Do you think the Big 10 needs to re-evaluate the divisions?

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 12:41

Obviously MSU, OSU, PSU, and Harbaugh & Birkenstock Institute are together in the East. The West is nowhere even close to be being as balanced as the East. Do you think the West will achieve the kind of annual balance we have seen in the East?

Right now the top four teams in the East are a combined 22-3 (12-1). The top four teams in the West are 16-9 (7-6), and only Wisconsin is above .500 in conference play. Last season the East had three teams with 10 or more wins and no more than three losses on the year. Two of those teams finished with only one loss in conference, and the third with two losses. Subtract MSU's anomaly of a season, and maybe that number is four teams. In the West, only one team finished with 10 or more wins and less than four losses, and that team was also the only team in the West with less than three conferences losses. 2015 was fairly balanced with Iowa, NW, and Nebraska competing for the West division title. But in 2014, MSU and OSU battled for the East, while the West was a one team show.

NW and Iowa are good programs, but not consistent. Nebraska appears to be trending downward. If you get an annual imbalance, where one divisions is so much stronger than the other, it seems like the Big 10 will have to re-align again. It just can't be Wisconson versus the East champion every year.

by aualum06 2017-10-15, 12:43

I like geography based. You never know how things will look in 10 years so keep it consistent

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-15, 13:00

Turtleneck I think the divisions should be auto rebalanced every 2-4 years. Rank teams by total record since the last rebalancing, then put #1 in one division, #2 in the other, etc etc. it'll never happen on account of Michigan and Ohio state freaking out about the potential for losing their end of the season circle jerk fest but I think it would be the best way to handle it if it were even reasonably possible.

by Guest 2017-10-15, 13:14

I miss the Leaders and Legends.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 13:16

LooseGoose wrote:I miss the Leaders and Legends.

No you don't.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 13:28

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Turtleneck I think the divisions should be auto rebalanced every 2-4 years. Rank teams by total record since the last rebalancing, then put #1 in one division, #2 in the other, etc etc. it'll never happen on account of Michigan and Ohio state freaking out about the potential for losing their end of the season circle jerk fest but I think it would be the best way to handle it if it were even reasonably possible.

I actually like that idea, but maybe every four years instead of two. I think you can have permanent matchups built into that method, so those two schools could keep their precious game. I can't blame them too much. How would you feel if the Big 10 said no more MSU v. Indiana every year?

So I played around with North and South using Lincoln as the dividing line. The geography is not not perfect. For example, West Lafayette is further south than Lincoln. However, overall, I do not think it would be much better. South: Nebraska, OSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Penn State, Indiana, Illinois. North: Wisconsin, Minnesota, MSU, UM, NW, Iowa, Purdue.

Travis, what about relegation with the MAC? What do you think about that?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-15, 13:37

I don't really like relegation very much, in any sport (it works for Europe but there are issues.) It's a system that gives financial incentives to just be mediocre. Take the tigers for instance- blowing it up and starting over like they're doing isn't an option with relegation. They'd have to keep plugging away with aging stars just floating around the middle of the league.

For me geography isn't a great way to do it anymore especially when we're working with Nebraska and Maryland in the same conference. At a certain point the distances become basically irrelevant right?

by **Nordic** 2017-10-15, 14:08

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I don't really like relegation very much, in any sport (it works for Europe but there are issues.) It's a system that gives financial incentives to just be mediocre. Take the tigers for instance- blowing it up and starting over like they're doing isn't an option with relegation. They'd have to keep plugging away with aging stars just floating around the middle of the league.

For me geography isn't a great way to do it anymore especially when we're working with Nebraska and Maryland in the same conference. At a certain point the distances become basically irrelevant right?

I.don't know what any of thia means.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-15, 14:10

Nordic wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I don't really like relegation very much, in any sport (it works for Europe but there are issues.) It's a system that gives financial incentives to just be mediocre. Take the tigers for instance- blowing it up and starting over like they're doing isn't an option with relegation. They'd have to keep plugging away with aging stars just floating around the middle of the league.

For me geography isn't a great way to do it anymore especially when we're working with Nebraska and Maryland in the same conference. At a certain point the distances become basically irrelevant right?

I.don't know what any of thia means.

Relegation is when the bottom teams in a league go to a lower league and then the top teams from the lower league get promoted to the big boy league Nordic. Typically there are massive financial differences between being in the best league and not being in it.

by Guest 2017-10-15, 14:13

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Nordic wrote:

I.don't know what any of thia means.

Relegation is when the bottom teams in a league go to a lower league and then the top teams from the lower league get promoted to the big boy league Nordic. Typically there are massive financial differences between being in the best league and not being in it.

That's no reason for you to lecture Nordy.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-15, 14:19

LooseGoose wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Relegation is when the bottom teams in a league go to a lower league and then the top teams from the lower league get promoted to the big boy league Nordic. Typically there are massive financial differences between being in the best league and not being in it.

That's no reason for you to lecture Nordy.

I'm just trying to help

by **y2kMgrad** 2017-10-15, 14:25

Yes. The West is a joke. Wisky could play their backups and still win that division every year. What the hell happened to Nebraska?

by Guest 2017-10-15, 14:34

y2kMgrad wrote:Yes. The West is a joke. Wisky could play their backups and still win that division every year. What the hell happened to Nebraska?

They fired Frank Solich.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 15:07

LooseGoose wrote:
y2kMgrad wrote:Yes. The West is a joke. Wisky could play their backups and still win that division every year. What the hell happened to Nebraska?

They fired Frank Solich.

This

by Herbie Green 2017-10-15, 16:03

Rather than relying on feelings, let's take an objective empirical approach to this topic.
Here is a link to overall records for Big Ten teams from 2014-2016 (the period that the current divisions have been in place).

1. E OSU
2. W UW
3. W Iowa
4. E MSU
5. E Mich
6. E PSU
7. W Neb
8. W Minn
9. W NW
10. E Mary
11. E IU
12. E Rut
13. W ILL
14. W PU

[size=32]http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2014&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct[/size]

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 16:23

Herbie Green wrote:Rather than relying on feelings, let's take an objective empirical approach to this topic.
Here is a link to overall records for Big Ten teams from 2014-2016 (the period that the current divisions have been in place).

1. E OSU
2. W UW
3. W Iowa
4. E MSU
5. E Mich
6. E PSU
7. W Neb
8. W Minn
9. W NW
10. E Mary
11. E IU
12. E Rut
13. W ILL
14. W PU

[size=32]http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2014&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct[/size]

Turtleneck wrote:

Right now the top four teams in the East are a combined 22-3 (12-1). The top four teams in the West are 16-9 (7-6), and only Wisconsin is above .500 in conference play. Last season the East had three teams with 10 or more wins and no more than three losses on the year. Two of those teams finished with only one loss in conference, and the third with two losses. Subtract MSU's anomaly of a season, and maybe that number is four teams. In the West, only one team finished with 10 or more wins and less than four losses, and that team was also the only team in the West with less than three conferences losses. 2015 was fairly balanced with Iowa, NW, and Nebraska competing for the West division title. But in 2014, MSU and OSU battled for the East, while the West was a one team show.

I see you found new words and were anxious use them on your preferred Internet sports message board. An alternative approach might have been reading the first post in the thread before posting.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-15, 16:27

Hair style and visible body art should be what determines B1G divisions. Teams with tatted-up, Trump-mulleted players on one side. Teams with clean cut players who look like you'd want to be friends with IRL on the other.

by **DWags** 2017-10-15, 16:33

tGreenWay wrote:Hair style and visible body art should be what determines B1G divisions. Teams with tatted-up, Trump-mulleted players on one side. Teams with clean cut players who look like you'd want to be friends with IRL on the other.

Do you think the Big 10 needs to re-evaluate the divisions? 502811600

by **DWags** 2017-10-15, 16:34

I still say Farmers vs Engineers.

by Herbie Green 2017-10-15, 16:46

Turtleneck wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:Rather than relying on feelings, let's take an objective empirical approach to this topic.
Here is a link to overall records for Big Ten teams from 2014-2016 (the period that the current divisions have been in place).

1. E OSU
2. W UW
3. W Iowa
4. E MSU
5. E Mich
6. E PSU
7. W Neb
8. W Minn
9. W NW
10. E Mary
11. E IU
12. E Rut
13. W ILL
14. W PU

[size=32]http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2014&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct[/size]

Turtleneck wrote:

Right now the top four teams in the East are a combined 22-3 (12-1). The top four teams in the West are 16-9 (7-6), and only Wisconsin is above .500 in conference play. Last season the East had three teams with 10 or more wins and no more than three losses on the year. Two of those teams finished with only one loss in conference, and the third with two losses. Subtract MSU's anomaly of a season, and maybe that number is four teams. In the West, only one team finished with 10 or more wins and less than four losses, and that team was also the only team in the West with less than three conferences losses. 2015 was fairly balanced with Iowa, NW, and Nebraska competing for the West division title. But in 2014, MSU and OSU battled for the East, while the West was a one team show.

I see you found new words and were anxious use them on your preferred Internet sports message board. An alternative approach might have been reading the first post in the thread before posting.

So rather than using the complete data that directly corresponds to the time period of the divisions I should cherry pick data points like half way through seasons and then throw out any data I don't like as "anomolies" to draw whatever conclusion I want?

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 16:50

DWags wrote:I still say Farmers vs Engineers.

We can kind of do this. We could go land grant versus...I don't know...we would have to be a bit creative with land grant status.

Land grant division: Minnesota, MSU, Wisconsin, Nebraska, PSU, Illinois, Purdue

Other division: Indiana, NW, UM, Iowa, Maryland*, OSU*, Rutgers**

* Maryland and OSU are land grant schools, but Maryland Eastern Shore and Central State (OH) also have land grant status. So we can move Maryland and OSU to the other division since they are not the only schools in their states with land grant status.

** NJIT is a sea grant school. While not a land grant, we will move Rutgers to the other division since another school in NJ has public grant status.

I think those divisions suck, DWags.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 16:53

Herbie Green wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

I see you found new words and were anxious use them on your preferred Internet sports message board. An alternative approach might have been reading the first post in the thread before posting.

So rather than using the complete data that directly corresponds to the time period of the divisions I should cherry pick data points like half way through seasons and then throw out any data I don't like as "anomolies" to draw whatever conclusion I want?

With the exception of my comment about MSU, none of what you said is consistent with my post. You make Blanck look like Einstein.

by **kingstonlake** 2017-10-15, 16:55

Put Scum and OSU in a two team division since they seem to think they're the only schools that matter. Let them play each other 8 times. The rest of us will set up a couple divisions.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 16:56

kingstonlake wrote:Put Scum and OSU in a two team division since they seem to think they're the only schools that matter. Let them play each other 8 times. The rest of us will set up a couple divisions.

Haha. They will be at the kid's table while the rest of the conference argues about politics and religion at the adult's table. Makes sense.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-15, 17:00

DWags wrote:I still say Farmers vs Engineers.

Bohats vs. Ohats.

by **Dr. Strangelove** 2017-10-15, 17:06

I think we should relegate the last place school to the MAC

by **WhiteBoyHatcher** 2017-10-15, 17:09

kingstonlake wrote:Put Scum and OSU in a two team division since they seem to think they're the only schools that matter. Let them play each other 8 times. The rest of us will set up a couple divisions.

Don't like this. OSU would go undefeated every year and take the conference's playoff spot.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 17:09

Any way, Travis is right about geography. It does not matter. Go back to the 2013 alignment and split Rutgers and Maryland.

Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Michigan
Northwestern
Maryland

Ohio State
Wisconsin
Penn State
Indiana
Illinois
Purdue
Rutgers

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-15, 17:12

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I think we should relegate the last place school to the MAC

Interesting. It opens up the possibility of a different team rotating out of the B1G and into the MAC each year, or, more likely, Rutgers every year. I like it.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 17:14

tGreenWay wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:I think we should relegate the last place school to the MAC

Interesting. It opens up the possibility of a different team rotating out of the B1G and into the MAC each year, or, more likely, Rutgers every year. I like it.

It was already suggested in post #6...and Travis had a fit about it...so we are not doing it because his tantrums are terrible and it is easier just to appease him. We went off on Nordic. It was crazy.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-15, 17:14

Turtleneck wrote:Any way, Travis is right about geography. It does not matter. Go back to the 2013 alignment and split Rutgers and Maryland.

Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Maryland
Northwestern
Michigan

Ohio State
Wisconsin
Penn State
Indiana
Illinois
Purdue
Rutgers

Fixed.

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-15, 17:15

Turtleneck wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

Interesting. It opens up the possibility of a different team rotating out of the B1G and into the MAC each year, or, more likely, Rutgers every year. I like it.

It was already suggested...and Travis had a fit about it...so we are not doing it because his tantrums are terrible and it is easier just to appease him.

Sorry, I missed it before because I try not to read Travis.

by Herbie Green 2017-10-15, 17:39

Herbie Green wrote:Rather than relying on feelings, let's take an objective empirical approach to this topic.
Here is a link to overall records for Big Ten teams from 2014-2016 (the period that the current divisions have been in place).

1. E OSU
2. W UW
3. W Iowa
4. E MSU
5. E Mich
6. E PSU
7. W Neb
8. W Minn
9. W NW
10. E Mary
11. E IU
12. E Rut
13. W ILL
14. W PU

[size=32]http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2014&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct[/size]

So allow me to explain these results. if you added up the ranks you have 49 in the East and 56 in the West or averages of 7.0 and 8.0 respectively. To get as close to even (7.5) as possible you could do a swap of an East team with a West team 3 or 4 spots behind.

....or one might conclude that it is such a small time period and the results are so close that it would not be prudent to restructure the divisions and do away with a sensible geographic approach at this time.

Or a liberal arts major might conclude I am an idiot.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 17:45

Herbie Green wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:Rather than relying on feelings, let's take an objective empirical approach to this topic.
Here is a link to overall records for Big Ten teams from 2014-2016 (the period that the current divisions have been in place).

1. E OSU
2. W UW
3. W Iowa
4. E MSU
5. E Mich
6. E PSU
7. W Neb
8. W Minn
9. W NW
10. E Mary
11. E IU
12. E Rut
13. W ILL
14. W PU

[size=32]http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/records/calc-wp.pl?start=2014&end=2016&rpct=30&min=5&se=on&by=Win+Pct[/size]

So allow me to explain these results. if you added up the ranks you have 49 in the East and 56 in the West or averages of 7.0 and 8.0 respectively. To get as close to even (7.5) as possible you could do a swap of an East team with a West team 3 or 4 spots behind.

....or one might conclude that it is such a small time period and the results are so close that it would not be prudent to restructure the divisions and do away with a sensible geographic approach at this time.

Or a liberal arts major might conclude I am an idiot.

Everybody concludes that, Herbie. Everybody.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-15, 17:48

Turtleneck wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

Interesting. It opens up the possibility of a different team rotating out of the B1G and into the MAC each year, or, more likely, Rutgers every year. I like it.

It was already suggested in post #6...and Travis had a fit about it...so we are not doing it because his tantrums are terrible and it is easier just to appease him. We went off on Nordic. It was crazy.

I'm just sayin. It sounds great until you watch it actively in practice. Then it isn't as great. Especially from the perspective of a team in the top division. Where is our incentive to want something like that? Bonkers.

It'll never happen anyway on account of money and all that. We don't have Rutgers for funsies

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 18:01

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

It was already suggested in post #6...and Travis had a fit about it...so we are not doing it because his tantrums are terrible and it is easier just to appease him. We went off on Nordic. It was crazy.

I'm just sayin. It sounds great until you watch it actively in practice. Then it isn't as great. Especially from the perspective of a team in the top division. Where is our incentive to want something like that? Bonkers.

It'll never happen anyway on account of money and all that. We don't have Rutgers for funsies

Do you think if the US had relegation between, say, the USL and MLS it would create more interest in kickball? We do not have an MLS team. The local USL team won the US Open Cup in 1999, and the USL in 2015. They have a 13-14k seat stadium, but not too many people go to the games. Maybe it would generate a little more buzz.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-10-15, 18:03

Turtleneck wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm just sayin. It sounds great until you watch it actively in practice. Then it isn't as great. Especially from the perspective of a team in the top division. Where is our incentive to want something like that? Bonkers.

It'll never happen anyway on account of money and all that. We don't have Rutgers for funsies

Do you think if the US had relegation between, say, the USL and MLS it would create more interest in kickball? We do not have an MLS team. The local USL team won the US Open Cup in 1999, and the USL in 2015. They have a 13-14k seat stadium, but not too many people go to the games. Maybe it would generate a little more buzz.

I do not. No. I do not like relegation in general.

by Herbie Green 2017-10-15, 18:06

Turtleneck wrote:
Herbie Green wrote:

So allow me to explain these results. if you added up the ranks you have 49 in the East and 56 in the West or averages of 7.0 and 8.0 respectively. To get as close to even (7.5) as possible you could do a swap of an East team with a West team 3 or 4 spots behind.

....or one might conclude that it is such a small time period and the results are so close that it would not be prudent to restructure the divisions and do away with a sensible geographic approach at this time.

Or a liberal arts major might conclude I am an idiot.

Everybody concludes that, Herbie. Everybody.

Sorry, but I am not impressed with "everybody". Do they all have advanced degrees in math or stats and 20+ years in a related field?

by **tGreenWay** 2017-10-15, 18:06

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

It was already suggested in post #6...and Travis had a fit about it...so we are not doing it because his tantrums are terrible and it is easier just to appease him. We went off on Nordic. It was crazy.

I'm just sayin. It sounds great until you watch it actively in practice. Then it isn't as great. Especially from the perspective of a team in the top division. Where is our incentive to want something like that? Bonkers.

It'll never happen anyway on account of money and all that. We don't have Rutgers for funsies

Then it shouldn't be a problem. Most of us only watch the actual games. Practice can be enlightening, but frequently boring.

by **Turtleneck** 2017-10-15, 18:13

Herbie Green wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

Everybody concludes that, Herbie. Everybody.

Sorry, but I am not impressed with "everybody". Do they all have advanced degrees in math or stats and 20+ years in a related field?

Well, if you have "advanced degrees" in math and "20+ years" experience...

by Sponsored content