Big Ten Division alignment with now 12 teams

[bleed maize & blue]

I would go with the following format now that Nebraska has joined the fray:

Great Plains Division
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Minnesota
Northwestern
Illinois

Great Lakes Division
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Indiana
Purdue

Then if the conference does expand further naturally depending on which way it expands the divisional alignment will have to be addressed. So let the fun debating begin.

[tpilews]

I like the way you set the divisions bleedM&B. UM and tuos need to be in the same division. Both divisions look to be equal in terms of team strength. I think they would just name them East and West though.

[Wolvrin704]

I like it but I don't think the B10 stops at 12 teams. But until then I'd be satisfied with this alignment, except that in basketball it would be a very heavy division for our side.

[bleed maize & blue]

When I came up with the Divison names I was thinking along the lines of like the ACC did with the Atlantic and Costal divisions. It gives it a little more flavor than just plain old EAST and WEST you know what I mean.

[Sten Carlson]

I like the way you set the divisions bleedM&B. UM and tuos need to be in the same division. Both divisions look to be equal in terms of team strength. I think they would just name them East and West though.

I don't see how the two divisions proposed above can be considered "equal" -- that is, based on the assumption that Michigan will be "back" on form soon. With Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division, it looks a little weighted toward the Great Lakes Division (I like the names BTW).

I always thought that was the problem with the Big 12 -- they were trying so hard to keep the rivalry between Texas and OU, and Texas and A&M, that they basically created one powerhouse division and one weak one. Things weren't helped by the fact that Colorado and Nebraksa diminished as powers shortly after forming the Conference. I think the same is true in the expanded Big 10. You MUST keep the Michigan v. OSU rivaly in tact on a yearly basis, and so too must the Michigan v. MSU rivalry be sustained, IMO. Further, I think that Michigan and PSU have developed a nice tradition, and I'd want to see that kept in place. I don' t know the solution, but I am sure someone will come up with one.

Thoughts?

[bighousemike84]

Swap Northwestern for Penn State and I think its perfect.

[1OSUNUT]

The word is that you would play al the teams in your division and three from the other. I wonder who figures that out ? Could you imagine the sour grapes we would hear nationally if OSU or Michigan won the Big Ten and avoided playing Iowa, Nebraska or Wiconsin.

[RADRACING]

I like Penn state with Nebraska side and Texas too and ND in the UM, OSU side - sweet.

That's a wish list.

[tpilews]

I don't see how the two divisions proposed above can be considered "equal" -- that is, based on the assumption that Michigan will be "back" on form soon. With Michigan, OSU, and PSU in the same division, it looks a little weighted toward the Great Lakes Division (I like the names BTW).

I always thought that was the problem with the Big 12 -- they were trying so hard to keep the rivalry between Texas and OU, and Texas and A&M, that they basically created one powerhouse division and one weak one. Things weren't helped by the fact that Colorado and Nebraksa diminished as powers shortly after forming the Conference. I think the same is true in the expanded Big 10. You MUST keep the Michigan v. OSU rivaly in tact on a yearly basis, and so too must the Michigan v. MSU rivalry be sustained, IMO. Further, I think that Michigan and PSU have developed a nice tradition, and I'd want to see that kept in place. I don' t know the solution, but I am sure someone will come up with one.

Thoughts?

Well, Wisconsin may not historically be an elite team, but they've been pretty good under Bielema; they should be right up there with tuos this year for the Big10 championship. Iowa has a solid team. They seem to be in the same boat as PSU with being great for two years, and so-so for two years. Nebraska was a top 10 team last year and has a great history. So, basically I see 3 good teams in the Great Plains Division, with, historically, each of the last three having been competitive in their history every 5, 6, or 7 years. On the Great Lakes side, you have tuos, UM, and PSU as historically good teams, although PSU seems to have more ups and downs. MSU is MSU and they'll have a competitive team every so often. And then perennial patsies like Purdue and Indiana, who at times, can be competitive. Overall, yes, I'd say the Great Lakes division is stronger, but that won't always be the case.

[amazinblue]

I like the east / west - or Great Plains vs. Great Lakes. And, I don't think that Nebraska will be an "auto lock" for the west / Great Plains division. I do believe that Iowa will develop a great rivalry with them and Wisonsin will too.

[Sten Carlson]

I do believe that Iowa will develop a great rivalry with them and Wisonsin will too.

I agree there Amazin, Iowa needs a good geographical rivalry -- they could even get a nice trophy going, like The Battle for the Golden Pitchfork or something like that.

It's been very interesting to note since Michigan has been down of late, and has lost to teams that usually they didn't in the past, the other team's fans (when at home) storm the field. For example, I didn't realize it, but I have a friend who went to SIU, and he has a friend that went to U of I, and he was saying that Michigan is by far and away U of I's biggest and most hated rival.

I suppose I always knew that Michigan and OSU were every other team in the Big 10's biggest rivals, but it is interesting what you find out when your team is suffering through a down period. I think Michigan's rivalry with OSU, ND, and MSU overshadow all others. I think the addition of Nebraska is going to be great, and I hope that RR really starts to emphasize the way that the other schools hate Michigan, and pushes the team to treat every Big 10 team as a heated rival. I see that bit more in the SEC. Yes, they have their marquis rivalries between UF and UGA, Bama and Auburn, but every week it seems like there is bad blood between the teams playing. Maybe getting a few losses handed to us has been very good for the motivational factors.

Thoughts?

[amazinblue]

For example, I didn't realize it, but I have a friend who went to SIU, and he has a friend that went to U of I, and he was saying that Michigan is by far and away U of I's biggest and most hated rival.

Sten,

I live in Illinois - and, what you said is very true. The Illini hate us - period - we're a bigger rival to Illinois than Northwestern - which is the "in state competition" for Illinois supremacy every year.

We'll see several good rivalries evolve from the addition of Nebraska - and, what will be interesting is - if ND joins the conference, they would probably go to the west division - and the expansion might happen from an "eastern" school / state. With ND joining the Great Plains division and the eastern addition joining the Great Lakes division.

[rickyleach]

what about if you put ohio state in the south and michigan in the north , they still could play the last game of the season and could play in a rematch, that would be great for our rivalry

[Sten Carlson]

what about if you put ohio state in the south and michigan in the north , they still could play the last game of the season and could play in a rematch, that would be great for our rivalry

Kinda like Florida and Alabama do huh? Play again, if it works out that way, in a neutral site? I like it...big $$$$ too!

[AbRKnight]

what about if you put ohio state in the south and michigan in the north , they still could play the last game of the season and could play in a rematch, that would be great for our rivalry

That sounds great but if they played each other twice, everyone would know that heading into the first game. It takes away from the first in the fact that there is an immediate chance to even the score.

Couple that with the chance that both teams could be undefeated and then split the series...what if UM beats tuos in the first game and loses the second... Back to back games to end the season is a recipe for disaster...but it would be funny to watch the BCS squirm I suppose.

[1OSUNUT]

The Ohio State / Michigan game should be a winner takes all - like in 2006. Michigan had it's chance to win on the field and lost. It is not fair for them to get two trys to beat a team.

[Wolvrin704]

The Ohio State / Michigan game should be a winner takes all - like in 2006. Michigan had it's chance to win on the field and lost. It is not fair for them to get two trys to beat a team.

Would you feel that way of your team lost a close game to UM?

With that said I agree. I think UM and OSU must be in the same division. UM must play MSU and OSU every year and the OSU game must be the last game of the regular season every year.

[NorCal Buckeye]

Sten,

I live in Illinois - and, what you said is very true. The Illini hate us - period - we're a bigger rival to Illinois than Northwestern - which is the "in state competition" for Illinois supremacy every year.

We'll see several good rivalries evolve from the addition of Nebraska - and, what will be interesting is - if ND joins the conference, they would probably go to the west division - and the expansion might happen from an "eastern" school / state. With ND joining the Great Plains division and the eastern addition joining the Great Lakes division.

I knew that was RELISHMENT I seen on the faces of those Illannoy people when they ran you out of their stadium last year. If you guys don't serve up a big dose of payback by pounding the dog poo out of them at your house this year then I just don't know about Michigan anymore.

[1OSUNUT]

Would you feel that way of your team lost a close game to UM?



Yes I would. You don't think I wanted a second chance when Michigan beat Ohio State all those Cooper years - we had our chance. I'm a HUGE fan of playing things out on the field. If you lose you have nobody to blame but yourself. If the two teams were to meet a week or so later - it would take away a lot of the hate and fire the regular season final always provides.

[tpilews]

Would you feel that way of your team lost a close game to UM?



Yes I would. You don't think I wanted a second chance when Michigan beat Ohio State all those Cooper years - we had our chance. I'm a HUGE fan of playing things out on the field. If you lose you have nobody to blame but yourself. If the two teams were to meet a week or so later - it would take away a lot of the hate and fire the regular season final always provides.

I agree nut. The only way you could have UM and OSU in separate divisions was if they didn't play the last game of the regular season, and I don't think any of us want that. Would you want to see the game in September with the possibility that both teams may not make the conference championship game? I wouldn't either. In the past, many times The Game meant the winner was Big Ten champs and went on to the Rose Bowl. In the new Big10, it'll mean the winner goes on to the conference championship. The Game still has just as much on the line.

Mgoblog had a nice writeup this morning on the divisional breakdown. They break down the conference by historical win percentages, etc...

http://mgoblog.com/content/divisions-funny-names

[bleed maize & blue]

Well with the rest of the Big 12 staying in the confrence I highly dought that Notre Dame will now be forced to join a football confrence. I think it will remain status quo for the next year or two and if the Big Ten does take another team from the east or two and go 14 teams I see it either an ACC team like Maryland or Boston College and a Big East team like Rutgers or Syracuse. Now with that said if the Big Ten plucks a team out of the ACC watch the ACC in tern take a Big East team like West Virginia to replace the team that leaves. If I was the comish for the Big East I would be sharpening up my resume becasue it looks like they are on life support.

[1OSUNUT]

I think the remaining teams of the Big 12 will go after a few teams out West. The large conferences will rape the smaller ones untill one conference is forced to fold - or take on much smaller schools. I like what the Big Ten did by adding Nebraska. We made the Big Ten more respectable and took the second biggest TV team away from the Big 12. I think that they will absolutly be a great addition to the conference in many sports.

[Swoosh]

I agree with you nut!!!

I think Nebraska was the best pick for the big ten, and I like how big ten told mizzo to go pound sand.

[1OSUNUT]

Everybody thought the Big Ten tipped it's hand to soon and that the PAC 10 stole all the thunder - not now. Even Herbie said the Big Ten had egg on it's face after he thought the PAC 10 formed a super conference. The Big Ten came out smelling like a rose and the PAC 10 is the one left holding the bag. After all this big talk about stealing all the top Big 12 teams - all the PAC 10 got was lowly Colorado. Did anybody see the news conference with the PAC 10 president - he looked pissed.

[amazinblue]

Did anybody see the news conference with the PAC 10 president - he looked pissed.

The Pac 11 is in complete limbo. They need to add another team to make it worth it - and, perhaps Utah is that team. It's contiguous to their conference (it's actually a bridge to Colorado) - and they've done good recent things on the football stage. I just don't know anything about their (Utah's) other athletics or academics.

I still think the Big 10 (with 12 teams) would like to add ND and an eastern school - perhaps Syracuse - though, I've always liked Pitt as a candidate - and, I've never been a huge fan of Rutgers. I think BC doesn't make sense since it's a "bit too far for travel" for many of the other sports teams.

[1OSUNUT]

Maybe Utah takes one of the vacated spots in the Big 12 - you would think that the fit would be better.

I like the Big 10 with 12 teams. I hope we are done kissing ND's ass. If they want in let them come to us in the future - then we can tell them "We will think about it". ND would be a .500 team in the Big Ten - and they know it. I say we stay pat at 12 teams and increase the TV deal so ALL the schools make more money. The Nebraska TV market will be huge because that is all that state has - Husker football and farming. I love the addition and the stability that the Big Ten has. Let the other teams scramble around.

[bleed maize & blue]

I really think that the PAC-10 should add Hawaii. the Warriors have no fear of flying all over the country to play teams like Alabama and Florida in the south and every couple of years they play USC and the Oregon schools. Logical fit even thought they have a recruiting budget of like $10 dollars comapred to the rest of the main land schools. But the other varsity sports compete pretty well like baseball softball and swimming.

[AbRKnight]

I really think that the PAC-10 should add Hawaii. the Warriors have no fear of flying all over the country to play teams like Alabama and Florida in the south and every couple of years they play USC and the Oregon schools. Logical fit even thought they have a recruiting budget of like $10 dollars comapred to the rest of the main land schools. But the other varsity sports compete pretty well like baseball softball and swimming.

Your right about football flying everwhere but what about tennis, softball, sports where there are a ton of game and on weekdays....that's is where these teams have an issue joining a conference that is spread out.

[tpilews]

There have been quite a few scenarios thrown out there around the internets. Some involving 4 divisions, some dividing east/west, some north/south. I think the overall consensus is that:

You have to split these 4 teams: UM, OSU, NEB, and PSU - UM and OSU have to be in the same division.

The next historical "tier" of teams is Wisconsin and Iowa. Split them.

----------------------

UM
OSU
Wisconsin

Nebraska
PSU
Iowa

From there, any combination of the remaining 6 teams should have a negligible effect on competitiveness. For rivalries sake, I think Minnesota and MSU should go with UM. Give them NWU and Illinois.

Bo/Woody
UM
OSU
Wisconsin
MSU
Minnesota
Indiana

Paterno/Osbourne
Neb
PSU
Iowa
Northwestern
Illinois
Purdue


I put Iowa with Nebraska so they could likely have a "Battle for the Corn" game. However, I believe Wisconsin has already vocalized interest in starting a rivalry with Nebraska. That being the case, Iowa and Wisconsin could be switched with likely no competition change.

[amazinblue]

TPI - I've got to disagree with you here. I believe that if you switched PSU and Wisconsin in your suggestion - you'd basically have the east / west (or Great Plains / Great Lakes) as has been suggested, and you build the conference rivalries with the "non-divisional" contests. I think that Iowa and Wisconsin will give Nebraska a run for their money - and, by being in the division - a greater rivalry will develop - part of it geographic which is something I like and the other will be from on the field performance which (again) I believe Wisconsin and Iowa have the potential to bring.

What I think will be fun is to end our conference season prior to Thanksgiving - then have Turkey weekend off, and the conference championship game the weekend after that. The M / OSU winner(if they win the division) will need an extra week to recover and prepare - and, if Wisconsin gets their way and ends the season facing Nebraska, the Great Plains division winner will need the extra week to recover as well.

[Sten Carlson]

I think the conference championship, will help the #1 and #2 teams with the often discussed Big 10 lay off issue before bowls. It might take the time down to only 2 weeks from over 30 days as it has been -- like the SEC and Big Easy champs and 2nd place finishers get.

[tpilews]

TPI - I've got to disagree with you here. I believe that if you switched PSU and Wisconsin in your suggestion - you'd basically have the east / west (or Great Plains / Great Lakes) as has been suggested, and you build the conference rivalries with the "non-divisional" contests. I think that Iowa and Wisconsin will give Nebraska a run for their money - and, by being in the division - a greater rivalry will develop - part of it geographic which is something I like and the other will be from on the field performance which (again) I believe Wisconsin and Iowa have the potential to bring.

What I think will be fun is to end our conference season prior to Thanksgiving - then have Turkey weekend off, and the conference championship game the weekend after that. The M / OSU winner(if they win the division) will need an extra week to recover and prepare - and, if Wisconsin gets their way and ends the season facing Nebraska, the Great Plains division winner will need the extra week to recover as well.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c373/tpilews/fa8c52e4.jpg

I'm not a fan of doing this with any geographic importance. As of now, the Big10 does not schedule based on geography, so I don't think adding one team to the mix should change that. To me, the most important is competitiveness and balance of the conference.

This most recent quote from Jim Delany tells you what he is looking at when it comes to scheduling. I think this is important to get out there.


“First priority’s competitive fairness to me,” Delany said last week. “Second priority is maintenance of rivalries, some of them are very important. They’re part of who we are and they’re not treated lightly. And then I think the third is what factor, if any, does geography play?”

Looking at the 20 historical rank from the table above, it is easy to see.

If you divide out the rank evenly, you'll have 6.5 for each division.

Division A
1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12 = 39

Division B
2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 = 39

which translates to...

Division A
OSU
Michigan
Iowa
Michigan St
Minnesota
Indiana

Division B
Nebraska
Penn State
Wisconsin
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois

[amazinblue]

TPI - some good research there - and I respect that. And, I didn't see (or recall) the remark made by Delany.

I agree that competitiveness should be key to the rivalry - and, I also think that the geographic alignment is a pretty good way.

We'll have to wait a bit for the 2011 schedules to come out - and, you can see from Nebraska's web site that the only games they've got scheduled are their September OOC slate.

I don't know if anyone has a preference for the site of the Conference Championship Game (CCG) - but, I do believe there's an interesting question associated with it - and, the question is - should the game be played indoors or outdoors. I think there are a few venues in the midwest capable of hosting it - if its indoors - it's got to be either Indy or Detroit. If it's outdoors - would you pick Chicago (Solider Field) - a university stadium - or move it around?

[1OSUNUT]

I vote for a indoor game in perfect (bowl like) conditions. I have no problem with Indy or Detroit - but I think Indy is a bit more in the center of the conference. With so much on the line in the championship game it should be played in optimal weather conditions.

[tpilews]

TPI - some good research there - and I respect that. And, I didn't see (or recall) the remark made by Delany.

I agree that competitiveness should be key to the rivalry - and, I also think that the geographic alignment is a pretty good way.

We'll have to wait a bit for the 2011 schedules to come out - and, you can see from Nebraska's web site that the only games they've got scheduled are their September OOC slate.

I don't know if anyone has a preference for the site of the Conference Championship Game (CCG) - but, I do believe there's an interesting question associated with it - and, the question is - should the game be played indoors or outdoors. I think there are a few venues in the midwest capable of hosting it - if its indoors - it's got to be either Indy or Detroit. If it's outdoors - would you pick Chicago (Solider Field) - a university stadium - or move it around?

I respect your opinion, and I happen to pretty much agree with every alignment I've seen out there. They all have the strengths and weaknesses. I've heard compelling arguments for having UM and osu in the same division as well as splitting them up. I do believe that despite what Delany has already said, a West/East separation is the most likely when you take into account non-revenue sports and their travel requirements. Setting the conference up with East/West could be the difference in a team having to travel a max of 500 miles or 1100 miles.

As far as the CCG, you bring up an interesting point between indoor vs. outdoor. The traditionalist in me says outdoor, but being that weather can have a more dramatic effect on a game than any other factor, I'm not so sure. Remember the '07 UM OSU game? Despite injury, the rain and cold turned that game into exactly the kind of football that JT likes; rely on your defense to win. Had that game been played inside, or on a dry day, no doubt I think that game could have been very different. Moving on to the question at hand, I do believe it should be played indoors. Less likely for injury to occur and it's a better environment for the fans to enjoy the game. Also, and most importantly, you have to consider who Michigan is. They are a spread team that needs to get to the edge and relies on cutting and speed. That's tough to do in the snow/rain.

[Wolvrin704]

According to Delany the top consideration is fairness, next is rivalries and last is geography.

[bleed maize & blue]

As far as I think about a championship game it should be held at the stadium of the previous years winner. For the first game put all the names in a hat and draw a school name and that is where the first game is held. After that the school that wins the inagural game will host the next years game. It gives the teams an incentive to have the home field advantage and it allows for a neutral site as well. Thoughts on this?

[1OSUNUT]

No way. This game would attract 75,000 to 100,000 fans. There is absolutly no way you can have a championship game at many of the Big Ten venues. I think Detroit or Indy is an excellent idea. The game should be decided by the players - not the weather. Do you really want a championship in Minn, Ill or WI in Nov ?

[tpilews]

No way. This game would attract 75,000 to 100,000 fans. There is absolutly no way you can have a championship game at many of the Big Ten venues. I think Detroit or Indy is an excellent idea. The game should be decided by the players - not the weather. Do you really want a championship in Minn, Ill or WI in Nov ?

I agree nut. I think an indoor facility is the best.

[Wolvrin704]

I think you put this game at any of the big NFL venues throughout the B10 conference. It'll be played in early December so its not too awful cold for an outside game (although its possible) and look how many go to NFL games even in January in the midwest.

Minneapolis
Chicago
Detroit
Cincinnati
Indianapolis

Just to name a few possibilities.

[1OSUNUT]

What about CLEVELAND ?

[rickyleach]

have the game at the silver dome unless michigan and michigan state are playing.

[1OSUNUT]

That would not matter. Each team would get a even amount of tickets for a championship game. Many of the teams in the Big Ten travel very well and would absolutly use all their championship tickets - playing in Detroit would not be a issue.

[bleed maize & blue]

No way. This game would attract 75,000 to 100,000 fans. There is absolutly no way you can have a championship game at many of the Big Ten venues. I think Detroit or Indy is an excellent idea. The game should be decided by the players - not the weather. Do you really want a championship in Minn, Ill or WI in Nov ?

If the game will attract 75,000 to 100,000 fans then you can't have it in Indy or Detroit. Each stadium can hold only around 68,000 seating capcity. the only domed stadiums in the mid-west that could hold more than 75,000 fans is the Metrodome which I believe holds 72,000 or the old Silverdome at 85,000.

[1OSUNUT]

That is still much larger then say the stadium at Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue.etc. I think any NFL venue would be great - but I would prefer indoors.

[amazinblue]

It will be interesting to see what the conference decides. I do agree that there are a LOT of advantages to indoor - and the only negatives would be capacity and weather (and, of course, with weather - the potential for injury).

I'm guessing we're looking at Indy - and, I agree - near the geographic center of the conference - a good thing, and they already host the Big 10 basketball tourney (which, I think should be moved to Chicago). Detroit's Ford Field, Minneapolis, and St. Louis (since I think they have a dome as well) would be a good rotation.

Nut - regarding Cleveland - hmmmm... I can't go for that..

[tpilews]

Detroit, Chicago and Indianapolis already have expressed interest in hosting the Big Ten football championship.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5294165

[Wolvrin704]

What about CLEVELAND ?

What about them? Cleveland should always be excluded. :)

With that said, the number of seats in NFL venues in the B10 areas...

Cleveland Browns 73,200
Lambeau Field 72,928
Paul Brown Stadium 65,535
Ford Field 65,000
Heinz Field 64,050
Metrodome 64,035
Lucas Oil Stadium 63,000
Soldier Field 61,500


I don't think the issue is get the field with the most seats as much as it is in getting the right venue. Being a championship game and lower numbers of seats they can charge more than enough per ticket to make up for not getting 80-100,000 people. Doesn't the SEC play theirs in the Georgia Dome? It only seats 71,149.

[1OSUNUT]

I vote for Lucas Oil Field. It would be loud and the conditions would be perfect - that is what you expect in a championship game.

[amazinblue]

I think they should move the game around. It would be great to provide a benefit to the cities with indoor stadiums.

I do agree that Indy offers a "geographic advantage" since it would be a "similar distance" for the average east / west teams to take. Though, if the conference division will be north / south - it would be closer for the south teams - at least that's my initial impression.

[Swoosh]

Big Ten West

Neb
Minn
Wis
NW
ILL
Iowa

Big Ten East

Michigan
MSU
OSU
Indiana
Penn State
PU

[bleed maize & blue]

I hate to say that Detroit Casino's would offer fans more bang for thier travel dollar than going to Indy for the championship game. I know that some of you will say that you should not mix the gambling world and location of a college championship game but the vast majority of people who go to see a game like and have no affiliation with the game other than being a fan, also this would leave millions in other revenue for businesses with more entertainment options. During the Final Four in Detroit a couple of years ago the casinos were packed and it was a huge sucess $$$ wise.

[amazinblue]

Bleed Maize & Blue,

Personally, I don't care for casinos and their business model. I'm totally open toward capitalism, but I think there are too many people who go to a casino because they "feel lucky" or "can't lose", with the hopes of winning it big - when, in fact, they don't have the disposable income to cover their expenses and save money before engaging in the entertainment that gambling should be.

It's interesting to go on a Riverboat casino - everyone's eager to hit the tables as soon as they get on board, and, by the time the evening comes to an end and the boat docks - everyone is outside or on the deck and no one is at the tables.

I'd prefer to see people spending their money on dinners and conversation - or buying something of value for themselves or their families. It's just my opinion.

[1OSUNUT]

The casinos might be the very reason Detroit does not get consideration. The gambling is fine for pro sports - but it's something the NCAA normally steers away from. I'm all for it because Detroit is not that far of a drive for me - I just think Indy would get the edge over Detroit.

[NCBLUE]

Since it would be December it needs to be indoors. Both Indy & Detroit would be great.

I kind of hope Detroit gets it because the Michigan economy can use it.

[bleed maize & blue]

I hope that Detroit gets the game but I highly doubt it will happen. There is just a perception that Detroit is like Beruit and none wants to really spend there time and money in the D.

[tpilews]

I hope that Detroit gets the game but I highly doubt it will happen. There is just a perception that Detroit is like Beruit and none wants to really spend there time and money in the D.

The only venue I'd likely go to is Detroit given how far away I live and that I have family close to Detroit. Although, Indianapolis isn't a bad drive from Toledo. so maybe.

[Wolvrin704]

Since I live in Cincy I'd definitely be down with going there. Not to mention Indy, Chicago and Detroit all are within driving distance as well.

[1OSUNUT]

I think Detroit would be great. This way if Ohio State wins and Buckeye fans go nuts burning and vandalizing stuff - the town won't look much different.

[bighousemike84]

I think Detroit would be great. This way if Ohio State wins and Buckeye fans go nuts burning and vandalizing stuff - the town won't look much different.

Cold man, cold.

[Blue In Ohio]

I really think that the PAC-10 should add Hawaii. the Warriors have no fear of flying all over the country to play teams like Alabama and Florida in the south and every couple of years they play USC and the Oregon schools. Logical fit even thought they have a recruiting budget of like $10 dollars comapred to the rest of the main land schools. But the other varsity sports compete pretty well like baseball softball and swimming.

If Hawaii entered the pac ten it would be the for sure destination for all the great samoans that are entering the pac ten being that hawaii is closest to samoa. I'd rather see the samoans playing for hawaii than USC or Oregon. Think about it Hawaii would really be able to recruit being it is probably the best destination in the country to go to college with the beautiful beaches and nice weather. A few hour flight wouldn't be that big of a deal for the away games.

[Blue In Ohio]

Bleed Maize & Blue,

Personally, I don't care for casinos and their business model. I'm totally open toward capitalism, but I think there are too many people who go to a casino because they "feel lucky" or "can't lose", with the hopes of winning it big - when, in fact, they don't have the disposable income to cover their expenses and save money before engaging in the entertainment that gambling should be.

It's interesting to go on a Riverboat casino - everyone's eager to hit the tables as soon as they get on board, and, by the time the evening comes to an end and the boat docks - everyone is outside or on the deck and no one is at the tables.

I'd prefer to see people spending their money on dinners and conversation - or buying something of value for themselves or their families. It's just my opinion.

Casinos are a zero sum game where no value is added by anything done. They do a good job of draining the local population of limited cash needed to survive. I know shame on the local population for being so dumb.

[RADRACING]

What I hear Virginia is the next major target of Big 10 expansion - it is a major research institution and fits in academically and athletically with the conference. Meanwhile the Golden Dormers are softening their position. Ther revinue stream with those 2 teams would be astronomical with the base there is now.

[tpilews]

Hearing rumors that the first Big10 Championship Game will be played in Lucas Oil Stadium. It is a one-year contract.

[rickyleach]

How about putting ohio state and michigan in different divisions and having them play each other every year and make it the first game of the year , this way the team that gets beat can look forward to a payback game in the title game , besides can you amagine the hype at the beginning of the year if they play in game 1, in fact people will be talking about this for months leading up to the game...

[amazinblue]

How about putting ohio state and michigan in different divisions and having them play each other every year and make it the first game of the year , this way the team that gets beat can look forward to a payback game in the title game , besides can you amagine the hype at the beginning of the year if they play in game 1, in fact people will be talking about this for months leading up to the game...

Ricky,

Terrible idea... two teams with all of the opening game jitters - no, not a good idea - even as the first conference game - not a good idea.

[rickyleach]

ricky,

terrible idea... Two teams with all of the opening game jitters - no, not a good idea - even as the first conference game - not a good idea.

im just throwing around new ideas ,the big10 is changing and i guess the thought of michigan and osu in game 1 might draw some huge interest , anyhow it was just a idea.. But i do see how tradition would overide that type of idea especially because michigan and osu have played in the final game for the last 75 years.

[1OSUNUT]

Ohio State and Michigan is a late season tradition and a big time sporting event. The Big Ten will make changes but they will not disrupt the last game of the season tradition of this game. The game should mean something - the winner moves on the loser does not. I was not in favor of a rematch in 2006 and I would not want one now. The loser of the game should have to let that burn in them for a year - period. When Ohio State lost in 1969 it hurt Woody real bad - but he could not do a thing about it to the following year. Keep the game where it is and keep it winner takes all.

[amazinblue]

...- the winner moves on the loser does not....

Nut,

Though you raise some good points - the key to remember is what you've said above is not necessarily true. One team could be undefeated in conference play - the other could have two losses. If the "two loss" team (who presumably is the underdog) upsets the undefeated team - the formerly undefeated team would still go to the conference championship game - assuming the tie-breakers work that way. The big thing is that the one loss could significantly impact the ability / opportunity to play for the MNC - as well as the historical bragging rights associated with a win in THE GAME.

[bleed maize & blue]

Nut,

Though you raise some good points - the key to remember is what you've said above is not necessarily true. One team could be undefeated in conference play - the other could have two losses. If the "two loss" team (who presumably is the underdog) upsets the undefeated team - the formerly undefeated team would still go to the conference championship game - assuming the tie-breakers work that way. The big thing is that the one loss could significantly impact the ability / opportunity to play for the MNC - as well as the historical bragging rights associated with a win in THE GAME.

This has happened n the Big 12 where Oklahoma was undefeated and played a two loss team in the Big 12 championship game and lost but still got the nod to play LSU over a USC team that lost 1 game earlier in the year. So it is possible to lose in the Big Ten Championship game and still play for the title if you a team that loses its first and only game of the season in Big Ten title game.

[amazinblue]

This has happened n the Big 12 where Oklahoma was undefeated and played a two loss team in the Big 12 championship game and lost but still got the nod to play LSU over a USC team that lost 1 game earlier in the year. So it is possible to lose in the Big Ten Championship game and still play for the title if you a team that loses its first and only game of the season in Big Ten title game.

Bleed Maize & Blue,

I agree that this happened a few years ago - and, candidly, it's something I strongly disagree with. I don't wish to change the topic of the thread - but, I strongly believe the following - if you are in a conference and do not win your conference, you have no business playing for the MNC. I don't believe it's a "specific rule" for the BCS, but it should be. This rule would, in effect, eliminate the possibility of a 1 vs. 2 rematch in the MNC with two undefeated teams from one conference meeting in a close conference championship game - and all of the other conference winners have two or more losses - similar to what happened in 2006.

So, IMO, we'll never see Michigan vs. OSU in the BCS Championship game - and, you'll never see a Big Ten vs. Big Ten matchup in the MNC game - regardless of whether it is deserved and fair - or not.

[shirc]

I like it but I don't think the B10 stops at 12 teams. But until then I'd be satisfied with this alignment, except that in basketball it would be a very heavy division for our side.


There likely wouldn't be divisions in basketball. I believe they don't operate like that in other conferences.