re: Anybody else think the B1G messed up the new divisions set to begin in 2014?

quote:

---

big ten has a lot of co-champs listed in that timeframe

---

Wiki lists 7 years where there were co-champs. Giving the benefit to the team that went to the rose bowl/natl championship comes out with 4 west and 3 east, so again even.

for the people saying there's a lot of balance in the big ten this is my rebuttal:

2002 - ohio state
2003 - michigan
2004 - ohio state
2005 - ohio state
2006 - ohio state
2007 - ohio state
2008 - ohio state
2009 - ohio state
2010 - wisconsin
2011 - wisconsin
2012 - ohio state (wisconsin won bc ohio state was ineligible)

there have really only been three programs in 11 years with a real claim as the best in the conference)... and only one NC in that time frame

quote:

---

Balance is defined by week to week competitiveness, not titles.

---

I disagree with that mostly but for the sake of argument:

2002-2012 winning percentages vs big 10 opponents:

ohio state: 81.8
michigan: 63.6
wisconsin: 62.2
iowa: 59.1
michigan state: 49.4

There's a big gap between Ohio State and the next best team in the conference... michigan and wisconsin are ranked in the top three FWIW

quote:

---

Boomed. Also, how many would Nebraska have won for the west in the 90s?

---

What dumbass logic considering Nebraska played minimal games against the Big Ten in the 90s.

quote:

---

2002 - ohio state

---

tOSU and Iowa where both 8-0 in the B1G that year.

Looking at past champs in years where there were multiple co winners and no CCG is pointless.

quote:

---

2004 - ohio state

---

This was Michigan, tOSU played Ok St and Les Miles in the Alamo Bowl.

quote:

---

2005 - ohio state

---

2005 PSU was ranked #3 behind Texas and USC and beat tOSU.

ETA: I see some else pointed out PSU vacated a couple of titles.

quote:

---

they have come up short in a lot of their premiere OOC matchups recently (e.g. Florida, LSU, USC)

---

quote:

---

There are new divisions in the Big 10. How balanced are they? The answer is not very.

tOSU has dominated the Big 10 in recent history

---

If only 1 team has dominated, then won't the divisions be unbalanced no matter what? USC dominated the Pac 10/12 historically and recently. OU has dominated the Big 12 this century.

Historically, tOSU and UM have dominated, so having them in the same divisions skews it, but it also means they won't play each other in the CCG. PSU and NU are harder for me to gage long term. The rest are all about the same. I agree tOSU and UM will probably remain good way more often than not, the MSU, Wisky, Iowa have all had runs in the past, no reason to think they won't going forward.

quote:

---

If only 1 team has dominated, then won't the divisions be unbalanced no matter what? USC dominated the Pac 10/12 historically and recently. OU has dominated the Big 12 this century.

---

It seems to me that the Big 10 has had a problem with tOSU dominating the rest of the conference lately but their bigger problem for the future is they've settled on divisions that will make the imbalance worse. Three of the top four programs are in the Big Ten East (Michigan, tOSU, PSU). Perhaps worse yet they've settled on divisions that likely won't provide fertile enough recruiting for the teams in the West

That's the recipie the Big 12 tried and failed with (they stacked the Big 12 South, and the Big 12 North programs faded because of recruiting issues at least as much as other issues IMO). The Big 10 should think hard about this and probably go to either a different distribution of divisions or to a atypical solution like the roommate switch (described earlier in the thread)

If the post above yours didn't make my point of view clear I'll have to drink a couple cases of Coors light and get back to you in all caps later tonight