Big Ten divisions


#1

There is a lot of talk about how to divide the Big Ten into divisions, focused around football. I wonder if the Big Ten will use divisions in basketball? The ACC and Big 12 do not, the SEC and some small conferences do. I would bet the Big Ten has just one 12 team basketball division. Also, some random thoughts - we will have Penn State, Nebraska, and Northwestern all in one league for basketball - the expansion certainly weakened the league in basketball I think. If the expansion all stops here, we have a Big 12 with 10 schools and a Big Ten with 12 schools. If neither changes their moniker for the sake of brand names, then the height of corporate stupidity has truly reached college sports. Of course, the Big 12 could probably add whoever they want to from Texas. SMU, TCU, UTEP, Rice, whoever.


#2

There’d be no real benefit to divisions for basketball. The only reason they’d exist for football is for the championship game


#3

Considering this “expansion” has only added one team so far, and they are horrible at basketball, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that it slightly weakened the B10 in hoops. It shouldn’t have a noticeable affect though - just one more bottom-feeder and another win or two for the guys at the top.


#4

If we stick with an 18 game schedule, then I’d agree. However I like divisions with a 16 game schedule since it balances the schedule for everyone in a division. Today, it’s a little too “random” for me, and I’d rather see it balanced like the SEC/MAC do things.


#5
[quote="Tom, post:2, topic:1236"]There'd be no real benefit to divisions for basketball.[/quote]

If we stick with an 18 game schedule, then I’d agree. However I like divisions with a 16 game schedule since it balances the schedule for everyone in a division. Today, it’s a little too “random” for me, and I’d rather see it balanced like the SEC/MAC do things.

With the recent history of our OOC schedule, I’d like to see as many conference games as possible.


#6

I think divisions would be cool in basketball. #1 and #2 seeds in the Tournament are the division winners with the rest of the tournament being seeded according to record in the conference.


#7
[quote="Tom, post:2, topic:1236"]There'd be no real benefit to divisions for basketball.[/quote]

If we stick with an 18 game schedule, then I’d agree. However I like divisions with a 16 game schedule since it balances the schedule for everyone in a division. Today, it’s a little too “random” for me, and I’d rather see it balanced like the SEC/MAC do things.

I just don’t like the idea of being in a division with Ohio State, Michigan State, Purdue, Indiana, and Michigan. If Delany is serious about competitive balance, he needs to consider the balance for basketball too.


#8

I agree. I just think that we either need to go to a full round robin (which certainly isn’t happening with 12 teams), or organize the schedule in a way that certain teams are on an equal footing. I hate the current Big East format, where you can’t really compare records in the conference since the SOS between some of those squads is so different. The Big Ten hoops format isn’t quite as bad today since it’s “random”, and I’m guessing without divisions that we’d just go back to the days of skipps 2 teams at home and 2 on the road each year. However it’s just not really fair when one team misses out on a game with 3 of the bottom 4 teams in the conference while another team misses out on an extra game with the top two teams.


#9

stewart Mandel has a good article about this…

Sketching prospective divisions for expanded Big Ten and Pac-10

Here’s what really caught my attention…

[b]Recent Conference Records of Big Ten Teams and Nebraska [/b] (since 1993) TEAM RECORD TEAM RECORD 1. Ohio State 106-29-1 (.779) 7. Purdue 63-70-3 (.463) 2. Michigan 94-42 (.691) 8. Michigan State 63-72-1 (.463) 3. Nebraska 75-37 (.669) 9. Northwestern 59-77 (.434) 4. Penn State 86-50 (.632) 10. Illinois 45-90-1 (.331) 5. Wisconsin 79-54-3 (.581) 11. Minnesota 44-92 (.324) 6. Iowa 71-64-1 (.522) 12. Indiana 33-103 (.243)

I was surprside to see just how low Illinois is on this list.


#10

[quote=“Skeeza, post:9, topic:1236”]stewart Mandel has a good article about this…

Sketching prospective divisions for expanded Big Ten and Pac-10

Here’s what really caught my attention…

I was surprside to see just how low Illinois is on this list.[/quote]

Illinois was dreadful for a few years. How bad did we beat them in their house that one year? 63-11 (I looked it up).


#11
[quote="Skeeza, post:9, topic:1236"]stewart Mandel has a good article about this...

Sketching prospective divisions for expanded Big Ten and Pac-10

Here’s what really caught my attention…

I was surprside to see just how low Illinois is on this list.[/quote]

Illinois was dreadful for a few years. How bad did we beat them in their house that one year? 63-11 (I looked it up).

63-10. I was at that game…it was 56-3 at the half. The crazy part was, Illinois opened with a really nice drive to go right down the field and go ahead 3-0. Then, Penn State scored 63 straight. I was wearing a Penn State shirt at my gym a couple weeks ago and a guy working at the desk just put down his head when he saw me walk in. He was the starting safety for Illinois in that game.


#12

Hopefully the BIG TEN gets this right. There’s 2 approaches to the divisions they can take, name them geographically or name them generically.

The generic option is much better. There’s really no need for geographical alignment, seeing how there’s only 4 conference road games, and most (if not all) are flights anyway, even to Columbus.

I point to the ACC as the example. They have 2 conferences, Atlantic and Coastal. Simple, with no geographical inclinations. Put the teams in whatever alignment you like, and it’s fine.

The BIG TEN is already taking a hit (in my opinion) for containing the name “TEN” with twelve schools. A little embarrassing for academic institutions. Now, imagine having Penn State in the west conference, and a team like Illinois or Minnesota in the east. Rediculous? You bet.

Have 2 generic names like “Plains & Lakes”, or “Heartland & Tradition”. Then you can put any teams in either conference without looking foolish.

… just a thought.


#13

[quote=“Skeeza, post:12, topic:1236”]Hopefully the BIG TEN gets this right. There’s 2 approaches to the divisions they can take, name them geographically or name them generically.

The generic option is much better. There’s really no need for geographical alignment, seeing how there’s only 4 conference road games, and most (if not all) are flights anyway, even to Columbus.

I point to the ACC as the example. They have 2 conferences, Atlantic and Coastal. Simple, with no geographical inclinations. Put the teams in whatever alignment you like, and it’s fine.

The BIG TEN is already taking a hit (in my opinion) for containing the name “TEN” with twelve schools. A little embarrassing for academic institutions. Now, imagine having Penn State in the west conference, and a team like Illinois or Minnesota in the east. Rediculous? You bet.

Have 2 generic names like “Plains & Lakes”, or “Heartland & Tradition”. Then you can put any teams in either conference without looking foolish.

… just a thought. [/quote]

If you are going to call the Big Ten out for not being able to count, you’d better work on your spelling. ;D


#14
[quote="Skeeza, post:12, topic:1236"]Hopefully the BIG TEN gets this right. There's 2 approaches to the divisions they can take, name them geographically or name them generically.

The generic option is much better. There’s really no need for geographical alignment, seeing how there’s only 4 conference road games, and most (if not all) are flights anyway, even to Columbus.

I point to the ACC as the example. They have 2 conferences, Atlantic and Coastal. Simple, with no geographical inclinations. Put the teams in whatever alignment you like, and it’s fine.

The BIG TEN is already taking a hit (in my opinion) for containing the name “TEN” with twelve schools. A little embarrassing for academic institutions. Now, imagine having Penn State in the west conference, and a team like Illinois or Minnesota in the east. Rediculous? You bet.

Have 2 generic names like “Plains & Lakes”, or “Heartland & Tradition”. Then you can put any teams in either conference without looking foolish.

… just a thought.[/quote]

If you are going to call the Big Ten out for not being able to count, you’d better work on your spelling. ;D

NO DOUBT !!! Three things I can’t ever seem to do; spell, remember names, iceskate backwards. A degree from Skeeza University is almost worthless. :wink:


#15
[quote="Skeeza, post:9, topic:1236"]stewart Mandel has a good article about this...

Sketching prospective divisions for expanded Big Ten and Pac-10

Here’s what really caught my attention…

I was surprside to see just how low Illinois is on this list.[/quote]

Illinois was dreadful for a few years. How bad did we beat them in their house that one year? 63-11 (I looked it up).

63-10. I was at that game…it was 56-3 at the half. The crazy part was, Illinois opened with a really nice drive to go right down the field and go ahead 3-0. Then, Penn State scored 63 straight. I was wearing a Penn State shirt at my gym a couple weeks ago and a guy working at the desk just put down his head when he saw me walk in. He was the starting safety for Illinois in that game.

Not trying to start an argument or even say you are wrong. But I got 63-11 from PSU’s website.


#16

PSU’s website is wrong.

[tt]

                           Box Score (Final)
      #8 Penn State vs Illinois (Oct 22, 2005 at Champaign, Ill.)

Score by Quarters 1 2 3 4 Score


Penn State… 28 28 7 0 - 63 Record: (7-1,4-1)
Illinois… 3 0 0 7 - 10 Record: (2-5,0-4)

Scoring Summary:
1st 10:14 ILL - Reda, Jason 41 yd field goal, 12-57 4:46, PSU 0 - ILL 3
08:58 PSU - Kilmer, Ethan 35 yd pass from Robinson, Michael (Kelly, Kevin kick), 3-67 1:16, PSU 7 - ILL 3
06:16 PSU - Butler, Deon 31 yd pass from Robinson, Michael (Kelly, Kevin kick), 6-65 1:13, PSU 14 - ILL 3
02:19 PSU - Butler, Deon 19 yd pass from Robinson, Michael (Kelly, Kevin kick), 9-52 2:20, PSU 21 - ILL 3
00:36 PSU - Hall, Patrick 3 yd pass from Robinson, Michael (Kelly, Kevin kick), 3-38 0:36, PSU 28 - ILL 3
2nd 10:57 PSU - Connor, Dan 18 yd fumble recovery (Kelly, Kevin kick), , PSU 35 - ILL 3
07:00 PSU - Robinson, Michael 4 yd run (Kelly, Kevin kick), 8-57 3:10, PSU 42 - ILL 3
04:08 PSU - Robinson, Michael 31 yd run (Kelly, Kevin kick), 5-60 1:47, PSU 49 - ILL 3
00:26 PSU - Kinlaw, Rodney 1 yd run (Kelly, Kevin kick), 4-28 0:58, PSU 56 - ILL 3
3rd 01:26 PSU - McCready, Nolan 76 yd interception return (Kelly, Kevin kick), , PSU 63 - ILL 3
4th 02:19 ILL - Mendenhall, R. 2 yd pass from Pazan, Chris (Reda, Jason kick), 12-91 4:20, PSU 63 - ILL 10

[/tt]