With all the different alignment theories out there, I thought I'd post this and see what is people's general favorite. Here's a quick rundown with positives and negatives.

Sandwich Method:
East and West Division: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers
Central Division: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana
NO LOCKED CROSSOVERS

Positives: No locked crossovers means even if the conference sticks to 8 conference games, we'll play each team in the other division 2 out 7 years instead of 2 out 12 years. This does divide the big names, is relatively competitive balanced (although the east and west division is a little stronger in the middle).
Negatives: One division more compact than the other. While the closest schools remain together, it does require 1-2 locked long road games for one division. We lose the Little Brown Jug and Ohio State/Penn State as annual games.

East-West (with Michigan State in west)
East: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Purdue, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers
West: Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern
Locked Crossovers: Michigan-Michigan State

Positives: Is fairly competitively balanced top to bottom. While the west only has one of the 4 huge names, the combination of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan State helps its middle a lot. It's also mostly geographic and that will help a little for traveling. It only completely requires one locked crossover (although Illinois-Purdue could be another as that rivalry is important to a lot of Purdue fans).
Negatives: It put 3 of the big names and most the best recruiting territory in the east. It locks Michigan and Michigan State in a crossover meaning the other division will only see them 2 out 12 years and this means the Little Brown Jug will fall way by the wayside. Illinois-Purdue would as well most likely.

East-West (with Purdue in west)
East: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers
West: Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
Locked Crossovers: Purdue-Indiana

Positives: It is about as purely geographic as you can get. It only requires one locked crossover (although you could lock Michigan-Minnesota). Most major rivalries are kept.
Negatives: Very uncompetively balanced. East is loaded with 3 of 4 of the biggest names and gets best recruiting ground and a decent middle when you add in Michigan State.

Current Alignment (Moving Illinois to Legends):
Legends: Michigan, Nebraska, Michigan State, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois
Leaders: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers
Locked Crossovers: (a few ways this could be done, but I'd guess): Ohio State-Michigan, Penn State-Nebraska, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Purdue-Illinois, Northwestern-Indiana, Michigan State-Rutgers, Iowa-Maryland

Positives: Divides the 4 biggest names equally. Preserves most rivalries.
Negatives: It requires locked crossovers for more than a team or two (which means they'll do it for all) which means we would only play the other division 2 out of 12 years if we keep an 8 game schedule. Wisconsin in on an island in this set-up, left from all it's closest teams in the west.

Is it a foregone conclusion that there will be only 8 conference games?

Hopefully not, but they've announced a lot of new upcoming non-conference home and homes over the past few months making the original target year of 2017 (dropped when the PAC-12 alliance was announced) unlikely. I'm hoping for 9 (10 really, but that won't happen), but don't expect to see it until/unless we go to 16.

Why is Iowa a locked crossover with UMD?

Why wouldn't you lock Michigan State and Penn State as cross division rivals?

(12-11-2012 03:19 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  Why is Iowa a locked crossover with UMD?

Had to take guesses on what they'd do if they keep mostly the current divisions. The current crossovers are:

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

If Illinois is moved to the Legends/WIW (Where is Wisconsin division), then that is going to force a change in the crossovers. If they go with that alignment, I can't see them switching the first 3 crossovers. That leaves Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, and Rutgers in the Leaders/WIWH (Why is Wisconsin here division) and Illinois, Michigan State, Iowa, and northwestern in the Legends/WIW.

I think they'd Purdue and Illinois would want to remain annual so that's one crossover. From there it's kind of a crap shoot. I was guessing they'd pair the Indiana/Illinois schools which would give us Indiana-Northwestern as a crossover and meaning you could pretty much randomly pick which of Iowa or Michigan State would be paired with Rutgers and Maryland.

Looking through again though, I think they'd keep Michigan State-Indiana as there is an old trophy game there. So my new guesses on the crossovers would be:

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

Some of those are kind of random or not that important, but if we keep the current set-up everyone will have a crossover game.

(12-11-2012 04:03 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Why wouldn't you lock Michigan State and Penn State as cross division rivals?

I think it would have made a lot of sense, but the conference instead went with Nebraska-Penn State. I don't see them changing that unless they rework the divisions entirely.

We have a women's lax rivalry with northwestern. That's practically nothing but more than our history with Iowa.

That works then. The random locked crossovers is actually a big reason why I really don't care for the current set-up, especially as we go to 14. We already aren't going to be playing the other division all that much and in that set-up, we compound that issue by locking games no one even cares about.

The Big Ten Network now has a very similar poll to this one up. http://btn.com/2012/12/13/take-the-surve...ou-prefer/

In it I basically said, if we are only going to have 8 conference games, we can't lock up 7 of them for the same teams every year. The inner-outer approach (what I called the sandwich model here) is the only that accomplishes that fully.

(12-14-2012 01:09 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The Big Ten Network now has a very similar poll to this one up. http://btn.com/2012/12/13/take-the-surve...ou-prefer/

In it I basically said, if we are only going to have 8 conference games, we can't lock up 7 of them for the same teams every year. The inner-outer approach (what I called the sandwich model here) is the only that accomplishes that fully.

Damn this is tough, I like both options 2 and 3. I lean towards the geographic one but I think you are right about the inner-outer. This is all just temporary anyways but they have to plan as if this may be how it ends up.

Part of UMD's negotiations with the B1G were divisions and maintaining a geographic schedule. I think east/west is very likely in the cards.

(12-14-2012 01:09 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  The Big Ten Network now has a very similar poll to this one up. http://btn.com/2012/12/13/take-the-surve...ou-prefer/

In it I basically said, if we are only going to have 8 conference games, we can't lock up 7 of them for the same teams every year. The inner-outer approach (what I called the sandwich model here) is the only that accomplishes that fully.

I voted the inner-outer model as my #1 preference. I think it makes the most sense. We all end up traveling the most, but a travel subsidy to offset it could make things work for a long time to come.

A part of me still likes east-west, but beyond even the scheduling aspect (whcih I think works far better with inner-outer), I think we hold a real risk of this becoming worse than the Big 12 South vs. North. The north actually started stronger there, but all the long term advantages were in the south and it received the bulk of media attention nationwide.

Here is a list of recruits by state who were 3 star or better. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-tennessee It does not include the number for New Jersey, but based on where it falls on other lists we can expect it to fall toward the top.

1. Ohio (79.3)
2. Maryland (48.3)
3. Pennsylvania (42)
4. Illinois (37.8)
5. Michigan (33)
---New Jersey, based on map on link above falls no lower than here, likely higher
7. Indiana 20.5
8. Iowa 11
9. Wisconsin 9
10. Minnesota 7.8
11. Nebraska 4.3

If we go east-west, 5 of the top 6 states for recruiting are going to be in the same division. The east would also have 3 of the 4 biggest names and a much larger population base with a lot of big markets on its side. East-west is almost guaranteed to make the eastern side the side that is followed more long term (not that the west won't be better some years).

(12-15-2012 01:12 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  A part of me still likes east-west, but beyond even the scheduling aspect (whcih I think works far better with inner-outer), I think we hold a real risk of this becoming worse than the Big 12 South vs. North. The north actually started stronger there, but all the long term advantages were in the south and it received the bulk of media attention nationwide.

Here is a list of recruits by state who were 3 star or better. http://www.sbnation.com/college-football...-tennessee It does not include the number for New Jersey, but based on where it falls on other lists we can expect it to fall toward the top.

1. Ohio (79.3)
2. Maryland (48.3)
3. Pennsylvania (42)
4. Illinois (37.8)
5. Michigan (33)
---New Jersey, based on map on link above falls no lower than here, likely higher
7. Indiana 20.5
8. Iowa 11
9. Wisconsin 9
10. Minnesota 7.8
11. Nebraska 4.3

If we go east-west, 5 of the top 6 states for recruiting are going to be in the same division. The east would also have 3 of the 4 biggest names and a much larger population base with a lot of big markets on its side. East-west is almost guaranteed to make the eastern side the side that is followed more long term (not that the west won't be better some years).

I did some research, according to Rivals NJ had 33 3*+ in the class of 2013 and 33 in the class of 2012. I did a hand count of ESPN's rankings for 2013 and NJ had 42.

I like the inner-outer setup.

I like the current alignment moving Illinois to the Legends. It seems like the best balanced line up with Michigan & Michigan St in one division and Ohio St & Penn St in the other.

I'm not a huge fan of just moving Illinois west. It makes sense on some levels, but I'd prefer otherwise because:

1. While most Buckeyes couldn't care less, Illinois is our only trophy game and I'd like to keep them a least somewhat regular.
2. I don't want locked crossovers and they are necessary if we go with that approach.
3. If it's truly necessary to put the two newbies and Penn State together for eastern exposure, then let's not do a double standard. Move Wisconsin to the west. It's not fair they are the only one of the 4 western schools in their division.
4. Completely personal preference here, but I don't want 1/4 of the schedule always against the 2 new schools and for 3 of our conference games to be against eastern teams. Since those 3 should go together, I'm fine with them putting us with the 3 anyway, but I hope they at least put Michigan in our division as some form of compromise.

ohio, this is why I like the Inner-Outer or Sandwich model. Keeps the geographic/historical rivalries intact most easily. No locked crossovers necessary either.

So Current:
scUM, MSU, Minn, Neb, Iowa, NW,
O$U, Ind, Wisky, PSU, Purdue, Illinois

What I want:
scUM, MSU, Minn, Neb, Iowa, NW, Rutgers
O$U, Ind, Wisky, PSU, Purdue, Illinois, UMd