MAC football -- Big Ten Division format

Yes, I realize this is a blog about Bowling Green football, and Mid-American Conference football. But I can't help myself -- I just have to weigh in on the Big Ten's new division format.

I'm not going to complain about the division names ... although they're just silly. And I'm not going to complain about the logo ... although it is hopelessly plain. You have all done a good job of discussing those things.

I think the complaint that everyone is missing is the most important one of all: the placement of teams into divisions.

When Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany announced the composition of the divisions, he said, "We focused on competitive equality, traditional rivalries and geography. We considered multiple models and countless permutations in an effort to achieve the most competitively balanced divisions while at the same time blah blah blah blah."

No, he didn't say "blah blah blah blah." Yes, the emphasis on those quotes is mine. I'd like to make the point that making the divisions for those reasons is incredibly foolish, and I'll use a little MAC history to prove my point.

Remember back in 1997? The MAC was adding Marshall and Northern Illinois and splitting in to two divisions. At that time, the league decided to base its divisions on geography rather than competitive balance. While the MAC may have made that choice based on travel cost, the logic is still good.

Here's why: simply put, competitive balance changes over time.

Don't believe me? Well, I did a quick-and-dirty look at the MAC entering the 1997 season. I added up the MAC records from the previous 10 seasons for the 10 teams in the league at that time (NOTE: I didn't check my math to make it precisely correct. It was close enough to make my point), and the divisions entering 1997 were horribly unbalanced. If I remember correctly, several West Division teams complained about it at the time.

Why? The five teams that went into the West Division include the four (FOUR!) teams with the best league record in the previous ten years -- Ball State (believe it or not), Toledo, Western Michigan and Central Michigan. The fifth school, Eastern Michigan, was ranked in front of three East Division schools -- Akron, Kent State and Ohio -- and had nearly a .500 record (believe it or not).

Marshall was considered strong enough to give the East Division at least one team equal to the West Division powers. And you may not remember this, but when Northern Illinois returned to the MAC, they were on a long winless streak and were considered a doormat.

See my point? Things obviously change over time. Northern Illinois was a poor team then; the Huskies are one of the league's best now. Ball State had the best record then; the Cardinals are a middle-of-the-pack team now. So much has changed, and that happened just 15 years ago.

Why base your divisions on competition measures now, when those measures will probably change in a few years? Use something more tangible, like geography, to partner your teams.

Nobody asked me, but if I would put the Big Ten teams into divisions, I'd lump Penn State, Ohio State, the two Michigan schools and the two Indiana schools into one division (call it the "East" Division because the schools are in the Eastern time zone), and the other division (Call it the "Central" Division, again for time zone purposes) would include Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, the two Illinois schools and Nebraska.

You may disagree, but those divisions seem pretty balanced to me.

You are welcome to post a comment (click on the "comments" link below) or send me an e-mail to jwagner@theblade.com. You also can follow my on Twitter: @jwagnerblade. Looking forward to hearing from you!

Comments

[Chris]

John... that would make way too much sense!

[John_Wagner]

I must admit that I've lost some respect for those folks running the Big Ten because of this whole process. Do these folks really believe any of this stuff is good work? REALLY? Shame on them ...