Has to be done. I know it's been said that you don't know what teams are going to be good each year, but you can't have M, OSU, PSU, and MSU in the same division. The other division is complete dog shit.

I agree totally with you.

yep, agree with everything already said

the current way just sucks

How long has the B1G been divided regionally? Five seasons?

Haven't all the other conferences had the same situation since the beginning of their regional divisions? Have fans of other teams in other conferences wanted a system like suggested in the OP? Don't the imbalances go back and forth, just kind of like the periods of domination in the OSU Michigan rivalry?

I don't see the powers that be making any changes anytime soon.

EDIT:

Additionally, it just seems intuitive that there will likely not often be a clear cut top two - three or four teams will have one loss, or one team will be undefeated and two or three teams with one loss, or maybe it may be a year where the three second place teams have two losses.

So, then we go to the tie breakers.

Now, what two things does almost everyone agree on about tie breakers?

1) No matter what, the formulas are always stupid.

2) They almost never get right.

And after that, who are the top teams going to end up being?

The two teams with the easiest schedule.

Wisconsin's schedule ... lol

All hung people have said this division was unbalanced

seems a few uofm fans are singing a different tune than you were when this was announced 4 years ago when I said the balance was WAY off. What happened?

tinselwolverine said:

How long has the B1G been divided regionally? Five seasons?

Haven't all the other conferences had the same situation since the beginning of their regional divisions? Have fans of other teams in other conferences wanted a system like suggested in the OP? Don't the imbalances go back and forth, just kind of like the periods of domination in the OSU Michigan rivalry?

I don't see the powers that be making any changes anytime soon.

EDIT:

Additionally, it just seems intuitive that there will likely not often be a clear cut top two - three or four teams will have one loss, or one team will be undefeated and two or three teams with one loss, or maybe it may be a year where the three second place teams have two losses.

So, then we go to the tie breakers.

Now, what two things does almost everyone agree on about tie breakers?

1) No matter what, the formulas are always stupid.

2) They almost never get right.

And after that, who are the top teams going to end up being?

The two teams with the easiest schedule.

Click to expand...

i don't think the balance will shift much in the B1G. Nebraska was crap for years in the Big 12 before joining the B1G and they done nothing since. The population of those states and lack of national brands will tip the balance to the east the overwhelming majority of time. It makes sense to talk about splitting mich & osu and pairing each of them with either msu or psu.

Spartanmack said:

seems a few uofm fans are singing a different tune than you were when this was announced 4 years ago when I said the balance was WAY off. What happened?

Click to expand...

I do not believe anyone on these boards were in big favor of it at first. My father in law who is a Spartan fan hated it . But I think his reason was more traditional then anything else. Who here was in favor or it ?

We were?? What fans? The division was crap the day it was announced, what shit are you pulling out of your ass on this one?

Great straw man.

Wisconsin kind of reminds me of Florida the past few years in the SEC. They coast to their division title without actually having to play anyone. Wisconsin could actually clinch their division next week. The only team they have beaten with a winning record all year is Northwestern. Their non conf was Utah St, a bad BYU team and FAU.

B1G East is SEC West, who cares beat the teams on your schedule.

biggunsbob said:

I do not believe anyone on these boards were in big favor of it at first. My father in law who is a Spartan fan hated it . But I think his reason was more traditional then anything else. Who here was in favor or it ?

Click to expand...

several people thought that. I argued against it and I don't recall a single uofm fan agreeing. sbee and johnny2x and a couple other MSU posters also were totally fine with it. Go back and take a look. Tinsel's here now saying it's not a big deal. Nobody seemed to care when they thought Harbaugh would have them competing for a NC every year - most thought it was more important to preserve the osu rivalry that no one outside osu/uofm cares about than worry about balance in the league. Now Harbaugh's not panning out as expected (at least not yet) and osu and psu are national contenders and suddenly we're seeing threads about how easy wisconsin has it.

I'm fine with the divisions the way they are. Right now is actually one of the rare times that I can recall that OSU, PSU, and UM have all been good at the same time. A decade ago the SEC was imbalanced the other way. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were really good and the SEC West was weak until Saban arrived. Now, it's the other way. The Big 12 was similar. Some years it was the North with Nebraska, K-State, other years maybe the south had the strength with OU/Texas.

One division will always be stronger each year, and in the Big Ten probably more of the years that'll be the East. But as long as one reasonably good team can come out of the West it should be alright.

Or do we go back to the Leaders and Legends? I just cringed a little typing that.

MSUMatt28 said:

I'm fine with the divisions the way they are. Right now is actually one of the rare times that I can recall that OSU, PSU, and UM have all been good at the same time. A decade ago the SEC was imbalanced the other way. Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were really good and the SEC West was weak until Saban arrived. Now, it's the other way. The Big 12 was similar. Some years it was the North with Nebraska, K-State, other years maybe the south had the strength with OU/Texas.

One division will always be stronger each year, and in the Big Ten probably more of the years that'll be the East. But as long as one reasonably good team can come out of the West it should be alright.

Or do we go back to the Leaders and Legends? I just cringed a little typing that.

Click to expand...

this is all true but the imbalances in other conferences have lasted a long time - other than the mid/late 90s, Nebraska sucked as did Colorado and the rest of the Big 12 north. Of all the conferences, the SEC has the only real chance of achieving balance - the region pumps out elite talent and they all cheat like crazy. In the B1G, that's not true - nobody lives in Nebraska, Minn and Iowa - huge chunks of Iowa and Nebraska high schools play 8 man football. there are probably more elite Minn kids at Wisco than there are at Minn. Then you have ND, uofm, osu and psu that are all national brands that suck up elite talent from their own states as well as pulling elite talent from the less populated states and bigger states without elite programs like Illinois. RU and MD aren't likely to get local kids to stay home anytime soon. Kids aren't coming from SEC country to the midwest to play football, unless it's for ND, uofm, osu, etc.

The imbalance east-to-west in the B1G is likely to persist. Also, the fact that other conferences have imbalances isn't a good reason for why it's OK in the B1G. If it's flawed, it should be addressed or at least considered even if other conferences don't try to fix their similar issues.

Ahh, so you are moving the needle now in your conversation.

Of course we were all excited about Harbaugh and expected him to win this division.

That is completely independent of the fact that it was pretty well-discussed the division switches were crap, and Wisconsin was going to cake walk almost every year.

Nice try though.

Spartanmack said:

i don't think the balance will shift much in the B1G. Nebraska was crap for years in the Big 12 before joining the B1G and they done nothing since. The population of those states and lack of national brands will tip the balance to the east the overwhelming majority of time. It makes sense to talk about splitting mich & osu and pairing each of them with either msu or psu.

Click to expand...

I guess either Michigan or OSU could switch with either Northwestern or Illinois or Purdue or Indiana.

Maybe Michigan State could go in exchange for one of those teams also.

Would either of those make everybody happy?

tinselwolverine said:

I guess either Michigan or OSU could switch with either Northwestern or Illinois or Purdue or Indiana.

Maybe Michigan State could go in exchange for one of those teams also.

Would either of those make everybody happy?

Click to expand...

I don't think moving MSU does as much for balance as moving one of the other 3 - the 3 strongest programs (traditionally at least, would still be in one division). If all I cared about was conference championships then that would be the best move for us but I miss the old Big Ten and hate what the league has become. I don't see them kicking psu, nu, RU and MD out of the league and going back to the glory days. Personally, I'd want to stay with uofm, have psu and osu go together - the conf could even throw you guys a bone and protect the osu rivalry. there's no easy answer but i foresee this problem where the 2 or 3 best teams and 3 of 4 or 4 out of 5 are in the east, persisting for a while.

dubbsco said:

Ahh, so you are moving the needle now in your conversation.

Of course we were all excited about Harbaugh and expected him to win this division.

That is completely independent of the fact that it was pretty well-discussed the division switches were crap, and Wisconsin was going to cake walk almost every year.

Nice try though.

Click to expand...

you're kind of right, but only because you clearly don't know what the expression "moving the needle" means. You probably mean "moving the goalposts" but then you'd be wrong, because I'm doing no such thing. Note that this is just to help you not make a fool of yourself. I'm not engaging in a discussion of whatever point you're trying to make because I don't feel like wasting my time.

Spartanmack said:

I don't think moving MSU does as much for balance as moving one of the other 3 - the 3 strongest programs (traditionally at least, would still be in one division). If all I cared about was conference championships then that would be the best move for us but I miss the old Big Ten and hate what the league has become. I don't see them kicking psu, nu, RU and MD out of the league and going back to the glory days. Personally, I'd want to stay with uofm, have psu and osu go together - the conf could even throw you guys a bone and protect the osu rivalry. there's no easy answer but i foresee this problem where the 2 or 3 best teams and 3 of 4 or 4 out of 5 are in the east, persisting for a while.

Click to expand...

Well, they kept the OSU v U of M rivalry during the short lived Leaders and Legends era, so...

Both U of M and OSU are pretty far to the west in the East, and those four Illinois/Indiana schools I listed are pretty far east in the West...so it would still be relatively geographically viable with one of those switches.

The old Big 10 is gone, man, along with the Dodo bird and the Unicorn.