Looking at Division Allignment

So the Big Ten has added Nebraska.  Great.


But seriously, how surprised would you really be if Hitler was rooting for Texas?


Now we are left to ponder the question of how we divide the conference for a title game?

I have been and always will be against the title game simply because it devalues one of the conference's best teams by handing them a loss.  If you think I am wrong ask Missouri in 2007 how playing the Sooners a  second time in the season worked for them when it came time to be selected for a bowl.  Also the Big XII South struggles in 2008 when three teams finished 11-1 remains one of the biggest disasters that  has occured because of divisional alignment.  Growing up in Big XII country it isn't hard to not like conference championship games since the history of the Big XII is basically a case studies in the negative effect the game has on the teams in the conference.

However, it seems as though the Big Ten is destined for a conference championship game and, inevitably, divisions. 

So how do we do it?

Well Akham's Razor tells us that the simplest answer is the correct one, and I think it applies here.  The league that has had by far and away the most success with a championship game is the SEC.  The guys in the south got it right by ignoring the balance of power at the moment and sticking with traditional rivalries and geographic balance.  When the conference was formed the league hopelessly overpowered by the Eastern schools.  Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee were all national powers and while Alabama was certainly a force out west, the rest of the division was relatively mediocre.  LSU was so-so, Ole Miss was horrible, Auburn was just o.k., and Mississippi State was the second best team in the division behind the Crimson Tide, and it wasn't exactly close.  It just goes to show that whoever is good now is not garaunteed to be good in the future.

Splitting the teams up geographically with one preserved game keeps travel costs to a minnimum while ensuring natural rivalries persist.  Are you really wanting to break up the triumvirate of hate that is OSU-PSU-UM?  How about UW, Minn, and Iowa?  These are some of the oldest and most storied rivalries in the conference and should be treated as such.

These people clearly belong together

EAST: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue

WEST: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota

The first and most obvious argument is that the divisions are unbalanced.  But is it really that bad?  I mean last year only Ohio State was better than Iowa, Wisconsin, or Nebraska.  Penn State was good but not great and Michigan State was the only other bowl eligible team.  The West would have had 5 bowl eligible teams. 

People are going to make a big deal about Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan being in a division together, but very rarely have all three been great at the same time.  Also Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin have hardly been slouches.  Historically Illinois has been very competitive and Northwestern has been better than either of the Indiana schools recently.  Michigan State keeps it from being a three team division just enough and Purdue is certainly no slouch. 

Also, what are the alternatives?  Moving PSU out West is a problem since a division with the Lions, Huskers, Hawkeyes, and Badgers is a lot less competitively balanced than one where the Lions are matched with the Buckeyes and Wolverines.  The ACC division split is also a clear example of why ignoringgeography is such a problem, since it has generated less than enthusiastic rivalries and regular season matchups. 

So what else do you do to maintain competitive balance?  Garaunteed matchups. 

These interdivisional locks have been a staple of the SEC and the ACC and are often some of the best matchups in the conferences.  Games like the Deep South's Oldest Rivalry between Auburn and Georgia or the battle between Miami and FSU in the ACC are marquee matchups and show the clear benefit of interdivisional safe games.  The Big XII did not utilize this and lost one of the biggest annual matchups when Oklahoma and Nebraska no longer played annually. 

So how would you make those matches in a geographical split?  Well, in my opinion it would go something like this:

Penn State-Iowa
Michigan-Wisconsin
Ohio State-Nebraska
Michigan State-Minnesota
Purdue-Northwestern
Indiana-Illinois

Obviously this will be a source of debate since this does ignore some exsisting rivalry games.  I look at this as a way for the conference to garauntee some big matchups and it isn't like there is a lack of history.  Penn State fans would probably prefer the Huskers but Ohio State doesn't have an obvious matchup with a contending team.  Iowa and Ohio State don't share much of a history and Illinois doesn't bring much competition to the series, plus the Illini and the Hoosiers already have a farely storied history together.  Iowa and Penn State have been competitive in their history and the Huskers and Buckeyes, while lacking in history, is one of the greatest matchups on paper the conference is capable of. 

Gopher fans will likely protest the fact that Wisconsin get's the nod for an annual matchup with Michigan instead of protecting the Little Brown Jug series but this is really a no brainer.  The rivalry between Wisconsin and Michigan is one of the most underrated in the conference and there is always a special level of ire between the Badgers and Wolverines.  Plus it needs to be said that while Michigan and Minnesota is a historic matchup, the fact that it isn't annual now anyway and that it has hardly been competitive really dampens it's importance. 

Northwestern-Purdue is already an annual matchup however if the Wildcats and Gophers were to swap opponents I doubt it would matter too much (let me know if I am mistaken). 

It won't make everybody happy but it should be the best way to make sure that the league is competitive and relevant. This garauntees the best TV matchups in adition to preserving some of the most important historical rivalries that make the league special. I personally doubt that the league will move to 9 conference matchups since another toughgame in an already grinding season makes it less likely that the league will make it to the BCS (and as I already mentioned the league lessened it's likelihood by adding a conference championship game). Also adding aninth conference game essentially eliminates the possibility of teams having compelling non-conference matchups because of the aforementioned increased conference schedule difficulty. I believe the league will stick with eight games.