Friday, June 18, 2010
The Big Ten commish already stated that the divisions would be formed by; 1. Competitive balance, 2. Retaining Important Rivalries, and 3. Geography. Jim Delany obviously doesn't give a shit if Nebraska has to fly all the way to Happy Valley so neither do I. Here is my proposal:
I don't think there is any other way to get more balanced divisions and maintain the important rivalries. I don't think you can keep PSU, M, and Fuckeyes in the same division and you certainly can't separate M and Fuckeyes, so there you have it. PSU has a little more travel, but teams also have to travel a little longer to play them.
Also, I suspect Notre Dame to come to the Big Ten in the next three years so you have to consider their addition to Division B and an addition of an east coast-ish team to Division A when making out the current divisions. Division B has the potential to be a buzzsaw, but you can't throw ND in with the other two big dogs.
Now what the hell they call these divisions is a whole different problems. Land and Lake? That's seriously the best I've got and it's fucking lame. There has to be something better.
The PAC 10 is a little easier, and doesn't really matter. How pissed are you as a PAC 10 fan that just last week you thought you were landing Texas, TAMU, Oklahoma, OK State, Texas Tech, and Colorado and now you end up with Utah--a nice pick up but not a big splash--and Colorado--Denver television market but irrelevant athletically. I'll take Nebraska, thank you. Breakdown:
Pretty damn simple. I have seen a couple reports where Colorado and Utah are swapped with Cal and Stanford, but I don't like the idea of breaking up the Cali teams.
...It's Friday, that's all I got. What would you change?