Let's say Pittsburgh joins (which I think is the most likely).

Just starting off, I think it's necessary to have Michigan and OSU in the same division. It'd be kind of bad to have them play back to back weeks imo. I think you have some teams that play across divisions every year. In my case, it would be Michigan/Michigan State to start. Put MSU and PSU in the same division with Pittsburgh.

So you start with:

Big Whatever Tundra Division:

Michigan
Ohio State

Big Whatever Arctic Division:

Penn State
Pittsburgh
Michigan State

Keeping a lot of the same rivalries the same, I think a lot of the other teams are interchangeable. This is what I have. I'm really not sure if you put Wisconsin with Michigan or OSU or in the Penn State division.

I would have:

Big Whatever Tundra Division:

Michigan
Ohio State
Indiana
Illinois
Purdue
Northwestern

Big Whatever Arctic Division:

Penn State
Michigan State
Pittsburgh
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois

The problem with this is obviously that it can create a situation like the Big XII South (obviously dependent on Michigan returning to being Michigan) where almost every year the Oklahoma/Texas game (in this case UM/OSU) is the de facto division title game. Although, putting Wisconsin in with Michigan and OSU is kind of unfair if you look at where you'd say the traditional powers rank.

I'd rank the "traditional powers" in the Big 10, as in what expectation is in the long run as follows.

1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. Penn State
4. Wisconsin
5. Iowa

Every ACC and SEC team has a cross-division rival they play every year.

UGA-Auburn
Florida-LSU
Tennessee-Alabama
SCarolina-Arkansas
Kentucky-Miss State
Vanderbilt-Ole Miss

GT-Clemson
Miami-FSU
VT-BC
Duke-Wake Forest
UNC-NC State
Virginia-Maryland

Do non-revenue sports in other conferences care about divisions at all or is that just a football thing?

Two smart bloggers:

Dr Saturday:

Brian at mgoblog:

Basketball programs care; that's probably one variable keeping a school like UCONN and Syracuse out of the discussion for the BigTen -- because they want to stay in the Big East, and basketball are much bigger revenue sources for their ADs.

True, lets say its Rutgers since that makes more sense.

East
Rutgers
Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern

West
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Michigan
Michigan St

Also, one advantage to throwing all of the big football schools in the same division is more games on national TV.

Pitt can easily substitute for Rutgers in the above.

I'm assuming you meant Minnesota instead of one of the Illinois.

Michigan and Ohio State don't need to be in the same division. Once we realize this the rest is pretty simple.

no actually they do. yet its still simple.

No, they do not. Miami and FSU are not in the same division.

Yes, having them play back-to-back in 30% of the years makes a lot of sense.

I don't see why they necessarily would be. They could still play each other every year. It would just be the Big Ten/OSU/UM's tolerance for potentially either changing the traditional schedule and moving UM/OSU to earlier in the season, or alternatively, their tolerance for playing each other two weeks in a row when they both make the title game. I'm guessing that tolerance will be low, but obviously concessions are going to have to be made here if the ADs are committed to adding a 12th team and a title game.

They can still have their rivalry without being in the same division. It's really a non-issue.

Pitt
Penn St
Ohio St
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern

vs

Michigan
Michigan St
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois

is very balanced both modern-day and historically.

LOL @ comparing that rivalry to Ohio State - Michigan. It's already annoying enough they are moving the game after Thanksgiving the next 3 years.

The #1 reason why OSU & Mich in different divisions sucks is because every 3rd or 4th year they would be playing each other on back to back weeks. I don't think we need to worry about that with FSU and Miami.

We should separate out "this would annoy people" and "this would be stupid" from "this won't happen." I 100% agree, lots of people at UM/OSU would be very pissed if they play each other two weeks in a row (essentially raping the first game of any meaning) or if the game was moved away from it's traditional spot at the end of November. But let's not kid ourselves here, the championship game is going to rape the UM/OSU game of some its meaning. A big part of why it became The Game, and why it's a big deal, is because for ~40 years, it was often for the Big Ten title and the trip to the Rose Bowl. That won't be the case anymore.

i dunno...both you and i have grown up with the last game meaning the most..i guess i'm alone in wanting that to continue?

true, as long as they still play each other every year.

+1

+2

also, **** Wilbon.

It just hit me that if we still want Mich-OSU to be special we need to keep them in the same division. Their game at the end of the year would likely be for the division title instead of the conference title with the loser still going home.

I feel smart for agreeing with Dr Saturday and Brian at mgoblog.

As I said earlier, one of the inevitable consequences of the expansion is that the UM/OSU game will be "less special." I assume that's a trade-off the UM/OSU ADs are willing to take for those extra Championship Game dollars.

You meant to say Iowa and Ohio state, right?

If they take Missouri the Big 12 will be dead.