I'm posting this to multiple Big Ten boards in the hope many people will write.

I hope we can all agree that playing much of the conference only twice in 12 years is completely unacceptable. With the Big Ten going to 14 and 9 conference games looking iffy at best, that's very probable though (the SEC is already going with that format).

In order to avoid that outcome, we need a divisional alignment that will allow for no locked crossovers. Obviously there is no perfect alignment or it would have been in place already. I do think we can do better than simply keeping the current alignment though and I purpose that the 4 western teams are put with the 3 eastern teams and that the 3 Ohio/Michigan teams are put with the 4 Indiana/Illinois teams. It's not perfect, but it would allow the conference to avoid crossovers and the schedule could be done so that in a 4 year period, every school plays every other school at least once home or away.

If you think this is better than what we are more likely to get (or if you have other ideas), then please e-mail a letter like this to your schools president/AD and Delany and possibly to others. E-mail address are below the sample letter.

Sample Letter:

I know that in the past, conference leaders have expressed a desire to "play each other more." With that in mind, I would like to encourage the Big Ten to consider divisional alignments that will maximize the number of games between schools. Namely, I would encourage the conference to embrace an alignment that does not require locked cross divisional games.

I understand that divisional alignment is a delicate subject and there is no solution without a cost. However, I do believe the following set-up minimizes the pain. The 4 western most Big Ten schools could be paired with the 3 eastern most in one division. The 3 Ohio/Michigan schools could be combined with the 4 Illinois/Indiana schools in the other. I understand that this would result in The Little Brown Jug and Ohio State/Penn State ceasing to be annual events. It would however allow for locked crossovers to end and thus allow for every Big Ten school to face every other Big Ten school at least once home or away during a 4 year period of time.

In the interest of preserving Big Ten's historic connections, I strongly encourage the presidents/chancellors to consider this proposal or any plans which will allow us to "play each other more." Thank you for your time.

E-mail Addresses:

Jim Delany: jdelany@bigten.org
Illinois: President: PresidentEaster@uillinois.edu AD: Mike Thomas: FightingIlliniAD@illinois.edu
Indiana: President McRobbie: iupres@iu.edu AD: Fred Glass athldir@indiana.edu
Iowa: President Sally Mason: president@uiowa.edu AD Gary Barta: gary-barta@uiowa.edu
Michigan: President Mary Sue Coleman: presoff@umich.edu AD: Can fill out suggestions here: http://www.mgoblue.com/feedback/mich-feedback.html
Michigan State: President: presmail@msu.edu AD Mark Hollis: AD@ath.msu.edu
Minnesota: President Kaler: upres@umn.edu AD: Norwood Teague: icaadmin@umn.edu
Nebraska: President James B. Milliken: president@nebraska.edu AD Tom Osborne: ahackbart@huskers.com
Northwestern: President Morton Schapiro: nu-president@northwestern.edu AD assistant: annemarie.adams@northwestern.edu
Ohio State: President Gee: gee.2@osu.edu AD Smith: athletic_director@osu.edu,
Penn State: President Erickson: president@psu.edu Athletic Director Tim Curley: tmc3@psu.edu
Purdue: Acting President Tim Sands: president@purdue.edu AD Burke: mjb@purdue.edu
Wisconsin: President Kevin P. Reilly: kreilly@uwsa.edu Assistant to Athletic Director Cerniglia, Michael: mgc@athletics.wisc.edu
Maryland: President Wallace D. Loh: president@umd.edu

Bud, this is all temporary till we get to 16 and the new divisional rules. It is in the bag man.

We'll see. We were at 11 for a long time, an odd number when you think of it. I am not willing to assume super conferences are coming.

Oddly though, while I was 100% against expanding past 12, at this point I'd probably prefer 16. There are ways to get 16 to work at least somewhat. 14 barely works at all and I think the Big Ten is about to become two conference united by a conference championship game.

(11-21-2012 12:34 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  We'll see. We were at 11 for a long time, an odd number when you think of it. I am not willing to assume super conferences are coming.

Oddly though, while I was 100% against expanding past 12, at this point I'd probably prefer 16. There are ways to get 16 to work at least somewhat. 14 barely works at all and I think the Big Ten is about to become two conference united by a conference championship game.

Delany has a lot of respect for Slive. When Slive says 14 sucks for scheduling, I am pretty sure Delany respects that opinion very much. I do not think he wishes to attempt to prove Slive wrong. He even said after one of the pressers in continued questioning that we were moving to 16. That isn't an exact quote but what I saw was a pretty convincing statement that we were moving to 16.

Now it is not fully in our hands as this is all very complicated and requires movements by others at this point but Delany moved the process forward faster than anyone expected already. I think that means we can expect him to continue along that line of action.

Not that I'm entitled to an opinion at this point, but the best Eastern adds for us would be UVA and UNC. Although I think going one east and one west might make more sense. I do think 9 conference games are coming though. I do think divisions will be completely reconfigured.

Also I like saying us and referring to the Big Ten. I will miss the old and old old Big East to be sure.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

(11-21-2012 01:13 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Not that I'm entitled to an opinion at this point, but the best Eastern adds for us would be UVA and UNC. Although I think going one east and one west might make more sense.

Also I like saying us and referring to the Big Ten. I will miss the old and old old Big East to be sure.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Yes, UVA and UNC are the better adds for reasons that are more important to the Presidents and Institutions. For divisional alignment a 2 and 2 expansion would be better but divisional alignments have never really been an important aspect to the leaders of the Big Ten. It generally feels like an afterthought.

If we can land UVA and UNC then that is who we will expand with. The problem is that Notre Dame can throw a wrench in that plan.

(11-21-2012 01:13 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Not that I'm entitled to an opinion at this point, but the best Eastern adds for us would be UVA and UNC. Although I think going one east and one west might make more sense. I do think 9 conference games are coming though. I do think divisions will be completely reconfigured.

Also I like saying us and referring to the Big Ten. I will miss the old and old old Big East to be sure.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

You're part of the family now, you are entitled to an opinion. Should check out the divisional alignment I posted on one of the other threads.

My personal guess is 16 is still a ways off. They'll look for big targets of opportunity next time (the ones I think qualify is any combination that includes Notre Dame, Texas, or North Carolina).

The divisions haven't been set yet though. Article on the Big Ten Networks homepage saying the rumors of moving Illinois west and putting Rutgers and Maryland in the east were just rumors and the presidents haven't even spoken on it yet. http://btn.com/2012/11/20/what-to-do-wit...ent-116851

Big Ten going to 9 conference games will make some people happy and make some people upset. It will help preserve the traditional matchups while integrating the new teams in. It will also add inventory to the BTN. Drawback is that it will make it a touch harder to reach bowl eligibility.

This is what I had, but it doesn't really matter to me:

A - Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
B - Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Maryland

(11-21-2012 11:35 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Big Ten going to 9 conference games will make some people happy and make some people upset. It will help preserve the traditional matchups while integrating the new teams in. It will also add inventory to the BTN. Drawback is that it will make it a touch harder to reach bowl eligibility.

This is what I had, but it doesn't really matter to me:

A - Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
B - Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Maryland

The only issue with this format is the "A" division may be much stronger than the "B" depending on how quickly PSU can recover.

(11-21-2012 01:10 PM)RMSko Wrote:  

(11-21-2012 11:35 AM)General Mike Wrote:  Big Ten going to 9 conference games will make some people happy and make some people upset. It will help preserve the traditional matchups while integrating the new teams in. It will also add inventory to the BTN. Drawback is that it will make it a touch harder to reach bowl eligibility.

This is what I had, but it doesn't really matter to me:

A - Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue
B - Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Rutgers, Maryland

The only issue with this format is the "A" division may be much stronger than the "B" depending on how quickly PSU can recover.

A. Ohio $tate and Michigan will not be in same division, they like their cross over game because it raises the odds of a Conference Title re-match.

Legends- UMi, MSU, Minn, NW, Iowa, UNL, Illi (Annual strong teams; UMi, MSU, Iowa, UNL)
Leaders- tOSU, Ind, Wisky, Pur, PSU, UMd, RU (Annual strong teams; tOSU, Wisky, PSU, RU[?])

The popular idea so far, though I'd switch Indiana and Illinois and do the setup like this;

Legends- UMi, MSU, Minn, NW, Iowa, UNL, Ind
Leaders- tOSU, PSU, Wisky, Illi, UMd, RU, Purdue

Would preserve the these rivalries for yearly games:
tOSU; UMi, Illi, PSU
UMi; tOSU, MSU, Iowa, Minn
PSU; tOSU, MSU, possible new rivalry with Maryland and/or Rutgers
MSU; UMi, PSU, Ind
Wisky; Minn
Minn; Wisky, UMi, Iowa
Illi; NW, tOSU, Purdue
NW; Illi
UMd; Possible new rivalry with PSU and/or Rutgers
Iowa; UNL, Minn
Rutgers; Possible new rivalry with PSU and/or Maryland.
UNL; Iowa
Purdue; Indiana, Illi,
Indiana; Purdue, MSU

If I got anything wrong on the rivalry information please let me know.

The conference title rematch possibility was in my opinion more of an excuse to Ohio State and Michigan fans about why they were separated. Both fanbases were in a complete uproar when news came out they were planning on moving up the Ohio State/Michigan game. With the announcement of the divisions and schedules, they tried to sooth those feelings.

In reality, few in either fanbase really want a rematch and the rest of the Big Ten wants it even less. I think they ended up separated for many reasons, a rematch being only one and not the biggest.

1. Ohio State and Michigan were the big traditional powers in the conference and thus usually drew the best when traveling. Several schools didn't want to be out of a division with both so wanted them split.
2. Penn State felt like Ohio State was its closest neighbor and closest thing to a rival and thus wanted them annually. Beyond that, they felt they'd be on an island if they weren't in a division with them. Since the plan was to split the big 4 traditional names, that meant Michigan in the other division.
3. I think OSU and UM's AD's put a lot emphasis on OSU/Michigan being able to decide the conference. I and many others did too initially, but the idea of moving the game (to avoid an immediate rematch), was something they underestimated the negative reaction to. In retrospect, they would have fought to keep them together.

I think a lot has changed that now would make it easier. Penn State has eastern teams in the conference and thus won't be on an island without Ohio State. OSU and Michigan's leaders would now probably try to keep the teams together if possible. The divisional make-up can also put the western and eastern powers together (where Penn State and Nebraska's brands are strongest).

(11-22-2012 02:13 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The conference title rematch possibility was in my opinion more of an excuse to Ohio State and Michigan fans about why they were separated. Both fanbases were in a complete uproar when news came out they were planning on moving up the Ohio State/Michigan game. With the announcement of the divisions and schedules, they tried to sooth those feelings.

In reality, few in either fanbase really want a rematch and the rest of the Big Ten wants it even less. I think they ended up separated for many reasons, a rematch being only one and not the biggest.

1. Ohio State and Michigan were the big traditional powers in the conference and thus usually drew the best when traveling. Several schools didn't want to be out of a division with both so wanted them split.
2. Penn State felt like Ohio State was its closest neighbor and closest thing to a rival and thus wanted them annually. Beyond that, they felt they'd be on an island if they weren't in a division with them. Since the plan was to split the big 4 traditional names, that meant Michigan in the other division.
3. I think OSU and UM's AD's put a lot emphasis on OSU/Michigan being able to decide the conference. I and many others did too initially, but the idea of moving the game (to avoid an immediate rematch), was something they underestimated the negative reaction to. In retrospect, they would have fought to keep them together.

I think a lot has changed that now would make it easier. Penn State has eastern teams in the conference and thus won't be on an island without Ohio State. OSU and Michigan's leaders would now probably try to keep the teams together if possible. The divisional make-up can also put the western and eastern powers together (where Penn State and Nebraska's brands are strongest).

Great breakdown, makes sense to me. I just don't think that the 2 division problem is a deciding factor anymore. Once we move to four divisions and have those divisions each leading to a spot in the conference playoff, Michigan and Ohio State will have a change of tune and no longer want to be in the same division. They will both want to have their own division because being in that tournament will be a strong determination in their change of attitude. That would be two weeks of Big Ten game play that they would annually knock each other out of.

(11-22-2012 11:35 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Great breakdown, makes sense to me. I just don't think that the 2 division problem is a deciding factor anymore. Once we move to four divisions and have those divisions each leading to a spot in the conference playoff, Michigan and Ohio State will have a change of tune and no longer want to be in the same division. They will both want to have their own division because being in that tournament will be a strong determination in their change of attitude. That would be two weeks of Big Ten game play that they would annually knock each other out of.

NCAA rules do not allow for a conference playoff. The way the pods work is that two pods would come together to form a division each year (and then 2 different pods form a different division the following year or every other year).

(11-23-2012 09:53 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(11-22-2012 11:35 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Great breakdown, makes sense to me. I just don't think that the 2 division problem is a deciding factor anymore. Once we move to four divisions and have those divisions each leading to a spot in the conference playoff, Michigan and Ohio State will have a change of tune and no longer want to be in the same division. They will both want to have their own division because being in that tournament will be a strong determination in their change of attitude. That would be two weeks of Big Ten game play that they would annually knock each other out of.

NCAA rules do not allow for a conference playoff. The way the pods work is that two pods would come together to form a division each year (and then 2 different pods form a different division the following year or every other year).

I know, my idea is that those rule changes would come down as soon as needed. Why? Because the NCAA does not rule these Institutions anymore, these institutions rule the NCAA. It is directly ran by Presidents of Universities. That allows for politics between the conferences to absolutely come into play in bringing about rule changes.

If the Big Ten and the SEC and one other major conference approve. They have the ability to leverage some of the lesser powers to go along with it.

Seeing the Big Ten and SEC moving to 14 makes me now absolutely believe they are both on board for 16 and the new rules. They will happen eventually. If pods have to be used for a temporary short term fix then they will. That will only fuel the desire among football fans for actual divisions and conference playoffs. Why is that? Because ESPN will talk about it all the time.