Buy photos

Fraud

Pandemic preparedness
Last updated: Thu. Jul. 29, 2010 - 08:33 pm EDT Bookmark and Share Subscribe RSS   E-mail

VIEW

COLUMN

What Big Ten plans in store? A peek at what officials may decide next week
of The News-Sentinel

Next week a group of mostly men will gather behind closed doors at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place in Chicago to decide the fate of the football free world.

We're going to try opening those doors and give you a peek inside.

First, free isn't part of this money-matters scenario, but that misses the point, which is that Big Ten officials – commissioner Jim Delany, the 11 Big Ten athletic directors, a few other league bigwigs, plus Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne – will hash out what to do about expansion, dividing the conference into two six-team divisions, a conference football championship game and what city should host the game.

Big Ten expansion has so far netted one team – Nebraska, which will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten in 2011. Don't think for a minute it will stop there. Delany wants a presence on the East Coast, which is why Rutgers, Syracuse and Connecticut remain possibilities.

Notre Dame, of course, remains the biggest prize of all, although it will take the arrival of 16-team super conferences to force the Irish to give up football independence and join the Big Ten.

And so it will linger.

As far as football divisions, Delany has three priorities, with No. 1 being competitive balance followed by preserving existing rivalries and geography.

It would make no sense to have Penn State, Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio State in the same division, although schools such as Indiana and Purdue probably wouldn't complain as long as they're not in that division.

Figure a scenario with Penn State and Nebraska in one division, Michigan and Ohio State in the other.

The next most successful Big Ten teams over the last 10 years after Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are Iowa and Wisconsin, so split them up. The next most successful pair after that are Purdue and Northwestern, so split them up. Then it's Michigan State and Minnesota, and Illinois and IU.

By doing it that way, you could have Division A with Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State and IU. Division B would be Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota and Illinois.

The Big Ten will have a conference championship game – likely the first weekend in December starting in 2011 – that will make mega millions. Host contenders are Chicago's Soldier Field (61,500 capacity), Detroit's Ford Field (65,000), Minneapolis' Metrodome (64,000), Cleveland's Browns Stadium (73,200), Green Bay's Lambeau Field (72,928) and Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium (70,000).

Yes, Lambeau Field has a rich football heritage, Soldier Field looks like a freak flying saucer and Cleveland Browns Stadium has, well, who cares?

Surely Big Ten officials will not duplicate NFL officials' knuckleheaded decision of putting a championship game outdoors in the winter. In case you missed it, the 2014 Super Bowl is set for New York City in February, when winter might be at its fiercest.

They deserve a blizzard.

Anyway, the best site for team performance and fan comfort is an indoor stadium, which is why the SEC has hosted its title game at Atlanta's Georgia Dome since 1994.

For the Big Ten that would leave Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Detroit. Of those three, the most bang for the buck, including central location, world-class facility, proximity to hotels and restaurants, lower prices and officials who know what they're doing, is Indianapolis.

The city already hosts the Big Ten men's and women's basketball tournaments (the five-year deal is good through 2012). It hosted last spring's basketball Final Four. It will host the 2012 Super Bowl. And don't forget the Indy 500 and the Brickyard 400. The city knows how to do big-time events right.

There's your peek. For a clearer view of a new football world, wait till next week.


This column is the commentary of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of The News-Sentinel. E-mail Pete DiPrimio at pdiprimio@news-sentinel.com.
Discuss this article!
(Requires free news-sentinel.com registration.)

Note:The News-Sentinel reserves the right to remove any content appearing on its Web site. Our policy will be to remove postings that constitute profanity, obscenity, libel, spam, invasion of privacy, impersonation of another, or attacks on racial, ethnic or other groups.. For more information, see our user rules page.

Posted by Luke Mich on 07/29/10 10:33:00 AM (Suggest removal)
  • Some Possible Answers
Will,

The basic reason for not creating the geographically sensible divisions you suggested is a lack of competitive balance (in the eyes of most critics). While Iowa and Wisconsin have been at the top of the conference the past few years (with some exceptions) and have had some success in the past, they are not "of the same caliber" as the conference's top four teams (including newcomer Nebraska). Even though Penn State has struggled some (by their standards) lately, they're still in that grouping. Therefore, a division with three of those teams as you propose, would be likened to the lopsided Big XII South.

Sparty One,

Another prediction that's been tossed around in most of the articles I've read suggests that while some rivalry teams will be in different divisions, they would still have the opportunity to play each other via an untouchable perennial cross-divisional match-up. For example, for Mr. DiPrimio's proposed divisions, the "locked" cross-divisional partners would likely be PSU-OSU, MSU-MU (Paul Bunyan's Trophy), UW-IOWA (Heartland Trophy), PU-ILL (Purdue Cannon), IU-NW, and then MINN-UN. Obviously this is not ideal as you would lose the Floyd of Rosedale Trophy Game (MINN-IOWA), but it won't be possible to preserve every rivalry. (To save the Floyd, by the way, they could change the matchups to MINN-IOWA and UW-UN. Bret Bielema has already vocalized interest in starting a UN rivalry; however, I'm a Badger and I'd rather play the Hawkeyes who I already hate instead of having to learn to hate the Huskers -- despite the possibility of having a rivalry called "The Hunt for Red October" as a friend suggested).

Ok, sorry for the long post. Obviously this is all conjecture, and none of it is my own, just thought I'd throw all that out there.


Posted by Will Simon on 07/29/10 01:01:00 AM (Suggest removal)
  • Spartyon4life
This guy is clearly nuts. His thoughts on the Big Ten divisions is just plain stupid. I read many articles about this issue and this is the worst. Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State and IU in one Division, really? Why would you make Nebraska and Penn State in the same division? Why not do this, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Northwestern, Michigan State and Illinois, and Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Minnesota and IU.


Posted by Sparty One on 07/28/10 04:20:00 PM (Suggest removal)
  • MSU v UM?
You said it yourself:
"As far as football divisions, Delany has three priorities, with No. 1 being competitive balance followed by preserving existing rivalries and geography."

Yet you propose to split up the Michigan/Michigan State rivalry?

So the schools are 70 miles apart - maybe you think that's too close for two division teams, but that proximity yields a great rivalry for just about everyone in the state of Michigan.



  Stock Sponsor
© 2010 - The News-Sentinel, all rights reserved