Jump to content

Realignment


Payday
 Share

Recommended Posts

Isn’t it time that Indiana and others demanded the big ten have a constant realignment process based on weighted performance? Why the heck do teams like Wisconsin get a free ride, get a record that helps them recruit, while the other side gets a constant beating? This is not difficult, this is common sense. Leathernecks made a comment today and it is spot on, they aren’t as tested, they aren’t as banged up except maybe a QB, and now we come off the schedule from hell. The conference could constantly realign based on agreed factors to better balance both sides. You would get a national championship game participant from this conference every year and they would be less banged up. Everyone would gain.

Edited by Payday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Payday said:

Isn’t it time that Indiana and others demanded the big ten have a constant realignment process based on weighted performance? Why the heck do teams like Wisconsin get a free ride, get a record that helps them recruit, while the other side gets a constant beating? This is not difficult, this is common sense. Leathernecks made a comment today and it is spot on, they aren’t as tested, they aren’t as banged up except maybe a QB, and now we come off the schedule from hell and they are in a must win game because they likely don’t have a chance in their remaining games. The conference could constantly realign based on agreed factors to better balance both sides. You would get a national championship game participant from this conference every year and they would be less banged up. Everyone would gain.

Ya know on another site that I frequent that has a lot of Ohio St. fans on it.  They were impressed with the Hoosiers after that first game.  But any how one Bucknut fan said that if you put IU in the west they might go 8-4 or even 9-3.  It broke out into a discussion about the divisions in the B1G.  It never made sense to me, other than the east-west thing which is correct, why they would have Michigan and Ohio St. in the same division.  Add to it that PSU and MSU are in that same division as well.  The west, on the other hand, is far weaker.  I really don't think Nebraska will ever return to their glory days before they joined the conference.  Iowa hasn't been good/great for some time now.  Illinois has fallen off the map.  Purdue ain't what I witnessed when Tiller was their coach.  But I don't know what the answer is to the problem.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rico said:

Ya know on another site that I frequent that has a lot of Ohio St. fans on it.  They were impressed with the Hoosiers after that first game.  But any how one Bucknut fan said that if you put IU in the west they might go 8-4 or even 9-3.  It broke out into a discussion about the divisions in the B1G.  It never made sense to me, other than the east-west thing which is correct, why they would have Michigan and Ohio St. in the same division.  Add to it that PSU and MSU are in that same division as well.  The west, on the other hand, is far weaker.  I really don't think Nebraska will ever return to their glory days before they joined the conference.  Iowa hasn't been good/great for some time now.  Illinois has fallen off the map.  Purdue ain't what I witnessed when Tiller was their coach.  But I don't know what the answer is to the problem.

They have to balance and move them around every two years or so. We win nine games and the program has a leg up recruiting if we are on the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Payday said:

They have to balance and move them around every two years or so. We win nine games and the program has a leg up recruiting if we are on the other side.

I understand.....but the B1G isn't the only conference with the issue of unbalance.  The SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 have it as well.  As far as the B1G goes one poster suggested splitting the conference into North and South.  So basically he thought we need to move Michigan and MSU into the North.  And bring Illinois and Purdue into the South.  Hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rico said:

I understand.....but the B1G isn't the only conference with the issue of unbalance.  The SEC, ACC, and PAC-12 have it as well.  As far as the B1G goes one poster suggested splitting the conference into North and South.  So basically he thought we need to move Michigan and MSU into the North.  And bring Illinois and Purdue into the South.  Hope that makes sense.

Agree about the conferences. And the real backstory is that the Ohio, Michigan’s, Alabama’s of the conferences really don’t mind because they still get the recruits. They prefer to take their tougher games because they can run a third string in and still be a full strength. And by keeping it like this they prevent a balanced recruiting. Recruits do not look at the caliber of the Indiana business school and say “I’m going to play there”, they look at the beating and imbalance and say “I think I will look at Wisconsin”. It needs to be balanced with some formula. Anyone who thinks college football is about the coaching is a fool, it is about recruiting. You didn’t see Urban run to an upstart when he changed, he went where he could get the recruits. Same with Harbaugh and others. Leach may be the smartest, and weirdest, college coach, but he had to start over after the Tech fiasco. This game is about recruiting and losses take a toll. There are only so many kids willing to pave a path, most will simply follow what others have built. You want the magic bullet to fix IU football, it is in the board of the big ten and balancing.

Edited by Payday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We really don't need divisions.  Every team's schedule should be balanced based on the previous year's record, but that would make scheduling multiple years into the future difficult.  Can anyone shed light on why the schedules for football are set so far forward and other sports like basketball are set only months in advance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, rogue3542 said:

We really don't need divisions.  Every team's schedule should be balanced based on the previous year's record, but that would make scheduling multiple years into the future difficult.  Can anyone shed light on why the schedules for football are set so far forward and other sports like basketball are set only months in advance?

Are you talking the conference schedule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we could all come up with better divisions in less than 1 minute.  Whoever originally decided on these divisions is an idiot.

It definitely does hurt us.  Looking at Wisconsin's schedule, their B1G games are NW, @Neb, Purdue, Maryland, @Illinois, @Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, @Minnesota.

If we had that schedule and replace their @Indiana game with Wisconsin at home like we have now, and we could easily win 6+ conference games.  If we had their schedule, there would be a somewhat realistic chance that we would be undefeated through 7 the Maryland game like they are.  Worst case would likely be 5-2.  Wouldn't that be nice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, rogue3542 said:

We really don't need divisions.  Every team's schedule should be balanced based on the previous year's record, but that would make scheduling multiple years into the future difficult.  Can anyone shed light on why the schedules for football are set so far forward and other sports like basketball are set only months in advance?

I don't get it either.  Conference schedules are set through 2021.  Who the hell needs to plan 4 years ahead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just looked it up, and if you go to the athletic site, they have the entire schedule listed for the next FOUR years, and even the non-conference for the next six.  I can understand somewhat planning the non-conference a few years in advance, but there's no realistic reason the conference games need to be planned that far out.  The Big Ten really needs to rethink these divisions and the way they approach scheduling football.

Edit:  After seeing Wisconsin's schedule, I think we all need to take a step back and appreciate that all of IU's losses are to teams that either have legitimate shots at being in the playoff or going to a MAJOR bowl game.  I'm excited/interested to see how IU plays against Maryland.  

Edited by rogue3542
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rogue3542 said:

 

Edit:  After seeing Wisconsin's schedule, I think we all need to take a step back and appreciate that all of IU's losses are to teams that either have legitimate shots at being in the playoff or going to a MAJOR bowl game.  I'm excited/interested to see how IU plays against Maryland.  

However I aint too sure to sure about Michigan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

I think we could all come up with better divisions in less than 1 minute.  Whoever originally decided on these divisions is an idiot.

It definitely does hurt us.  Looking at Wisconsin's schedule, their B1G games are NW, @Neb, Purdue, Maryland, @Illinois, @Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, @Minnesota.

If we had that schedule and replace their @Indiana game with Wisconsin at home like we have now, and we could easily win 6+ conference games.  If we had their schedule, there would be a somewhat realistic chance that we would be undefeated through 7 the Maryland game like they are.  Worst case would likely be 5-2.  Wouldn't that be nice!

 

48 minutes ago, Leathernecks said:

 

I don't get it either.  Conference schedules are set through 2021.  Who the hell needs to plan 4 years ahead?

 

44 minutes ago, rogue3542 said:

Yeah, I just looked it up, and if you go to the athletic site, they have the entire schedule listed for the next FOUR years, and even the non-conference for the next six.  I can understand somewhat planning the non-conference a few years in advance, but there's no realistic reason the conference games need to be planned that far out.  The Big Ten really needs to rethink these divisions and the way they approach scheduling football.

Edit:  After seeing Wisconsin's schedule, I think we all need to take a step back and appreciate that all of IU's losses are to teams that either have legitimate shots at being in the playoff or going to a MAJOR bowl game.  I'm excited/interested to see how IU plays against Maryland.  

Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but it has to be security for the strong teams related to their influence over the whole conference due to the dollar income generated. At some point the band aid has to be ripped off and balance things. They would find that income might drop for the currently influential, but income would increase for the bottom half. I looked at Wisconsin’s schedule at the beginning of the year and laughed. Our team has to fight for it‘s bowl life this weekend against a team that has similar issues but is at home, in what I consider a very dangerous game, while we look across them to the other side and see teams literally coasting and not incurring the injuries due to lighter opponents.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the results against the regular contenders had been any different over the past forever years I could say it matters a lot.

No matter what division IU is in there are always going to be tough cross-plays challenging road environments and hot teams each year.IU is generally going to be on the short side of history and talent to several of those programs.The Ohio States , Penn States, Michigans, Spartys, Wiscys , Nebraskas , and such are going to keep winning all or most of the time until IU plays at that level for 60 minutes.

That's why breaking through is the theme of the team motto.

If IU was already winning 8-9 games would we want anyone taking anything away from the quality of the schedule?  I'm not disagreeing with you. I would just rather IU take what they want as a program the hard way so we know it's real.JMO.

Edit:  For instance, having enough of the intended starters around after non-con to start 6-0 would be nice for a change.Not shooting themselves in the foot on a game deciding drive would be another. I just think some of what's being expressed is out of frustration.I caught myseelf griping about the schedule as the last seconds tcked off against Sparty.I thought " Go figure these ******** catch a few breaks and they win a few close games and they're bowl eligible right now.Then it hit me .MSU beat Michigan and has owned them for 10 years now.they had to take a step that Indiana is yet to take.Just a reality check regardless of how unfair I think things work out sometimes.Indiana is going to have to eventually catch a couple of breaks ,but it will also have to create those on the field against teams that typically beat them. Otherwise not much is ever going to change. 

Edited by jblaz13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just have to be better!  No more excuses.  This sounds like a purdue basketball board.  We just can't compete at a big boy level in D1 football yet!  I sure as hell hope it happens soon!  All my in-laws are Ohio state fans.  Will we ever be at that level, no, but we should be TCU, or OK ST. level.  We should be able to compete with the big boys once in awhile.  Competing for two and a half or three quarters and folding doesn't cut it.  BEAT WHO IS IN FRONT OF YOU!  DON'T CRY ABOUT SCHEDULING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the geographical orientation is fundamentally uneven.  They used to do that Legends and Leaders concept before they added the newest two schools (MD and RUT), if I recall correctly.  I'd rather they go back to more balanced divisions.  I sketched out a try (i list them alphabetically):

Leaders Division

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa 

Minnesota

Nebraska

Ohio State

Penn State

 

Legends Division

Maryland

Michigan

Michigan State

Northwestern

Purdue

Rutgers

Wisconsin

 

You could protect cross-rivalries like IU-PU, UM-OSU etc.  We already protect IU v PU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

I messed around with it. The only way to make balanced divisions is to do it non-geographically, like Bob did. Otherwise it's always going to be imbalanced. 

No way to work it geographically, you are absolutely correct. And i understand the no excuses, beat who is in front of you, but you don’t always have to run through the wall. Sometimes you can go over it and still get where you want.

 

Edited by Payday
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

I messed around with it. The only way to make balanced divisions is to do it non-geographically, like Bob did. Otherwise it's always going to be imbalanced. 

Hogwash.  Evidently you didn't read my post up above?  It is pretty simple to balance it geographically.  You take Michigan and Sparty out of the East and put them in the West.  Then you call that the North.  Then you move Illinois and Purdue to the East and call it the South.  

Edited by rico
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, rico said:

Hogwash.  Evidently you didn't read my post up above?  It is pretty simple to balance it geographically.  You take Michigan and Sparty out of the East and put them in the West.  Then you call that the North.  Then you move Illinois and Purdue to the East and call it the South.  

So you think Ohio State and Penn State being allowed to dominate IU, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland is balanced? You put the five worst programs in the same division. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

So you think Ohio State and Penn State being allowed to dominate IU, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers and Maryland is balanced?

Yeah I do.  And it regionally makes sense.  This ain't a mix and match game,  I don't want to become like the SEC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Gonna have to disagree on this one. You can’t put the five worst programs in the conference in the same division and call it balanced. 

5 worst?  Seems like everyone wants to look at the "here and now" aspect.  Hell, in the "here and now" it ain't balanced.  Put Michigan and Sparty on the other side.  This is not European Soccer leagues we are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you disagree those are the five worst B1G programs? What team would you take out of that group and what team would you put in?

removing the obvious, you are considering these teams:

Nebraska

Minnesota

Northwestern

Iowa

So you tell me. Which of those four is one of the five worst, and which of the five would you not consider the worst?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

So you disagree those are the five worst B1G programs? What team would you take out of that group and what team would you put in?

removing the obvious, you are considering these teams:

Nebraska

Minnesota

Northwestern

Iowa

So you tell me. Which of those four is one of the five worst, and which of the five would you not consider the worst?

Once again you are talking "here and now".  I imagine your age plays some part in this.  It wasn't that long ago that Rutgers was a title contender.  Maryland has always been a decent program when they were in the ACC.  Believe it or not Purdue was one hell of a team back in the 70's.  I could go on.  But quit focusing on the "here and now'" aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...