by El Kabong (2016-05-12 14:08:57)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

  In reply to: 2 years in a row with no Clem or FSU?  posted by combodraw

2016 - Neither
2017 - Neither
2018 - FSU
2019 - Neither
2020 - Clemson
2021 - @ FSU
2022 - Clemson
2023 - @ Clemson
2024 - FSU

This is the kind of crap that Conference scheduling creates
by DakotaDomer  (2016-05-12 15:04:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I remember when I saw a schedule for B1G football after the expansion and laughed at all my Badger friends that they'd be playing Michigan again in 5-6 years to renew their fierce conference rivalry.

They really screwed up the Big 10 Divisions
by bluengold07  (2016-05-12 18:27:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Their original idea to go away from geography was on-point, but they still messed it up. Now that they've gone East/West, it's totally one-sided.

They should have put Michigan, MSU, and Ohio State in one division and
Nebraska, Iowa, and Penn State in another division. Then peter out the rest.

Leaders and Legends????
by tf86  (2016-05-16 14:29:26)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Even the B1G should be able to do better than to steal from North Dakota State. Heck, an Ohio State fan who posts on another college football board I frequent wanted to bolt for the SEC after that cluster, and we all know Delany can't even use the bathroom without okaying it with Michigan and Ohio State first.

Leaders and Legends was so bad I had to come up with a mnemonic to remember it:

1. One division has all the M and N schools, plus Iowa. All other schools are in the other division.
2. Indiana is not a football legend (this one in order to differentiate the divisions).

I prefer geography over competitive balance because geography, unlike competitive balance, is immutable. The mere fact that you included Michigan State and Iowa in your top six shows how subject to change competitive balance is. I will agree, however, that the current East/West alignment is grossly disproportionate from a competitive balance factor. Perhaps a North/South alignment would have been more favorable from the B1G's standpoint, to wit:

Michigan State

Ohio State
Penn State

You can get away with only two mandated crossover games (Michigan/Ohio State and Illinois/Northwestern), only one more than you have under the East/West alignment (Indiana/Purdue). It also would have allowed for a graceful exit from the Leaders/Legends debacle -- essentially, Wisconsin would have moved from the Leaders Division to the Legends Division, in order to make room for Maryland and Rutgers (both of whom wanted to be in the same division as Penn State, which also wanted to be in the same division as both). Then, you rename the divisions according to geographic lines (North and South).

Speaking of divisional alignment, the B1G isn't the only conference that screwed the pooch on that. The ACC did the same, to wit:

1. Duke and NC State, two schools separated by approximately 25 miles and who have played in the same conference since 1928, now play one home and home against each other every dozen years. Meanwhile . . .

2. Syracuse and Florida State, two schools separated by approximately 1,300 miles and who never played in the same conference prior to 2013, now face each other on an annual basis.

And there's the divisional alignment while we're at it. If a college football dork like myself STILL has to stop and think about who's in what division, more than a decade in to the divisional alignment, that's not a good alignment.

Didn't need to type "divisions" *
by tbonesays  (2016-05-13 03:30:22)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The contents of this post represent the views of the author. is not responsible for its contents.