WDFN via some Lansing reporter:
Michigan - MSU - Nebraska - Iowa - Minnesota - Northwestern
OSU - PSU - Wisconsin - Purdue - Indiana - Illinois
It seems like they tried to split the rivalries, but PU and IU are both in the one division and Iowa and Minnesota in the other. Seems like they should swapped one each of those to keep all these inter-divisional rivalry games as the season finale.
It would seem that the Michigan division might have more depth while the OSU division has a tougher high end.
Showing posts with label divisions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label divisions. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Big T1e2n alignment (part 2)
I used the winning percentages over a 5 year period and put the odds (1st, 3rd, 5th, etc.) in one division and the evens (2nd, 4th, etc.) in the other. I figured using 5 years would be enough to reduce the amount of change-over to 0-2 teams each season.
I was wrong.
The divisions based on 2005-2009
Odds- OSU, Wis, IA, NU, PU, IN
Evens - PSU, Neb, Mich, MSU, MN, IL
Going backwards, the divisions based on a 5 year period one year previous, 2004-2008
Odds - OSU, PSU, IA, NU, MSU, IN
Evens - Wis, Mich, Neb, PU, MN, IL
There are two trades (PSU/MSU for Wis/PU)
Going back another year, 2003-2007
Odds - OSU, Mich, Neb, PU, MSU, IN
Evens-Wis, IA, PSU, MN, NU, IL
This time there are three trades from the following year (Mich/Neb/PU for IA/PSU/NU). That is half of the divisions.
Even with this very small sample, it is clear that assessing each year using a 5 year period would result in more change than they would likely be willing to work through. I think it is still a fun (and probably more fair) idea, and I hope they do something to weigh the division strengths from the recent past, not just the historical past. I'm sure that any way they align the divisions, there will be something to complain about. After a couple years, those complaints will be mostly gone. It takes a long time to build tradition, but only a short time to destroy it. And after it is destroyed, it takes a short time to forget it.
I was wrong.
The divisions based on 2005-2009
Odds- OSU, Wis, IA, NU, PU, IN
Evens - PSU, Neb, Mich, MSU, MN, IL
Going backwards, the divisions based on a 5 year period one year previous, 2004-2008
Odds - OSU, PSU, IA, NU, MSU, IN
Evens - Wis, Mich, Neb, PU, MN, IL
There are two trades (PSU/MSU for Wis/PU)
Going back another year, 2003-2007
Odds - OSU, Mich, Neb, PU, MSU, IN
Evens-Wis, IA, PSU, MN, NU, IL
This time there are three trades from the following year (Mich/Neb/PU for IA/PSU/NU). That is half of the divisions.
Even with this very small sample, it is clear that assessing each year using a 5 year period would result in more change than they would likely be willing to work through. I think it is still a fun (and probably more fair) idea, and I hope they do something to weigh the division strengths from the recent past, not just the historical past. I'm sure that any way they align the divisions, there will be something to complain about. After a couple years, those complaints will be mostly gone. It takes a long time to build tradition, but only a short time to destroy it. And after it is destroyed, it takes a short time to forget it.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Big T1e2n Alignment (part 1)
I've heard the theory of putting 2 of the Big 4 in each division of the Big Ten, so I did a little research to see if there really is the Big 4 as they've been mentioned (M, OSU, PSU, NEB).
First, if you were to use recent years as the measure of who is in the Big 4, and if you used overall winning % as the way to determine who was 'better', you would have to go back 15 years to reach a point when those four teams have the highest winning %(through present) of the 12 teams. Likely, they would continue to be the Big 4 if you kept going back in time, but that does not necessarily make for a balanced league in the present.
Likewise, the Big 4 often fall on hard times. In the past 11 seasons, there has been at least one team of the big 4 with 5 or more losses. Only two of those had only 5 losses (and winning records). The remaining years had at least one of the Big 4 at .500 or below.
In other words, keeping track of the Big 4 is probably not an important factor in deciding how to align the divisions. Also, because teams vary from year to year, I continue to propose using recent results (5 years, say) and re-aligning periodically (every year would be cool). I will go into more detail in a later post.
First, if you were to use recent years as the measure of who is in the Big 4, and if you used overall winning % as the way to determine who was 'better', you would have to go back 15 years to reach a point when those four teams have the highest winning %(through present) of the 12 teams. Likely, they would continue to be the Big 4 if you kept going back in time, but that does not necessarily make for a balanced league in the present.
Likewise, the Big 4 often fall on hard times. In the past 11 seasons, there has been at least one team of the big 4 with 5 or more losses. Only two of those had only 5 losses (and winning records). The remaining years had at least one of the Big 4 at .500 or below.
In other words, keeping track of the Big 4 is probably not an important factor in deciding how to align the divisions. Also, because teams vary from year to year, I continue to propose using recent results (5 years, say) and re-aligning periodically (every year would be cool). I will go into more detail in a later post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
