Big Ten divisional plans still undecided

Big Ten officials still are discussing plans on how to incorporate Nebraska into the league for the 2011 football season.

There are no concrete plans set for the league from scheduling to divisional alignment in the new 12-team conference. Nebraska officially joined the league last week and will begin play in 2011.

"I haven't seen any time table on that," said Scott Chipman, Big Ten associate commissioner for communications. "It's still to be determined."

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany told reporters last week that competitive balance might be the most important aspect in determining divisions. Of course geography and tradition will play a role in it as well.  

My feeling is the league will divide divisions as equally as possible while allowing key rivalries remain intact with some geographic sanity. The best way to look at competitive balance is to look at how teams performed within the league under a 10-year microscope. You can't draw a divisional alignment based on Michigan's performance the last two years or its previous 100.

From 2000 through 2009, Ohio State won 64 of 80 Big Ten games. Michigan (53) was second, followed by Iowa (49), Penn State (45) and Wisconsin (44). Purdue (41) also won more than half of its games, followed closely by Northwestern (38). Down the list were Michigan State (32), Minnesota (30), Illinois (26) and Indiana (18). Nebraska had 47 wins in the Big 12 over the same time frame.

The league currently deems 22 games as "designated" rivalries that do not rotate off the schedule. For Iowa that means Wisconsin and Minnesota. For Michigan, that means Michigan State and Ohio State. For Indiana that means Purdue and Illinois.

Each of those rivalries have value, although some are more vital than others. I can't imagine a divisional alignment will shift Michigan and Ohio State to opposite divisions. Ohio State Athletics Director Gene Smith said he was all for the league's betterment during expansion talks but said when it comes to Michigan-Ohio State "I'll get real local."

Based on geography, rivalries, and most importantly, competitive balance, here's how I see the football divisions playing out in 2011 (the names are up for debate):

GRAIN BELT (253 wins over 10 years) -- Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern

RUST BELT (234 wins over 10 years) -- Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois

For the Grain Belt, that gives Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota a chance to continue their tradition-rich rivalries. It gives the conference's newcomers -- Nebraska and Penn State -- a chance to play each year. It gives Northwestern a chance to play Iowa every year.

For the Rust Belt, Ohio State-Michigan can maintain its annual status without watering it down with a rematch. Indiana, Purdue and Illinois are within close proximity. Michigan State and Michigan also continues an intense rivalry.

If that's too unbalanced, then Northwestern and Illinois could swap divisions.

The losers? Illinois-Northwestern, Ohio State-Penn State, Penn State-Michigan State. It's possible the league might add one annual cross-over opponent for each school. Maybe Michigan and Minnesota could play for the Little Brown Jug every year.

So what are your thoughts about divisional alignment? Colleagues

Mike Hlas, 

Marc Morehouse and ESPN blogger

Adam Rittenberg have submitted their ideas, so throw yours together as well.