So they had to know the power differential in the East versus the west when they set up the new divisions. The 12 team Big 12 showed us, the bulk of the power on one side of the ledger isn't good for the league. Why have so much heat in one division? If you take the traditional power programs of Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan & Nebraska, add in the newer power programs of Wisconsin and Sparty it only makes sense to split up 3 and 3 the power programs of the conference with Sparty going west.

Swapping Sparty for Illinois would:
1. Ensure that the states with 2 programs (Michigan, Indiana, & Illinois) each have one program in each division.
2. Make the west deeper than the east as Minnesota, Iowa, and occasionally Northwestern have proven formidable.
3. It would give legitimacy to the west, which is presently viewed with disdain across the country because of the justified perception of Northwestern, Purdue, and Illinois being terrible.
4. Make for a more appealing slate of games in the west.
5. Bring back the Illi-buck trophy while discontinuing the Purdue Cannon.

The east would still be top heavy although less so with Sparty moving west. The smaller programs of Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland would have an opportunity to develop their programs with another winnable game in lieu of the certain asskicking that would be administered by Sparty.

These things are cyclical. Put the schools who want to be with each other together. Don't force rivalries, embrace them. Michigan State swapping with Illinois would take away many compelling match ups that the media will pay big money for. Not to mention your points contradict with each other: Point #2 saying Minnesota, Iowa and Northwestern have proven formidable while point #3 says the West is a joke.

Point #4, although true, is countered by the amount of appealing games in the east that are lost. You gain Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska for Michigan State but lose Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. The eastern schools are the bigger, more nationally recognized rivals. Sure, Illinois and Ohio State can play yearly but they lose the Northwestern game and obviously all the other western ones.

The conference line up is great right now. Leave it alone.

I'll give a hell no to that.

This will handle itself soon enough, don't worry about a two division solution.

(05-16-2015 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  These things are cyclical. Put the schools who want to be with each other together. Don't force rivalries, embrace them. Michigan State swapping with Illinois would take away many compelling match ups that the media will pay big money for. Not to mention your points contradict with each other: Point #2 saying Minnesota, Iowa and Northwestern have proven formidable while point #3 says the West is a joke.

Point #4, although true, is countered by the amount of appealing games in the east that are lost. You gain Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska for Michigan State but lose Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. The eastern schools are the bigger, more nationally recognized rivals. Sure, Illinois and Ohio State can play yearly but they lose the Northwestern game and obviously all the other western ones.

The conference line up is great right now. Leave it alone.

I started school in 1995 at tOSU. Northwestern didn't play us but got the Rose bowl bid... I'm still bitter. That being said they have been reasonably good every now and then (ask Nebraska). That doesn't excuse their attendance though.

I would not be in favor of moving anyone. But if you want to equalize traditional football powers between the 2 divisions then you should move one of Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State to the West Division. I would suggest that either Michigan or Ohio State would make the most sense to move west. I would hope that there is some underlying (future) reason that the East is stronger than the West. Maybe that could be the future addition of Texas and Oklahoma. If that dream move was made the power structure would be much more balanced.

(05-17-2015 03:35 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would not be in favor of moving anyone. But if you want to equalize traditional football powers between the 2 divisions then you should move one of Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State to the West Division. I would suggest that either Michigan or Ohio State would make the most sense to move west. I would hope that there is some underlying (future) reason that the East is stronger than the West. Maybe that could be the future addition of Texas and Oklahoma. If that dream move was made the power structure would be much more balanced.

Moving us would screw us out of 75% of our rivalry and trophy games.

(05-17-2015 03:35 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I would not be in favor of moving anyone. But if you want to equalize traditional football powers between the 2 divisions then you should move one of Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State to the West Division. I would suggest that either Michigan or Ohio State would make the most sense to move west. I would hope that there is some underlying (future) reason that the East is stronger than the West. Maybe that could be the future addition of Texas and Oklahoma. If that dream move was made the power structure would be much more balanced.

1. I like Sparty to move west because Michigan has more of a long standing east coast presence and Sparty views Chicago as more important. To top it off for S&Gs they lobbied to go west when they were considering new division structures.

http://www.kcrg.com/sports/local/Big-Ten...75601.html

2. "Traditional" powers means little. Minnesota has 7 claimed national titles and no one considers them a traditional power. What matters IMO is the last 20-30 years. By those standards Wisconsin & Sparty are powerhouse programs and moving Sparty west would balance the league competitively.

3. By splitting the 6 powerhouse programs more wins accrue to them in their respective divisions. It would be possible and likely to have 6 10+ win teams in the conference any given year.

4. The underlying reason the east is likely to remain more loaded than the west is that there is simply more high level skill position talent and defensive line talent available in the east. The only true hotbed in the west is Chicago which isnt a coup for any particular program except maybe Notre Dame. Of course ther is elite talent in the Midwest there just isnt as much of it to go around. New Jersey, Maryland, and the DMV area are absolutely filled with elite prospects and friggin NYC specifically Brooklyn is starting to produce prospects that have offers from the likes of... Ohio State, Bama, Notre Dame Penn State, etc. Urban Meyer and James Franklin are feasting on east coast talent to supplement the ample Ohio and Pennsylvania talent produced every year. If Maryland and Rutgers could ever locked down just half or even a third of the elite recruits within a 50 mile radius of their respective schools they'd have top 10 recruiting classes every year. Out west the most abundantly produced asset is Offensive Linemen but for skill positions a much wider net has to be cast and much larger recruiting budgets.

5. As I said before, the newbie programs of Maryland and Rutgers get the chance to develop quicker if they have one less assured asskicking which is good for the B1G eastern exposure efforts.

6. Adding Oklahoma and Texas would not only rebalance the league something fierce it would also start to funnel some Texas talent north as happened to Nebraska and the rest of the Big 12 North.

7. I would expect for there to be a locked cross division game with UM/MSU, ILL/NU, & IU/PUR. So while the contrived rivalry with PSU will be played less frequently games with Nebraska and Wisconsin would be yearly affairs. The big loss would be Ohio State every year but hell Alabama doesn't play Georgia or Florida every year.

Ron,
Your points are well taken. I thank you for giving Sparty the honor of being called a BIG powerhouse. I was on campus during the very dark days of Spartan football before Nick arrived. I agree that MSU seems to have a lot of interest in Chicago. I'm not really sure why or what that interest is about though. As far as your statement about Michigan having more of an east coast presence than MSU, I have never really thought about mICHIGAN's presence. I must admit that as a SPARTAN, I am genetically programmed to rebuke any comparison that rates mICHIGAN higher than MSU. With all due respect to Michigan's long standing history and tradition, I think Sparty has more of a national presence in the current day and time than Michigan does when you take basketball and football into consideration. I have never been a fan of the Penn State prefab rivalry and could care less about maintaining it. I would miss getting to skirmish with the Bucks on a regular basis. I consider the Buckeyes and Spartans to be brothers in hatred of Michigan. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I generally support what will be good for the conference and not disproportionately bad for MSU.

(05-16-2015 11:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This will handle itself soon enough, don't worry about a two division solution.

Pods? Curious how that would look.

Or do you think the conference is expanding again? Good Lord, if the B1G expands again can it please include some combo that includes two of the three: Mizzou/KU/OU.

(05-18-2015 09:09 PM)Waterloo Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 11:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  This will handle itself soon enough, don't worry about a two division solution.

Pods? Curious how that would look.

Or do you think the conference is expanding again? Good Lord, if the B1G expands again can it please include some combo that includes two of the three: Mizzou/KU/OU.

Pods is how conferences get around the inability to create brand new division rules. That position of leverage has passed but it's existence is still very real. The leverage doesn't need to be pressed anymore in public because awareness of the threat is already heightened.

What I am talking about is having four true divisions. Yes, that comes with expansion. Yes, I absolutely believe the big 12 is living on life support. I can foresee OU and KU ending up in The Big Ten. With all the attention Ohio State and Michigan are now drawing to The Big Ten to go along with the continuous success of Wisconsin and Michigan State, The Big Ten is looking better and better.

With that being the case, imagine a four team Big Ten tournament of Division Champions? Imagine a four team tournament with the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Oklahoma? It would be huge.

I'm sold H1. I've been wanting the next B1G Ten programs (if the conference expands) to stay in the midcontinent.

Under your scenario, what would happen to Kansas State and Oklahoma State? I thought there was political pressure to keep those little brothers tied to their respective lead dogs. Texas would be Texas and pull a Notre Dame/BYU type scenario.

I can see ISU, KSU, Baylor, Tech, TCU, WVU, Okie State surviving by adding a few MWC schools and maybe a couple AAC schools - though I'd stay away from adding too many AAC programs. I'm thinking CSU, UNM, BSU, Cincinnati and Houston. Replace any of those programs with BYU in a heart beat if Provo changes their mind.

That kind of surviving Big XII wouldn't be a P5 anymore, but it may be able to keep its status like the old Big East did until the next major shift in college sports occurs. I'm just not sure if the state politicians in KS and OK would allow the big brothers to leave the little brothers.

If the B1G Ten were able to invite OU and KU, then all of the above changes would be worth it.

(05-19-2015 12:00 AM)Waterloo Wrote:  I'm sold H1. I've been wanting the next B1G Ten programs (if the conference expands) to stay in the midcontinent.

Under your scenario, what would happen to Kansas State and Oklahoma State? I thought there was political pressure to keep those little brothers tied to their respective lead dogs. Texas would be Texas and pull a Notre Dame/BYU type scenario.

I can see ISU, KSU, Baylor, Tech, TCU, WVU, Okie State surviving by adding a few MWC schools and maybe a couple AAC schools - though I'd stay away from adding too many AAC programs. I'm thinking CSU, UNM, BSU, Cincinnati and Houston. Replace any of those programs with BYU in a heart beat if Provo changes their mind.

That kind of surviving Big XII wouldn't be a P5 anymore, but it may be able to keep its status like the old Big East did until the next major shift in college sports occurs. I'm just not sure if the state politicians in KS and OK would allow the big brothers to leave the little brothers.

If the B1G Ten were able to invite OU and KU, then all of the above changes would be worth it.

ISU and KSU aren't tied to their fellow State Institutions. Iowa and ISU aren't even tied together with conference affiliations. If the big 12 falls apart in ten years, Iowa would have nothing to do with that.

The situation with KSU and Kansas though is a little more complex. The two schools don't necessarily have to end up in the same conference but I highly doubt they will be able to take part in a plan that could leave KSU in a much weakened state. Thus for The Big Ten to land Kansas, Kansas State will have to end up in one of the P4 conferences.

ISU and KSU best serve the PAC out of any of the P4. The PAC needs to move into a new time zone. ISU, KSU, Texas Tech and TCU as a combo is strong enough to make that strong Central Time Zone move worthwhile for ESPN and Fox to pay them more. That means that PAC match ups can be played at the Noon Eastern Time kick off slot. That would be huge.

Texas would, in my opinion, take a negotiated agreement with The ACC that would be very complex. The LHN would be part of it, Texas bringing a school with them to The ACC would be part of it and a partial membership agreement, like the one with Notre Dame, would also be part of it. With Texas and Notre Dame standing firmly together, it will be inevitable that the CFP is expanded. With a brand new P4, it would be hard to beat out the Conference Champions that emerge from Conference Tournaments, not just Conference Championships.

Sure, records could make it possible but with just four slots, The Conference Champions win any perceived draw or close comparison. A strong Notre Dame or Texas program though is still a major draw for the CFP and the combined money that gets spread to everyone.

To go with Texas is Baylor. ESPN will push for UConn to be the other school due to issues within the State that ESPN is headquartered in, Connecticut. The LHN is part of that as it is rolled into a larger Regional ACC Network.

Oklahoma State and West Virginia fit in perfectly with the SEC Hierarchy. We see West Virginia fit well into a division with Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. We see Oklahoma State fit in well with LSU, Texas A&M and Arkansas.

This is why Oklahoma and Kansas end up with The Big Ten.

Wow, that's a lot that needs to happen to get OU and KU. I want it to happen, just not sure all those moves get done.

It should be noted that I'm no expert in realignment issues. I leave that kind of "expertise" and "creativity" up to all those AAC fans on the other forum.

(05-19-2015 08:47 PM)Waterloo Wrote:  Wow, that's a lot that needs to happen to get OU and KU. I want it to happen, just not sure all those moves get done.

It should be noted that I'm no expert in realignment issues. I leave that kind of "expertise" and "creativity" up to all those AAC fans on the other forum.

A lot has to happen or there is zero movement. What is required is a Vote of Dissolution within the big 12. That would require at least 8 votes but I put forward that it would actually require every school to say yes in order to get all of the schools to go ahead with this.

That is why such a complicated scenario is truly the only possibility for us to have movement within the next decade.