Divisional Alignment: Competitive Balance
We've recently seen that it's becoming more and more likely that OSU and UM will not be in the same division. In fact, Yahoo is reporting it's a done deal, but that it just has not yet been announced. I strongly disagree the Big Ten would be selling out tradition, but would rather be putting divisions together that make some sense. It's silly for PSU and Nebraska to be in the same division. Travel isn't nearly as difficult as it once was, but there's no reason that the two teams on the edges of the conference be placed in the same division just so that UM and OSU do not ever play a second game.
The reality here is that UM and OSU would meet up for a second time once every ten seasons, give or take. Therefore it seems irresponsible of the conference to make decisions based on the possibility that those two meet twice in a season. If it makes sense for them to stay in the same division, fine, but tradition does not make a sensible argument. Tradition is something that happens over time and while it's certainly a tradition for those two to play the final game of the season, in fifty years it would be tradition for them to meet at some other point in the season. Tradition changes. The game will have no less meaning if they play it in October.
The proposed divisions we discussed here are quite lopsided. Jon argued that it was difficult to see it any other way and while I think the league would like to just do that kind of alignment, what are the odds that an agreement could be reached? That's the important question here. OSU and PSU would absolutely love it. It's a two team division that would rarely see any other team win it. The other 4 in that division are going to be strongly opposed. Nebraska and Michigan are going to hate this. While OSU and PSU are battling for the top spot each and every season, they're going to be fighting it out with Iowa and Wisconsin. And Michigan State always has a talented team. I just cannot see the league agreeing to this kind of alignment.
In fact, I think it's highly unlikely. Consider the winning percentages over the time frame the conference is using (since PSU joined the conference).
| Division A | W | L | Win% | Division B | W | L | Win % |
| Ohio State | 170 | 43 | .797 | Michigan | 146 | 64 | .695 |
| Penn State | 147 | 62 | .703 | Nebraska | 165 | 52 | .760 |
| Purdue | 105 | 97 | .520 | Iowa | 119 | 86 | .580 |
| Northwestern | 97 | 105 | .480 | Wisconsin | 145 | 65 | .686 |
| Illinois | 75 | 121 | .383 | Michigan State | 101 | 103 | .495 |
| Indiana | 69 | 126 | .354 | Minnesota | 92 | 11 | .453 |
| TOTAL | 663 | 554 | .545 | TOTAL | 768 | 381 | .668 |
| Avg season | 6.5 | 5.5 | .545 | Avg season | 8.0 | 4.0 | .668 |
Division B is considerably better than the other. It's not close. The average team in Division B wins 8 games per season while it's 6.5 in the other. This can't be approved and I don't see how it would be. Keep in mind that Delany said that competitive balance was number 1. It's the most important factor and this couldn't be a more comptetively unbalance alignment. You could create more balance by putting 3 of the elite teams in the same division. Easily. MSU is the fifth best in Division B and would be the third best in the other by a long way.
No, I don't see how this alignment gets passed. If we move Wisconsin to Divison A and Illinois to Division B, the balance is closer, though B is still quite a bit tougher. The winning percentage for A is .576 and it's .615 for B. Average wins for A is 6.9 and it's 7.4 for B. This isn't as close as you'd like it, but it's a much, much better alignment than the other. We can do better, but I do think geography has proved to be more of an issue than Delany was hoping for, so this just might be the best they can do.
