During a preseason in which so much has been written about the upcoming season for the Iowa Hawkeyes, and in a preseason in which the discussion of Big Ten expansion and division alignment dominated the news cycle, it is comforting to know that college football fans will actually be able to watch games in less than a week rather than arguing and debating about win-loss predictions and where Iowa will be placed in the new look Big Ten in 2011. Before I begin my regular format of writing my thoughts prior to each game and my thoughts after each game, I wanted to give my thoughts on some random Iowa football items.
• Conference Alignment. It appears that my prediction of how the Big Ten will be divided will be wrong; although I am not sure many people would have originally predicted that Michigan and Ohio State would be in opposite divisions. While it sounds as though the announcement of the divisions is only weeks away, the new public relations director of the Big Ten, Barry Alvarez, has confirmed that Iowa and Wisconsin will be in separate divisions. If that means that Iowa is in the same division as Nebraska and Michigan, then I am content with the alignment; however, if Iowa is put in the same division as Ohio State and Penn State without an annual matchup with Nebraska, include me with the Iowa fans who will be in an uproar. Instead of speculating on the what ifs of conference alignment, however, I am going to take Kirk Ferentz’s approach on the topic and just wait and see what happens.
• Camp News. Fortunately, summer camp this year did not yield any earth-shattering news in terms of injuries or areas of concern. Following the Big Ten Network’s visit to Iowa City, it sounds as though the offensive line made some good impressions on Gerry DiNardo and Howard Griffith, which is encouraging given that the offensive line is arguably the largest question mark entering the season. Based on comments from the Big Ten Network’s visit and various other reports out of Fort Kinnick, it sounds as though Jewel Hampton looked very impressive and should give the Iowa backfield a one-two punch at the running back position along with Adam Robinson. While Kirk Ferentz has not stated which true freshmen will not redshirt this season, if I were a betting man, my guess is that James Morris will see playing time on special teams, and that De’Andre Johnson will receive a few carries at running back.
• Position Battles. The first depth chart of the season still listed several “ors” at certain positions, including center and kicker. If I were to set forth a guess as to the starting center, I would probably select James Ferentz, which is based solely on the fact that on the Big Ten Network preview show, he appeared to receive all of the repetitions with the first team offense. The kicking game still appears to be a large question mark and an even battle between Daniel Murray and Trent Mossbrucker, which will likely continue well into at least the Arizona game.
As you might have noticed, I have not yet given my prediction for this season. While several writers, including ESPN’s Ivan Maisel and HawkeyeNation.com founder Jon Miller, have predicted an undefeated season for the Hawkeyes, the offensive line, the kicking game, and the loss of AJ Edds and Pat Angerer have me concerned. In my post this week with my prediction for the Eastern Illinois game, I will also give my prediction for Iowa’s win-loss record for the season. Until then, enjoy the first three days of the work week, as the college football season kicks off on Thursday.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Conference Divisions
On June 11, 2010, the Big Ten Conference welcomed the University of Nebraska as the twelfth member of the conference effective July 1, 2011. In the months and weeks leading up to that official announcement, the speculation of conference armageddon and, more specifically, the implosion of the Big XII Conference that could have resulted from the Big Ten’s decision became overwhelming to the point that many people, including myself, tuned out of it all until a final decision was made. It has been approximately eight weeks since that announcement and the Big XII Conference remained intact sans Colorado and Nebraska and the sixteen school super conference structures are non-existent. On day one of the Big Ten media days, Jim Delany made several interesting comments relating to the conference. First, and perhaps most important, the Big Ten will continue to be named the Big Ten, whether there are twelve members or sixteen. Count me as one who is very pleased with that decision. Delany also stated that the first Big Ten championship game will likely take place next year at a location to be determined, more on that later. He also said the conference will be split into two divisions and it is anticipated that the divisions will be determined within the next 30 to 45 days. It now also seems clear that Notre Dame will not play any role in further Big Ten expansion. Finally, Delany said that it is also likely that the Big Ten will move to a nine game conference schedule. This installment will be focused on these last two points. Here are my thoughts.
Conference Alignment. There are several factors that will influence how the Big Ten athletic directors will divide the members into divisions, specifically protecting rivalries, balanced competition, and geography. Based on Delany’s comments, my conference division alignment proposal is based on the assumption that the league will indeed move to a nine game conference schedule in which each team would play five division games, two games against “protected rivals” and two games against the remaining four teams in the other division on a rotating basis. Delany did indicate that a nine game conference schedule would not be instituted for another two to three years, but the demarcation of divisions has to be done with that nine game conference schedule in mind. I cannot take credit for the names of my proposed divisions, as I saw it on a message board, but I do think they are more creative than East/West and less contentious than naming the divisions after Big Ten icons (e.g. Schembechler, Hayes, Kinnick, Stagg). Below is my proposal for how the Big Ten Conference should be split into divisions. The names within the parentheses indicate the two protected rivals for each team within a division.
Great Plains
Penn State (Ohio State, Michigan)
Nebraska (Michigan, Illinois)
Iowa (Michigan State, Minnesota)
Indiana (Purdue, Michigan State)
Wisconsin (Minnesota, Ohio State)
Northwestern (Illinois, Purdue)
Great Lakes
Ohio State (Penn State, Wisconsin)
Michigan (Nebraska, Penn State)
Michigan State (Iowa, Nebraska)
Illinois (Northwestern, Indiana)
Minnesota (Wisconsin, Iowa)
Purdue (Indiana, Northwestern)
I think it is important to preface those selections and the ensuing discussion with a reminder that while we can eliminate certain permutations of division alignment to an extent (i.e. it is almost a certainty that Michigan and Ohio State will remain in the same division), it is anyone’s guess as to what the divisions will look like until the athletic directors make their final decision. With all of that in mind, I think that my division proposal accomplishes the goal of protecting all of the classic Big Ten rivalries and creating what I believe to be two equally competitive divisions and two geographically equal divisions.
Although the Big Ten athletic directors will have piles of reports analyzing and describing the competition among its members since 1993, two relatively easy methods for comparing the two divisions that I reviewed was overall winning percentage during that time period and the number of conference championships by each division. The average winning percentage of my proposed Great Plains division since 1993 is .60, while the average winning percentage of the Great Lakes division is .56. I would venture to guess that four percent is likely within the standard deviation. In counting conference championships between the two divisions since Penn State joined the Big Ten (and, yes, I am going to count Nebraska’s championships in the Big XII, excluding Big XII North championships, and the Big 8 during the same time), the Great Plains has won 16 while the Great Lakes won 16 during that time period.
In addition to maintaining relative competiveness between the divisions, maintaining traditional rivalries is important both to the schools and the fans. My proposed division re-alignment protects what I consider to be the best rivalries in the Big Ten Conference, including Michigan-Ohio State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Michigan-Michigan State, Iowa- Minnesota, Purdue-Indiana, Illinois-Northwestern, among others.
The goal of creating divisions that are geographically equal also plays a key factor in determining how the schools will be separated into divisions, but I think it is more so geography from an advertising perspective than necessarily a travel perspective. A marketing executive at a company with a national presence is probably reluctant to advertise on either the Big Ten Network or ESPN/ABC if the games more often than not target one particular geographic region. For example, by having Iowa and Penn State in the same division in which they would play each other on an annual basis in football, a company would likely be able to reach a larger audience of viewers due to the larger markets of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia than say Iowa and Minnesota being in the same division in which the larger markets would only be Minneapolis and Des Moines. Even though the numbers may prove that theory wrong, I think it is probably a safe guess to say that the athletic directors will not vote on a proposal that splits the conference purely on a longitudinal split.
However, there are problems with my proposal, as there are problems in all of the proposals set forth by media members, and as there will be with the final division alignment. Some of the problems with my proposal include the fact that Penn State would likely argue that they would be forced to play a more difficult schedule by having protected rivalries with both Ohio State and Michigan. Similarly, schools like Wisconsin would likely be reluctant to be forced to play Ohio State each year. Thus, it is possible that schools would not be fond of the two protected rivals proposal and would want to stick to an eight conference game proposal with only one protected rival. The nine game conference schedule presents another issue of some teams only having four conference home games a year while other teams would have five conference home games a year. In an era in which revenue is critical for Big Ten members, the possibility of playing only four conference home games may mean significant changes to non-conference scheduling—mainly teams cutting back or eliminating entirely the number of home and away series with other BCS opponents. Query whether the Iowa-Iowa State game will still be played if the nine game conference schedule becomes a reality especially in light of the fact that Iowa State will also be playing a nine game conference schedule after Colorado’s departure. Also query whether it is a ploy to force Notre Dame’s hand or cause Notre Dame matchups with Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan to become a thing of the past.
Even though Delany has said that the nine game conference schedule is coming, an eight game schedule could also work under my proposal; however, Iowa would be the one school that would lose one of its traditional rivals. Under my proposal, Iowa appears to be the key to an eight game proposal not working for two reasons. First, while all of the other protected rivals (those listed first in the parentheses) are all clear rivalries, Iowa would no longer have a regular matchup with Minnesota and would instead be left with Michigan State as its protected rival, which has been a competitive series the past three matchups, but is not what one would consider to be a traditional rivalry. There is no way that the Big Ten would eliminated the oldest and most played rivalry in college football, Minnesota v. Wisconsin, to preserve an annual matchup to decide who takes home Floyd of Rosedale. Second, if you attempt to remedy that rivalry matchup and maintain competitive divisions, you would be forced to swap Minnesota and Wisconsin into different divisions, which would seem to cause a competitively weighted Great Lakes division with Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State all in the same division.
I think some of the problems noted above with my proposal illustrate the inherent problems with any proposal and show that the decision to be made by the Big Ten Conference athletic directors will likely consist of a spirited discussion in order to create fair and competitive divisions. One of the more intriguing discussions will come from schools like Indiana, Minnesota, and Northwestern. Placing those schools in one division rather than the other can mean the difference between having the possibility to compete for a Big Ten championship every five to ten years versus every ten to twenty years. Assuming that the conference splits the four big hitters (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska) the way I have proposed, the possibilities for serious debate and discussion among those smaller schools intrigues me the most. Every Big Ten fan needs to keep in mind during this process that while the final division alignment will inevitably disrupt rivalries and traditions of the past, new rivalries and traditions will be born, which could prove to be even better twenty years from now. Likewise, for the time being, the division alignment is a fluid process given that Jim Delaney is still exploring the possibility of adding two or four additional schools to the conference.
With respect to the issue of where the championship game will be held, I think it is a relatively easy decision. Even though football fans talk about their love for football weather, the thought of sitting in the stands at Soldier Field in early December already makes me cold. For the time being, I think the best course of action is to have the championship game held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis for two or three years. This will give the conference time to evaluate other sites while having the comfort of knowing that Indianapolis is a good location and venue that has hosted the Big Ten men’s and women’s basketball tournaments several times. I would not be surprised to see Indianapolis become the un-official home of the Big Ten championships with both the football championship game and the Big Ten basketball tournament held there on an annual basis.
Conference Alignment. There are several factors that will influence how the Big Ten athletic directors will divide the members into divisions, specifically protecting rivalries, balanced competition, and geography. Based on Delany’s comments, my conference division alignment proposal is based on the assumption that the league will indeed move to a nine game conference schedule in which each team would play five division games, two games against “protected rivals” and two games against the remaining four teams in the other division on a rotating basis. Delany did indicate that a nine game conference schedule would not be instituted for another two to three years, but the demarcation of divisions has to be done with that nine game conference schedule in mind. I cannot take credit for the names of my proposed divisions, as I saw it on a message board, but I do think they are more creative than East/West and less contentious than naming the divisions after Big Ten icons (e.g. Schembechler, Hayes, Kinnick, Stagg). Below is my proposal for how the Big Ten Conference should be split into divisions. The names within the parentheses indicate the two protected rivals for each team within a division.
Great Plains
Penn State (Ohio State, Michigan)
Nebraska (Michigan, Illinois)
Iowa (Michigan State, Minnesota)
Indiana (Purdue, Michigan State)
Wisconsin (Minnesota, Ohio State)
Northwestern (Illinois, Purdue)
Great Lakes
Ohio State (Penn State, Wisconsin)
Michigan (Nebraska, Penn State)
Michigan State (Iowa, Nebraska)
Illinois (Northwestern, Indiana)
Minnesota (Wisconsin, Iowa)
Purdue (Indiana, Northwestern)
I think it is important to preface those selections and the ensuing discussion with a reminder that while we can eliminate certain permutations of division alignment to an extent (i.e. it is almost a certainty that Michigan and Ohio State will remain in the same division), it is anyone’s guess as to what the divisions will look like until the athletic directors make their final decision. With all of that in mind, I think that my division proposal accomplishes the goal of protecting all of the classic Big Ten rivalries and creating what I believe to be two equally competitive divisions and two geographically equal divisions.
Although the Big Ten athletic directors will have piles of reports analyzing and describing the competition among its members since 1993, two relatively easy methods for comparing the two divisions that I reviewed was overall winning percentage during that time period and the number of conference championships by each division. The average winning percentage of my proposed Great Plains division since 1993 is .60, while the average winning percentage of the Great Lakes division is .56. I would venture to guess that four percent is likely within the standard deviation. In counting conference championships between the two divisions since Penn State joined the Big Ten (and, yes, I am going to count Nebraska’s championships in the Big XII, excluding Big XII North championships, and the Big 8 during the same time), the Great Plains has won 16 while the Great Lakes won 16 during that time period.
In addition to maintaining relative competiveness between the divisions, maintaining traditional rivalries is important both to the schools and the fans. My proposed division re-alignment protects what I consider to be the best rivalries in the Big Ten Conference, including Michigan-Ohio State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Michigan-Michigan State, Iowa- Minnesota, Purdue-Indiana, Illinois-Northwestern, among others.
The goal of creating divisions that are geographically equal also plays a key factor in determining how the schools will be separated into divisions, but I think it is more so geography from an advertising perspective than necessarily a travel perspective. A marketing executive at a company with a national presence is probably reluctant to advertise on either the Big Ten Network or ESPN/ABC if the games more often than not target one particular geographic region. For example, by having Iowa and Penn State in the same division in which they would play each other on an annual basis in football, a company would likely be able to reach a larger audience of viewers due to the larger markets of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia than say Iowa and Minnesota being in the same division in which the larger markets would only be Minneapolis and Des Moines. Even though the numbers may prove that theory wrong, I think it is probably a safe guess to say that the athletic directors will not vote on a proposal that splits the conference purely on a longitudinal split.
However, there are problems with my proposal, as there are problems in all of the proposals set forth by media members, and as there will be with the final division alignment. Some of the problems with my proposal include the fact that Penn State would likely argue that they would be forced to play a more difficult schedule by having protected rivalries with both Ohio State and Michigan. Similarly, schools like Wisconsin would likely be reluctant to be forced to play Ohio State each year. Thus, it is possible that schools would not be fond of the two protected rivals proposal and would want to stick to an eight conference game proposal with only one protected rival. The nine game conference schedule presents another issue of some teams only having four conference home games a year while other teams would have five conference home games a year. In an era in which revenue is critical for Big Ten members, the possibility of playing only four conference home games may mean significant changes to non-conference scheduling—mainly teams cutting back or eliminating entirely the number of home and away series with other BCS opponents. Query whether the Iowa-Iowa State game will still be played if the nine game conference schedule becomes a reality especially in light of the fact that Iowa State will also be playing a nine game conference schedule after Colorado’s departure. Also query whether it is a ploy to force Notre Dame’s hand or cause Notre Dame matchups with Purdue, Michigan State, and Michigan to become a thing of the past.
Even though Delany has said that the nine game conference schedule is coming, an eight game schedule could also work under my proposal; however, Iowa would be the one school that would lose one of its traditional rivals. Under my proposal, Iowa appears to be the key to an eight game proposal not working for two reasons. First, while all of the other protected rivals (those listed first in the parentheses) are all clear rivalries, Iowa would no longer have a regular matchup with Minnesota and would instead be left with Michigan State as its protected rival, which has been a competitive series the past three matchups, but is not what one would consider to be a traditional rivalry. There is no way that the Big Ten would eliminated the oldest and most played rivalry in college football, Minnesota v. Wisconsin, to preserve an annual matchup to decide who takes home Floyd of Rosedale. Second, if you attempt to remedy that rivalry matchup and maintain competitive divisions, you would be forced to swap Minnesota and Wisconsin into different divisions, which would seem to cause a competitively weighted Great Lakes division with Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State all in the same division.
I think some of the problems noted above with my proposal illustrate the inherent problems with any proposal and show that the decision to be made by the Big Ten Conference athletic directors will likely consist of a spirited discussion in order to create fair and competitive divisions. One of the more intriguing discussions will come from schools like Indiana, Minnesota, and Northwestern. Placing those schools in one division rather than the other can mean the difference between having the possibility to compete for a Big Ten championship every five to ten years versus every ten to twenty years. Assuming that the conference splits the four big hitters (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska) the way I have proposed, the possibilities for serious debate and discussion among those smaller schools intrigues me the most. Every Big Ten fan needs to keep in mind during this process that while the final division alignment will inevitably disrupt rivalries and traditions of the past, new rivalries and traditions will be born, which could prove to be even better twenty years from now. Likewise, for the time being, the division alignment is a fluid process given that Jim Delaney is still exploring the possibility of adding two or four additional schools to the conference.
With respect to the issue of where the championship game will be held, I think it is a relatively easy decision. Even though football fans talk about their love for football weather, the thought of sitting in the stands at Soldier Field in early December already makes me cold. For the time being, I think the best course of action is to have the championship game held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis for two or three years. This will give the conference time to evaluate other sites while having the comfort of knowing that Indianapolis is a good location and venue that has hosted the Big Ten men’s and women’s basketball tournaments several times. I would not be surprised to see Indianapolis become the un-official home of the Big Ten championships with both the football championship game and the Big Ten basketball tournament held there on an annual basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
