[NU Sports] Big Ten Divisions appear to be firming up
Mike Nolan
nolan at romaine.tssi.com
Thu Aug 26 11:51:18 CDT 2010
Good analyis. I wonder if the old adage "When the rumor is better than
the facts, print the rumor" applies here? :-)
--
Mike Nolan
> --0016369f9e30c77650048ebc7e52
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Regarding avoiding OSU/Michigan and Big Ten titles (since 1993, when Penn
> State joined and the current conference scheduling system was set up):
>
> Ohio State (9) and Michigan (5) have won or shared a combined 14 titles over
> this 17 year span. This occurred in 13 separate times in those 17 seasons.
>
> During that 17 year span EVERY team that has won OR shared the conference
> title has played OSU or Michigan in that season. Here are the only
> conference title winners/sharers who did not play BOTH, and who they missed:
>
> 2002 Iowa (OSU)
> 2000 Northwestern (OSU)
> 1998 Wisconsin (OSU)
> 1996 Northwestern (OSU)
> 1995 Northwestern (OSU)
>
> Yes, that's a trend, teams benefit most from avoiding Ohio State
> (Northwestern 3 times). Some teams have missed both OSU and Michigan
> multiple times over that span, and although that leads to a lot of people
> putting them in title contention, it hasn't worked out for anyone.
>
> Although the 'Cats have obviously benefited from this and the "shared title"
> (specifically in '96 and '00 where NU won a shared title but lost the
> tiebreaker in order to go to the Rose/BCS Bowl), I am personally glad that
> there will no longer be shared titles and teams will get to avoid other good
> ones and still win a conference crown. Competitively, it makes more sense,
> and I'm a logical guy, so I like that kind of thing.
>
>
> I also agree with Jeff: the Big Ten has seemed to make all the right moves
> at the right times in recent years, and I trust them to do the same here.
> While everyone can't be made happy, I think they'll do what's best for the
> conference both in terms of revenues and also in terms of competition within
> the conference and nationally.
>
>
> Finally, about Purdue as an NU rival: they were made one of NU's two
> "protected rivals" back in '93 when the current scheduling went into effect
> (each Big Ten team now has 2 teams they play every season, the so-called
> "protected rivals"). Basically, they were stuck with each other as neither
> has a real long-term rival who was available after giving everyone else two
> rivals, and they are close to each other, so that was that. I don't think
> that this is a game that the Big Ten is specifically looking to keep when
> splitting divisions. I do expect, though, that the NU/Illinois game will
> continue, even if it's a cross-division protected game (like the
> OSU/Michigan game is rumored to be).
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:47 AM, Mike Nolan <nolan at romaine.tssi.com> wrote:
>
> > > The most obvious situation Delany is trying to avoid is the Big XII which
> > > was essentially doomed to collapse once it became clear most of the power
> > > was concentrated in the south.
> >
> > I was never a fan of the North/South division of the Big XII, mostly
> > because
> > it killed off the Nebraska-Oklahoma game at Thanksgiving.
> > (Nebrasaka-Colorado
> > never caught on as a rivalry game, at least not in Nebraska.)
> >
> > But the Big XII voted against any kind of protected cross-division
> > rivalry game.
> >
> > This became a bigger problem when Nebraska had a down cycle in the past
> > decade (its first since the 60's.) Colorado also hit the skids big time,
> > as did Kansas State. Kansas and Missouri were hit-and-miss, and still are.
> > Iowa State is the divisional punching bag, like Baylor in the South.
> >
> > > The problem is that there is no great solution for the Big Ten - the
> > teams
> > > will have to be split somehow. Personally, I don't like the current
> > setup
> > > where each team misses two others every year, leading to lot of split
> > > championships.
> >
> > Even though Northwestern has probably benefited from that more than
> > any other team in the conference?
> >
> > My concern from the point that the Big Ten announced it was considering
> > expansion was that the big dogs would make sure that no school (at least
> > not one wearing purple) ever won another conference championship
> > while skipping both Michigan and Ohio State. I guess I'd rather be
> > in a division with ONE of those schools than BOTH of them, though.
> > --
> > Mike Nolan
> >
>
> --0016369f9e30c77650048ebc7e52
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Regarding avoiding OSU/Michigan and Big Ten titles (since 1993, when Penn S=
> tate joined and the current conference scheduling system was set up):<br><b=
> r>Ohio State (9) and Michigan (5) have won or shared a combined 14 titles o=
> ver this 17 year span.=A0 This occurred in 13 separate times in those 17 se=
> asons.<br>
>
> <br>During that 17 year span EVERY team that has won OR shared the conferen=
> ce title has played OSU or Michigan in that season.=A0 Here are the only co=
> nference title winners/sharers who did not play BOTH, and who they missed:<=
> br>
>
> <br>2002 Iowa (OSU)<br>2000 Northwestern (OSU)<br>1998 Wisconsin (OSU)<br>1=
> 996 Northwestern (OSU)<br>1995 Northwestern (OSU)<br><br>Yes, that's a =
> trend, teams benefit most from avoiding Ohio State (Northwestern 3 times).=
> =A0 Some teams have missed both OSU and Michigan multiple times over that s=
> pan, and although that leads to a lot of people putting them in title conte=
> ntion, it hasn't worked out for anyone.<br>
>
> <br>Although the 'Cats have obviously benefited from this and the "=
> ;shared title" (specifically in '96 and '00 where NU won a sha=
> red title but lost the tiebreaker in order to go to the Rose/BCS Bowl), I a=
> m personally glad that there will no longer be shared titles and teams will=
> get to avoid other good ones and still win a conference crown.=A0 Competit=
> ively, it makes more sense, and I'm a logical guy, so I like that kind =
> of thing.<br>
>
> <br><br>I also agree with Jeff: the Big Ten has seemed to make all the righ=
> t moves at the right times in recent years, and I trust them to do the same=
> here.=A0 While everyone can't be made happy, I think they'll do wh=
> at's best for the conference both in terms of revenues and also in term=
> s of competition within the conference and nationally.<br>
>
> <br><br>Finally, about Purdue as an NU rival: they were made one of NU'=
> s two "protected rivals" back in '93 when the current schedul=
> ing went into effect (each Big Ten team now has 2 teams they play every sea=
> son, the so-called "protected rivals").=A0 Basically, they were s=
> tuck with each other as neither has a real long-term rival who was availabl=
> e after giving everyone else two rivals, and they are close to each other, =
> so that was that.=A0 I don't think that this is a game that the Big Ten=
> is specifically looking to keep when splitting divisions.=A0 I do expect, =
> though, that the NU/Illinois game will continue, even if it's a cross-d=
> ivision protected game (like the OSU/Michigan game is rumored to be).<br>
>
> <br><br>Jonathan<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at =
> 10:47 AM, Mike Nolan <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:nolan at romaine.=
> tssi.com">nolan at romaine.tssi.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
> =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid=
> rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
>
> <div class=3D"im">> The most obvious situation Delany is trying to avoid=
> is the Big XII which<br>
> > was essentially doomed to collapse once it became clear most of the po=
> wer<br>
> > was concentrated in the south.<br>
> <br>
> </div>I was never a fan of the North/South division of the Big XII, mostly =
> because<br>
> it killed off the Nebraska-Oklahoma game at Thanksgiving. =A0(Nebrasaka-Col=
> orado<br>
> never caught on as a rivalry game, at least not in Nebraska.)<br>
> <br>
> But the Big XII voted against any kind of protected cross-division<br>
> rivalry game.<br>
> <br>
> This became a bigger problem when Nebraska had a down cycle in the past<br>
> decade (its first since the 60's.) =A0Colorado also hit the skids big t=
> ime,<br>
> as did Kansas State. =A0Kansas and Missouri were hit-and-miss, and still ar=
> e.<br>
> Iowa State is the divisional punching bag, like Baylor in the South.<br>
> <div class=3D"im"><br>
> > The problem is that there is no great solution for the Big Ten - the t=
> eams<br>
> > will have to be split somehow. =A0Personally, I don't like the cur=
> rent setup<br>
> > where each team misses two others every year, leading to lot of split<=
> br>
> > championships.<br>
> <br>
> </div>Even though Northwestern has probably benefited from that more than<b=
> r>
> any other team in the conference?<br>
> <br>
> My concern from the point that the Big Ten announced it was considering<br>
> expansion was that the big dogs would make sure that no school (at least<br=
> >
> not one wearing purple) ever won another conference championship<br>
> while skipping both Michigan and Ohio State. =A0I guess I'd rather be<b=
> r>
> in a division with ONE of those schools than BOTH of them, though.<br>
> --<br>
> <font color=3D"#888888">Mike Nolan<br>
> </font></blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><br>
>
> --0016369f9e30c77650048ebc7e52--
>
More information about the nwu-sports
mailing list