Short Division: Kremlinology With Delany

Perhaps the most exhausting and exhausted topic of the past few months is the impending divisional split of the Big Ten. Part of the disgruntlement in my particular Slow State is due to the annihilation of Penn State’s tremendous and unprecedented home schedule for 2011, which included Happy Valley dates with Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Alabama. The Penn State ticketing gurus had been counting on that 2011 slate as well — that’s the year new quasi-PSL fees take effect, driving up the price of many season ticket packages by hundreds of dollars per ticket. Simply put, there was a reason that 2011 was chosen to implement that new pricing plan, and the home opener against Indiana State (!)wasn’t it.

Penn State’s official site, GoPSUSports.com, has already deleted the 2011-12 conference games from its future schedules page. Current season ticket holders have until September 1 to declare their intentions for 2011 tickets — problem is, nobody knows what that 2011 schedule (or future schedules) will look like. Alabama’s still on the slate, of course, but after that? Who knows.

However, as we creep toward a decision on this topic, Jim Delany and his cohorts have been dropping little hints as to the criteria for divisions. Three bulletpoints from a recent Adam Rittenberg blog entry at ESPN.com are illustrative (emphasis supplied):

1. He reiterated that competitive balance and the preservation of rivalries are the top two principles for determining divisions, while geography seems like a distant third criterion. “We didn’t think there’s any way we could achieve principle 1 and 2 if we were rigid about geographic contiguity,” he said. “Some conferences do that, but we didn’t think we could. We are aware of geography, but we’re not going to be driven by it.”

2. Asked about the likelihood of an East-West split with divisions, Delany said, “You can look at the principles and the rank order of the principles and you could pretty much rule that out, unless it produced something that had the competitive quality at the top.” Looking at the teams’ performance since 1993, you could make a case for an East-West split. But like I’ve said from the beginning, this is largely about branding, which Delany understands better than any of us. You don’t put three of your four biggest brands in one division.

3. Delany said there’s a “strong likelihood” the Big Ten will have protected crossover games between the two divisions.

The final point is what resonates with me, especially because it’s clear that Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State will not co-exist in one division. Could protected crossover games translate to “we’ll split hated rivals up without hesitation”, leading to the previously inconceivable idea of separating Ohio State and Michigan (and the admittedly less inconceivable notion of splitting Penn State and Ohio State, or Iowa and Nebraska)?

Of course, Ohio State and Michigan are going to play every year whether they’re in the same division or not, and they’ll probably do so on the last weekend of the season. Does anybody really think that the conference will split them up, only to potentially have a rematch one or two weeks later? (For this exercise, pretend that Michigan football will be relevant in the next three or four years.)

Yeah, me neither.

What this most likely leads to, then, is the shunting of Penn State to some geographically distant division, with a protected rivalry game against Ohio State. (And really, if the conference was going to draw a line down the Illinois-Indiana border and go with an east-west split, they’d have done so already.) That likely means landing in a division with the other Big Brand, Nebraska, who will probably have a cross-division rivalry with either Wisconsin or Iowa and an intra-division game with the other. That takes care of the top six programs (five, plus Nebraska) in terms of winning percentage since 1993:

Division A: Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa

Division B: Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin

Minnesota is a good bet to fall in with Wisconsin, if only to allow them access to their three biggest rivals: Wisconsin, Michigan, and a cross-division rivalry with Iowa, whose fans are undoubtedly looking forward to tearing down the Gophers’ new goal posts.

Division A: Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa

Division B: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota,

There’s no need to keep other rivals together, such as Michigan and MSU, and Indiana and Purdue. Split ‘em up.

Division A: Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue

Division B: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana

[Good news, the Land Grant Trophy game lives on!]

Which leaves Illinois and Northwestern, who also don’t need to be in the same division, but need to play every year as a protected rivalry. Because I’d prefer a road trip to Chicago instead of Chambana, let’s claim Northwestern. Really, the Purdue / Indiana and Northwestern / Illinois couplets could be flipped and nobody would notice or care.

Division A: Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Purdue, Northwestern

Division B: Ohio State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois

Protected rivalries: PSU-OSU, Neb-Wisc, Iowa-Minn, Michigan-MSU, Indiana-Purdue, and NW-Illinois.

And, fin. Any major holes in this?