The B1G division reshuffle: How can the West be won over?

It’s the biggest East-West divide since the Berlin Wall.

OK, so that might be the biggest bit of hyperbole uttered since the claim that David Hasselhoff is responsible for tearing down the wall. But at least you’re paying attention.

And make no mistake, there really is a divide between the Big Ten East and West at the moment. Strategic talks are needed to bridge the differences.

The subject at hand? How to determine the makeup of the Big Ten championship game now that the NCAA has given conferences free reign to move away from automatic berths for division champions.

The Pac-12 and Mountain West stuck first.

The Pac-12 will keep divisions for scheduling purposes. But effective this fall, the top 2 teams in the conference will play for the championship. The Mountain West is nixing divisions entirely in 2023.

The Big Ten has yet to announce any changes, though they are being discussed. And from decidedly differing viewpoints.

Michigan State AD Alan Haller “expects changes are coming.”

But representing the Western perspective, Purdue AD Mike Bobinski put a qualifier on that.

“We would be perfectly OK with continuing the divisional structure,” Bobinski said in an interview with Purdue fan site Gold and Black. “But also willing to keep an open mind if someone could make a coherent argument as to why getting rid of divisions would benefit the league overall.”

Therein lies the conundrum.

For the 7 schools in the East, it makes no sense to continue with the current divisional structure. If the no-division rule was already in place, 5 of the past 8 championship games would have featured 2 teams from the East.

For that same reason, the 7 schools in the West aren’t interested in moving away from the status quo.

But there’s also another wrinkle in play.

The schedule question

Bobinski is also a realist. If it comes to pass that the Big Ten is the only conference with a traditional divisional structure, it’s not a very good look.

“At some point, you got to put your Big Ten hat on, too,” Bobinski noted, “and make sure that we’re protecting the overall brand and power of the league.”

Rather than divisional integrity, the number of conference games on the schedule is more likely to be the deciding factor.

The B1G has played a 9-game schedule since 2016. And from a scheduling standpoint, having 1 fewer nonconference game to worry about makes life much easier. But if the Big Ten eliminates divisions, the best solution involves moving back to 8 conference games.

That’s the only way the math works for the so-called 3-5-5 scheduling model. All 14 teams would have 3 permanent rivals, then play other 10 Big Ten teams in a 2-year window — 5 per year.

How it would look is up for debate.

I’ve offered my personal preference, and each AD probably has their own variation. But one thing is certain — if the B1G sticks to a 9-game schedule, none of that will matter. The 3-5-5 structure is only good when you add 3+5. And that’s about the extent of sportswriter mathematics.

Will The Alliance dictate B1G schedule, or vice versa?

When Texas and Oklahoma decided to join the SEC, the Big Ten responded with “The Alliance.” It was a supposed 3-way partnership with the ACC and Pac-12 that would make it more difficult for SEC teams to schedule quality nonconference opponents.

It was already built on a shaky premise — SEC teams want to see Samford on their pillow-soft nonconference schedules, not Stanford. And so far any talk of an increase in ACC/B1G/Pac-12 inter-conference games has been much ado about nothing.

If the Alliance is ever going to amount to anything, all 3 conferences need to be on the same page. That’s definitely not the case at present. As long as the Pac-12 and Big Ten stick to 9-game schedules compared to the ACC’s 8, it will remain cheap talk.

Essentially, there are 3 options on the table.

• Status quo: Stick with the East and West Divisions with a 9-game conference schedule.
• The Pac-12 model: Keep divisions and 9 conference games for scheduling purposes, but send the top 2 teams to the B1G championship game.
• The probable ACC model: It won’t happen this season, but the ACC is expected to adopt the model of 3 permanent opponents along with 5 that rotate every other year. Again, this will require dropping a conference game if adopted in the B1G.

Due to the West’s current condition, the status quo seems like the most likely outcome. There is no reason for those schools to agree to anything else. But only for a limited time.

The College Football Playoff is going to expand in some form come 2026. And at that point, it’s in the best interests of every power conference to attempt getting as many teams possible into that field. That will be the moment when ADs agree to “protect the overall brand and power” of the B1G. The top 2 teams will be in the title game.

The only way change takes place before then is if there’s a coordinated push to make The Alliance a viable entity. Kevin Warren could say league membership was unanimous in wanting to evolve. It may or may not be the whole truth. But it’s more believable than saying everyone is in agreement on adopting the Pac-12 model.

Until either change happens, it’s hard to see the West being won over. And who can blame those schools? There’s nothing in it for them. Unity on this issue is hard to come by.

Eventually, change will come. Just don’t hold your breath. And once it finally does, maybe Hasselhoff can do the halftime show.

Alex Hickey

Alex Hickey is an award-winning writer who has watched Big Ten sports since it was a numerically accurate description of league membership. Alex has covered college football and basketball since 2008, with stops on the McNeese State, LSU and West Virginia beats before being hired as Saturday Tradition's Big Ten columnist in 2021. He is an Illinois native and 2004 Indiana University graduate.