northwestern, Indiana
Year 4: at Ohio State, Michigan State, at Minnesota, Wisconsin, at Penn State, Nebraska, at Rutgers, Maryland, at Indiana
Year 5: Ohio State, at Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, at Iowa, Illinois, at Maryland, Purdue, at Northwestern
We'll also say the Big Ten rigs home-and-road splits so every team visits at least one top recruiting area every year (let's say D.C., New Jersey, Ohio or Pennsylvania). That should benefit schools like Nebraska, whose protected rivals here are not in hotbed recruiting areas.
This doesn't even lead to unfair scheduling.
Some schools' rivals are a lot better than others. Based on 10-year S&P+ rankings, it's clear that Michigan State, for instance, plays a harder slate of rivals (Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska) than does Rutgers (Maryland, Purdue, Indiana).
But the overall projection of each team's average nine-game conference schedule is relatively even, using some sample five-year schedules for each team.
The difference in average full-conference schedule between the easiest (Rutgers) and the hardest (Minnesota) is only about half the difference between the average ranking of a current East team and a current West team.
(Rival average S&P+ | Rival average ranking | Overall average ranking)
Minnesota (9.8 | 31.9 | 43.4)
Michigan State (10.9 | 28.3 | 45.3)
Nebraska (9.8 | 30.5 | 45.4)
Iowa (7.8 | 38.0 | 45.5)
Michigan (10.6 | 32.3 | 45.5)
Penn State (10.3 | 33.2 | 45.8)
Illinois (5.9 | 49.9 | 46.0)
Maryland (3.7 | 53.0 | 46.0)
Indiana (-0.4 | 67.2 | 47.1)
Purdue (-0.3 | 65.3 | 47.3)
Northwestern (-0.3 | 66.3 | 47.3)
Wisconsin (6.1 | 44.0 | 47.5)
Ohio State (7.9 | 38.3 | 47.7)
Rutgers (-1.1 | 70.0 | 48.5)
This solution would make the Big Ten more competitive, more fair, and less isolated.
What's not to like?
The best way for the Big Ten to fix its divisions? Get rid of divisions.
by Alex Kirshner, Matt Brown and Bill Connelly - SB Nation
The B1G's old divisions made no sense. The new ones are unbalanced. Doing away with the whole concept would make the conference more competitive, more fair and more fun.
Conference growth has led to all sorts of problems with scheduling, including unbalanced divisions and schedule difficulty, long waits to play certain opponents and the challenges of retaining various rivalries.
The 14-team Big Ten deals with all of those. Since just lopping four teams isn't really an option, there has to be a way to help. Right?
Luckily, we might have figured it out.
This week, our colleagues proposed a radical change for the SEC, banishing divisions entirely in favor of three protected rivalries per team. That same approach could work just as well for the Big Ten, placing three annual rivalry games per team and ensuring everybody plays the other 10 conference schools three times every five years.
Here's what the first part might look like:
Team (Three Protected Rivals)
Illinois (Northwestern - Ohio State - Purdue)
Indiana (Northwestern - Purdue - Rutgers)
Iowa (Minnesota - Nebraska - Wisconsin)
Maryland (Northwestern - Penn State - Rutgers)
Michigan (Minnesota - Michigan State - Ohio State)
Michigan State (Michigan - Nebraska - Penn State)
Minnesota (Iowa - Michigan - Wisconsin)
Nebraska (Iowa - Michigan State - Wisconsin)
Northwestern (Illinois - Indiana - Maryland)
Ohio State (Illinois - Michigan - Penn State)
Penn State (Maryland - Michigan State - Ohio State)
Purdue (Illinois - Indiana - Rutgers)
Rutgers (Indiana - Maryland - Penn State)
Wisconsin (Iowa - Minnesota - Nebraska)
Getting rid of divisions would be extra good in the Big Ten, where they'll almost always be unbalanced.
The Big Ten is moving to nine conference games this year. Each team will face its six divisional opponents, plus three of the seven teams in the other division.
This isn't entirely fair, because the Big Ten East happens to be loaded with the best recruiters and most of the best programs.
One of us is an Ohio State fan whose team is going to win the East often, and the other is a Maryland fan whose team might never win it. We both agree it's not fair, and so do S&P+ rankings over the last decade, which might be even less balanced if not for NCAA sanctions at Penn State and two failed Michigan coaching hires.
10-year S&P+ average | 10-year average rank
East
Ohio State (19.4 | 9.4)
Michigan State (11.1 | 25.6)
Penn State (11.4 | 26.8)
Michigan (10.9 | 29.9)
Rutgers (0.6 | 61.3)
Maryland (0.4 | 64.5)
Indiana (-2.9 | 76.2)
East Average (7.3 | 42.0)
West
Wisconsin (11.7 | 24.0)
Nebraska (10.5 | 28.3)
Iowa (6.7 | 41.9)
Illinois (1.5 | 58.3)
Minnesota (1.2 | 61.8)
Purdue (-0.8 | 69.4)
Northwestern (-1.0 | 70.8)
West Average (4.3 | 50.6)
The average West team is almost nine spots worse in S&P+ than the average East team.
On the flip side, this would give West teams the chance to show their success isn't just the product of playing in the division that appears easier.
This setup manages to protect every rivalry that matters, and some that don't.
The reality of the post-expansion Big Ten is that there aren't many more serious rivalries that warrant protection, all those trophies be damned.
This allows us to have some fun, and we can do things like protect the annual Suburban Under Armour Institutions Just Outside Major U.S. Cities Bowl between Maryland and Northwestern. We also leave space for X-rated content like Purdue vs. Rutgers, Purdue vs. Illinois, and Purdue vs. Indiana for the Old Oaken Bucket.
Other games we're protecting include these:*
- Wisconsin vs. Minnesota (Paul Bunyan's Axe)
- Minnesota vs. Michigan (Little Brown Jug)
- Nebraska vs. Wisconsin (Freedom Trophy)
- Iowa vs. Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale)
- Penn State vs. Michigan State (Land Grant Trophy)
- Iowa vs. Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
- Northwestern vs. Illinois (Land of Lincoln Trophy**)
We do regret not making space to protect the burgeoning blood feud between Michigan and Rutgers, two of the country's most spirited antagonists.
* We're most devastated not to be protecting Minnesota and Nebraska's $5 Bits of Broken Chair Trophy, one of the most prestigious accolades any team can win. Hopefully the off years in that series will make the trophy even more profoundly meaningful than it already is, if that's possible.
** The Big Ten has too damned many of these things, and we accept no liability for that.
The Big Ten prides itself on a big map, and this system taps into it.
When the Big Ten added Maryland and Rutgers, it didn't do it because the league needed visits to College Park and Piscataway.
The league wanted to have its footprint covering the D.C. and (generously speaking) New York markets, just like its addition of Nebraska stretched the league's map westward.
If you're going to adopt wide geography, you might as well put both feet in. Separating the league into East and West for football (a sport with about four conference road trips per year, almost all on weekends) and not doing it for basketball (with nine, often on school nights) is nonsense. If you want to be a national league, be a national league.
Here's an example of how one team's scheduling would work. You don't get easy, clean, odd-year-and-even-year schedules like in the SEC mock-up, but here we go:
Michigan
Year 1: Ohio State, at Michigan State, Minnesota, at Wisconsin, Nebraska, at Illinois, Rutgers, at Maryland, Northwestern
Year 2: at Ohio State, Michigan State, at Minnesota, Penn State, at Nebraska, Iowa, at Rutgers, Purdue, at Indiana
Year 3: Ohio State, at Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, at Iowa, Illinois, at Purdue, at Northwestern, Indiana
Year 4: at Ohio State, Michigan State, at Minnesota, Wisconsin, at Penn State, Nebraska, at Rutgers, Maryland, at Indiana
Year 5: Ohio State, at Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State, at Iowa, Illinois, at Maryland, Purdue, at Northwestern
We'll also say the Big Ten rigs home-and-road splits so every team visits at least one top recruiting area every year (let's say D.C., New Jersey, Ohio or Pennsylvania). That should benefit schools like Nebraska, whose protected rivals here are not in hotbed recruiting areas.
This doesn't even lead to unfair scheduling.
Some schools' rivals are a lot better than others. Based on 10-year S&P+ rankings, it's clear that Michigan State, for instance, plays a harder slate of rivals (Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska) than does Rutgers (Maryland, Purdue, Indiana).
But the overall projection of each team's average nine-game conference schedule is relatively even, using some sample five-year schedules for each team.
The difference in average full-conference schedule between the easiest (Rutgers) and the hardest (Minnesota) is only about half the difference between the average ranking of a current East team and a current West team.
(Rival average S&P+ | Rival average ranking | Overall average ranking)
Minnesota (9.8 | 31.9 | 43.4)
Michigan State (10.9 | 28.3 | 45.3)
Nebraska (9.8 | 30.5 | 45.4)
Iowa (7.8 | 38.0 | 45.5)
Michigan (10.6 | 32.3 | 45.5)
Penn State (10.3 | 33.2 | 45.8)
Illinois (5.9 | 49.9 | 46.0)
Maryland (3.7 | 53.0 | 46.0)
Indiana (-0.4 | 67.2 | 47.1)
Purdue (-0.3 | 65.3 | 47.3)
Northwestern (-0.3 | 66.3 | 47.3)
Wisconsin (6.1 | 44.0 | 47.5)
Ohio State (7.9 | 38.3 | 47.7)
Rutgers (-1.1 | 70.0 | 48.5)
This solution would make the Big Ten more competitive, more fair, and less isolated.
What's not to like?
