Rivalries, 3 divisions

by duluthguy on Jun 21, 2010 7:38 PM CDT

Just because I like solving puzzles, here is a different set of "divisions" and rivalries I came up with (yes, I do have too much time on my hands today).

North: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St.

South: Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern, Illinois

East: Indiana, Purdue, Ohio St., Penn St.

Protected games every year: Minn - Iowa, Neb; Wisc - Iowa, Neb; Iowa - Minn, Wisc; Neb- Wisc, Minn

Protected games every year: Mich - OSU, PSU; Mich St. - PSU, OSU; OSU - Mich, Mich St.; PSU - Mich, Mich St.

Protected games every year: Ind - Ill, NW; Purdue - Ill, NW; NW - Purdue, Ind; Ill - Ind, Purdue

Based on ESPN's Adam Rittenberg's important rivalry games posted here: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/13184/which-big-ten-rivalries-are-worth-saving#comments, some games take a hit - namely: Illinois-OSU (Illinois gets Neb every year; OSU gets PSU every year); Iowa-PSU (Iowa get Neb, Mich; PSU gets Mich, OSU); Minn-PSU (Minn gets Neb, Mich; PSU gets Mich, OSU), Mich St.-Ind (Mich St. gets OSU, PSU; Ind gets OSU, PSU).

This would be 3 "division" games, 2 protected games, and 3 other games. Divisions could be just for scheduling purposes (think 5 protected games), with the playoffs seeding all 12 teams.

Looking at this there is probably too much concentrated power in the OSU/PSU/Michigan area, and it could be a few years for some teams to play each other, but it seems to me to be pretty balanced and reasonably regional while keeping most of the traditional rivalries.

Editors of The Daily Gopher retain the right to remove posts deemed excessively offensive or grossly inappropriate. Keep it clean and don't be mean.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Interesting, but....

1. You would need a 4 team playoff with a wild card (bad idea) to determine a champion. The coaches don’t want to schedule an extra game that is a non-championship potential loss if they don’t have too.

2. I hate protected rivalries. Create new ones. (that is just my opinion)

by Odin on Jun 23, 2010 6:32 PM CDT reply actions

Why?

would you NOT be in favor of protecting rivalries? Do you just hate tradition?

"they're calling insane hogs???"

by CrowTrobot on Jun 24, 2010 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Most rivalries are geographical,

so most rivalries will be maintained. I happen to love tradition. But we are no longer 10 teams in the Big 10. Tradition means we would have stayed at 10 teams. Since we are expanding, we have to schedule games in a manner that makes sense. Protecting “rivalry” games in inter-division match ups will limit playing other cross-divisional teams. This may put some teams at a competitive advantage or disadvantage; depending on the games protected.

In other words; expansion means foregoing tradition since tradition is 10 teams in the Big 10. I assume you will disagree. That’s what makes this interesting. :-)

by Odin on Jun 24, 2010 5:53 PM CDT up reply actions

You are correct in one thing

I disagree. =) Just because we are expanding shouldn’t mean we have to blow every tradition out of the water. It’s like the stadium debate, you can be “for kids” and still support a stadium.

"they're calling insane hogs???"

by CrowTrobot on Jun 24, 2010 7:59 PM CDT up reply actions