When the Big XII started, the balance of power was in the North, it shifted to the South because Texas and OU were underachieving and hired good coaches, while Nebraska didn't. Colorado imploded due to scandals, plus they don't have a natural recruiting base that really wouldn't change if OU and Texas were in different divisions. Synder retired from KSU. What is there to consider? How would different divisions have changed any of that?
Look at the map and where the recruiting is. The Big 12 should have realized there were no talent rich states in the Big 12 North and that would be a long term problem.
If anything the Big 10 has more options in this respect than teh Big 12 did. The Big 12 had states like Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, and Nebraska in the North where football talent only slightly exceeds what you find in Montana, the Dakotas, or Wyoming. That's a big problem. That's been a strength in the SEC where there are fertile recruiting grounds throughout the conference and the few teams without this advantage (e.g. Arkansas, Kentucky and perhaps Tennessee) compete at a recruiting disadvantage.
Well, they've set up the divisions in the B1G geographically, it seems some of you are arguing they should gerrymander the divisions in order to distribute the historically dominant programs. In the end I really don't get the what the issue is, other that saying maybe the East will win the B1G CG more often.
Here I think you misunderstand my point or misrepresent your earlier point. Before you seemed to argue that is you put a disproportionate number of the good teams in just one division that's a potentially good thing because the representative of the lesser division may vary more often and therefore the conference champ may vary more often (instead of typically being one of three to four teams)
I find a couple of things wrong with that division of programs (even setting aside the recruiting issues of having almost all your good recruiting grounds in one division).
One, you want to be fair and this proposal isn't fair. Putting a bunch of good teams in just one division is unfair to those good teams (relative to what opportunity they would have in the opposite division) and unfair to the lower tier teams in that good division (relative to the opportunity for success they would have in the opposite division).
Two, you want your conference championship game to take off like the SEC's CCG has - it should be potentially viewed as a major bowl game or a playoff game in the BCS (to get your team noticed by the voters and improved in the polls). That's not really going to happen if you pair up one of your best teams against a middle tier team. All you have managed to accomplish in that scenario is put your really good team at risk of an upset loss and qualifying a less deserving team for your most prestigious bowl game (Rose Bowl bid).
2 other things to consider; Ohio State and Michigan is a rivalry that needs to be protected, if they are in different divisions
This is a distraction argument relative to our discussion. I haven't proposed putting tOSU and Michigan in different divisions - I just don't want to put three of the top four programs in the Big 10 in the same division.
can lead to having teams in the same conference not playing each other for up to 8 years which is absurd.
This is why 14 team conferences with "traditional" divisions don't work and why the Big 10 and SEC need to look into the roommate switch proposal. It can preserve traditional rivalries and allow you to rotate through an entire 14 team conference (home and away) in only four years.
Next from a conference perspective, if you top teams do play twice, you run the risk of knocking one of them out of the playoff or better bowl position.
As we've seen in the SEC this can work for or against a conference with about equal frequencies. SEC teams have often benefited from playing in the SEC CCG.