Divide and Conquer

When I was in high school, nigh on 15 years ago, I would frequently kill time in class by designing divisional alignments for a Big Ten that would add a twelfth team and thus a championship game. That 12th team was always Notre Dame and I would always end up frustrated that the divisions would never ever seem to work out right.

Fast forward to the Brave New World of Conference Realignment and the one simple fact that on June 11, 2010, the Big Ten welcomed the University of Nebraska-Lincoln as the conference's 12th member. The Big Ten will now fully welcome the cash cow that is a championship game and will need, under NCAA rules, to figure out how to split into divisions to make that happen.

So, what will these divisions look like, and how does the Big Ten try to make the fairest, most logical, most cost effective divisions possible. (Please note: Only football needs to be in divisions. Every other sport can just be one nice big 12 team division.) Below, some thoughts, rocking out to R.E.M.'s Monster to get me back into the old high school mindset.

Before I reinvent the wheel, MaizeandBlueWahoo did some nice ground work on the topic as an MGoBlog diary, covering the classic "East/West" and "North/South" divisions.

One of the fundamental questions the league will need to answer is, what do you want to do about Michigan/Ohio State. As Michigan-centric as that question might seem, the rivalry, even if one sided of late, is still the rivalry, and knowing that it is the centerpiece of much of the tradition of the Big Ten, the rivalry must be preserved. I know that Michigan and Ohio State will not approve any divisional scheme that fails to make sure that The Game is played every year come November and this means you need to look into one of three things (as brilliantly stated and shamelessly stolen from Twitter friend Rebecca Stanek:

1. Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division. They’re guaranteed to play each other every season, but then can never play against each other in the Big Ten Championship game.

2. Michigan and Ohio State are in different divisions. Some years they meet in the Big Ten Championship game.

3. Michigan and Ohio State are in different divisions, but are guaranteed to face each other every year. And if there’s a rematch in the championship game, so be it. This is maybe the best solution, although it’s probably unfair to be locked in to the same team year after year for one of the (few) out-of-division, in-conference games. (It would work better in a 12-team conference than in a 16-team conference, for sure.)

This also applies to other major Big Ten rivalries (as defined by their permanent status in the current Big Ten schedule): Iowa/Minnesota, Minnesota/Wisconsin, Iowa/Wisconsin, Illinois/Northwestern, Illinois/Indiana, Indiana/Purdue, Purdue/Northwestern, Penn State/Ohio State, Michigan/Michigan State, and Michigan State/Penn State. Nebraska should also figure in to this mix and I suspect that Iowa will be the first permanent rival and Wisconsin the second (dropping the Wisconsin/Iowa game as a permanent rival and making a four way quadumverate of hate on the western edge.) Jim Delany stated that rivalries are important, but not all rivalries are created equally.

One of the other issues is, does having two major rivals in the same division diminish the importance of the rivalry if they could not meet in the championship game? I think that divisional rivalries are important. Consider: Texas/Oklahoma, Auburn/Alabama, Florida/Georgia, Florida/Tennessee, Alabama/LSU, Nebraska/Colorado, Kansas/Missouri, Oklahoma/Oklahoma State, North Carolina/Duke, and Virginia/Virginia Tech are all major rivalry games that are/were contained within the same division. The ACC and SEC have a "permanent rival" model for cross-divisional games, and it looks like of the 12 permanent rivalry games, the only ones that "wow" are Florida State/Miami, Auburn/Georgia ("The Deep South's Oldest Rivalry"), Alabama/Tennessee (The Third Saturday in October), NC State/North Carolina (important, but not the NC/Duke game), LSU/Florida. Everything else feels "compelled". So does that mean anything?

Now that we have all of this down, here are some of my proposed notions:

Alternating Alphabetical Triads

One and Three:

Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Nebraska
Northwestern
Ohio State

Two and Four:

Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Penn State
Purdue
Wisconsin

All I did in this one is take the 12 schools by their common name, sort them alphabetically, and divide them into four groups of three. I then took the groups and alternated them, leaving us with the grouping above.

Why is this one compelling? Because it balances the "Big Four" problem (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska are four of the seven programs in Division I-A with the most all-time victories. Balancing them 2 and 2 is likely important.) It shows that divisions need not be based on geography where football is involved. From a Michigan-centric perspective, it would ensure that Michigan would play for Penn State every year, Michigan State every year, and for the Jug every year (not important to every one, important to me.) The permanent rivals could be:

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

I feel a little bit bad about the last two, because they feel compelled (even Wisconsin/Nebraska feels a little forced, but I already dealt with that above.)

Not bad, but can we do better.

Inside/Outside Alphabetical Triads

One and Four:

Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Penn State
Purdue
Wisconsin

Two and Four:

Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Ohio State

This one isn't as good as the model above, in part because it leaves a three/one split for the Big Four. I do think the one advantage is the permanent rivalries feel a little more "real". To wit:

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

With the exception of the Michigan-Penn State and Nebraska-Iowa games, each of these games is a trophy game. The Big Ten would probably be pretty happy about Michigan against Ohio State, Nebraska, and Penn State every year. Honestly, of the models, this one is the most favorable to preserving Michigan's rivalries, but the divisions don't feel balanced.

The reality is that Mark Rudner and Mike McComiskey at the Big Ten office probably have dozens of magnet schedule versions of this kind of thing and are consulting with the 12 athletic departments of the conference to figure out the best possible configuration. I wish them well. For now, it's fun to speculate.

Quick note: The Big Ten now breaks readily down into three longitudinal triads:

West:

Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin

Central:

Illinois
Indiana
Northwestern
Purdue

East:

Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State

If were a way to guarantee that each of these teams could play each other annually in a two division format, I think everyone would be happy (OK, Nebraska would be happiest, because that east is an absolute nightmare.) (By the way, doing four longitudinal groups of three is even worse, because it's Michigan/Ohio State and Penn State on the far east side.)

One more completely insane one: The Rich/Poor Divisions, based on the school's endowment:

* Michigan - $6.00 billion
* Northwestern - $5.45 billion
* Minnesota - $2.07 billion
* Ohio State - $1.65 billion
* Purdue - $1.46 billion
* Wisconsin - $1.37 billion

* Indiana - $1.23 billion
* Penn State - $1.23 billion
* Nebraska - $1.15 billion
* Illinois - $1.11 billion
* Michigan State - $1.05 billion
* Iowa - $766 million

Permanent rival games:

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

Am I crazy, or does that work out pretty darn well?