Maryland and Rutgers joined. It's not fully pointed out in the article about the breakdown of the divisions, but from what I understand it's going the route of an East/West split--and also here is what I'm hearing considering the sides. On the East we'd have Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers with the West side having Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota. I hear that Purdue and Michigan State are still up in the air but it's more than likely Purdue will go to the West while Michigan State is in the East. Got that so far? There are inherent issues with this, but really here are the pros and cons of this whole debacle.
Pro side--In all honesty I think most of the Big Ten fans could see this coming. The original divisions of the Legends and Leaders never truly made any sense. The names themselves have been ridiculed since they were announced. By having an East/West Big Ten, I think it's more of a public opinion standpoint and I know Dave Brandon and Gene Smith both agreed to keep Michigan and Ohio State in the same division. Those two teams are the marquee schools in the Big Ten so it makes sense that they are at the top of the decision hierarchy. If you listen to 97.1 The Ticket, from 2-6pm, you'll hear Sparty fan Mike Valenti completely against this idea for one reason--he doesn't want to play Michigan and Ohio State every single year in the same division (one point should be made is that Michigan plays them both every single year without complaint). So yes there are detractors but geographically it works.
Con side--This is my point of view..I'm completely against it for one simple reason. I don't want Michigan to be stuck playing Maryland and Rutgers every season. I actually enjoyed being in a division (although the whole Big Ten was bad except for OSU this season) with MSU, Iowa, Nebraska, and so on. Those games felt like true Big Ten matchups and I'm afraid that once Maryland and Rutgers join in 2014, that'll no longer be the case. Now there are also rumors of expanding the conference schedule to 9 games instead of 8, but playing the two new schools will still feel like non conference games for a few years. The argument for 9 games is valid--Michigan wouldn't have such a long time between playing schools in the other division such as Iowa or Minnesota where there is a rivalry that exists. Bottom line is that I feel like the whole schedule could be "watered down" and that's the last thing Michigan needs.