By Teddy Greenstein
It's still unclear how a 12-team Big Ten would be divided, but at least we have a better feel for the time frame.
ESPN.com reports that Big Ten athletic directors received a memo this week from commissioner Jim Delany outlining its priorities and process for determining divisions. A decision is expected by late August.
Delany said after introducing Nebraska on June 11 that the league's top priority will be "competitive fairness." Second is maintaining rivalries. Third is geography.
It's still unclear how a 12-team Big Ten would be divided, but at least we have a better feel for the time frame.
ESPN.com reports that Big Ten athletic directors received a memo this week from commissioner Jim Delany outlining its priorities and process for determining divisions. A decision is expected by late August.
Delany said after introducing Nebraska on June 11 that the league's top priority will be "competitive fairness." Second is maintaining rivalries. Third is geography.
Based on that, this proposal
from SI.com's Stewart Mandel makes a ton of sense. It uses recent
conference records to balance the big shots and weaklings, avoids
putting Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State in the same division (by shifting Penn State to the West Division) and
preserves most key rivalries.
Joining Penn State in the West would be Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. This proposal would split the Illini away from Northwestern, which would be in the East along with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana and Purdue.
Big Ten associate commissioner Mark Rudner will spearhead the project and present data to the ADs when they gather in Chicago for the Big Ten's media days Aug. 2-3, according to ESPN.com. A resolution is expected by September.
League ADs also will continue to explore adding a conference game to its current eight-game league schedule.
Meanwhile, sources indirectly involved in the expansion talks tell the Tribune that they expect the Big Ten to remain at 12 schools. League presidents, they say, have little or no appetite to expand to 14 or 16.
Joining Penn State in the West would be Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nebraska. This proposal would split the Illini away from Northwestern, which would be in the East along with Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana and Purdue.
Big Ten associate commissioner Mark Rudner will spearhead the project and present data to the ADs when they gather in Chicago for the Big Ten's media days Aug. 2-3, according to ESPN.com. A resolution is expected by September.
League ADs also will continue to explore adding a conference game to its current eight-game league schedule.
Meanwhile, sources indirectly involved in the expansion talks tell the Tribune that they expect the Big Ten to remain at 12 schools. League presidents, they say, have little or no appetite to expand to 14 or 16.
Having an extra week of conference games would likely generate more revenue than a single championship game.
Why does everyone assume that Ohio State and Michigan MUST be in the same division? If they are historically the two best schools, then it is a farce to set up a CCG that never allows them to play. Protect the rivarly as a cross over game, move the game to say the 9th week of the season, and balance out the rest of the teams. I think this will happen because the Big 10 will see the marketing potential of an OSU-Michigan CCG. Here is an article detailing my plan if interested:
http://thepolesposition.com/2010/07/07/the-new-big-ten-division-alignments-and-solving-the-ohio-state-michigan-problem/
ed on June 30, 2010 9:23 AM:
I am also against divisions for the sake of selecting championship game contenders. However, in respect to the conference commissioner’s desire to examine divisions, I proposed the idea of soft, or rather, “scheduling divisions”. I suppose the weaker teams would like the possibility of being awarded a geographic division title, even though they may not even be one of the top two teams of that season.
ARed on June 28, 2010 6:52 PM:
If the looser of the original match wins, then the teams are even and there is no clear champion. In that case, since this is football, it is better not to have a rematch (in basketball, it would be acceptable to have a best of three series).
John on June 30, 2010 10:53 AM:
NCAA bylaws do not state that the best two teams cannot play in a championship. Probably, any decent lawyer can contrive a contract to have the best two teams play in line with NCAA bylaws. Likely, the main challenge is attaining majority opinion on the matter by conference athletic directors. In the same spirit, a contract can be contrived so that an extra game is scheduled in order to define a conference champion, in the case when the best two teams have not engaged. This would be similar to the way NBA/NHL playoff series are held. The final games on the schedule are held only when necessary.
The sub divisions above are close, but don't even think of splitting tOSU-tSUN or tSUN-Michigan State into different divisions even if you keep them yearly games.
The best split is sub-divisions
*split to preserve most of the major rivalries
*rotated into divisions every 2 years
*with no yearly cross divisional rivalries
*allowing every possible match up at least 4 out of 6 years
They may not be yearly, but minor rivalries can continue with the teams meeting 4 out of 6 years.
Teams with small fan bases still get the big name draws at home on a regular basis to help sell tickets.
You minimize the risk of a Big 12 North-South imbalance forming with the divisions changed every 2 years and placing at least 1 of the historic top 5 programs in each sub division.
East
*PSU
*Indiana
*Purdue
-you lose tOSU-PSU, but this will happen anyway if you want to keep a balance. They still play 4 out of 6 years.
Central
*tOSU
*tSUN
*Michigan State
-Don't even think of putting these rivals in different divisions
North
*Wisconsin
*Minnesota
*Northwestern
-Da Gophers and the Badgers take that ax seriously
West
*Nebraska
*Iowa
*Illinois
-The Huskers and Hawkeyes are already talking smack and want this rivalry in the worse way.
Form a season from any 3 of the above 4 sub-divisions and you have a schedule worthy of playing for the conference title and the Rose Bowl.
The reason to split into two divisions is that the NCAA requires it to have a championship game, you can't have it where just the best two teams play, as good of an idea as it is.
Jim swarrow writes: "Divisions are fine, but I think the championship game should be the two with the best record regardless of division, ala Big 12 South in 2008"
I like what Jim says, but why the divisions if they are not needed. Me? I'd like to see an 11 game round robin in the conference. Out of conference games are often against meaningless competition. In any given year, who would I rather see Northwestern play: Michigan or Western Michigan? In any given year, who would I rather see Illinois play: Ohio State or Ohio?
So here's what I'd do: Play that 11 game round robin. If two teams tie at season's end, they play in the conference championship game. If 3 or more teams tie, some formula (point differential? head to head competiton?) determines which two play.
And if a team wins out right, it is champion with no championship game. But since the game is scheduled, it becomes an invitational game. The conference champ (let's call it Ohio State, for example) plays in that game against a high ranked team in one of the other BCS conferences (or Notre Dame) that is not playing in its own conference championship game. for the sake of argument, let' s make that one Oklahoma.
The conference gets to eat its cake and keep it too. It is able to award a championship to a team that has earned it and still have those tickets sold to that Championship Or Invitiational Game, t.v. rights sold as well.
A request to fans:
This is Big Ten country. Here we are going to believe what we have always believed for over a 100 years:
NU is in Evanston, not Lincoln.
So Nebraska can be UNL to go along with our UIUC, IUB, and UW-Madison. Or it can move its administration building to Manhattan's East River front and become UN. Of I'd give it this freebee if it likes: U of N, just like we have U of I in Champaign and U of M in Minneapolis.
But sorry, Huskers, you can't be NU. That one was taken when the conference was founded her in Chicago ages ago. And besides, unlike the old Big Eight country, we know how to spell (even if our Big Eleven proves we can't count): Indiana is IU because it is IU and there is no University of Indiana.
There are issues involved with splitting Northwestern from Illinois. Obviously it is a rivalry game, although no one would argue among the best.
What does matter is that Northwestern and Illinois are competitive with each other in the Chicago market, both in recruitment and fan base. The conference owes each a fair playing field.
My take on things is that NU has had an edge competitively over the Illini since the Gary Barenett era; slight edge, but at times quite meaningful.
Putting NU in a more roughed east and keeping Illinois in an easier to handle West gives U of I a leg up on Northwestern.
To me, that is not a good idea. And, for what it is worth, neither Purdue or IU deserve to deal with such a fate either.
These would be the rivalries if they expanded to 16 teams; including Notre Dame, Kansas, Missouri, and Pittsburgh.
TEAM (traditions): traditional intra-conference opponents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Illinois (x4): Indiana, Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy), Ohio State (Illibuck), Purdue (Purdue Cannon)
* Michigan (x4): Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy), Ohio State, Minnesota (Little Brown Jug), Notre Dame
* Michigan State (x4): Michigan (Paul Bunyan Trophy), Penn State (Land Grant Trophy), Indiana (Old Brass Spittoon), Notre Dame
* Minnesota (x4): Iowa (Floyd of Rosedale), Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe), Michigan (Little Brown Jug), Penn State (Governor's Victory Bell)
* Penn State (x4): Michigan State (Land Grant Trophy), Ohio State, Minnesota (Governor's Victory Bell), Pittsburgh
* Purdue (x4): Indiana (Old Oaken Bucket), Northwestern, Illinois (Purdue Cannon), Notre Dame
* Notre Dame (x4): Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Pittsburgh
* Indiana (x3): Illinois, Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket), Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)
* Ohio State (x3): Michigan, Penn State, Illinois (Illibuck)
* Iowa (x2): Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale), Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
* Kansas (x2): Missouri (Border War/Indian War Drum & Lamar Hunt Trophy), Nebraska
* Missouri (x2): Kansas (Border War/Indian War Drum & Lamar Hunt Trophy), Nebraska (Victory Bell)
* Nebraska (x2): Kansas, Missouri (Victory Bell)
* Northwestern (x2): Illinois (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy), Purdue
* Pittsburgh (x2): Penn State, Notre Dame
* Wisconsin (x2): Iowa (Heartland Trophy), Minnesota (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe)
These are the rivalries in a nutshell.
TEAM (traditions): traditional intra-conference opponents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Illinois (x4): Indiana, Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy), Ohio State (Illibuck), Purdue (Purdue Cannon)
* Michigan State (x3): Michigan (Paul Bunyan Trophy), Penn State (Land Grant Trophy), Indiana (Old Brass Spittoon)
* Minnesota (x4): Iowa (Floyd of Rosedale), Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe), Michigan (Little Brown Jug), Penn State (Governor's Victory Bell)
* Indiana (x3): Illinois, Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket), Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)
* Michigan (x3): Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy), Ohio State, Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)
* Ohio State (x3): Michigan, Penn State, Illinois (Illibuck)
* Penn State (x3): Michigan State (Land Grant Trophy), Ohio State, Minnesota (Governor's Victory Bell)
* Purdue (x3): Indiana (Old Oaken Bucket), Northwestern, Illinois (Purdue Cannon)
* Iowa (x2): Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale), Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
* Northwestern (x2): Illinois (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy), Purdue
* Wisconsin (x2): Iowa (Heartland Trophy), Minnesota (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe)
I don,t know way nebreska join the big 10. The big 10 suks! Nebraska should of stay in the big 12 becuse the big 12 is beter. Thay have better teams like texes,oklahoma,kansas.
I don,t know way nebreska join the big 10. The big 10 suks! Nebraska should of stay in the big 12 becuse the big 12 is beter. Thay have better teams like texes,oklahoma,kansas.
Since everyone hate the divisions, why don't we do 4 inter division games and 4 out of division games. In that case, there is really no significant meaning to which division you are in, but to make sure the championship game is likely comes from the best two teams in the conference.
Why are divisions necessary? Why not keep all 12 in one pool and have a championship that lines up the best 2 teams at season's end. If it's a rematch, so what?
So, Penn State is going to get screwed again. They've been screwed out of national championships, heismans, and now, even in division alignment. One day, when other conferences catch up in the money train, I hope PSU gives the Big 10 the finger and jumps ship. (Hell, they make the most money out of the Big10 schools, as it is.)
Why not just put Michigan and Ohio State in one conference? Then, they can play each other 10 times a year. What a joke
The East-West split is the only one that makes sense. It preserves rivalries, keeps games within a reasonable driving distance for fans and, here's the big one: preserves competitive balance.
I know all the pundits are saying that Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa don't balance out Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. But look at the FACTS, they do. Look at the past decade. A decade is a long time in sports. We shouldn't look at just the past couple years, but we also shouldn't consider the last 50 years. Any competitive imbalance is so slight and uncertain that it doesn't merit the radical move to abandon geography.
If the Big Ten abandons geography, it becomes the next ACC.
No way is it going to fly for everyone to play locally, except Penn State, whose fans have to fly across half the country. I'm not a Penn State fan and even I can see how absurdly unfair that is.
I think this is the best divisional alignment I've seen:
Michigan vs. Ohio State
Nebraska vs. Penn State
Iowa vs. Wisconsin
Michigan State vs. Minnesota
Purdue vs. Indiana
Northwestern vs. Illinois
Everyone from the left side is in a division. Everyone from the right side is in a division. During rivalry week, everyone plays the team across from them. Balance is achieved, rivalries preserved. Done.
The only other thing I’d add is that if two teams rematch for the championship, I’d love to see the winner of the original matchup get 6 points to start off the championship game. It’s an easy way to assuage those who are worried about the rivalry games losing some of their importance, and would make the championship even more fun to watch. So it’s an idea that's been growing on me.
The 'Penn State in the West' plan is unfair to Penn State. Why should the western six have to travel so much more than the other six!? Twelve teams in four divisions, with fairly equal travel distances between members and fairly equal football powers:
Alpha Division : Nebraska - Minnesota - Iowa
Beta Division : Wisconsin - Illinois - Northwestern
Gamma Division : Ohio State - Indiana - Purdue
Delta Division : Penn State - Michigan - Michigan St
You play your two intra-divisional teams, then play two from each of the others. The inter-division games would take three years to play equally in home and away series. Basically you'd play each team once at home, the following year at their home, and not play them the third year. That means you only skip a team ONE year then play them two years in a row.
At least in a four division setup you only take a one year break from a team. And everyone should play 3 out of the following four: Nebraska, Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Penn State. If you're one of those four then you play two of them every year and three of the following: Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, and Michigan State. (Other teams must play at least two a year.) Nobody will have a cupcake schedule and divisional champion actual means something substantial.
While the iron is still hot, the Big TEN needs to absorb four more teams to get it to sixteen. The four teams I see that fit really well would be Kansas, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh. It keeps the homogeny of big school versus small school balance across the conference. It makes a static two or four division format much more plausible. And it maintains some existing rivalries that are important to maintain, like the NCAA record streak between Kansas and Nebraska.
After Expansion to 16 teams:
Alpha Division : Nebraska - Minnesota - Missouri - Kansas
Beta Division : Wisconsin - Illinois - Northwestern - Iowa
Gamma Division : Ohio State - Indiana - Purdue - Notre Dame
Delta Division : Penn State - Michigan - Michigan St - Pittsburgh
Big TEN Football Stadium Capacities:
* Penn State - Beaver Stadium 107,282
* Michigan - Michigan Stadium 106,201
* Ohio State - Ohio Stadium 102,329
* Nebraska - Memorial Stadium 81,067
* Wisconsin - Camp Randall Stadium 80,321
* Michigan State - Spartan Stadium 75,005
* Iowa - Kinnick Stadium 70,585
* Illinois - Memorial Stadium 70,000
* Purdue - Ross–Ade Stadium 62,500
* Indiana - Memorial Stadium 52,692
* Minnesota - TCF Bank Stadium 50,805
* Northwestern - Ryan Field 49,256
Exapnsion Teams Football Stadium Capacities:
* Notre Dame - Notre Dame Stadium 80,795
* Missouri - Faurot Field 71,004
* Pittsburgh - Heinz Field 65,050
* Kansas - Memorial Stadium 50,071
Currently every team in the Big TEN has two permanent matchups as follows:
* Illinois: Indiana, Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy)
* Indiana: Illinois, Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket)
* Iowa: Minnesota (Floyd of Rosedale), Wisconsin (Heartland Trophy)
* Michigan: Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy), Ohio State
* Michigan State: Michigan (Paul Bunyan Trophy), Penn State (Land Grant Trophy)
* Minnesota: Iowa (Floyd of Rosedale), Wisconsin (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe)
* Northwestern: Illinois (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk/Land of Lincoln Trophy), Purdue
* Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State
* Penn State: Michigan State (Land Grant Trophy), Ohio State
* Purdue: Indiana (Old Oaken Bucket), Northwestern
* Wisconsin: Iowa (Heartland Trophy), Minnesota (Slab of Bacon/Paul Bunyan's Axe)
Other important (but not always in-conference) rivalries include:
* Indiana-Michigan State (Old Brass Spittoon)
* Michigan-Minnesota (Little Brown Jug)
* Illinois-Ohio State (Illibuck)
* Illinois-Purdue (Purdue Cannon)
* Minnesota-Penn State (Governor's Victory Bell)
* Purdue-Notre Dame
* Michigan State-Notre Dame
* Michigan-Notre Dame
* Iowa-Iowa State
Other potential important rivalries with expansion teams:
* Kansas-Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown/Governor's Cup)
* Kansas-Missouri (Border War/Indian War Drum & Lamar Hunt Trophy)
* Missouri-Nebraska (Victory Bell)
* Nebraska-Kansas (NCAA record longest continuous series in college football)
* Iowa State-Missouri (Telephone Trophy)
* Missouri - Oklahoma (Peace Pipe)
Keep the rivalries alive by using four divisions.
Consider soft geographic divisions. These divisions would be used only to aide with scheduling. At the end of the season, determine the top two teams by their season statistics. Obviously, first consider number of wins. If necessary, consider number of points, then number of points allowed, etc. Probably, statistics such as number of yards would never need consideration. The top two teams would be candidates for champion. Hold a championship game only if they haven’t already competed. This would benefit the conference by enhancing the value of each game, by defining a clear champion and by ensuring that the champion enters the best post season competition possible because the BCS takes statistics seriously. (Geographic division titles could still be given, though, they would be of lesser value when the top two teams are within one geographic region.)
Correction: the sixth team in the South division is Ohio State and not Iowa.
Let's get over the East and West split for the Big Ten. It's absurd to move Penn State into a West Division. There is already a natural way to split the Big Ten into a North and South division. Use the Ohio and Michigan state line. This puts three traditional powerhouses in each division:
North: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota
South: Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan and Ohio State now have the incentive to play for the conference championship like they've done many times in the past on the last conference game of the year. However, with Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Penn State able to muddy the waters each year in each of the divisions, the conference will end up stronger.
One additional thought re: the proposed divisions...for future expansion of the Big 10: Eventually Notre Dame will get beyond their collective ego and recognize how it is to their long-term benefit to join the Big 10. When that happens another team will come, to make a total of 14. ND has rivalries, with teams in the proposed East division, however, depending on who comes with them it would make sense to consider them for either division. If Rutgers or Maryland comes, then ND goes to the West (and enhances competitive balace). If Texas were to come in with them (stranger things have happened) then ND goes in the East and Texas goes West, and, again, competitive balance is achieved.
It makes perfect sense to split on the basis of east/west. If the Big 10 would like to foster a relationship between PSU and NU then just establish yearly cross-divisional games as the SEC does. We could break up east and west and then PSU and NU could simply play every year. In fact, each team would have one cross divisional game they would play.
This is a lesson the Big 10 should learn from the Big 12. As an NU fan, it was a travesty to see the OU-NU game disappear. Plus, I think having a yearly opponent from the other division will help instill more of a bond between division. That is something else the Big 12 format created, a sense of two separate leagues. I think the SEC has done a much better job in creating a cohesive league and really the only difference seems to be yearly interdivisional matchups. To me this just makes to much sense not to be implemented. It takes care of the geography problem, it helps maintain the rivalry games that could be split, and it helps balance out competition.
And another thing...first priority for the B10 brass should be to do no harm to the great tradition in the B10. It is clear that a pure East\West split keeps all the major rivalries in place and could very well provide "competitive balance" given trends seen over the past ten years....rather than force some awkward alignment on some school(s) and their fan bases, why not try out the East\West split and if in 5-10 years or so we are seeing some really lopsided divisions in terms of strength we can always do some reshuffling then....much better not to tear up the conference's fabric just yet (particularly with an unstable B12 and Big East out there--those conferences could implode and B10 is forced to expand again).
One last thing: Conference Championship at Soldier Field....awesome big stage, out of doors, in cold weather as football is meant to be played in.
Why make it difficult? An East-West geographical split (along the Illinois-Indiana border) is the only sensible way to go. This preserves the important rivalries and will enhance developing rivalries, without sticking PSU with difficult travel. This division would only apply to football so other sports would not be effected. Each team plays it's division members and three of the six teams in the other division (home-and-away for two years and then off the schedule for two years). Trying to do a top three vs. top three will be confusing and could mean that teams in opposite divisions never play each other. "Competitive balance" is a good goal but it will change over time (look at the Big 12 north-south changes over time). Go Big Red (ya...Huskers!).
As a Penn State fan, I would really, really, really be angry if it is not an East\West split. Basically Penn State would be starting over again in the B10, as we have seen MSU & OSU the most over the past 17 years and Michigan likely is the team Penn State fans in aggregate hate the most...why try to shoehorn us into the West for some vague definition of "competitive balance", particularly since I think most Huskers fan don't want to play PSU the final week of the season and look forward to battling Iowa and Wisconsin for West supremacy.
I am a Northwestern fan and believe the Big Ten is the best conference in the country. I hope the Big Ten will align the conference East and West.
The East would have Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State and Ohio State.
The West would have Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska.
This alignment would keep all the key rivalries in place and be the best in alignment long term for logistics and the growth of new rivalries.
The one question is should the Big Ten championship be the East vs. West or should it be the 2 top ranked BCS teams. What if one division has an 8-0 and 7-1 team should they play each other instead of playing the other division leader if their record is 5-3?
There is a lot of great history in the Big Ten which all the schools have contributed to over the Big Ten’s great history. I think permanently naming a division for any one individual is a mistake.
One suggestion I have is to rotate the division names in 2 year cycles to coincide with the football schedule since most fans will realize which teams are in the East and West. For example, Michigan being a charter member could have the East be referred as the “Fielding Yost Division” and Northwestern also a charter member could have the “Otto Graham Division” for 2 years. After the 2 years another 2 universities 1 from each division would submit a name for the division’s name for the next 2 years.
Can’t wait for football to start! GO CATS!!!
I agree with Scott's idea regarding divisions. Many have suggested that, and it makes sense for multiple reasons. It's geographically sound, it maintains important rivalries, and it's competitively balanced. Many argue that you can't put three of the "brand" names in the same division. That makes sense, and I think the Nebraska-Penn State game would quickly become a rivalry game, but it would create another silly quirk with the Big Ten. Hmm, the fine academic institutions of the Big Ten sure do teach funny math AND geography.
One thing I don't agree with, however, is the out-of-division schedule suggested by Scott. By playing the previous year's top three teams from each division, you greatly enhance the chance of a conference championship game rematch. That would not benefit the conference. The championship game wouldn't have as much appeal, and would have a much greater chance of eliminating a team from a potential national championship game. It may also create a situation where conference teams do not play each other for decades or more.
Jim's idea is nice, but that won't work. Again, if that were the case, you would automatically have a rematch in the championship game. Although rematches are possible with conference schedules like the ones in the Big XII and SEC, they arn't automatic. Additionally, and more importantly, it would violate NCAA rules regarding conference championship games. The NCAA requires at least 12 teams, and two divisions, in order to hold a conference championship game. The rule is very clear in that the championship game is a game between division champions.
Divisions are fine, but I think the championship game should be the two with the best record regardless of division, ala Big 12 South in 2008
Geez, Penn State really gets shafted with extensive travel, don't you think?
Scott's comments are, I think, what most people believe should happen. I sure do.
Scott has the divisions exactly the way they should be, based on geography. Anything else would be a travesty.
Penn State in the West!?!?! Are you kidding me? And can we stop pretending that Michigan is still an elite team in the Big Ten? And in the old Big 12, Texas and Oklahoma managed to co-exist in the same division, so why can't Penn State and Ohio State? This is how it should be done:
West:
Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
East:
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Each team will play all of their division teams every year. Top 3 from East will play top 3 from West the following year and bottom 3 from East will play bottom 3 from West the following year. Winner of East plays winner of West for Big Ten championship and a trip to a BCS bowl. There, problem solved. No need to make it more complicated than it should be!