Wouldn't that have been nice if the Big 12 would have been originally structured around a similar formula?Quote:
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.
Iowa, PSU, Wisky and Nebraska is a pretty solid division. That is 4 teams that could win the division and represent it any year. I don't see Ill or Minny doing anything.
That division will suck in basketball though. Which should help Iowa out since they will most likely get to play PSU and nebraska 2 times each year.
So if the number one priority is competitive fairness, do they plan on changing the divisions when there is a shift of power to other schools. I know you can argue that schools like OSU have had a long history of success so thats why they are considered a top tier school, but you never know what could happen down the road.
Personally, I liked that 3-team "pod" idea that someone proposed, but I don't know how you'd schedule a conference championship game around that.
Nobody knows if Penn State will remain huge after Paterno's era (officially) ends. No guarantee U-M will stay at powerhouse level (although I figure that'll get corrected in "or else" fashion very soon).
Nebraska has as much of that "long history of success" as PSU, and more than Illinois, so flipping that strength to the East seems shortsighted, considering Wisconsin and Iowa have had legitimate success for an extended period. (That paragraph was painful to write for a couple of reasons, but I can't pretend it isn't true).
I suppose SI's plan figures NW-Illinois is a rivalry-split that's manageable, in exchange to keep all other rivalries, most geography, and balance. But geography doesn't change, and competitive balance might.
Big Ten sucks.
Ohio State-Michigan will play in a non-threatening division, you can take that to the bank.
Thank god there was a husker fan to bring us all a link about the new bigten divisions!!!
I don't think any of us have seen a single column or article about the subject since the bugeaters turned benedict arnold
Does anyone remember when Neb, KSU, and CU were the stalwarts of the conference? The conference was split geographically for good reason.
What does the Big 10 do when the competitive scales tip and a future imbalance happens?
The big difference I see between the two conferences is that Texas is the recruiting seed ground all Big 12 schools pull from. Imo, this is what lead to the balance of power shifting to Texas and OU.
The Big 10 doesn't have an "in conference" state that every school pulls a majority of their recruits from. (Ohio is probably the closest, but doesn't compare to Texas)
"Competetive fairness" is a silly requirement imo. A conference commissioner should consider his teams as equals, they share revenue don't they?
I can understand rivalries having to stay intact but those are typically geographic anyway. If they split, the B10 should split east-west. The trio of NU, Iowa and Wisc. should be considered on par w/ tOSU, Mich and PSU by the B10.
How easily we forget that in '94 when the texas 12 er....the Big XII was formed that one thing that was paramount was maintaining the Texas--Oklahoma rivalry!!!
That Rivalry Plus Geographic Purity brought us a very unbalanced conference that was doomed from the start.
Texas should have headed up the south ...With Oklahoma and Nebraska heading up the north and then you would have had "Competitive Balance" and also it would have preserved the best rivalry aka Nebbie v. Okie!!!!
Boys it was doomed from the start and I think that the over and under on this conference is about five fricking years!!!!! (butt then again i could be wrong :biglaugh: