[NU Sports] More on rivalries

[Tom Maycock]

> The chance to bash Delaney was just the icing on the cake. :)



I really, really don't get the Delaney bashing. OK, the division names are controversial at best. They've grown on me a bit after seeing the Big Ten work the concept. Hell, even the new logo has grown on me a bit. But I can understand criticizing them. 

But Delaney pulled off what I think everyone agrees was a brilliant move in bringing Nebraska into the league, and they seemed to handle both the search and decision-making process, and the actual transition, as well as it could be handled. Then there's the Big Ten Network, which is an astounding success. I just can't see criticizing Delaney at this point--he's on a roll. 

With respect to the divisions, you seem to think that what they came up with is utterly idiotic. 

Frankly, I think the "competitive balance" approach was a much better idea, and nearly perfect in its execution. Far superior to any geographic split anyone could come up with. Once you take that competitive balance split as a given, it's hard to imagine them doing any better than they did on the protected rivalry games, both old and new.

Sure, some of the rivalries don't really have any foundation, and Wisconsin kind of got the short end of the stick. But there simply was no perfect solution with 8 games, 12 teams, two divisions, and existing history. 

> I realize UNL/PSU played a couple big games a quarter of a century ago, but 
> protected rivals based on that? Really? Especially when they're the two 
> teams furthest apart distance wise in the Big Ten? Seems weak. 


Again, if it seems weak to you, it's only because you aren't familiar with the history. 

Some rivalries do depend on geography. Those are built in part on the (somewhat odd) natural dislike of the neighboring fan bases. 

But other rivalries develop out of history on the field, from playing great games, games that matter in the big picture. Notre Dame-USC is an example. 

Penn State-Nebraska is another. A baby one in comparison, but an example nonetheless, and an obvious choice going forward. 

Was Nebraska-Oklahoma a great rivalry because the teams were separated by only one state? No. That may be why they played every year, but the great rivalry grew in part out of the fact that those games mattered year in and year out. Compare that to, say, Nebraska-Kansas. It was a tradition, because they played so many times, but a rivalry? No, at least not in the last 40 years or so. 

As for Northwestern, I'm not sure anyone considers us their rival, no matter how much we care about beating them. That may be starting to change though--the Cats have surely gotten into the heads of Iowa fans, if not the heads of the players. The "Chicago's Big Ten team" thing seems to have gotten the attention of the Illini (why, oh why, didn't we get them at the end of the year this year!). We've beaten Wisconsin regularly enough to get their attention. But I'm still not sure anyone considers us a big rivalry--yet.

Tom