Page 1 of 1

BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:45 am
by EPJr
Big Ten divisions appear headed for east-west split;
divisions debate down to Indiana, Purdue

Image

As you might've missed amid the NCAA tournament's start last night, ESPN's Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg reported that, as previously interpreted by many accounts, the league is headed for a clean and sensible East-West divisional split. This would obliterate the dopey, pretentious and indecipherable Legends and Leaders nonsense.

One team needs to move West, and speculation has centered on three schools: Purdue, Indiana and Michigan State. But Michigan State isn't in play to move West, sources say, and the debate now is whether Indiana or Purdue enters the "West" division.

Although no announcement is imminent and discussions will continue, here's what the divisions are expected to look like (the division names have yet to be decided):

Image

Before Hoosier fans and Boiler fans panic about their annual rivalry, rest assured that the Bucket game will be preserved with a protected crossover. Barring a change in the discussions, Indiana-Purdue will be the only protected crossover, as the Big Ten wants to create as much flexibility as possible with its schedules.

League sources tell ESPN.com that a 9-game conference schedule likely will go into effect for the 2016 season -- there's still some discussion about a 10-game league slate, but all signs point to nine -- and that the goal is for every pair of teams to play at least once every four years.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... ana-purdue

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:06 pm
by SuperHornet
Well, if they split IN and Purdue, that's really the only big rivalry that involves a cross-over. Thus, I'd have no problem with protecting that one. Then again, I don't have a horse in that fight given that I hate the B1G (like I hate the ACC, the Big East, the A-10, the SEC, the C-USA, the Sun Belt, the MWC, the WAC, MAC, and the Pac-12). I am happy, though, that they're getting rid of that Legends/Leaders nonsense.

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:15 pm
by BlueHen86
SuperHornet wrote:Well, if they split IN and Purdue, that's really the only big rivalry that involves a cross-over. Thus, I'd have no problem with protecting that one. Then again, I don't have a horse in that fight given that I hate the B1G (like I hate the ACC, the Big East, the A-10, the SEC, the C-USA, the Sun Belt, the MWC, the WAC, MAC, and the Pac-12). I am happy, though, that they're getting rid of that Legends/Leaders nonsense.
:+1:

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:39 am
by EPJr

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:41 am
by Ibanez
SuperHornet wrote:Well, if they split IN and Purdue, that's really the only big rivalry that involves a cross-over. Thus, I'd have no problem with protecting that one. Then again, I don't have a horse in that fight given that I hate the B1G (like I hate the ACC, the Big East, the A-10, the SEC, the C-USA, the Sun Belt, the MWC, the WAC, MAC, and the Pac-12). I am happy, though, that they're getting rid of that Legends/Leaders nonsense.
Then why open your mouth?

Spoiler: show
By the way, the term is "I don't have a dog in that fight."

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:51 am
by kalm
Ibanez wrote:
SuperHornet wrote:Well, if they split IN and Purdue, that's really the only big rivalry that involves a cross-over. Thus, I'd have no problem with protecting that one. Then again, I don't have a horse in that fight given that I hate the B1G (like I hate the ACC, the Big East, the A-10, the SEC, the C-USA, the Sun Belt, the MWC, the WAC, MAC, and the Pac-12). I am happy, though, that they're getting rid of that Legends/Leaders nonsense.
Then why open your mouth?

Spoiler: show
By the way, the term is "I don't have a dog in that fight."
Never look a gift dog in the mouth.

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:20 am
by ASUMountaineer
SuperHornet wrote:Well, if they split IN and Purdue, that's really the only big rivalry that involves a cross-over. Thus, I'd have no problem with protecting that one. Then again, I don't have a horse in that fight given that I hate the B1G (like I hate the ACC, the Big East, the A-10, the SEC, the C-USA, the Sun Belt, the MWC, the WAC, MAC, and the Pac-12). I am happy, though, that they're getting rid of that Legends/Leaders nonsense.
So full of hate... :ohno:

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 5:31 pm
by SuperHornet
I made that post over a month ago with no comment other than 86's seconding of my last sentence, and you guys jump on me NOW?!?

:dunce:

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:25 am
by ASUMountaineer
SuperHornet wrote:I made that post over a month ago with no comment other than 86's seconding of my last sentence, and you guys jump on me NOW?!?

:dunce:
Excellent rebuttal. :thumb:

Re: BIG TEN DIVISIONAL REALIGNMENT

Posted: Tue Apr 30, 2013 6:26 am
by Ibanez
SuperHornet wrote:I made that post over a month ago with no comment other than 86's seconding of my last sentence, and you guys jump on me NOW?!?

:dunce:
Some of prioritize which of your posts we tackle. :kisswink: