Radical Realignment 2007: Big Ten
Ramblin' Racket's Jeff got the point when he noted that this year's exercise in radical realignment is "as sensible as possible geographically [and] not as interesting/fun as last year's, but still very fun all the same."

Radical realignment . . . still entertaining, only less so than last year! You know, sort of like the last couple of seasons of "Mad About You."
After emptying the dustpan into Conference U.S.A., I allowed the logic of the map to dictate that the Pac-10 should be confined to the Pacific Coast, the W.A.C. should consist solely of Western teams, the Big West should be given new life, the M.A.C. should be improved dramatically, the S.W.C. should be revived, and the Central Conference should be created. Now, that same rationale guides me to reconfigure the venerable Big Ten in the following manner:
Boston College
Central Michigan
Connecticut
Eastern Michigan
Michigan
Michigan State
Rutgers
Syracuse
Western Michigan
The reconstituted conference would be more Northeastern than Midwestern, inasmuch as it would consist of the Bay, Empire, Garden, Nutmeg, and Wolverine States. An added bonus to this arrangement would be the league's appeal in the Boston, Detroit, and New York media markets.

Rutgers alumna Kristin Davis was pleased to learn that the Dawg Sports radical realignment proposal had placed the State University of New Jersey in the Big Ten.
I know what you're thinking . . . with all those directional Michiganders and Big East also-rans, how on earth will this be a competitive conference? Well, who says the Big Ten is all that competitive now?
The Maize and Blue have lost to Northwestern three times since 1966, have lost to Illinois three times since 1967, have lost to Minnesota three times since 1968, and have lost to Indiana once since 1968. If given the benefits of increased revenue and heightened media exposure, would the Great Lake State's less storied programs really fare that much worse than the current bottom-feeders of the Big Ten?
Does Central Michigan, which did not post a losing season between 1965 and 1991, truly have a worse football program than Indiana? Would the Chippewas simply be in over their heads playing in a league with Army or Boston College? Recent results suggest that this is not the case: Central Michigan lost to the Hoosiers by a touchdown in 2005, beat the Black Knights by four points later that same year, and fell to the Golden Eagles by seven points in 2006.
While the mid-major Michiganders of the right, left, and middle were still finding their sea legs, though, there would be some fundamentally sound, slobberknocking football being played in the league. Army, Boston College, Michigan, and Rutgers all pride themselves on rock-ribbed line play and there certainly would be some hitting going on in true Big Ten fashion.

Bo and Woody would have been proud. (Image from Ultimate Disney.)
Beyond that, it would be fun to see the Eagles (nee Hurons) of Ypsilanti facing the Orange (nee Orangemen) of the Carrier Dome in a battle of politically rectified mascots . . . particularly if that scrubbed-down showdown took place on the same Saturday as the game between the unrepentant Chippewas of Mount Pleasant and the oddly uncontroversial Spartans of East Lansing.
In addition, annual clashes between the Black Knights of the Hudson and the Scarlet Knights of the Raritan hardly would qualify as novel, since the United States Military Academy at West Point and the State University of New Jersey at New Brunswick have been squaring off on the gridiron since 1891 and they appeared on one another's slates in all but one autumn from 1979 to 1998.
Coming soon . . . the altered Big East.
Go 'Dawgs!
0 recs |
4
comments
Comments
Confused
by smq on Mar 20, 2007 11:05 AM EDT 0 recs
This year, it's all about geography
The idea is to break out of certain established mindsets just long enough to look at alternative arrangements to see how they would look.
I will admit that last year's plan was more balanced than this year's, but I'm trying to go by proximity first and foremost, purely as an intellectual exercise, not as advocacy.
As for the practical aspect of your question, Michigan and Ohio simply contain too many Division I-A programs to make it feasible to put both states in the same league under this approach. Of course, part of the point is to design a series of 10-team leagues with round-robin conference schedules and no championship games, so, if the Maize and Blue are so far ahead of the rest of the pack, they shouldn't mind playing the sort of non-conference rivalry games the likes of Iowa, Iowa State, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Clemson, and South Carolina have played for years.
Clearly, you are correct that the Wolverines would be the favorites in such a league. I am of the belief, however, that, if given the opportunity to compete in a major conference (complete with big-dollar revenue sharing, greater television exposure, and heightened media attention), most public universities with reasonably large enrollments could improve their status within the sport.
Were it within my power to implement this year's version of radical realignment, would I do so? No. (Were it within my power to implement last year's version, though, I might.) The point is not to offer a realistic proposal, since no such proposal, no matter how reasonable, would be realistic.
The point is to stretch the ol' mental muscles ever so slightly, so as to break out of modes of thinking that have become so familiar that we no longer even are aware of them. Some schools are viewed as second-class citizens in college football. Maybe they deserve to be viewed that way, maybe they don't. Considering how such schools might respond if given the opportunity to move up in weight class is a useful exercise in identifying our own preconceptions and evaluating their validity . . . something I believe you and I both tried to do in our recent debate over a college football playoff.
I hope that answers your question. Hey, it could have been worse . . . I could have gone alphabetically!
by T Kyle King on
Mar 20, 2007 12:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Dawgsports.com Diva
I also note that my previous questions about the location of the reigning Diva (http://www.dawgsports.com/comments/2007/2/21/0553/95793/4#4) have gone unanswered. Sure, there was a photo of her posted shortly thereafter, but no way to verify when the photo was taken. I think that she is being held in communicato waiting for her loyal supporters to storm the castle and restore her to the throne.
.... geez, I have GOT to stop staying up late watching the History Channel and eating pizza. (http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=77210)
by Blogger who came in from the cold on Mar 20, 2007 11:09 AM EDT 0 recs
Have fun storming the castle!
by T Kyle King on
Mar 20, 2007 12:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs










