A little over 25 years ago, the Coca-Cola Company was concerned that it was losing market share to Pepsi in the “Cola Wars” and hired an avalanche of consultants and scientists to concoct a new formula for its flagship product. If you were a businessman that only made judgments based on specific metrics from market studies, it looked like the move would be a success. Focus groups actually gave a ton of positive feedback to what would become known as “New Coke” and stated that they liked it better than both the original Coke formula and Pepsi. Coca-Cola executives in Atlanta were convinced that this was what was going to overtake the “Pepsi Generation” by making a clear and bold break with tradition and the past.
New Coke was introduced to the public on April 23, 1985. The public’s reaction was swift and visceral: they wanted to torch the company’s headquarters. Oh sure, they said that they liked New Coke in blind taste tests, yet all of those highly-paid consultants didn’t factor in that there was a bond to the original flavor that went beyond the taste buds. New Coke bombed in stores, boycotts occurred across the country, all of the original formula Coke left on store shelves was being hoarded and politicians started squawking. Less than 3 months after New Coke’s debut, Coke brought back the original formula under the name Coca-Coca Classic. David Keough, the president and chief operating officer of Coca-Cola at the time, stated this (with emphasis added) at the press conference announcing the return of the traditional taste: “There is a twist to this story which will please every humanist and will probably keep Harvard professors puzzled for years. The simple fact is that all the time and money and skill poured into consumer research on the new Coca-Cola could not measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to original Coca-Cola felt by so many people.”
I’m a corporate attorney that has spent most of my career either working with or for large management consulting firms. So, I have a ton of respect for consultants in general and personally have a lot at stake working within that industry. I also have no qualms about bucking tradition when its appropriate in order to maximize revenue – most of the readers here came across my blog via a post advocating that the Big Ten go after Texas in a decidedly non-traditional expansion move. According to Mike Gundy, I’m not even old enough to be a man yet. The point is that I’m not an old fuddy duddy traditionalist that doesn’t think about finances and just wishes everything would go back to the old days.
Here’s the problem that I have and we’re facing as fans on the outside: no consulting firm on Earth will receive much in terms of hourly fees by telling Coca-Cola to stick with its original formula… or say that the Big Ten should simply have a logical East/West split in its divisions… or that moving the Michigan-Ohio State game from the last weekend of the regular season is so ludicrous that merely discussing is a waste of time since it is a slap in the face to college football fans everywhere. Doing what’s logical can be summed up in a comment to a blog post (much less a blog post itself). Making several million dollars in consulting fees requires to coming up with wacky division alignments, statistical analysis on “competitive balance”, test marketing, and multitudes of Excel spreadsheets and PowerPoint presentations explaining how there’s a double pot of gold if you can get Michigan and Ohio State to play twice in a single season. Never mind that the ACC tried to do the same with Miami and Florida State and the football gods have crushed the prospect of that conference championship game matchup every year. I’m sure that the Big Ten brass in Park Ridge has been poring over so much data over the past few months without public interaction that they’ve likely convinced themselves that the simple and logical answer to divisional alignment and treatment of the Michigan-Ohio State game can’t possibly be good enough, just like the people at Coca-Cola’s headquarters 25 years ago.
Alas, the very smart people at the Big Ten conference offices are completely outsmarting themselves here. For whatever reason, the KISS formula of a logical East/West division split simply won’t do. I can somewhat understand the desire to split the 4 “marquee brands” of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska evenly amongst the divisions. However, the thought of (1) sending Michigan and Ohio State to opposite divisions and (2) moving their rivalry game from the end of the season to the midseason is even worse than the idea of New Coke. At least Coca-Cola wanted to shake things up because it was losing market share. In contrast, the Big Ten is at the height of its power and has ZERO reason to eliminate a single rivalry game or mess with its most valuable regular season property. Jim Delany, Barry Alvarez and other Big Ten representatives claiming that there isn’t a way to preserve all of the conference’s currently protected rivalries is complete B.S. (especially if it’s true that the Big Ten will have a 9-game conference schedule starting in 2015). They can ALL be protected if the Big Ten chose the KISS alignment, but they are affirmatively CHOOSING not to use it.
Well, if the Big Ten isn’t going to go with the KISS formula (which I continue to believe is the right way to do it), it should at least try to mitigate the damage that it’s going to do to its fans and traditions. My hope is that the Big Ten realizes that it’s not worth it to whore itself out for $150,000 per school (as determined by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo!) in the hopes of a Michigan-Ohio State rematch in a Big Ten Championship Game. That’s right: a whole $150,000 per school, which is less than the annual interest on John Calipari’s slush fund. Seriously, though, to put that in perspective, mgoblog calculated that Michigan could raise $150,000 by increasing ticket prices by twenty cents. Also, Ohio State is paying Colorado $1.4 million to visit the Horsehoe for a PACrifice blood money home game in 2011. So, the complete destruction of the century-old tradition of the Michigan-Ohio State game will pay for less than 7 minutes of Colorado’s time on the field. WTF?!
Let me hammer home for the second time in this blog post that the ACC has tried this exact same thing with its gerrymandered divisions that look like a rottweiler tore into a Rand McNally road atlas in order to setup a Miami-Florida State championship game and HAS FAILED. The fact that the national media doesn’t immediately point out immediately how AWFUL the ACC divisions are (as opposed to the constant bitching about the red herring of the perceived Big 12 North/South “imbalance”) is one of my biggest pet peeves in all of this. LOOK AT THE FAILURE OF THE ACC HERE. I will beat this into everyone’s head until it becomes a reflexive response.
Before I get angrier about this, let’s try to put together a reasonable alternative to the KISS formula that keeps Michigan and Ohio State together while also making a good faith effort toward the amorphous concept of “competitive balance”. To me, there are 3 “pods” of schools in the Big Ten:
POD A:
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
POD B:
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
POD C:
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Here are my division alignment parameters:
(1) 2 teams from each pod are in each division
(2) 1 permanent intra-pod cross-division opponent
(3) Michigan and Ohio State are kept together (meaning Penn State and Nebraska must be together)
(4) Don’t let either Penn State or Nebraska be on islands
(5) Equal access to prime recruiting territories means as much as competitive balance
So, here’s my proposed division alignment:
DIVISION A
Michigan
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
DIVISION B
Penn State
Michigan State
Nebraska
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
PERMANENT CROSS-DIVISION RIVALRIES
Michigan – Michigan State
Ohio State – Penn State
Wisconsin – Nebraska
Minnesota – Iowa
Northwestern – Illinois
Purdue – Indiana
Under this, Michigan – Ohio State continues to be played at the end of the regular season and the conference sets up another marquee end-of-the-year matchup between Nebraska and either Penn State or Iowa. The 4 marquee brand schools are split up evenly and every school has direct annual exposure to at least 3 of the 4 top recruiting territories within the Big Ten region (Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania). Finally, except for Wisconsin – Iowa (which was most in danger because they are both such natural pairs with Nebraska and I’ll be damned if the Floyd of Rosedale, the most bad-ass trophy in sports, gets cut), EVERY SINGLE CURRENTLY PROTECTED RIVALRY WILL LIVE ON. Once again, don’t let anyone sweet talk you into thinking that “competitive balance” had to kill multiple rivalries – that’s complete bunk.
Whatever your thoughts are on this issue, I encourage you to email Jim Delany at jdelany@bigten.org (h/t to super commenter Adam) and the president/chancellor and athletic director of your favorite school. Even better on top of that, email the groups of people that can really make the aforementioned people squirm: the members of the board of trustees of your favorite school that sign the paychecks and the applicable state legislators that control public university funding. Be sure to mention if you donate to your school or hold season tickets and what will happen to such donations and season ticket payments if the Big Ten continues to ignore its fans that provide financial support to its member institutions.
I hope that Jim Delany and the powers that be within the Big Ten remember the thoughts of the former Coca-Cola president that screwed up by introducing New Coke: All of the time and money that the Big Ten is paying consultants to figure out its division will NOT measure or reveal the deep and abiding emotional attachment to the conference’s traditions by so many people. If the Big Ten is going to make a grave error in its divisional alignments, at least make it only a Crystal Pepsi mistake instead of a New Coke nuclear bomb on history.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Virgin Media)
Go Irish!
LikeLike
i am Irish and i think your team making fun on me is wrong and i think it is time i sued you bastards for making my people look like a bunch of drunken monkeys
LikeLike
I’m Irish and I AM a drunken monkey.
LikeLike
Hawks #2 (in the Ford division)!!!
LikeLike
Hah! Greg, you crack me up.
And add.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Love Ya Lions!
LikeLike
Great Post Frank;
I would think a yearly Michigan v. Nebraska game would be good for ratings.
LikeLike
Barta said league officials have discussed divisional names using directions, icons or colors. He said the names will be widely scrutinized so the discussions are intense because “they have to stand the test of time.”
Um, exactly why using “icons” or “colors” would be such a stupid way to name divisions.
LikeLike
Other potential division names:
WTF and FUF(ans)
Rorschach and Ulysses
Jekyll and Hyde
Trotsky and Lenin
Rhyme and Reason
Ice and Sleet
Dys and Lexic
LikeLike
Dog and Pony
LikeLike
Dazed and Confused
LikeLike
Rust and Belt.
LikeLike
“What D***head Said” and “Because We Dropped the Soap”
LikeLike
FUBAR and BOHICA
LikeLike
In the end, I am indifferent to whether Ohio State-Michigan should be in the same division, let alone when they should meet.
Just because it was that way in the past, does not not necessarily mean it should be in the future. We’ve added countless bowls as well as the names of the bowls have changed. The BCS formula seemingly changes every year. The Rose Bowl isn’t always the domain of the Big 10 and Pac-10. Why is OSU-Michigan suddenly this sacrosanct commodity….whether it is being changed for an extra $150k or not.
My guess is that for the majority of non-Michigan and non-OSU fans, the holy Michigan-Ohio State match-up really doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
@akaBruno – That’s the thing – I’m not a Michigan or OSU fan in any shape or form, but I DO care about that game. TV ratings also indicate that plently of people outside of the Michigan-Ohio State universe care about it, too. The burden of proof should be on the powers that be to show why Michigan-Ohio State MUST be moved, not the other way around. Things change and the Big Ten should make progress, but that doesn’t mean it must change things just for the sake of change.
LikeLike
I agree, Frank. This notion that, because some things have changed, or that some things must change, all things are in play for being changed, is total horseshit.
LikeLike
I could not agree more. I also hate being lectured by douchebags in suits about how Change with a Capital C is good and we must embrace it, as if “change” is some disembodied and irresistible force of history that has come upon us, not ACTUAL BAD DECISIONS BEING MADE BY ACTUAL IDENTIFIABLE PEOPLE — the very ones lecturing us about the disembodied Change.
If you’re going to make bad decisions that piss lots of people off, at least own up to it, you cowardly a-holes. Don’t pretend it’s some inevitable, impersonal entity that just happened.
(Yes, I’m a Michigan fan and yes, I’m pissed off.)
LikeLike
Ahhh…..but do you believe that the ratings of OSU-Michigan will go down if it is played in early October or early November instead of the end of the season?
If the game is that important and people do care about it, people will flock to it regardless of when it is played.
LikeLike
As an Ohio State alum and fan. I can tell you that it will suffer. Myself and many of the Ohio State fans I know are pissed at even the thought of it being moved. I can also tell you that many of us will be done with the Big Ten and Ohio State.
Personally, I am an alum who WILL NOT being renewing my alumni membership, purchasing any football tickets or contributing any funds to Ohio State IF they move the game.
I will quite watching any Ohio State or Big Ten football games or sports. In other words, I am done.
Ohio State and the Big Ten needs me the consumer. I don’t need them. I can do other things with my money and time.
So, yes the Big Ten and Ohio State will take a hit.
LikeLike
That’s my feeling. If they’re going to take away what makes college football fun for me, I might as well take my Saturdays back. I could use the time to actually have something resembling a life during the Fall.
LikeLike
Donate to the art school or the library.
LikeLike
How’s that “split between divisions and not played last in the season” bit workin’ out for Oklahoma-Nebraska? OU-UNL was the Big 8’s equivalent to OSU-Michigan once upon a time. It was their big season-ending Thanksgiving-time game that the whole country watched.
And then the Big XII did three things to it:
(1) Moved it earlier in the season
(2) Split the teams across divisions
(3) Didn’t force it to be played every year
Unless you want to argue that (3) and (3) alone is the reason that the ratings for that game now stink, it seems crazy to suggest that the Big Ten embark on (1) + (2), and that it won’t have much effect.
To me it seems an obvious truth that late games are more meaningful than early games, because there is a clearer picture of what is at stake. There is an extra-high level of urgency for the very last game of the year, because the outcome of that game is the last piece of the puzzle for each team. Had Michigan-OSU been in October this past year, it would have been “a bad Michigan team versus a decent OSU team, ho-hum.” But as the final game, at least we knew that The Game made the difference for Michigan’s bowl eligibility. Even though Michigan was horrible, the game had some significance just by virtue of being the final game of the regular season.
It’s also pretty obvious that games within the division are more important than those across the division. You can lose to a cross-division opponent and still control your own destiny — just run the table within your division and you hold head-to-head over every other team PLUS have given every one of them a loss. A cross-division opponent is somewhere between a non-conference opponent and a divisional opponent in terms of the value of the win.
As an October cross-division game, OSU-Michigan becomes a lot like Michgian-ND. It’s an interesting game between two perennially good teams, but it’s not THE game any more. No, it won’t turn into Indiana-Purdue overnight, but it will be diminished.
LikeLike
I agree. “The Game” needs to be at the last game, as the history of other rivalries and confereneces testifies.
LikeLike
A little confusing when you reference “The Game.” I think most people outside the B10 think of “The Game” as the one whose most famous moment didn’t involve Bo or Woody. It involved a bunch of laterals and a marching band (Cal-Stanford for the B10+1 people).
LikeLike
@Bullet – I think you mean “The Play”:
Fun fact: White Sox GM Kenny Williams was on the field playing for Stanford.
LikeLike
@Bullet
you can’t be serious. outside of the Pacific coast most people are barely aware Cal Stanford is a significant rivalry. Let alone that it is called the BIG Game.
and fwiw I lived in San Francisco at the time and was at that game (my first year on the west coast)
LikeLike
just as an aside
had the “band” stopped the play short of the goal line what would have been the call?
LikeLike
I had just never heard UM/OSU referred to as “the game” until reading this board. And I lived in IN and OH for a few years (admittedly many years ago).
LikeLike
Loki-know your Rice history? Dicky Maegle-Rice University.
Cotton Bowl 56? Alabama player came off the bench and tackled Maegle as he was breaking away from the 11 bama players on the field. Result-touchdown. Pretty sure a band tackle would have been the same answer.
LikeLike
Read about that Cotton Bowl in a book published in the 60s I used to have as a kid, titled something like 15 great football stories. Had one story, “Roses Bloom in the Snow.” Don’t remember if it was UM/OSU or someone else playing. Teams punted 40 or 50 times. They didn’t want to hold on to the ball for fear of fumbling, so they punted on 1st down. Final score was something like 3-2 or 9-3 with the winner going to the Rose Bowl. Anyone here know the story? Which teams?
LikeLike
@bullet
That was one of the first football stories I read as a child in a compendium of football oddities. The Bama payer was Tommy Lewis. Their QB was Bart Starr. And Rice is 3-0 all time against Alabama.
LikeLike
Loki-sounds like the same book.
“Wrong way Corrigan,” (Cal player who took a turnover the wrong direction in the Rose Bowl giving up a safety) Centre College of Kentucky upsetting powerhouse Harvard with a bunch of Texas recruits, GT’s 222-0 win over Cumberland and the Rice/Alabama and Roses in the snow story.
LikeLike
@Bullet
Found a picture of the cover:
LikeLike
Chapter 21 is your roses in the snow:
LikeLike
bullet & loki, that was during the 1954 Cotton Bowl. Dick Moegle who was on his way to a 95 yard TD run when Tommy Lewis charged off of the sideline (without his helmet) and tackled him. They awarded Dick the touchdown. When they asked Tommy why he did it, he said “I guess I’m just too full of Bama.” That phrase (and play) has stuck in Bama lore ever since.
LikeLike
Good find Loki.
So it was UM 9 OSU 3 in 1950. I thought IL was involved in some way-they lost to NW that day to send UM to Rose with their win.
Started on the link below, but this is only about 1/3 of it. Didn’t ever think I would get it right. If you google “roses bloom in the snow” there will be a reference to “Michigan Wolverines-colorful tales of the maize and blue.” It has the story of the game for anyone interested. MI had no 1st downs, no completed passes and 27 yards rushing.
http://books.google.com/books?id=x8dEfDbbojgC&pg=PA75&lpg=PA75&dq=%22roses+bloom+in+the+snow%22&source=bl&ots=cRYuwYCYXt&sig=NDi7h2f
LikeLike
Frank, as a Northwestern fan, I must say I like this alignment. I don’t know how others feel about it but this I could do.
DIVISION A
Michigan
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
I get Wisconsin Minnesota which is my preference. I lose Iowa but gain Michigan and Ohio state.
Some good natural rivals plus a mountain to climb over like tOSU and Michigan (not so much). The last two are also gate stuffers for the wildcat accountants.
LikeLike
fwiw I like that division as well. It keeps Michigan Ohio State but for a Michigan fan it also brings a couple of other benefits. It returns the Little Brown Jug to an annual game. Michigan Wisconsin has become a very good rivalry as well and they are the two schools that are the most similar in character culturally and academically. I like it.
LikeLike
And every one of the changes you mention has sucked. This one will, too.
LikeLike
Oh, so close Frank.
Great Lakes: Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin & Minnesota.
Great Plains: Penn State, Mich. State, Purdue, Indiana, Nebraska & Iowa.
Illibuck Lives!
LikeLike
@Chas – I like that one, too, as that was what I originally was thinking of. How to deal with Illinois/Northwestern/Indiana/Purdue was actually the hardest thing to pin down. I came to the conclusion that it’s significant enough for each division to have an Illinois state/Chicago market presence, where even thoughIllinois and Northwestern aren’t marquee schools, they’re extremely important for TV/media and recruiting purposes for everyone in the conference.
LikeLike
Chicago is the most critical market in the league, which is exactly why we don’t want Nebraska, Iowa or specifically MSU, who wants to paired with NU, to have access to it. Shouldn’t charter members, who have the ear of the commissioner, be able to protect their recruiting ground in division alignments?
LikeLike
Only is you want to be like the B12. Nothing creates harmony in a conference like favoritism.
LikeLike
Either that one, or Frank’s alignment, work fine for me. Unless Wisconsin rises to challenge Ohio State, OSU will probably win their division hands down for the foreseeable future. Meaning that an OSU-PSU or OSU-Nebraska (or OSU-Iowa) championship game will be most likely.
For division names I tend to favor Alpha and Omega, but Great Lakes/Plains is good too. How about Great Lands instead of Plains as Penn State has more mountains than plains?
Frank makes a great argument but somehow I agree with him, I have a sinking feeling something stupid is about to happen as the Big Ten announces the divisions.
LikeLike
As their plans got more and more convulted (only counting division games) I was thinking of New Coke also.
LikeLike
lots of people have made that connection the last few days. its so compelling a comparison it leaps off the page.
LikeLike
SAVE THE GAME!
LikeLike
FTS
LikeLike
I get it, but they’re gonna do it with UM-OSU. Sucks the big one. In the face of that seeming reality, really struggled with what to do with Iowa-Wisc. They are hard to keep together if they are split and both want to play Neb. At they end of the day, OSU and UM seem to want a split and if Iowa and Wisc want Neb so bad, then they have to give something up for the sake of getting the new girl. Don’t know what else you can do. I also think UM, MSU and Purdue in one division would help with the one that got away – ND.
LikeLike
For clarity, this is what I see happening:
A B
1. UM OSU
2. MSU PSU
3. Neb Wisc
4. Iowa MN
5. IN IL
6. Pur NW
each team plays the one across as a perm rival and the 1-2, 3-4, 5-6 pairs play the last game of the year in “rivalry week”.
floyd gets the shaft in some years, but becomes a possible champ trophy.
LikeLike
This alignment would be acceptable. Like most proposals, it will be better in 2015 when we have a nine-game conference slate and we can have two protected cross-rivals and then play the other four schools twice in four years. Therefore, the ABC regions Frank referenced will always play one another.
LikeLike
News of the day:
1. TX schedules Southern Cal for OOC games. In the last months they’ve added to their schedule 3 of the schools most able to go independent.
2. BYU looks to be staying in the MWC, though still not confirmed. UHou rumored to be pursued as #12.
3. Big Ten (sic) is close to splitting into 2 divisions: Dumb and Dumber.
LikeLike
No. Dumm and dummer!
LikeLike
How about go Hawkeyes? They’re fighting the leading plan OSU/PSU/WI/MN/?? vs. UM/UNL/IA/MSU/??
Article comments they are down to 2 or 3.
http://www.wgil.com/localsports.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=082010&newsid=188
LikeLike
I wonder if those Texas legislators will hire out to do a little free lance trouble making.
LikeLike
I posted this in the BYU thread, but it is certainly appropriate here:
Illinois:
President Michael Hogan (uipres@uillinois.edu)
Athletics Director Ron Guenther (rguenthe@illinois.edu)
Indiana:
President Michael McRobbie (iupres@indiana.edu)
Athletic Director Fred Glass (athldir@indiana.edu)
Iowa:
President Sally Mason (president@uiowa.edu)
Athletic Director Gary Barta (gary-barta@uiowa.edu)
Michigan:
President Mary Sue Coleman (presoff@umich.edu)
Director of Athletics David Brandon (http://www.mgoblue.com/feedback/mich-feedback.html)
Michigan State:
President Lou Anna Simon (presmail@msu.edu)
Athletic Director Mark Hollis (AD@ath.msu.edu)
Minnesota:
President Robert Bruininks (upres@umn.edu)
Athletics Director Joel Maturi (maturi@umn.edu)
Nebraska:
Chancellor Harvey Perlman (hperlman1@unl.edu)
Athletic Director Tom Osborne (tosborne2@unl.edu)
Northwestern:
President Morton Shapiro (nu-president@northwestern.edu)
Director of Athletics and Recreation Jim Phillips (j-phillips@northwestern.edu)
Ohio State:
President E. Gordon Gee (gee.2@osu.edu)
Athletic Director Gene Smith (smith.5407@osu.edu)
Penn State:
President Graham Spanier (president@psu.edu)
Athletic Director Timothy Curley (Athletic_Director@athletics.psu.edu)
Purdue:
President France Córdova (http://www.purdue.edu/president/contact/index.html)
Athletic Director Morgan Burke (mjb@purdue.edu)
Wisconsin:
President Kevin Reilly (kreilly@uwsa.edu)
Athletic Director Barry Alvarez (bla2athletics@wisc.edu)
That said, I’m not sure it will make a difference. Unless there is a way to make Jim Delany understand that his scenario (whatever that may ultimately be) will lose the New Coke Conference more money than it will gain, I don’t see any reason why he will listen. Therefore, I propose the following (originally posted on Bucknuts Premium Board):
We all know that the splitting up of Ohio State and Michigan and the moving of The Game to earlier in the season is 100% about greed. The same for fans of other schools that will see the likes of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin split up in some fashion. Is there really anyone out there that doesn’t believe that this isn’t about maximizing profit? Therefore, b!tching and moaning about it by framing it as an affront to tradition isn’t going to resonate with Jim Delany one bit. So, what will resonate with Jim Delany? Money.
Which brings up the question of how can we as fans let Jim Delany know that messing with The Game and other conference rivalries will end up costing him more money than he’d gain with his meddling? Truly, there is only one way– make certain that companies that advertise during New Coke Conference (née Big Ten Conference) games know that they will lose customers if they support Big Ten football. Thus, here is what I suggest:
Next Thursday, everyone who values The Game and other rivalries in their present form needs to write down the name of every advertiser during the OSU-Marshall game. We also need to watch the Big Ten games on the BTN and ESPN/ABC on Saturday and write down the names of the companies who advertise during those games as well. This includes those companies that advertise during the game action as well as those who purchase commercial time. The next step is to contact those companies en masse and tell in no uncertain terms them that by advertising during Big Ten games, they are implicitly supporting Jim Delany’s moves in carving up the conference’s traditions. As such, so long as they do so, each of us will no longer buy their products/services. If there is a sufficient groundswell among thousands– if not tens of thousands– of Big Ten fans, these companies will take notice. Such a coordinated boycott would force these companies to give this some considerable thought, and with enough people contacting them and threatening a boycott, they would contact Jim Delany and ESPN (who would then contact Delany) and let him know that they have a big problem with what he is trying to do. Money talks, and it is the advertisers that have the money.
Look, I’m realistic and understand that what I just wrote is pretty idealized and honestly a bit of a longshot, but if you want The Game to remain as it is, this is probably the best shot. The emails we are firing off to conference officials are making little headway– the comments out of these same officials tell that tale. So, I’d suggest reposting this on every Big Ten message board you can think of to get the word out. Someone also would need to post the names of the advertisers so those of us (like myself) who don’t have the Big Ten Network or can’t watch all the games next Saturday can have the list of companies to contact.
We can either bend over and take it passively from Jim Delany, complain about it and still bend over and take it, or we can fight back by hurting him where it counts.
So, what are YOU going to do?
LikeLike
Honestly, this post looks a little bit too much like something off of NDNation for me to feel comfortable.
LikeLike
Ad hominem attacks are a classical sort of illogical reasoning. Even if what you say is true, it is not a per se reason not to do it if we take seriously a sensible divisional alignment.
LikeLike
I strongly dislike the level of negativity and melodrama that has accompanied this decision. I prefer the East/West divisions, but all the nonsense about the end of the world and college football is absurd. Life will go on if OSU and Michigan play 3 weeks earlier.
The comparison to other schools is apt. Notre Dame or Texas (or Nebraska for that matter) would be leaving 100 year series and traditions to come to the Big Ten for mostly financial reasons, yet very few on this board showed any concern for that.
Also, read what you’ve written about Jim Delany just above this post and ask yourself who is using ad hominem arguments.
LikeLike
Wrong again. An ad hominem attack is not the same as insulting someone; it is when you use insults (or comparisons to disfavored individuals) as a substitute for a substantive position. Thus, the fact that ND fans would react in a similar fashion isn’t a per se reason why this is a bad reaction; the question is whether the reaction is justified.
ND clings to traditions which are unsustainable. The Big Ten’s traditions are entirely sustainable; that isn’t why they’re being rejected. Two totally different animals.
LikeLike
Of course, Adam is wrong. Adam explains the difference: “ND clings to traditions which are unsustainable. The Big Ten’s traditions are entirely sustainable; that isn’t why they’re being rejected. Two totally different animals.”
The irony is delicious. Here is another difference: most posters on this thread blast domers for not willingly accepting a plan that would be externally forced upon ND: joining a Big 10+6 because there was no option (in your opinion); while the Big Ten’s decision is self inflicted. And to go back to a concern I raised three months ago: if the Big Ten is willing to do this to itself for peanuts, why should ND trust that this kind of decision making ends with splitting OSU and UM?
I hope you enjoy “Big Ten Thursday night brought to you be State Farm.”
LikeLike
As I noted on a thread or two ago, rich2, I am angry about this decision of the Big Ten’s precisely because it is self-inflicted and is entirely consistent with the criticism (articulated largely by you) that the Big Ten would sell its soul to chase after a few extra bucks. So I have no argument with you there.
However, I don’t think ND’s model is sustainable in the longer term, either.
LikeLike
rich2 come on. ND is all about the benjamins too. You shouldn’t throw stones from that glass house.
LikeLike
Let’s see, the games still gonna be played, right? Melodrama is right and I might add self serving. It’s gonna be a new alignment. Somebody is gonna get screwed somewhat or a little. The interest that will get screwed the least are making a bit too much noise. I respect passion but am perplexed by the lack of realism here with this.
LikeLike
Well said. As I said before, Adam needs help.
LikeLike
Thanks for not being an asshole.
LikeLike
Whatever dude, you’re the one baggin on the domers whilst having a grand maul hissie if OSU and UM decide to do something you don’t like. It’s their show, and it’s ND’s show, they can all do what they want. Jesus. What’s so hard about this?
LikeLike
And no one is “getting screwed”. IF they split it is b/c UM and OSU want to. Whatever they say publicly, they are the ones deciding this.
LikeLike
I think the angst of moving Ohio State and Michigan off the last weekend of the regular season is overblown.
Tennessee and Florida have played on the third Saturday of September since before Penn State joined the Big Ten. Great series with some great games.
Texas and Oklahoma have been playing during the Texas State Fair (mid-October) since…well, forever. And it’s done nothing to diminish that series.
If Michigan and Ohio State are moved to October, it will set up some great season-ending rivalries, including Penn State vs. Ohio State and Michigan vs. Michigan State. The Big Ten won’t just survive this, it will thrive.
LikeLike
“If Michigan and Ohio State are moved to October, it will set up some great season-ending rivalries, including Penn State vs. Ohio State and Michigan vs. Michigan State.”
by destroying a great season ending rivalry that already exists? on the off chance that by killing it off someone else might, big emphasis on might, replace it? that makes no sense.
LikeLike
“by destroying a great season ending rivalry that already exists?”
Being a little melodramatic, aren’t we? This isn’t the Big 12, which killed the great Oklahoma-Nebraska series by not making them permanent cross-division opponents.
Michigan and Ohio State will play every year and most years the games will be hugely meaningful in the standings.
LikeLike
wrong.
putting them in seperate divisions will start the process. rivalries are built by battling for the same first stage goal. in this case winning the division. would the Red Sox Yankee rivalry be as intense if one was moved to another division? there used to be a Yankee Tigers tradition that has died completely since they were moved to seperate divisions.
add in as has been disccussed elsewhere that it appears Delany’s plan is that cross division games do not count for winning the division except as tie breakers.
so they will be in seperate divisions and the games will only count as tiebreakers for division purposes. how is that not destroying the rivalry? it will last for a few years as muscle memory but the writing will be on the wall. regardless of whether you think its melodramatic.
LikeLike
To me, if they move the Ohio State vs Michigan game, it destroys any interest in Ohio State. Penn State will never replace Michigan in Ohio State fans minds.
Many Ohio State fans feel the same way Great game against Penn State BUT never the rival of Michigan.
LikeLike
By that same reasoning though, Penn State vs. OSU and Michigan vs. Michigan State are already good games. Sure moving them to the end of the season could help, but it will be at the expense of OSU/Michigan.
LikeLike
Great you say? for the conference? again you don’t look at the big picture. it’s about the conference, not the former big 2.
LikeLike
Everyone keeps making these comparisons to Texas/Oklahoma and Florida/Tennessee/Georgia, etc as to justify the moving of the game as okay. A few things if I may.
1. All those other schools still play in the same DIVISION.
2. Those schools have always played earlier in the season it is their traditions.
A few week back when the big 12 went down to ten and lost the ability to host a CCG there was talk about moving the Texas Oklahoma game from the October date during the fair to December. The the outcry was just as bad on the Texas and Oklahoma blogs as it is here in regard to Ohio State Michigan.
So the comparisons ring a little hollow with me. In my opinion more apt comparisons might be Florida/Miami and Nebraska/Oklahoma.
LikeLike
There is a difference with Texas/OU. It isn’t October. Its the fact that it is played at the Texas state fair. Were they to try to move it to Jerry World instead of the Cotton Bowl there would be a similar outcry.
LikeLike
Bullet–they did try to move it to JerryWorld, but there was little outcry. The Cotton Bowl simply outbid Jerry to keep the series there.
Having been to the Cotton Bowl, it would be best if they did move it to JerryWorld–that place is a dump without any sort of redeeming charm or quality. That they’re moving the Cotton Bowl game to JerryWorld should be indication enough that it’s time to tear down that place.
LikeLike
If they could figure out a way to move the state fair to Jerry World everyone would be excited. Its just part of the atmosphere. Its not the Cotton Bowl itself which, you are correct, is kind of a dump.
They gave the Cotton Bowl plenty of chances to keep it. Dallas almost blew it by putting off improvements.
Unfortunately, at some point the allure of those extra seats and the fancy stadium will probably outweigh the fairgrounds aspect.
LikeLike
That game may not even stay in Dallas.
LikeLike
Tenn and Florida are in the same division and play early in the year yes….
But their true hatred is for Alabama which they play later in the year and would still have the chance to play them again in the SEC Championship. Do you think that Rivalry is diminished?
LikeLike
So do you think Texas/OU should be moved to the end of the year, since it will likely decide the conference winner many years?
I’m sure many consultants will tell you its a good idea.
LikeLike
Well, they’re probably going to move the game from Fair Park to Arlington when their contract is up in four or five years, so they might as well move it back in the season. Assuming both are still in the same conference by then. If they aren’t, is doesn’t matter as much when they play.
LikeLike
IT doesn’t matter.
LikeLike
Its the state fair that makes that date important. I don’t think people would care as much if it did get moved to Jerry World. But there would be a battle over that move.
LikeLike
They’ve already laid the groundwork by suggesting that Texas-OU become just a home-and-home series. Once the fans get done protesting that, they won’t have the energy to fight the move to Arlington. Plus, there have been so many problems with parking and transportation since they expanded the Cotton Bowl that a lot of people may be ready to say good riddance to the State Fair.
LikeLike
I thought it was the Norman merchants who were pushing the home-and-home. The only interest on the UT side was the financial people in the AD department.
LikeLike
Transportation and parking were a problem long before they expanded the Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
Love the idea. I was hoping Gameday would be at OSU before a decision would be reached so we could voice our displeasure with signs on national TV. This really might me more effective if enough participate though. It strikes right at the core of the reasons for these decisions.
LikeLike
I assume the Big Ten’s current plan is to have UM vs. OSU and Penn State vs. Nebraska as protected cross-division rivals. Over at The Rivalry (I think) they had a post explaining that the protected cross-division rivals in the SEC (LSU-Fla, Aub-Ga, Tenn-Bama) had never played each other for the championship because one of each pair always gets a key loss. Thus, the winner of Fla-LSU, for instance, is more likely to play against the winner of one of the other cross-division rivalry games than to have a rematch with the loser of Fla-LSU.
Point being that the anticipated UM-OSU championship game is very unlikely to happen (even if UM gets good again).
LikeLike
If you see below in the byu post, someone quoted the UM official as saying they were probably only going to count division games to avoid that problem.
LikeLike
it’s not fair to 10 schools to let them stack the deck like that; i doubt the others would go along with it.
LikeLike
I haven’t read that, but wouldn’t it put the Big Ten at something of a disadvantage in the national picture if a team with two out-of-division losses could play for the conference championship?
LikeLike
@bullet – My God, that is FUBAR. Please tell me that someone completely misheard that because now I’m REALLY frightened.
LikeLike
Frank
I believe he is referring to a post I made which related a post from the other board I frequent. Several posters attended an event at the Ann Arbor Club at which Brandon made some comments. He posted the following:
Nothing earth shattering but some stuff I did not realize.
The Big Ten does not want the top 2 brands in the same division.
We can not have everything we want as we only have 1/12 vote.
It appears that only your games against your Division will determine who goes to the Championship game. The games against the other Division will be used as tie-breakers. Is the SEC like this? I have never paid that close of attention.
Brandon is a guy that is firery and he did not come across as arrogant at all. I can understand people being upset with him, but I think from his tone today he does not hold the cards here as OSU and U of M are outvoted.
Did say he wants the Championship game played at one of the Big Ten Stadiums but he is losing that battle as they want it indoors.
LikeLike
@Hank – Ah, thanks. Wow, that’s even worse than I thought. Forget New Coke – this is becoming like Ishtar.
LikeLike
@Frank
lol. Ishtar is perfect. Maybe thats what we should call the divisions. Ishtar and Heaven’s Gate.
LikeLike
@Hank – …and the championship will be sponsored by Waterworld.
LikeLike
I can only shake my head in wonder. Put OSU and Mich in separate divisions? Then move the game to the middle of the season? Then make it so the game doesn’t even count in the standings?
Why play it at all?
LikeLike
Its very anti-Scott. Talk about making it easy for the fans to understand. Now the MAC is the MAC, but no papers or ESPN posted their division records during the years when they only counted those games. They all posted the total conference record which was irrelevant. So I wasn’t aware they had changed it last year when they quit playing everyone in their division.
LikeLike
I had been thinking that, if 16 team conferences became a reality, the non-divisional games wouldn’t count in the divisional standings (since you’d play 7 teams in your division and randomly get 1-2 teams from the other division that could be very strong or very weak).
However, it seems a bit odd to not count every game in a 12 team conference. My guess is that this means they will use the original SEC model with 2 permanent cross-divisional opponents and only 1 rotating opponent. That way it doesn’t hurt you in the standings if you get 2 difficult permanent rivals.
LikeLike
“It appears that only your games against your Division will determine who goes to the Championship game.”
No way, Jim Delany isn’t that stupid. Can you imagine a team that goes 5-0 in the division, but loses three or four in the other division beating out a team with an 8-1 Big Ten Record? No way this flys.
LikeLike
@m (Ag)
I think some are interperting that as evidence of Delany preparing for his ultimate goal of a 16 team conference which functions for all intents as two 8 team conferences and the limited number, 2, of cross division games as exhibition games.
LikeLike
If that’s the case, not only would the game no longer determine who moves on (Rose bowl or B10 Championship game) but the game would be relatively worthless in determining the division champs. In other words, it goes from being a game of ultimate importance to an interesting exhibition not unlike the MLB All Star game. The All Star game does impact who gets home field advantage but is otherwise meaningless. Wow…
LikeLike
@Frank – I liked Waterworld. Yeah, I said it.
LikeLike
Maybe I didn’t state it clearly. My interpretation is that they are only going to count division games in order to avoid that problem. All he said was that it was likely only division games would count with no explanation as to why.
There are only 2 reasons-so everyone plays the same schedule which has the negative point of only being 5 games. Or to try to create a championship game rematch.
LikeLike
I could live with your secondary alignment Frank. It’s better than most of the other “competitive balance” ones I’ve seen. My preference far and away is East/West.
As a Penn State fan, I have no “rivalry” to really look forward to. Ohio State has been the closest thing, but it’s not a true rivalry since they already have one. There’s some old bad blood after what happened in ’94 with Nebraska, so I certainly wouldn’t mind being in their division.
Is it possible that they just go with the Pods and have the 2 best teams (conference record wise) play in the championship game? I’d just assume have protected games with 2 or 3 schools and jumble the rest similar to how they do it now.
LikeLike
@gregenstein – Unfortunately, you can’t simply have the top 2 teams play in order to play an “exempt” championship game (meaning that it doesn’t count toward the 12 game regular season game limit). Under NCAA rules, there needs to be (a) divisions and (b) teams playing round-robins with everyone within their divisions.
LikeLike
Doesn’t the MAC have some kind of exemption from the NCAA that allows them to forgo round robin divisional play and still hold a championship game?
Could not the Big Ten get something similar, this is not changing the bylaws to allow a ten team league to have CCG. They have the 12 teams it would just be a different format?
Oh How far we’ve fallen taking our cues from the MAC. 😉
LikeLike
I contacted the NCAA to get details about this and they said they couldn’t provide them to me; I’d have to contact the league. And if you try to send an e-mail to the MAC, all of the e-mail addresses on their website will reject anything you try to send them as suspected of being spam. So I couldn’t get through to them.
Here’s the facts: the MAC has 13 teams. 7 teams in the East, 6 in the West. For a group of 7 teams to play a “true” round robin, it requires 21 games. The MAC East, however, played only 19 games. This (apparently) enabled the MAC to play a traditional 8-game league schedule with all 8 games counting in the league standings, instead of just divisional games.
Whatever exemption the MAC got, I doubt it would apply to the Big Ten, as we don’t have the weird unbalanced league.
That or the MAC is breaking the rules and nobody in Indianapolis gives a shit.
LikeLike
@ Adam
I’m guessing the MAC got an exemption because they had a Chinese fire drill with the schedules the 1st year they went to 13 because they originally didn’t have everyone playing a round robin. Maybe because there is a moratorium on moving schools up they got the NCAA to justify it for a couple of years.
So Indianapolis did not ignore it at that point in time. I doubt they are simply ignoring it now. Much more their style to shut down a championship game than simply ignore a violation (at least if its the MAC).
LikeLike
Big Ten has been taking cues from the MAC for years.
It’s all right. We don’t mind helping out little brothers in the Big Ten out.
LikeLike
“There’s some old bad blood after what happened in ’94”
and ’82.
LikeLike
Profiteroles.
LikeLike
I honestly think the reason they came up with the split is that they wanted to divide the Big 4 and thought putting Nebraska and Penn State together (the two farthest away schools in the conference) would be awkward. I’m pretty sure they know the financial implications wouldn’t be much.
LikeLike
I don’t think the PSU island issue gets helped much more than in the simpler MSU in Division A (OSU/UM/MSU/WI/MN/NW) and Purdue in Division B (different crossovers are UM/UNL instead of MSU, WI/PU instead of UNL and MSU/IU). Does Penn St. care about anyone other than UM or OSU?
LikeLike
@bullet – I see what you’re saying. PSU-MSU is still the designated rivalry game for each school (even though it has almost no juice). I’ve also been concerned about the number of proposals that have been sticking Penn State with the 4 westernmost schools and no one else in the Eastern time zone.
LikeLike
I can’t speak for all Iowa fans, but some of us believe we have a budding rivalry with PSU. From some PSU fans on previous FtT blogs, it sounded like they may feel the same way. The rivalry (if that is indeed what it is becoming) was organic, developing on the field (not the boardroom).
LikeLike
Sounds perfect for an inter-divisional game! KISS Divisions, with:
Michigan-Minnesota
OSU-Illinois
PSU-Iowa
MSU-Northwestern
Indiana-Nebraska
Purdue-Wisconsin
Or flip-flop the last 2, I don’t think anybody cares there.
LikeLike
@Adam,
I’d like that setup a lot!
And with a 9-game schedule, we’d get to see UMi or OSU annually, as well (if it was set up right).
LikeLike
@Adam.
As a Husker fan, I care. I care a lot. Are you seriously going to put NU on an island and not have a yearly game with UM, PSU or tOSU? At all?
You make our cross-divisional game Indiana? That’s just awful from our perspective.
LikeLike
@Husker Al
Nebraska is not going to be left on an island. From all reports you will be in a division with Michigan. I’m sorry if the ranting and mourning for the Ohio State game makes it seem like thats all we care about but most Michigan fans I know are really excited about Nebraska and establishing a regular game. I’d love to see us play Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska every year.
LikeLike
I didn’t propose leaving Nebraska on an island; I assumed the KISS divisions, so Nebraska would be in a division with regional opponents like Iowa, Minnesota, and WIsconsin. I was talking about how to set up the cross-divisional games. Because of the immense history of the Little Brown Jug and Illibuck, you could put those as protected rivalry crossovers for Michigan-Minnesota and OSU-Illinois. Someone indicated that PSU has a budding rivalry with Iowa, so that’d be appropriate. MSU’s AD said they want Northwestern annually, so I threw that in to make him happy. That leaves 4 teams left, and I put Nebraska with the weaker of the 2 because I figured that’d be fairer than letting OSU and Michigan crossover against the weaker teams in the West, but leave Nebraska to play a slightly stronger “East” team (Purdue).
LikeLike
@Hank.
I understand, and I’m in favor of keeping the Michigan/Ohio St. game in division and at the end of the season as well.
But as a Husker fan I’d be very disappointed with a straight KISS split, especially if we don’t have an annual game against UM/OSU or PSU. I doubt PSU fans want this, but I’d like to have NU and PSU in the same division with Indiana/Purdue to help balance it out.
LikeLike
@Adam
You should understand that while Iowa/Wisconsin is attractive, many Husker fans salivate over playing PSU/OSU/Michigan.
NU has had mediocre regional rivalries for decades. It is a mistake to assume most NU fans are comfortable with a straight KISS split.
LikeLike
I have no inherent objection to PSU and Nebraska being paired, but I just thought PSU would balk (and I wouldn’t necessarily blame them) if they’re put in a division with OSU and Michigan and their cross-division game is Nebraska. If PSU and Nebraska were both cool with that, then I’d say go ahead and do it. What’s important to me is KISS.
LikeLike
I won’t try to speak for all PSU fans, but right now it’s OSU and Nebraska for me. I could care less about the Land Grant trophy with Michigan State, but I’d rather play an school closer to me that I don’t care about than a school further away that I don’t care about. Since I doubt they’ll put Nebraska, Ohio State, and Penn State in the same division, I’m advocating geography.
I can’t find one non-geography lineup that makes any more sense to me than just plain old geography.
LikeLike
I second that emotion. However, in my mind the best solution is either PSU and Nebraska in the same division, with OSU as a cross-division rivalry, or PSU and OSU in same division, with PSU-Neb as the cross-division rivalry. I’d be happy with either one, suspect it’ll probably be neither. If the Land Grant trophy is dropped that’d be fine with me.
LikeLike
This Nebraska fan agrees completely.
LikeLike
Al, I like the idea of PSU nd NU in the same division. JoePa and TomOz have had a great personal relationship for decades (I know they won’t be around for too much longer)and both schools play similar ball. It also balances out the divisions and brings in a new rivalry while protecting the established ones.
Frank, I like your divisional structure. It is well thought out and makes lots of sense.
But what about further expansion? My question is what happens when we have the 16-team conference with a few Eastern (schools, including as far south as Ga Tech or VTech). Provisions are probably being made for that wih JimD and the comissioners, but unless two schools west of the Miss. river are added where do you put the new Eastern/Southeastern additions?
LikeLike
Ohio State is paying Colorado $1.4 million to visit the Horsehoe for a PACrifice blood money home game in 2011.
In the interests of accuracy, this isn’t a PACrifice game, as the Buffs don’t join the Pac-12 until the following season.
LikeLike
Reading the tea leaves, I would guess the divisions will be split this way:
Division A: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana
Division B: Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue.
Protected rivalries would be: OSU-UM, PSU-UNL, UW-IOWA, MINN-MSU, ILL-NU, and IND-PUR.
The Floyd of Rosedale will go the way of the Little Brown Jug. Both of these trophy rivalries could be protected by separating UM-MSU, but I can’t see that happening. It would create a much bigger ruckus in Michigan than would arise from splitting UM-OSU.
LikeLike
I don’t know about that. I can’t speak for all Michigan fans (obviously), but I’d wager most of us wouldn’t really care if Michigan State were in a different division. MSU fans might care more, but most M fans wouldn’t since we don’t view Sparty as much of a rival. That game’s pretty much always only been about state bragging rights, and that could continue undisturbed in separate divisions.
LikeLike
I was thinking about the Michigan State fans.
LikeLike
I think, though, that this is a key part of trying to manage all of this. MSU people get pissed off when Michigan says that the MSU rivalry doesn’t matter to them. There are going to be MSU people who are in favor of splitting up Michigan/OSU just because they have a sense that it’ll make Michigan/OSU people angry.
It’s in everybody’s best interests to promote some comity here. I think if Michigan wants MSU’s support for keeping the OSU game in-division, Michigan is at least going to have to say that they value the MSU rivalry highly as well and would like to see them both as divisional games. That’s the sort of thing that will make the people in East Lansing feel appreciated. Some of the dismissive things people on here have had to say about the various schools have been kind of shocking to me (like the comment about trying to deny some schools access to Chicago as a recruiting territory?!?!).
LikeLike
Michigan State has a long history of voting against the interests of Michigan. Anyone who was a fan in 1973 will know well what I mean. I’m all for comity but have no illusions.
LikeLike
It goes much further than the 1973 vote from the MSU AD (a U-M grad) to send the Bucks to the Rose Bowl. Other ADs who also voted for OSU didn’t get the same ‘betrayal’ tag.
U-M tried to keep MSU from getting into the then Big Nine. There have been several perceived slights on both sides before and after on the athletic fields and in the academic departments. Such slights and competition helps to make rivalries.
LikeLike
actually other schools did get the tag. The Illinois coach told Bo they would vote for Michigan and it was afterwards learned they voted for the Buckeyes.
LikeLike
As a Wisconsin fan, this is my preferred split.
I’m not sure it’s fair to Penn State, but at least they get games with Ohio State and Nebraska and they are not with all Western schools.
LikeLike
Huh?! Minn/MSU… No thanks… (the teams are evenly balanced and have similar history–but rivals–not really)… Keep Iowa on the annual sked please.
We Minnesotan’s want our pig back and plan on keepin’ it for a while.
LikeLike
As an Iowa alum, I’m willing to sacrifice the Heartland Trophy at the altar of conference unity, but losing Floyd is really not OK.
LikeLike
At worst, I think Floyd would have a two year hiatus (either 2011-12 or 2013-2014). I highly doubt Iowa-Minnesota would not be protected in a 9 game conference season.
LikeLike
UW-Iowa isn’t sacrosanct (Iowa says so). That wouls be sacrificed instead of Floyd, and Wisky would get MSU as their cross-divisional rival in your setup.
LikeLike
Based on what we’re seeing, here is my best guess…
Woody Division
Indiana
Minnesota
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Wisconsin
Bo Division
Illinois
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Northwestern
This would create a new season-ending rivalry game between Penn State and Ohio State. Works for me!
LikeLike
Sectional games maybe played around halloween:
Mich-OSU Neb-PSU Iowa-MN MSU-Purdue NW-Wis (this game has been great as of late) ILL-Indy
Last weeks games:
Mich-MSU Iowa-NEB NW-Ill and then OSU-PSU WIS-MN Purdue-Indy.
LikeLike
The Spartans would never agree to play in anything named the “Bo” division.
LikeLike
For the record, I don’t think they’re going to call them the Woody and Bo Divisions.
LikeLike
I’m with you on that… if they were to call the divisions Woody and Bo, it’d be time for the other 10 schools to secede and let TPTB have fun with the “prima-donnas” on their own…
LikeLike
I still think it will be split up like this:
Division A:
Michigan
MSU
Minn
Wisc
PSU
NW
Division B:
OSU
Neb
Iowa
Ill
IN
Pur
Then they will join up OSU/Michigan, Neb/PSU, Iowa/Wisc, Ill/NW, MSU/IN, & Minn/Pur as cross divisional rivalries.
I think they will end up splitting up OSU & PSU for recruiting ground purposes (I think Michigan values the Penn recruiting grounds).
I’m a traditionalist and would hate for this alignment to happen. I think that any split other than the KISS divisions would be a mistake. But I think this is how it will end up.
LikeLike
I don’t get the whole recruiting grounds thing. Some parts of the Big Ten are richer than others, but c’mon, it’s not like we’re talking about Texas or Florida here.
LikeLike
I’m starting to get it now… the traditional rivalries outside of tOSU/Mich quickly get tossed… &&(#*$*^#$&*(%@
K.I.S.S… keeps all the traditional rivalries intact… Is arguably best balance… geographically sensible… NOW, throw your annual or semi-annual “new” wannabe rivalry games with Neb/PSU, Neb/OSU, Neb/whoever, cross-divisional…
Well, My HORSE is really, really DEAD now… No need for AUTOPSY–he’s busted open…
LikeLike
For the record, those North/South divisions will “keep it simple.”
LikeLike
Only if the Floyd of Rosedale remains an annual game as cross-division, which is wrong to start with… East/West PLEASE… ’nuff of the other conjecture.
LikeLike
Geesh, late November in Happy Valley. Imagine getting hit with a frozen urine-filled balloon! Doesn’t work for me. Give me the stink-weasles any day!
LikeLike
Whatever happened to thinking like a University president? There is no way the traditional Big 10 schools in your Division B would ever agree to be isolated from both Michigan and Ohio State. Under your scenario Northwestern would have games against Michigan and Ohio State every year, while Illinois would be left with sporadic dates against those long-standing and gate-attracting opponents. Yes, Penn State and Nebraska are good draws, but they are not as prestigious as Ohio State and Michigan. I cannot foresee any divisional split that does not share the crown jewels of the conference (Michigan and Ohio State, without question) equally between the two divisions.
LikeLike
@billb Its a good point.
KISS with its geographical split gives you the opportunity to do a 5-0-3 which means you get either UM or OSU on your schedule every year (and PSU every other year + of course, UNL). With a 5-1-2 you miss both on occassion.
LikeLike
While I disagree with your assessment of Ohio St/Michigan as “crown jewels”, there might be some truth that the rumored split of Ohio St and Michigan into different divisions is a way to make sure that all the traditional Big Ten teams get to play at least one of them every year and compete for their division crown with them. There is probably more hatred of OSU/UM than other schools in general and making sure you have regular dates with at least one (and occasional dates with the other) is possibly a good way to keep your fan base intrigued.
PSU and Nebraska would certainly garner interest but more in a “we’re playing a good team” way than a “I f’ing hate them” way. I’d guess.
LikeLike
Frank, I very much appreciate hearing you speak out on this.
LikeLike
Who gave the NCAA such power? I’ll never understand the NCAA’s purpose for such a rule. If the B10 really wanted to change it, they should just simply tell the NCAA to change their rule. Obviously nicely. But this strikes me as a nonsense rule that the NCAA would want to hold onto just to assert their power in a place that it has no bearing. And unless the B10 was absouletly sure that was the best route to go, why pick a fight – when there will be better fights to have.
LikeLike
This was in response to Frank’s response that the NCAA requires two divisions – which I think is a rule serving no purpose.
LikeLike
Actually it is all a fluke designed for a specific I-AA or division II conference. The SEC noticed it on the books and created a championship game.
The point is that there has to be a special reason to add a game to the defined season. That reason was that the conference was too big to play a round robin, but you could if you had two divisions.
LikeLike
In the case of the D-2 league, it was a league which essentially never was competitive to make the D-2 tournament, and since they also couldn’t complete a round robin, they asked for the CCG to provide more in-league cohesiveness and give their membership access to some sort of postseason, since they were never eligible for the NCAA postseason.
Ironically, they never made use of the rule, because shortly afterwards, they lost membership and went below 12 members.
LikeLike
@SH “Who gave the NCAA such power?”
The member universities.
LikeLike
And it’s doing far more harm than good. Would Utah have gotten the Pac-10 invite if they didn’t need 12 to host a title game? Would BC be in the ACC? Doubtful. That rule should have been amended after the 2003 ruckus, but here it is, wrecking conferences all over the place.
The Big Ten might have had less incentive to invite NU if that rule wasn’t in place, but I think they still would have done it. Too many other good reasons.
LikeLike
Do you think they’re taking any consideration of a potential future expansion down the line (adding an East Coast school or two?) when they make this decision?
It would be pretty cruel to break everyone’s hearts, get them re-adjusted to a new standard in rivalries only to break it all up again.
LikeLike
@CM – I doubt it if only because I really think that further expansion is on the backburner for the foreseeable future unless Notre Dame suddenly comes out of its bunker. This is all about the here and now.
LikeLike
Frank,
I really want to agree with you here, but CM may be on to something. We know that Delany wants to expand in the future. We also know that the targets are:
ND
MD
Rut.
and one of
UCONN/Pitt/Syr/Mizzou/BC
Adam Rittenburg over at ESPN reads the tea leaves, predicting this lineup:
Division 1:
UMich
MSU
Iowa
UNL
Ill.
NW
Division 2:
OSU
PSU
UW
Minn.
Ind.
PU
You can see how nicely the four adds would fit into a new Big 10+2+4: Just shift UW/Minn. to Division 1, and add ND, Rut., MD, and PITT/SYR/UNCONN/BC to Division 2. If Mizzou is added instead of Pitt/Syr/Uconn/BC, move NW to Division 2 along with ND/Rut./MD. Pods play well together in this scenario also.
If there was a 5+2+2 schedule, UMich and MSU could be ND’s protected rivals, and ND and OSU could be Umich’s protected rivals. As a bonus for you, Frank, Mizzou and Ill. would be in the same division (or even the same pod!). It’s just too good not to have been planned for, if Rittenburg’s prediction becomes reality.
LikeLike
How about calling them the New Coke and the Studebaker divisions?
LikeLike
I like the concept, give me New Coke Conference vs the Chevy Volts. It’s the closest I can think of to The Simpsons version of The Homer.
http://onscreencars.com/tv/the-homer-the-car-built-for-homer/
LikeLike
I could hazard a guess at the Divisional Alignments, but I choose not to. I completely agree with FtT, Adam, et al that East/West is the ONLY way the divisions should be aligned. As an Iowa fan, I’d like to play UWi, UMn & UNL ANNUALLY. The only way to achieve that is by having them as intra-divisional games. I’d also like to play PSU, UMi & (to a lesser extent) MSU as often as possible. It isn’t that I don’t value others’ opinions on Divisions, it’s that I cannot state how unhappy I’ll be if the BT over-thinks something that should be so simple.
The meeting should have gone something like…
JD: “What does everyone think of an East/West split?”
All (in unison): “Sounds good.”
JD: “Now we’re down to the important business at hand… Where do you all want to eat?”
All: (talking over each other, often-times disagreeing)
LikeLike
Ahahahahahahaha, that is fantastic. You’re right; that is exactly how that meeting should have gone.
Look, I won’t want to be a jerk and toot my own horn, but I’ve been at least as worried (if not more worried) about how this decision would go down as the who-will-they-add decision.
LikeLike
This is just dandy. Absolutely cannot wait for the big October game between the 5-0 Buckeyes and the 4-1 Wolverines. I’ll have to make sure I don’t use up too much energy, though, as the Bucks will have equally meaningful Central Michigan and Indiana after that. Put them in the same division, with the game at the end of the year. OSU and Michigan fans have historically cared more about beating each other than anything else, and that includes a trip to the Rose Bowl or a conference crown.
LikeLike
The more I think about this, as an MSU fan, KISS does seem a little hard. Why should MSU, IN and PUR get to play 3 of the “big 4” every year and most years, especially when we go to 9 games, all 4?
LikeLike
Why shouldn’t they? Unless they’re shooting for a national championship, it doesn’t matter anyway. They’ll all be playing all of them, so the schedule will even out, and they’ll have the same shot at winning the Division Championship.
LikeLike
I get that. I’m just playing devil’s advocate. Still, the west siders on the bottom half – MN, IL, NW, – sure have it easier than the east siders in a KISS split.
LikeLike
Best thing to do is flood ad office emails. They still have time to make a change
LikeLike
Not really. The divisions and the 2011 schedule is set per Delany.
LikeLike
The Big UnTENable Conference (The BUC)
I wish they would cut the baby seal/suspension games to one, and play 11 conference games. I loved the PAC 10 round robin where there was no problem with “ifs” at the end of the season. But the whole thing here is money, so to H with common sense and rivalries. I say again, change the conference name to the Big UnTENable Conference, since it recognizes the unwieldiness of so many teams, keeps the TEN in the name for nostalgia, and acknowledges that it’s all about the buck. Let’s hear it for the BUC!!!
LikeLike
“I wish they would…play 11 conference games.”
Which would mean zero non-con games against BCS opponents. Sorry, pass.
LikeLike
You mean a typical UM and WI schedule? Oh!
LikeLike
September 18, 2010 Arizona State at Wisconsin
LikeLike
What the hell does that prove?
LikeLike
You mean one WHOLE game against a BCS opponent?
September 11 FSU at Oklahoma
September 18 BYU at FSU
November 27 Florida at FSU
It’s no wonder ACC teams lose the games they lose against non-league opponents: they actually play multiple good teams outside their own league. The same OUGHT to be said of the Big Ten, and the SEC, for that matter, especially since they’re convinced they’re the greatest conferences on earth.
LikeLike
Hey, the Gophers have been trying to schedule championship caliber opponents… SC is tarnished now because of sanctions, Texas wants nothing to do with Big Ten… I think UNC is in future… Powderpuff games suck…
LikeLike
As a PSU fan, there is no question that we have been screwed since we joined the Big 10, because we have a “rival” no one cares about Michigan State (While leaving our real rival, also known as the Pitt Panthers behind), while our other “rival” (Ohio State), does not care about us the same way.
What should this mean for PSU and the Big 10? Send us West. Why do I favor this? 1: They protect Ohio State/Michigan (While I despise both schools, it would be like moving the Yankees and Red Sox out of the same division). 2: It will be a temporary move. We will be heading back East when either Texas & Oklahoma or Pitt & Rutgers join the Big 10. There is little doubt that is the plan, because why else have a nine Game Conference Schedule starting in 2015, unless the plan is to have two seven team divisions (Six games against your division three against the other division (Including one protected game)). 3: I would do this on the condition that Ohio State is our protected rival now, and if and when we move, we can keep Nebraska.
Scenario 1: Texas & Oklahoma.
West
1: Texas
2: Oklahoma
3: Nebraska
4: Iowa
5: Minnesota
6: Northwestern
7: Indiana
East
1: Penn St
2: Ohio St
3: Michigan
4: Michigan St
5: Wisconsin
6: Purdue
7: Illinois
Scenario 2: Pitt & Rutgers
East
1: Pitt
2: Rutgers
3: Penn St
4: Ohio St
5: Michigan St
6: Michigan
7: Wisconsin
West
1: Indiana
2: Purdue
3: Illinois
4: Northwestern
5: Nebraska
6: Minnesota
7: Iowa
Frank: What do you think?
LikeLike
Oklahoma has no chance of joining the Big Ten. Seriously: the Big Ten is exclusively comprised of AAU members. Notre Dame is the only school in the country that an exception would be made for.
LikeLike
First of all, it would be Maryland and Rutgers, not Pitt and Rutgers. Pitt brings nothing new for the Big Ten, and only enters the conference in a 16-team scenario (which only happens if Notre Dame commits). Moreover, any Big Ten expansion will be eastward; Oklahoma is not an AAU member, Missouri doesn’t have the package the Big Ten seeks and Texas places too many demands such as BevoTV to be part of the Big Ten family.
Second, if I’m Penn State, I only agree to go west for 2011 if the Big Ten publicly announces it will expand to 14 members for 2013, and that this is only a temporary arrangement. Anything else, and PSU is again being set up as the fall guy.
LikeLike
I am aware that Oklahoma is not an AAU Member, but they are improving their academics, so it is possible they could have membership in the next couple of years. As for Texas, although Bevo TV is huge, it is not as financially beneficial as Big 10 Research $$$$$$$$$$.
As for PSU, teams like Maryland, and even Rutgers don’t really help with recruiting and rivalries. The only team that gives the Nitts an additional rivalry game is Pitt. If they can’t get the Panthers in the Big 10, then hopefully when Paterno leaves we can get them back as an annual non-conference game.
LikeLike
IOWA PERSPECTIVE AND MORE
From an Iowa perspective, keeping the Minnesota and Wisconsin rivalry is important. But the rivalry goes beyond playing the one game a year. I really would prefer Minnesota and Wisconsin in my division; this way the rivalry is ongoing each week of the season!
Here’s how I feel it works: As a fan the first thing I’ll do is look at the “west” division to see where Iowa ranks. I want to see if Iowa is ahead or behind my rivals in the divisional rankings. Frankly, I’d like to see if Iowa is ahead or behind Minny and Wisky in the division. This is what I mean about the rivalry being a weekly thing, not just the one game each year. Secondly, I’ll look to the east division to see who Iowa would play if in fact Iowa wins its division.
If Iowa and Wisconsin are in different divisions (as it looks like they’ll be separated), then there’s always the chance that we play the Badgers in the CCG. But, It’s a long shot. My true rivals become the teams in my “western” division. Now with Wisconsin in the eastern division they become less of a rival, even if we play them once a year. Am I going to root for Wisconsin to win so that they win their division and Iowa has another shot at them in the CCG? I don’t know,…. Seems kind of odd to me. If Iowa clinches their division early (long shot) will there be a part of me that actually wants Wisconsin to Beat Iowa in the cross divisional game so that Wisconsin wins the east division and Iowa has another shot at them in the CCG? Weird, I know, but that’s the problem with convoluted divisions.
Frank, the New Coke analogy is excellent, and insightful. Good point about consultants, they don’t get paid the big bucks to come in and tell you the obvious.
TWO MORE THOUGHTS:
ONE: I’m all for the BT to act strategically and in the best interest of the members in creating the divisions. Splitting the four national brand name schools is probably a sound idea, but there’s so many factors that make a simple KISS arrangement appealing that what might be a good idea (separating the 4 brand names) is just too hard to implement.
TWO: This idea that cross divisional games that are not as important as divisional games is very disturbing. I’m talking about the Idea laid out that cross divisional games don’t count toward the CCG in the same manner as divisional games. Could this really create a situation where tOSU has locked up there east division and they don’t mind losing a game to UM, just so UM has a better chance at winning its western division and getting into the CCG for a rematch with tOSU? Sounds ludicrous to me, but if you’ve locked up your division the cross divisional game becomes pretty meaningless, except for the polls……it seems like a mess to me. The problem with creating unnatural divisions is that you may create unappealing and unwanted strategies for schools.
LikeLike
I think this is well-said. Sure, there are some superficial reasons you might split the “Big 4.” Consider, after all, that a “pure” geographic alignment in the SEC would swap Auburn for Vanderbilt; anybody thinking that would be acceptable? No. Some compromises are sensible. It’s just that that is not the case here; they’re totally screwing the pooch to “fix” something that isn’t that unequal. Certainly not meaningful more unequal than it is now; after all, OSU never loses Michigan or PSU, but I’ve never heard of an OSU fan crying about that. I think your point about being all for the league acting strategically is why most of us don’t have a problem with divisions and a CCG . . . so long as the divisions are sensible. The point I’ve been trying to hammer is the illogic of saying that, because some things must change, all things may change, which is what Brandon’s comments suggested. Yes, a few traditions are being altered or going by the wayside in a 12-team era with a CCG; but that doesn’t give them license to change whatever they want.
And I think, Hawkeye, that you have tapped into why it isn’t good enough that two rivals simply play. I like the way you worded that, and I’m going to put it in my letter(s): when rivals are in the same division, the rivalry lasts all season long.
LikeLike
To continue the New Coke analogy, perhaps the Big Ten leaders are proposing this set-up and leaking it so that the public outcry will “force” them to revert to the KISS arrangement and keep OSU and UM in the same division. Some accused Coca-Cola of foisting New Coke on the world simply to stir people up – after all, folks did hoard the Coke Classic as New Coke hit the shelves and rush to buy it again after it came back. Perhaps this is a similar strategy and we’re all being played.
But if they really are planning on splitting them up, this all makes a sort of sense. Obviously, you want to split up your big 4, not just for competitive balance but to make sure that every school has at least one big draw on their home schedule every year, as Bill B pointed out above. This is a big concern for schools like Northwestern who only averaged … let’s see … 24,000 fans in 2009? WTF? You were 8-5! You’re in the Big Ten! That’s pathetic, Northwestern. Anyway, if UM-OSU continues to be a regular season game, then that will make it more difficult for the two schools to meet in the CCG … unless their annual meeting doesn’t count in the standings, as one rumored proposal has suggested. UM and OSU can beat each other up, but both can still go 5-0 in their own divisions and meet again in December. Makes sense.
LikeLike
I never bought the whole “Coke conspiracy theory” angle, and I don’t think it’s the case here either.
However, even assuming that’s true and we’re being played, it doesn’t really work unless we all get really angry anyway, so I’m willing to play along.
LikeLike
When asked whether New Coke was a clever marketing scheme or just a colossal mistake, I believe one Coke exec responded with something to the effect of “We’re not that smart, and we’re not that dumb.” Perhaps that’s the case here.
Anyway, it’s not like this will be permanent. You try it one way for a couple of years, and if it doesn’t work, realign. I would definitely keep the OSU-UM game at the end of the season regardless of what divisions they end up in. A rematch one week later I don’t see as that big of a problem.
LikeLike
I highly disagree. What they put in place isn’t going to change; once you’ve made a decision, nobody wants to face all of this opposition all over again. The inertia will be impossible to overcome. Look at the ACC; everybody agrees their divisions suck and has agreed that for years, but there’s no movement.
LikeLike
They got rid of New Coke …
LikeLike
New Coke did not require overcoming the same collective action problem. It was either do it or lose it.
By contrast, whatever alignment they put in place, even if everybody agrees that it stinks, it’s always going to be difficult to get enough people to agree on any given other alternative.
LikeLike
There’s also what I see as the problem with the gerrymandered divisions: a slow erosion of long time rivalries, especially those that are not OSU/UM. It won’t be something that will hit them in the face. So they won’t change because they it won’t be obvious there is a problem until it is too late.
LikeLike
@bullet – that’s a good point. Could take a generation before some of the effects are felt. Of course, if Nebraska-OU is any indication, it could happen a lot faster.
LikeLike
I never bought it was on purpose. One of my rules in life is to never believe in a conspiracy when incompetence (or just a bad decision) can just as easily explain everything.
LikeLike
Its what happens when you have a Notre Dame grad and a bunch of foreigners messing with an American icon (the 4 making the New Coke decision were a Cuban, Mexican, ND grad and I believe an Australian).
So Delaney is an ACC grad?-a basketball conference?
LikeLike
If you have the KISS divisions, 8 conference games and no permanent crossovers, this might be Illinois’ home games in a 4 year cycle:
1) Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan,
2) Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, Northwestern
3) Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Indiana
4) Nebraska, Minnesota, Penn State, Northwestern
That’s at least 1 big name every year, and lots of games against regional teams who will come visit. I think that’s some pretty good draws.
Also, Illinois’ rivalries with the teams in it’s division will intensify over time.
LikeLike
While I support conferences staying at 8 games, this would be a possible Illinois schedule with:
1)Kiss divisions
2)9 conference games
3)no permanent crossovers
year 1:
H Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, MSU
A Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, NW
year 2:
H Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Indiana, NW
A Wisconsin, Nebraska, MSU, OSU
year 3:
H Wisconsin, Nebraska, MSU, OSU
A Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, PSU, NW
year 4:
H Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, PSU, NW
A Wisconsin, Nebraska, OSU, Purdue
year 5:
H Wisconsin, Nebraska, OSU, Purdue
A Iowa, Minnesota, PSU, Michigan, NW
year 6:
H Iowa, Minnesota, PSU, Michigan, NW
A Wisconsin, Nebraska, Purdue, MSU
LikeLike
In fairness to Northwestern, no one really knows what a good solution is to the lack of butts in the seats.
Northwestern is finally trying to market itself better and sell its tickets better, and the product on the field should be enough to be able to avg 40,000, but the problem is that Chicago is such a pro-sports town, that there’s no real way to crack it.
I mean, when you’re in the same town as the Bears, Bulls, Cubs, and Blackhawks, all of which are incredibly popular around town right now (well Bears/Cubs could be doing better on the field but they’re royalty), there’s just no way to break through.
Yes, they could do a better job of getting students to go to games, but that’s like an extra 1,000-2,000.
And not that many alumni stick around within driving distance. So the problem is how to get people to come to the games when you’re a bit out of the way as Evanston is…
LikeLike
Ticket prices are an edge Northwestern has over the pro sports teams. Any Bears games would be over $100 a ticket. But Northwestern, I would assume, is under $50. Not a bad deal, especially if the team is doing well or if they’re playing someone good.
Does NW ever try to market itself based on its prices?
LikeLike
Frank,
I look at the coke debate slightly different
2 things happened in the Coke situation that you can apply here as well
a) in a blind taste test pepsi was kicking cokes butt (where you could say the SEC is pepsi and the Big 10 is coke). Sure coke had huge sums in their brand, but the simple fact was that pepsi was sweeter and this was an issue because to compete for newer (see also younger) long term consumers the sweeter taste was swinging the balance (why when I was younger you saw chocolate and candy “cigarettes”). The answer was to create a new formula to appeal to a specific audience for future long term consumption. Currently the Big 10 may feel it’s brand is not reaching the fans (future donors) that are kids today, as the SEC and Big 12 have passed them by in MNC games (not saying this is correct, but if you poll the average american my guess is the Big 10 has lost some ground). If you fail to see this then remember back to when you were a kid. Did you know who the president of Michigan was? I am willing to bet at the same age you know who coached the team! Back then did you know how good IU academics were, or did you know how good their basketball team was? If I polled the readers on this blog I would guess the average was over 30. Point being we already know who we root for, as we are the coke people, but our kids or grandkids are more likely the pepsi generation.
b) what really happened in the cola wars, and who really won! While most people look at the new coke and coke classic they miss totally what really happened. It is why in the UM vs tOSU some might not see the forrest for all those pesky trees in the way. Where coke really won long term was in controlling the market. When I was younger you went into a store and there were all kinds of cola brands, and each one had its own shelf space. When I go to a grocery now almost all those brands are gone. what happened, and how did they get forced out?
Enter “new” coke, because shelf space was finite and for every “new” coke brand on the shelf it meant some local or regional cola bit the dust. Think about what coke really did was to eliminate the shelf space for the lesser brands to compete in. They literally squeezed the competition out of the space. Now while I personally would not like to see a change in the UM vs tOSU game, I have a pretty good feeling I understand the logic for it. Delany could be sitting in the same spot as the first coke (the UM / tOSU game) with a single product competing for shelf space (media). If he stays with tradition, the SEC (pepsi) could pass him by with multiple product choices (UF vs FSU, UGA vs GT, BAMA vs Auburn, USC vs Clemson, Arkansas vs TAMU, etc in OOC games with appeal + SEC interconference games with broad appeal. If this is the case then Delany is smart and forward thinking so he can put multiple products on the shelves to stay competitive with the SEC (and Pac 10) while squeezing out secondary teams and gaining their shelf space (media slot).
Do I like the thought of it? No! do I think it is the smart long term thing to do to insure “shelf space” and “consumer demand”? Yes. Again, I ask you if the 12 team model or the 16 team model is the future, and the majority seem to feel the 12 team model will fall by the wayside. You can not have it both ways just like one can not get “kind of” pregnant! If the future it the BTN, and the BTN is about filling shelf space (media slots) then you need to start getting the kids addicted today so they will want to watch tomorrow. Maybe I am wrong, but it could explain delanys true long term intention.
the current model:
tOSU vs UM = coke
the future model:
Pitt vs PSU = coke
UM vs MSU = diet coke
tOSU vs MD = coke zero
Wisconsin vs ?? = sprite
Iowa vs ?? = dasani
Nebraska vs ?? = powerade
where the 16 team model looks like this (random 4 eastern adds)
East:
Virginia, Maryland, Rutgers, Pitt, PSU, Ohio State, Michigan, MSU
West:
IU, PU, Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa
in keeping a 12 game schedule it could break down to greater control of content (whoever did the math last time I brought this up pointed out) so say tOSU present and future looks this way.
tOSU this fall:
4 OOCG’s
8 CG’s
tOSU in the future:
2 OOCG’s
10 CG’s
The stronger the BTN gets, the more leverage it has on OOCG rights and negotiation. While UT as a single school may not make this work I can see how the BTN as a collective could!
LikeLike
Actually the reason everyone is squeezed off the store shelves is slotting fees. Grocery stores charge brands money to get space. That’s really where they make their profits. Noone can afford what Coke and Pepsi pay. Its why smaller brands are dissappearing throughout grocery stores, not just on soft drink shelves. There’s a little bit of an anology with the big conferences and ESPN and the BTN. Also the arms race and coaching salaries.
Coke and Pepsi have regional strengths. Coke dominates the south. That is where they really set off the traditionalists with New Coke. They hurt their base in order to get new customers. That is exactly what Delaney is doing. He’s hurting B10 fans in order to try to get viewers outside B10 territory.
LikeLike
And the irony is that most of the people outside the region who comment here are as alienated by this decision as the Big Ten people.
LikeLike
Pingback: Anonymous
In all seriousness, the game is, in my view, owned by UM and OSU. Whatever they honestly agree on, the rest of us should suck it up and accept their decision.
LikeLike
Not quite. It’s not only an affront to everybody to disrespect that game’s history; it’s an affront to the rest of the league that they’re gerrymandering the divisions around that rivalry in anticipation of a rematch. What, are the rest of us chopped liver?
LikeLike
They built it, they own it. I’m sure the B10 asked them what they wanted to do about it. They are taking a big risk. They’re big boys (like their women), let them make up their own collective mind. I guess I would just defer to them on it in all seriousness. I really would. Personally, I prefer KISS, but reasonable minds can disagree.
LikeLike
You want to protect Ohio State-Michigan? Show how some of the other Big Ten rivalries, such as Purdue-Indiana, are at risk. As long as the conference believes it’s defined by only two teams (the old ESPN canard), why should fans of the other 10 care?
LikeLike
Just remember the Big 2 and little 8, it is M and tOsu that led this conference to where it is today. Yes the little 8 is no more the last 20 years, just look at when one of the other 8 has won the conference the schedule has played a HUGE role in those seasons. Either play one of M, Osu or neither in some years. So yes M and Osu should at least be given the respect each very well deserves. With that said I put Psu and Neb with those two for what each has done for college football the last 30 years.
LikeLike
Whatever happens, I still see UM, PUR and MSU being in put in one division as a lure to a certain Indiana school. Most likely with Neb, Iowa and Indiana, but KISS works too. Problem is that KISS would be even more unbalanced with the domers.
LikeLike
Not speaking for all M fans here but I know most dont look at Sparty as a rival on the same level as tosu. With that said I ABSOLUTELY do not want to see M end the season with a game vs sparty, going head to head tv wise vs Psu vs tO$u, Neb vs Wisc/Iowa. When was the last time sparty played for anything other than a bowl bid the last week of the season, this matchup would be third string if not fourth some years. If “THE GAME” does get moved the big ten will regret it as it will lose alot of its appeal nationally. With the way things are developing and THE GAME is moved I could handle a season ending game vs either Psu or Neb whoever is in the same division as a alternative with the other playing tO$u. The kiss theory really applies here and the comparison to Coke is so fitting. I am just afraid of how the next generation of M and Buckeyes see the greatest rivalry in all of sports. I would much rather see them play for the division bid to the ccg rather than the “chance” they will meet in the ccg once every few years.
LikeLike
I find it funny and interesting how the Big 10+ and the Pac-12 are finding out that a 12 team conference alignment can’t please everyone, all the time. AND they seem surprised by this.
Funny…Oklahoma and Nebraska could have told ’em that as could Miami and Fl. State.
Sing 10….is the magic number Sing
LikeLike
Nah, nine’s the right number for college football. You play eight conference games, four home and four road so everyone gets a balanced schedule, and you get four non-con games. That’s one of the things I’m gonna miss about the MWC, however it ends up. Stupid Fresno and Nevada.
LikeLike
Then everyone has a bye week and plays directional state in late October or November in a game absolutely nobody cares about. Got to have an even number.
Kind of surprised P12 being such an issue. B10 was kind of obvious when they went west instead of east or south (bend). East or South (bend) and PSU gets a rival so UM and OSU can be together.
LikeLike
12-Pac: everyone wants that game in LA. With 10 they just go home and away split up with USC and UCLA. And none of the teams are budging.
They may go zipper, with one set rival game, but that’s 10 games.
LikeLike
It’s not a question of scheduling a non-con game to fill a whole, the problem is that with 10 teams, if you play a round-robin, half the teams play five home and four road while the other half play four home and five road. Not really a fair way of determining a conference champion. Once you go past nine, you almost have to go to 12. Or be like the Big Ten and not play a complete round-robin, which is also kind of weird.
LikeLike
with the Big IIX they are planning on 4 home, 4 road..and 1 neutral, as they all have a neutral site rivalry or are trying to set one up.
LikeLike
UT/OU, MU/KU. Don’t know how the others would work. ISU/KSU in Lincoln so the Huskers could have some nostalgia? A&M already is playing Arkansas in Dallas, so I don’t see Tech in Dallas.
LikeLike
Don’t think the extra home game is that big a deal. Now BYU had a problem-they have TCU/AF/Boise(previously Utah)/CSU on the road (or at home) the same year. Apparently that was one of their issues with MWC. But if you balance the schedule it will normally not be an issue.
In the 70s when they had a 7 game schedule did it matter that OSU had IU and MN on the road and NW at home while UM had IU and MN at home and NW on the road? IMO playing 8 of 9 is more distorting (at the top of the conference) than having 1 more road or home game-as long as you at least try to balance the schedule.
LikeLike
I like the neutral site game idea. Tech and Baylor have been playing in DFW the last couple of years (Death Star last year, Cotton Bowl this year), so maybe that’ll be a continuing thing. I don’t know, A&M-OSU maybe? Aggies won’t want two neutral site games a year.
LikeLike
I think I’m with you Jake. 9 does work well too.
As for the MWC…I hate BYU even more now, either way it goes.
LikeLike
Not like the MWC fans do. Texas barely gets that much venom from OU. On their boards and in their papers they are laying into BYU.
LikeLike
Whatever you think of BYU, they do know how to keep a secret. You hear nothing out of Provo. The rare leaks you hear are from elsewhere.
LikeLike
You couple BYU’s near betrayal with their historic arrogance and the fact that a lot of people just have something against Mormons, and yeah, you get a perfect storm of hate. Can’t wait for those guys to come to Fort Worth this year. I detest running up the score, but I hope we hang 100 on them.
LikeLike
Jake, works for me.
LikeLike
I only got to hear a little analysis from after the interview (so this could be a little off), but Gordon Gee (OSU president) was on the radio today. He urged Buckeyes to e-mail their concerns and apparently dismissed that the OSU-Michigan game will be in October. It will be November still, but not sure when yet and urged Buckeyes to share their opinions, particularly send facts and figures.
I didn’t hear him, but it makes me wonder if OSU’s administration isn’t fighting for the game, but up against rode blocks and basically wants to use the excuse, ‘if we move it, we’re going to lose too much money.’ That’s just speculation of one thing that could be going on, but something that I think would make sense.
LikeLike
UM AD suggested the game would be late in the season (i.e., November) but not the last week.
My opinion is that UM is wussing out here. I think UM wants to avoid OSU’s division. The Detroit Tigers did the same thing when they actively weaseled out of the American League East because they were afraid of their traditional rivals Boston, New York, and Baltimore. (Now Tigers fans are stuck with those pesky Twins!)
LikeLike
I find it ironic that you basically outlined the proposal I’ve been leaning at for weeks (although I have it as a 5-2-2) just at the time I’ve decided the KISS is the way to go.
Great post as always. Thanks for it and let’s hope the conference gets the message.
LikeLike
I only got to hear a little analysis from after the interview (so this could be a little off), but Gordon Gee (OSU president) was on the radio today. He urged Buckeyes to e-mail their concerns and apparently dismissed that the OSU-Michigan game will be in October. It will be November still, but not sure when yet and urged Buckeyes to share their opinions, particularly send facts and figures.
I didn’t hear him, but it makes me wonder if OSU’s administration isn’t fighting for the game, but up against rode blocks and basically wants to use the excuse, ‘if we move it, we’re going to lose too much money.’ That’s just speculation of one thing that could be going on, but something that I think would make sense.
LikeLike
Sounds like Gee is a master of doublespeak. The same day in an interview with the Dayton Daily News he said, “We want to beat them twice”.
I really wonder if they realize the storm of protests they are going to unleash by announcing this at the beginning of the football season.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/dayton-sports/ohio-state-buckeyes/buckeyes-wolverines-dont-have-to-be-in-same-division-osu-president-says-881749.html
LikeLike
Timing is both good and bad. The bad is that no one is at Ohio State now. Summer quarter is over (or about to end) and fall quarter won’t begin for a month. The good news is that it’s football season too and that is going to give us some good chances to let our voices heard. There’s word spreading on Facebook of a collective “Save the Game” chant at the 10:00 mark of the 1st quarter against Marshall. I just hope the BTN and/or Ohio State doesn’t try something to hold that back.
I really want Gameday at Ohio State soon. I bet we could get a lot of people with signs on national TV.
LikeLike
Now if we can get the other ten schools to chant:
“East-West works best”
We’ll get what we want.
Right? Right?
LikeLike
eggs
LikeLike
As usual Frank, you absolutely nailed it.
It is unbelievable to think that the Big Ten could see this negative reaction from the vast majority of fans, the vast majority of the media, and the vast majority of the blogosphere and not reconsider. Do they really think we’re ALL off-base?
LikeLike
Pingback: A Must Read: Thank you, Frank. | Buckeye Commentary
add
LikeLike
Let’s discuss. I think many of us see the B10 going to 14 in the next few years.
B10 needs programming, 14 games works in a 9 game schedule and it’s not pods, which is, I think, confusing.
Bottom line on expansion is that the cultural fit has to be there and PSU needs another like-mind so it doesn’t seem like the oddball that it kind of is. One of the two will be a Beast school or maybe either MD or Navy.
A real problem with KISS is that there are no “west” schools to expand with that would up the cache of west side all that much in football and it needs to be a big one because it plainly trails the east. We got the big one already.
So, KISS proponents? Who’s on deck for “west”? Mizzou doesn’t seem to cut it (see, also, Kansas) and TX is not coming for many, many reasons. Who else we got that makes sense? ND would obviously be in the east if it came on board, which would make things even worse in terms of balance.
When BYU talked of bailing, I thought they might fill the bill, but it is pretty far away. Who the hell could fit into the west?
LikeLike
Why would anybody have to? You take a couple of “East” teams and slide Purdue into the “West” with a KISS model. None of the eastern teams are powerhouses that would upset the “balance” of the KISS model, so moving Purdue into the West and adding 2 more roughly Purdue-caliber programs would be no big change.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten, you put it in the east with Mich/MSU/Pur, and ship Ohio State to the west to play with Neb/Iowa/Wisc. Until Notre Dame joins (if that day ever comes) the Big Ten should stick with KISS divisions.
By the way, the suggestion that only divisional games will count for the ccg may be designed to attract Notre Dame. With 14 teams, Notre Dame will have only six divisional games, leaving six other games it could play out of conference.
LikeLike
This assumes that we should think of Notre Dame as one of the football elites of the conference, when at best they seem like Iowa level (clear-cut 6th team in the league) or possibly even at the Purdue/Michigan State tier.
LikeLike
That’s nothing against ND as a school (fantastic, in my view), it’s just that their football hasn’t been anything special for a while now.
LikeLike
@Adam – It’s not really about how good the program is per say, but how much exposure it gets nationwide playing Notre Dame. They are a team that draws well even in down years. You can bet a 5-5 Notre Dame team vs. a 3-7 Northwestern team would be a sellout in Evanston.
LikeLike
@gregenstein – I think that’s the critical point in all of this. OSU and Michigan aren’t going to be split up for competitive balance, but for financial balance. You’ve got to have a couple of top draws in each division to keep the less popular schools happy. And I doubt the Big Ten’s next expansion candidate will be a Purdue-caliber team. It would have to be someone on par with NU and PSU popularity wise, and not many fit the bill. ND and Texas are the only available candidates I can think of.
LikeLike
Georgia Tech? Miami?
LikeLike
GT and Miami are very good schools with wonderful athletic programs, but they wouldn’t exactly bring the fans out in droves for their Big Ten road games the way a Penn State or Nebraska would.
LikeLike
Jake’s right. The only way we go to 14 is with ND. ND and a Beast school, likely Rutgers or Pitt, or Navy with a massive underdog shot at MD. They want that to go easy when it happens. ND slides into “Bo” and the other into “Woody”. (Bo and Woody willingly submit! Sorry everyone, could not resist.)
LikeLike
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7010603
LikeLike
That was great.
LikeLike
Sweet! GO BLUE(and white)
LikeLike
Tonight’s BTN schedule:
7pm Iowa season preview
8pm 2010 Orange Bowl (Iowa 24, Ga Tech 14)
10pm Iowa season preview
I luv the BTN.
LikeLike
I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but I think one of the most disturbing things about this whole situation is Michigan AD Dave Brandon and his unabashed support for “New Coke.” He is literally trying to forced this down people’s throats
http://detnews.com/article/20100826/SPORTS0201/8260425/Dave-Brandon-on-U-M-vs.-OSU–Title-game-possibility-trumps-date
Rich Rodriguez didn’t really do himself any favors in my eyes by not demanding that the game be kept in place, but its understandable because he is an outsider to the rivalry, and looking more and more like a complete disaster of a hire, so I’ll give him a pass.
I can see why Jim Delany would want to get his hands on this because he probably sees some economic benefit to it, and again, he’s a North Carolina guy, and by the use of his Duke – UNC analogy, he clearly doesn’t understand the Michigan – Ohio State rivalry.
It was surprising to hear support from Ohio State AD Gene Smith, but then again he’s a Notre Dame guy, although to his credit he seems to understand that the majority of the world is against this.
It was very surprising to not hear Jim Tressell speak out because from day one, he made beating Michigan priority 1, 2, and 3. But again, even though he was an assistant with the Buckeyes in the early 80’s, and has been the OSU coach for almost 10 years, he never played in the game. Still weird to hear his stance on it.
Which brings me to Mr. Brandon. Yikes. Out of all the above characters this is only guy who actually played in the rivalry. Not only that, but he played for Bo god damn Schembechler. He took part in the 10 Year War, the absolute height of the rivalry. If anyone would speak out against this abomination about to unfold, one would think it would be Brandon. Yet, there he is, campaigning for it.
Michigan fans would expect to see this from former AD Bill Martin, who if you recall tried to sell the rights of the game to SBC (now AT&T,) before being rebuked by prominent alumni, who viewed it as tarnishing the purity of the rivalry.
Now, I am just a lowly Michigan alum, with no real sway on anything, so I’m afraid there isn’t much I can do. But I do hold out hope because of that above Martin fiasco. Both sides were vehemently against any increased revenue that would have come from corporate sponsorship and in the end their opinions were heard. I’m afraid there is nothing that can be done if the other 9 schools are for it, but there is hope.
(By the way, Michigan State must be salivating at the prospect of being able to cap their season with a game against Michigan.)
LikeLike
So Gene Smith is a ND guy. That completes Frank’s analogy! The lone American of the 4 who made the New Coke decision was a ND guy (I didn’t know Gene Smith was also ND when I posted my comment above).
LikeLike
I agree this is surprising coming from Brandon given his background, but the dispositive factor for me is his business background. Although he may have played in the game, he’s spent the last few decades cultivating his professional identity in a field that rewards people for dreaming up outlandish solutions that allow them to “put their stamp on” what they’re working on. Nobody gets any recognition or consulting fees for preaching the obvious, and although he’s in no position to get a consulting fee here, he’s accustomed to working in (and with people who share) that mindset.
LikeLike
We don’t really know what Brandon wanted. Brandon is doing what management is supposed to do. when a management decision has been made you take ownership as if it is your own even if you didn’t support it. Brandon has said several times recently that Michigan only has one vote. The implication is that Michagan and Ohio State didn’t have the votes to stop this. That doesn’t mean they supported it in conference discussions. But once decided they do what any mangement structure does. suck it up and endorse it.
LikeLike
I don’t know that this is a traditional management structure situation. In one sense the league is a single business entity, but it’s also 12 different business entities (this is why the Supreme Court struggles with anti-trust issues in pro sports). It is not automatically a smart decision to alienate your customers because some other businesses you have an alliance with would like you to.
LikeLike
the conference itself is a joint venture business.
but the principal is the same, once a decision is made management, and/or partners, close ranks.
and I agree the decision is alientating customers. all I’m pointing out is that we don’t know Brandon or Smith’s personal level of support. They could have argues against it. But once the decisions are made they are going to do what mamagement does, sign on and sell the decision.
LikeLike
That is my understanding when you read between the lines of some of the comments. Brandon and the Osu ad have said they each only have 1 vote and there are 10 others. With saying that it makes me wonder if its not the other ad’s and pres, that are not pushing this. Maybe its a bit of jealousy of the fact that M/Osu get all the attention that last week, I dont know but that is what it looks like.
I think alot of this being led by Alvarez who thinks Wiscy is being left out. Take a look back who has been the most outspoken the past year since it was announced the B10 was expanding. BA is trying to increase his schools profile and I dont blame him thats part of his job, but by destroying something special is not the correct thing either.
LikeLike
I get the part about having them in different divisions, although I disagree with it. What makes no sense to me is moving the game from the end of the season. Frankly, the worry about a rematch in the CG being bad is way over-blown…..as others have said, this isn’t the 70s—-there are 6 or 7 teams that have a legit shot at getting to that game every year. Also, I guess the coaches would not like a rematch…..so what, it won’t kill them.
If you keep UM_OSU on the last day, you can also play Neb_PSU, and Wis-Iowa that day.
LikeLike
As a Michigander, I told Jim Delany that I am prepared to contact my legislative representative and I’m doing just that.
Hell, I’ll even get my Congressman involved.
LikeLike
I’m going to ask my County board rep to consider a resolution of some forth. They’re all the time passing resolutions on things the County government has no real concern with, but it puts a little heat on the State legislators to pay attention to the issue.
LikeLike
Excellent post Frank. But let me point out something NOBODY has suggested. Why the hell is there a NCAA rule that requires 2 divisions in order to play a conference title game?
This rule is completely arbitrary and doesn’t need to exist since it offers nothing of value. This rule is the reason why there is this pain.
It seems to me, that it would be much easier to tell the NCAA to take a hike with their dumb rule than to settle this debate at this point. No?
I do like your division suggestion very much and I think you nailed it. Minnesota, in the current proposal gets royally screwed. They are so far out on an island and they lose Iowa and don’t get Nebraska. Makes no sense.
Only Oklahoma has beaten Nebraska more than Minnesota.
LikeLike
Issue is that the rule was never meant to be applied to 1-A college football in the first place. It wouldn’t have been voted in then and changing is kind of hard. The conferences might like it changed, but not enough support to leave the NCAA over it.
LikeLike
Also, every league that has gotten to 12 and gone through all of this turmoil isn’t interested in cutting any slack for those who come after. I think you saw this dynamic when the 10-team ACC’s bid for a title game was shot down.
LikeLike
Actually, it was an 11-team ACC’s bid for a championship game that was shot down. they made the bid after adding VT and UM, and before adding BC.
LikeLike
I think I ranted about this earlier. Maybe it was a different post. Anyway, I think the Big Ten might want it changed, and the Big 12 could be on board as well. The Pac-10 might have supported it a couple of months ago, but maybe not at the moment. The MWC is at 11 right now, so who knows. SEC, ACC – most likely against it.
LikeLike
All of this is classic “what have you done for me lately?”…
Seems TPTB are overlooking the ENTIRE history of the Big 10 and are assuming that only the “Big 4” schools bring (or will bring) value…
No school stays on top in football all the time… in many cases you are a good or bad head coach away from changing the direction of a program.
The only reason Alabama is where it is, is because of Saban… a few years ago they were enduring NCAA sanctions, and couldn’t beat the seemingly lowly Gophers in a bowl game. tOSU needn’t look any further back than J Cooper, Michigan is NOT what it was, likely won’t be what it was any time soon, Nebraska is only a couple years removed from a decade of mediocrity. The major Florida schools were virtual unknowns before the 90’s. Texas was ordinary in the years before Mack Brown, same could be said about Oklahoma before Bob Stoops.
Every program has different levels of dedication to various sports (see Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky), and to education (see Northwestern, Vanderbilt…). A school’s mission and priorities will drive the monetary decisions of each institution. If football isn’t at the top of the list, a program likely will not be as strong. Doesn’t necessarily mean that the school doesn’t bring anything to the table…
LikeLike
This Husker fan wants Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State, and Minnesota every year. These are the most logical choices for most Husker fans that I know as there is some type of old or potential rivalry with each. Whether these games come in the form of divisional or cross divisional games, I don’t care.
LikeLike
Tony–I agree with this 100%. Only concern I have is whether or not fans will want to travel to Penn State every other year due to distance.
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and the Illinois/Indiana schools–those can be driven to in a day or (as Dr. Tom already pointed out) have air service which can be just as frugal as driving (depending on who you fly with and when you procure tickets).
Penn State, Ohio State, and the Michigan schools–that may be pushing it, even for our fans.
Then again, this is all moot if the Big 10(12) does what I think they will do and eventually nab Missouri and possibly even Kansas in the near future.
LikeLike
The easiest way to get most of that is to go with KISS. The only PSU obstacle is that PSU may balk at playing Nebraska cross-division if they have to play OSU and Michigan in-division, especially if OSU and Michigan get traditional cross-divisional rivalries against weaker programs (Illinois and Minnesota). But if that doesn’t faze PSU or Nebraska, I’d have no objection to that.
LikeLike
Article with e-mails on what happened to Benson’s plan to create a New WAC.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/50175141-77/byu-wac-west-aug.html.csp?page=1
LikeLike
And that $5M buyout clause to leave the WAC may not be as firm as we thought. Apparently one of the clauses in the resolution was that it would be terminated if BYU didn’t join by Sept. 1.
So Fresno State and Nevada may have an out or a heavily reduced form of that fine.
It’ll be interesting to see where BYU goes from here…
LikeLike
The ACC divisions truly don’t make a ton of sense, but there is one shining bright side to that: People still think of the ACC as a whole, rather than focusing on the divisional split. I am not sure that is actually a bad thing.
LikeLike
The ACC divisions have been much maligned on this blog but nowhere else that I can see, and I live in ACC country. I will stick up for the ACC’s divisions here by asking, what’s the KISS alternative to what the ACC did? The basic problem the ACC had is that any regionally-based alignment would have put the 4 NC schools together, and since they are smack in the middle of the conference, anything built around that would be ugly. How would you do a KISS alignment and still keep those 4 NC schools together?
For example: Put the 4 NC and 2 VA schools together in a division. Looks nice. Until you see the other division, that has BC, Miami, FSU, etc: a geographical mess. If you go north-south with your divisions, you’d have to split the 4 NC schools and that blows away any “regional” pretense. Same with an east-west split which would have been ridiculously artificial anyway.
So I think the ACC did a good job with divisions given the configuration they had. The way the ACC’s assumption of a UM-FSU championship matchup screwed them up was by putting the ACCCG in Florida, instead of someplace more centrally located. But not in how they configured the divisions.
LikeLike
@xyzzy – Don’t need to have all 4 NC schools together. The ACC should’ve had a simple North/South split:
NORTH
BC
Maryland
Virginia
Virginia Tech
Duke
UNC
SOUTH
Wake Forest
NC State
Georgia Tech
Clemson
Miami
Florida State
PROTECTED RIVALS
Duke – Wake
UNC – NC State
VT – Miami
BC – FSU
UVA – Clemson
Maryland – GT
I definitely think that UNC-NC State, VT-Miami and Duke-Wake should be protected. The others aren’t as natural, but that’s compensated by the fact that the divisions make more geographic sense.
LikeLike
When I first thought about this, my initial reaction was to have the North Carolina schools go Wake Forest/Duke in the “North” and UNC/NC State in the “South.” That was in part driven by a notion that they’d use the divisions for college basketball, too, where rematches are routine; then you could guarantee 2 Duke/UNC games across the divisions, but with them being in separate divisions they’d often be seeded 1st and either 2nd or 3rd, which sets up a potential rubber match in the ACC Tournament Championship; and if you’re going to get a potential rubber match in the ACC Tournament, why not in the final?
It illustrates why the football and basketball dynamics are so different.
LikeLike
Frank, I disagree and I think saying that you can have a “regionally based” alignment in the ACC with the 4 NC schools split up indicates a lack of familiarity with the ACC’s culture. And except for the first two, none of those protected rivalries make much sense. In the current alignment, the only protected rivalry that doesn’t make much sense is VT-BC, which is what I think was left over after everyone else got their natural protected rival.
I’m not saying that the N-S alignment is no good, but it’s no better than what the ACC has now, and is slightly worse when you look at the protected rivalries.
LikeLike
I’m not an ACC fan, but all you’ve really done is traded BC and MD for GT and Miami so its not that much different, except that it makes sense! I would think BC and GT would want to trade based on their alumni and student recruiting areas.
I would probably switch the protected rivalries to FSU/MD (FSU gets in big metro area, MD gets FL recruiting), UVA/GT (they’ve had some hotly contested games in the past-especially in GT’s MNC year), and BC/Clemson (Massachusetts vs. South Carolina, Boston/Charleston, civil war all over)
LikeLike
Alternatively, you could JUST protect Duke-Wake, UNC-NC St, and BC-Miami, and let everything else float. It’d be a more weird setup, but it’d be completely feasible.
That would mean that:
FSU plays Duke, UNC, BC twice in five years, and the others three times in five years
Wake plays Duke every year, and the others twice every five years
etc.
Every other team has a similar schedule structure, just move around the names.
LikeLike
During the SEC’s 5-2-1 years you effectively had several schools doing 5-1-2 (much as you suggest a 5-0-3 for some and 5-1-2 for others). TN always played Alabama, but they played both MS and AR in their other “every” year game. Similarly UK switched opponents. I believe S. Carolina and Vandy did also, although I haven’t verified that. Only UF (LSU/Auburn) and UGA (Auburn/MS) in the east stuck with the same 2.
You could look at a 5-1-2 as: a)5 division; b)1 you choose; c)conference chooses in a rotating scheme.
LikeLike
Bullet – during the 5-2-1 days in the SEC, LSU had Florida and Kentucky. Both were also permanent games prior to divisional play.
LikeLike
As someone with an ACC background, I think some of the rivalries were kept within the Atlantic/Coastal setup. For example, as I’ve noted here before, Virginia and North Carolina have had a long rivalry and in fact closed the season with each other for several decades; it’s still perceived as a big game for UVa, not so much for UNC thanks to its rivalries with State, Duke and Wake. The Clemson-N.C. State game has been dubbed the “Textile Bowl” (textile technology has been a key part of the curriculum at both institutions). I believe Duke and Georgia Tech regularly played each other before both were ACC members.
It would be interesting to see how the ACC alters divisions should Maryland move to the Big Ten (and Virginia Tech defect to the SEC). Where would Syracuse, Pittsburgh and/or Connecticut go? (West Virginia, too, but some in the ACC may object to its Tier 3 academic status.)
LikeLike
These divisions would be much more lopsided in one direction than an east/west Big Ten split.
UNC, Duke, Maryland, and Virginia have all had long stretches of losing, or at least mediocre, seasons. But this division is no equivalent to a Big Ten West with Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin. The ACC North’s second-best program, BC, is comparable to a Big Ten West’s fourth-best, Northwestern.
An ACC South has one program that hasn’t missed a bowl in over 30 years (FSU), another that’s littered with national titles in the past 30 years (Miami), a third that has gone bowling annually since 1997 (GT), and a fourth which, since 1990, has gone to bowl games roughly 3 of every four years (Clemson).
LikeLike
Geography is the only thing that makes sense to me. Dividing line is the Illinois/Indiana border. This accomplishes most of what I see people bitching about. Michigan and Ohio State play every year and it counts for something. I lived through the glory years of Oklahoma-Nebraska and I also saw the rivalry destroyed by the Big 12. Splitting Michigan and Ohio State up is just BS. They need to continue playing every year. Especially now that Michigan is challenged. Trying to artificially setup the championship game between them won’t work. Straight geography and rotate 3 from the other division on a home/away basis. Competetive balance is achieved as the West division with Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Northwestern, Illinois, and Minnesota would currently be stronger than the East with OSU, PSU, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, and MSU. The cross-division games would be setup so the West teams get OSU or PSU, Michigan or MSU, Purdue or Indiana. East teams get Neb or Iowa, Wisc or Northwestern, Minnesota or Illinois. No designated rivalry games. Stay with an 8 game conference schedule. All games count. This will also encourage solid out of conference scheduling. Some years you get a tough draw and some years you don’t. That’s life. Keep It Simple Stupid.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more. I’m not a huge fan of “protected” games as to me it’s just a way to try to keep teams playing.
PSU does have something of a budding rivalry brewing with Iowa, which I admit is a game I’ve been looking forward to when they play. I would like playing Nebraska as well. Trouble is, I don’t care too much about Wisconsin or Minnesota who I know belong with Nebraska and Iowa. To me, it makes no sense to put Penn State in with that group of 4. It makes much more sense to put Northwestern and Illinois in with them and be done with it.
I don’t want all of my divisional games to be 4 states away. Like I said before, I can’t find a divisional alignment that I like A LOT more than just good East/West.
Please, no more talk of what to once Notre Dame (or someone else) comes on board. The Big Ten averages an additional team every 20 years or so. It’s silly to worry about it now when setting up divisions.
LikeLike
I hate to type in all caps, but….
IS THIS ACTION A PREFACE TO A 16 TEAM MODEL?
If it is then the 4 teams will come from the east
if 4 teams come from the east how else will this work?
Again, I may not agree with it, but it makes sense!
LikeLike
thank you to bullet summing it up pretty well
“Coke and Pepsi have regional strengths. Coke dominates the south. That is where they really set off the traditionalists with New Coke. They hurt their base in order to get new customers. That is exactly what Delaney is doing. He’s hurting B10 fans in order to try to get viewers outside B10 territory.”
LikeLike
Interesting. The WAC exit fee of $5m is contingent on BYU joining. Fresno and Nevada may not have to pay.
‘The WAC resolution says “In the event no written agreement is executed by BYU on or before September 1st … then this resolution is terminated.”‘
http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/sports&id=7632714
LikeLike
@loki – and if the WAC ceases to exist, then they really won’t have to pay. I seriously doubt Benson sees that $10 million he’s expecting. Although I think rumors of the WAC’s demise are greatly exaggerated. That conference has survived so many defections, I’d be surprised if Fresno and Nevada were the ones to finally do it in.
LikeLike
Frenso, Boise, and Nevada are gone. BYU looks like they might not be coming. There are rumblings that Hawaii is looking seriously at independence. That would leave just SJSU, Idaho, New Mexico State, Utah State and Louisiana Tech (talk about an outlier). They would have to get some D1AA teams to move up. It just doesn’t seem like a viable league at that point.
LikeLike
And LT has been open about their desire to join CUSA ever since SMU, Tulsa, Rice and UTEP left, but at this point the Sunbelt might even be a more viable option. If the WAC can’t get North Texas, they can try for UT San Antonio and Texas State, who are planning to move up to FBS. Montana and I think Portland State may be options as well.
And BYU may still go independent, but I think the WAC may be out of the question as far as a home for their non-football sports.
LikeLike
If BYU goes indy somewhere other than WAC and HI goes indy I suspect LT and NMSU will settle for Sun Belt and WAC will be gone. No consistency to what I’m reading about BYU. So noone knows what they are going to do.
LikeLike
I think you’re right, and that leaves Utah State, Idaho and San Jose State holding the bag in the WAC. Utah State could end up getting the final MWC invite to make BYU happy. I see San Jose State dropping down to FCS or just dropping football altogether.
Then the Vandal Cheese stands alone. Don’t know what they do. They could drop back to FCS, but they moved up in the first place because of BSU envy. The rivalry and hatred between Idaho and BSU goes far beyond football, and Idaho could not let BSU market itself as the only FBS school in Idaho. It would reinforce the perception that BSU has surpassed UI as the #1 school in the state.
I guess they try to go back to the Sunbelt Conference.
LikeLike
I truely believe that in the end, the Big Ten fans will have the power to change the divisional format in a couple of years even if the original format is the gerrymandering format that the Big Ten PTB want. It will take a non-stop email/fax/letter campaign (as in years and not weeks or months). It will also probably take the threat of and the follow through of a boycott of the championship game and even possibly the OSU/UM game or even the other gerrymandered games. In this day and age, this type of protest usually doesn’t last very long since protesters (or people in general) now-a-days don’t seem to have the drive that they once did. But it is possible. You Big Ten fans shouldn’t just sit idolly by and throw up your hands in defeat. If you guys truely don’t want an ACC type of format. Then you need to be loud and visable and be willing to hit the Big Ten PTB where it hurts, in their pocketbooks.
LikeLike
What it will need is something along the lines of what flummoxed the early FedEx Cup: a totally absurd outcome to the season.
LikeLike
I am sitting in the office, looking at the TV schedule for next week for CFB and I notice this:
Thursday, September 2
TIME (ET) MATCHUP TV PPV MOBILE TICKETS
7:30 PM ET Marshall at No. 2 Ohio State
Big 10 Network
7:30 PM ET Towson at Indiana
Big Ten Network
Where is William, duffman and Frank, et al? — the Big Ten is already “feeding” the BTN Thursday night home games and moving OSU vs. UM to Oct. for TV considerations — and you want ND to join your conference so the same ADs can vote on where and when we play our games? I thought expansion was about the CIC? ARWU? Expanding academic brands?
Not about few hundred thousand dollars. IU has 800,000 living alums — if they donates one buck more a year could OSU and UM play in Nov? Would you stop the trend towards BTN Thursday Nights?
You probably feel betrayed by JD and the ADs. Next time it appears that ND might be forced due to external factors that they cannot control to contemplate the horror of joining the Big Ten, please recall how you feel today.
LikeLike
I am left to assume that OSU wanted to play on Thursday — perhaps not wanting to play on Saturday of the Labor Day weekend? Not real sure. That’s a head-scratcher. Very disappointing if the league office engineered that.
LikeLike
From what I gather it was more a “getting an extra 2 days to prepare for Miami (FL)” rationale. The game would be on the BTN either way so exposure isn’t really the issue.
LikeLike
We discussed this months ago.
The only ‘moral’ reason not to have night games during the week is that it means your students miss classes. A university can decide not to have such games because it’s difficult for alumni to attend, but that’s a monetary reason that has nothing to do with the athletes.
According to Ohio State’s website, summer classes end August 26. Fall classes begin September 22.
Now, explain how it will hurt student athletes to play a night game on September 2.
LikeLike
M(ag): Obviously it is a non-starter to argue a matter of taste with someone — especially on the internet. I never asserted that scheduling Big Ten games on a Thursday night was immoral. It is a matter of money and feeding the BTN. I presume from your response that you are fine with Thursday night games for the Big Ten. I assume that if there was a need to feed the TV beast you would be ok with a Wednesday afternoon game. I mean – it is only TV entertainment, right.. Maybe JD and the ADs will share your sentiment and schedule OSU – UM on the Second Thursday in September. I assumed that you (and other posters) would have shared my view that Thursday games are intrinsically tacky and precisely the type of action taken by conferences desperate to be noticed. I was wrong. I find something wrong with this sequence: C-USA, WAC, Big East … and Big Ten. You don’t. We can agree to disagree.
LikeLike
I think his point was that holding games on Thursday night doesn’t matter when a Thursday night and a Saturday night are interchangeable, since school isn’t in session, so there are no classes the following day either way.
It’s certainly a lot tackier when the league is willing to accept the negative consequences to the athletes out of “desperation” to be noticed.
LikeLike
Ok. I see your point but I guess I don’t understand it. Does he mean that he would not object to OSU vs. UM on the second Thursday in September but would object if OSU vs. UM was held in October — because classes are not in session in September and they are in October. If so, I don’t think we are addressing the “big picture.”
An isolated Thursday game in the first week when some schools are not in session (IU is) might seem palatable, I guess if needed for some reason, I guess. Again, however, what is the reason, other than agreeing to supply a Big Ten game for the BTN?
LikeLike
Yeah, that I’m not totally sure on. I agree that it is kind of tacky — but not something I think is worth making a point of so long as they don’t do it on a “school night.”
LikeLike
“Intrinsically tacky” “desperate to be noticed”- It’s a bit like sending supposedly student athletes on long trips all over the country during the academic year to create and maintain a “national presence”. I can’t imagine what sort of irresponsible educators would allow that sort of thing.
LikeLike
What’s the big deal about Thursday night games, especially if there are only one or two in a season? Missing class is not a big factor for football players, they only miss a few Friday afternoon classes over the course of a season with all Saturday games. On the other hand, maybe you’re right. Let’s stop this garbage of competing during the week and stop playing basketball games mid-week.
LikeLike
Ok so I started asking questions about a possible alignment and gave up asking them of myself so here it is…with the following divisional alignment:
Mich
MSU
Iowa
Neb
NW
Illinois
OSU
PSU
Wisc
Minne
Purdue
Indiana
Assuming a 5-2-2 schedule (which is what the BigTen rumor mill semes to be pointing to)…
What Trophy game does not get played?
Additionally, what “permanent match” does not get played?
With those caveats…what exactly is the problem?
NOTE: I am aware there’d be a period of a couple years where a 9 game schedule wouldn’t take place…but what’s the problem of (for that time period) having a 5-2-1 schedule to maintain the Trophy game streaks, until contracts, expansion, etc finalize ~2015?
LikeLike
Because it makes important rivalries like UM-OSU, Wisc-Ia, and Ia-Min, non-divisional games.
A divisional rivalry is a rivalry that gets played out every week of the season. People who act like all that matters is whether you play are wrong; it’s just as important what the stakes are. When you’re in the same division, you’re jockeying for position in the standings all season long; even when you aren’t playing, you’re still playing.
LikeLike
Since when has Ia-Min been an “important” game? When was the last time Iowa-Wisc played for the Big Ten crown?
I mean if that’s the case there are only two real rivalries in the Big Ten (anymore)…OSU-Mich and OSU-PSU…and OSU-Mich hasn’t been that since RichRod.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, once you get away from that one rivalry that will play for the conference champ that year the Trophies are what gives meaning to the regular season.
Create a division alignment that preserves those Trophies and I think you’ll maintain the “feel” of the Big Ten football season regardless of where any particular school resides.
LikeLike
Dude, you take a very NFL approach to analyzing rivalries.
The Big Ten has 1, only 1, rivalry of national importance.
That is not to say it only has 1 rivalry. or 1 important rivalry.
College Football is intensely local. Rivalries are intensely local. I can assure you as a grad and resident of both Wisconsin and Minnesota the Iowa-Wisconsin-Minnesota games are MORE meaningful to those states than Ohio State v Michigan is to those same states.
To fuel the passion that is Big Ten Fans you need to preserve all of the great assets that keep all 12 teams engaged. The point of the conference is not to engage some casual sports fan in Vermont.
Don’t dismiss all of the great Big Ten rivalries.
LikeLike
I didn’t dismiss any game…merely pointed out the obvious fact that while those games are important to the folks in the region, they are not important for the reasons why people seem to intent on protecting them.
There is nothing on the line (other than the trophy) for the typical Iowa-Wisc or Wisc-Minne game because 90% of the time they are playing for slots #3-4 in the conference (or worse).
The Trophy is what both teams are striving for, not a record with one more win, and that’s what will maintain the regional interest and rivalry.
You call it “NFL mentality” I call it recognizing the truth for what it is.
LikeLike
PSU guy, the first problem is, you’re only looking at recent conference history. PSU has only been in the Big 10 since ’93… Minn/WIsc have been playing for 119 years, Minn/Iowa very similar timeframe. To this day, there is an annual “border war” with Wisc, where it’s one athetic dept’s record versus another (across the board)… It is bigger than you may think… Along those lines, Minnesotans and Iowans live to rub each other the wrong way… This football game is more than just a trophy…
The second problem will be the SAME problem if ND ever comes aboard (God help us). PSU was independent. To my knowledge PSU’s primary rival was Pitt (which I seem to remember was an Indy at one time). I don’t believe any Big 10 school was ever a rival with PSU. Don’t get me wrong, PSU is a great school, with a great athletics program–but, expecting to break into/create new rivalries where there really wasn’t one before is a challenge. ND plays some Big 10 schools, but (as an outsider) appears the only true rivalry is with Michigan… (MSU/Purdue folks correct me if I’m wrong).
A lot of discussion with Nebraska is around the Neb versus the “Big 3”, particularly PSU… The irony to all of this talk is that the only school that could really be considered a rival with Nebraska (from B10) is Minnesota… Nobody else has played them near as many times… Also, I think I saw a post in this thread where only Oklahoma has beaten Nebraska more than Minnesota… Funny how all this stuff works if ya dig a little deeper…
Throwing these rivalry games around like ragdolls will bring the end to a great conference… It is my hope that TPTB are intelligent enough to recognize this looking past some of the short-term $ signs…
LikeLike
I’m with PSU guy on this one. Although I would go with a KISS model as the best alternative, I don’t see the ‘divisional rivalry’ aspect as being that important.
I do think it’s important that Iowa and Minnesota play…apparently that will happen every year beginning in 2015…I do think it’s important that UM-OSU play every year, in the last game.
LikeLike
Totally disagree. Playing for the same thing (division crown) is huge and splitting up rivals into different divisions diminishes the rivalries since they aren’t competing for the same goal in the regular season.
It’s the main reason I am adamantly against splitting PSU off from Ohio State and other eastern teams in general. I want PSU to be competing against the teams that are relatively local to them, not ones that are 900 miles away in the central time zone.
LikeLike
Flip your Illinois and Indiana schools and I think you have it.
LikeLike
Also worth noting: in the last three years, the ACC has had three title games between “rivals”: twice BC-Virginia Tech, and last year Georgia Tech – Clemson. Those three games have each had the WORST attendance of the five games in ACC history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACC_Championship_Game ), including the abysmally attended 2008 game.
That’s very much worth noting for anyone who thinks that, say, Iowa-Minnesota could be a big hit in ratings and attendance.
LikeLike
Yes and on the flip side, Miami-Florida State have never met and Oklahoma-Nebraska was played once in spite of both team winning their divisions a lot. Karma does not seem to be on the side of splitting divisions.
LikeLike
The year Nebraska and Oklahoma played in the B12 title game they DID NOT play in the regular season.
FYI
LikeLike
So BYU indy and the Big WAC would have happened had UNLV joined. NV had a goal of being in the same conference as UNLV, so when UNLV turned down the WAC invite NV got cold feet and backed away. Of course there was probably much more involved such as MWC counteroffers, but the UNLV aspect came out in some of the emails the Salt Lake paper got a hold of:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogs/byusports/50177686-65/nevada-unlv-wac-director.html.csp
LikeLike
I’m still not sure why the MWC invited Nevada. Was it just to damage the WAC? That’s great and all, but now we’re stuck with them as a conference mate. We don’t need two schools in Nevada, particularly when we already have Vegas. Fresno at least has good attendance and a strong following in the valley which should improve now that they’re playing better competition.
LikeLike
Frank the Tank took a long time to finally come around and analyze conference realignment correctly. One poor meme that he helped fuel that was mostly wrong was that you were wasting a team by adding a new team from the existing “footprint”.
Hogwash. Just hogwash. That argument may seem to make sense, but then you will cite Iowa State as the example.
Programming content is KING. Distribution is a distant second. The footprint argument is one of pure distribution. Sports, being a very passionate endeavor, product quality is KING.
Nevada is a very solid football program and it is the state’s flagship university with, arguably reach into California.
If this footprint concept was so incredibly important, then we would see many schools getting kicked out of conferences coast to coast. Bye Illinois. By Miss State. Buy Stanford. By Wazzou. By Florida State. By Texas AM.
Product is KING!!
LikeLike
One thing I have learned from this whole divisions thing is, when you put the financial people in control of the product, they ruin the product.
LikeLike
My god, this is so true in every area of life. Financial people are a dime a dozen. Nothing special there, warm bodies will do. They just overestimate their importance.
LikeLike
So BYU would have joined the WAC for non-football sports as long as Las Vegas was a part of the conference.
Conference realignment is an odd thing.
LikeLike
Another interesting tidbit from the MWC/WAC shenanigans;
“I have talked to someone with knowledge of the MWC’s external TV deal who says the contract is voided if both BYU and Utah leave the conference. A departure of one or the other would not be enough to negate the deal, but if both schools were to depart, the MWC would basically be starting from scratch with its media partners. ”
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=498&sid=12167861
LikeLike
I may have missed this earlier, but OU is considering starting their own network. From a tidbit in a section about ESPN subtitled “Big 12 Booster”:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/barron/7173439.html
I spoke with Magnus prior to the recent conversations between some Big 12 athletic directors and Learfield Sports about a potential cable network. Texas hopes to develop its own network in partnership with IMG, and Magnus said ESPN “was open to consider anything” regarding plans by the Longhorns and the University of Oklahoma to start separate networks.
“We would consider that kind of partnership if it made sense,” he said. “I don’t think there’s anything there that we wouldn’t consider.”
——–
TX, OU, ND, and BYU with their own networks could be the core of an Independent Alliance virtual conference with the ability to negotiate bowl tie-ins. The minor bowls also like Navy and Army, so they (and perhaps AF if they followed BYU) could increase the pool of bowls such an alliance might partner with.
LikeLike
Oklahoma is not going to be Independent. OU will always be in a conference and with OSU. There are benefits to being in a conference.
If UT leaves…fine…if A&M leaves…fine. OU will keep truckin’ on with the Big 12. If fans of other conferences don’t like it or respect it…..F ’em. The WAC is still alive, after their Gutting last week…the Big whatever can live on with OU/OSU/KU/KSU/Missouri/ISU/TTech as a core.
However, I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, if the Big 12 ever expanded it would be with ND and BYU, because of the Big 12’s liberal TV money set up.
As for the TV…7 Big IIX schools met in Frisco, TX last week with Learfield about starting their own networks. CU was reported to be there but that was changed after. KU wasn’t there, and UT wasn’t there.
OU along with OSU and the OKC Thunder NBA team had some talks about a network initially. We’ll see if the numbers are better with a Big 12 Network, or separate.
LikeLike
I told you guys to keep your eye on IMG!
a few weeks ago they bought up a big chunk of the SEC.
FWIW:
I brought up a new conference, and ND, BYU, and the service academies were a part of it. 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: ESPN - Rittenberg's guess at the Big Ten divisions - Page 3
All,
It seems as though your efforts are being heard….
Gene Smith’s note to Buckeye fans…
LikeLike
Leaves me partly more optimistic, but also sadly leaves me with the impression divisions are set. He didn’t mention discussing divisions still, just schedules.
LikeLike
I’m encouraged about that. By publicly stating that 90% of the OSU fans want the UM game on the last weekend, he’s put himself in a bad spot if it doesn’t happen.
Assuming the divisions are:
OSU
PSU
WIs.
Minn.
IU
PU and
Mich
Neb
Iowa
Ill
NW
MSU
you play OSU-Mich the last WE.
You could also play PSU-Neb and Iowa-Wis.
If you’re afraid of a championship game rematch, you could stay intradivision (except OSU-UM)the last WE and play Neb-Iowa, PSU-WIS, IU-PUR, Ill-NW, and Minn-MSU. Except for Minn-MSU, those are all good matchups.
LikeLike
I cannot imagine they will set this up looking for a back-to-back. that’s a kick in the eye to the rest of us.
LikeLike
They wouldn’t be “looking” for a back-to-back, but I don’t understand why it would bother you if it happened.
LikeLike
I agree with jj and Eric. This is a feint. It would be almost as bad as moving OSU/Michigan from the last Saturday of the year if they were playing the game that day in different divisions. What’s the point? Just to rig a rematch a week later?
You can’t separate the scheduling issue from the alignment issue.
LikeLike
Not a Buckeye fan, but I like this guy.
OSU fans have a good AD.
LikeLike
I used to argue a lot with Hockey Fans until I learned that you can’t argue with hockey fans. But the foundation of my argument was:
1. The casual fan didn’t know when the games were on.
2. The casual fan didn’t know when the big rivalry game was.
3. The regular season has absolutely no meaning and is merely a survival game until the play-offs because the regular season was too diluted…There were no “Stakes” involved..
Hockey snobs would continue to disagree with me and punish me for not wasting 3 1/2 hours the evening before on a game that started at 7..no 7:30…Wait 8:00…Oh no, it’s West Coast so therefore 10:00.
Which is why college football was so great for so long. I knew (know) where I needed to be on Saturday at 1:00 P.M. Of course, this was before the days of expanded regional TV coverage. Now, I simply need to know where to be a 12:00 EST or 3:30 EST or 8:00 EST and I will see a game.
IF you move this game, you will lose the casual fan and piss off the hard core fan. Weddings, partys, and other plans on the 3rd Saturday in November were always questioned (at least by this fan) as to whether or not there was a “Better date on the Calendar because that’s Michigan – Ohio State.” And everyone would watch this game as it would always be a great game.
In addition, if you take away the “stakes” and don’t count the game in the wins and losses column…Well, aren’t you flirting with disaster a little here? Don’t the office stiffs see the mistake they’re getting ready to make?
I know…Too long and no point, but isn’t that what the comments section is for?
LikeLike
MIRuss, are you are arguing with NHL fans or college hockey fans?
Because College Hockey has been pretty consistent with their scheduling. Friday and Saturday nights. The start time has changed from season to season, but once they pick the start time for the year, they usually stick with it except for a couple of slight changes to accommodate local/regional TV (Fox Sports Detroit for UM or MSU).
Don’t get me started on the NHL. They have managed to make a terrific sport mediocre.
I also made sure to give my input to friends regarding wedding dates avoiding any big matchups, but the Big Ten schedule is known a couple of years in advance. We will know a few years ahead of time when the first October Michigan-Ohio State game will be played. And it’s the same thing with the rotating UM-MSU game right now. Some years it’s week two, some years it’s week 5. But we do know in advance not to schedule anything else on that day – as well as usually Notre Dame, and often times Penn State, too.
It’s a tremendous emotional attachment that a lot of folks have with The Game being the last weekend of the season, and what a win or loss means to the entire year.
But I really don’t think the casual fan is going to be misled by the changing date of The Game, and it’s not going to diminish the interest of the casual fan. The wives and friends that don’t care about football are still going to show up at the parties. The SEC or Pac-10 fans that only watch a couple of out of conference games each year will still hear Michigan and Ohio State and want to check it out. Sports Radio and ESPN and Fox Sports are still going to spend an entire week discussing it.
And that’s probably the biggest thing. When you play once a week, you have an entire week for the hype machine and gossip and betting and trash talking to get underway. I’m confident that whatever happens, the once-a-week schedule of college football will always keep the regular season more important than any other sport.
LikeLike
You must be talking about the NHL, ’cause IMHO there is nothing more pure than college hockey… Minnesota versus Saint Cloud State home and home (try getting tix for these)… Up close and personal, raucus fans in both arenas… Don’t need to mortgage your home to have a great time…
LikeLike
I totally agree. I had season tickets for UM as a student and then for about 7 years after college. College Football and College Hockey were my 1A and 1B for a long time. I wish I had the time to invest in it still, but now I only have the time to catch a couple of games per year before the playoffs.
I’m still interested to see what happens down the road with Penn State and the possibility of a Big Ten Hockey conference, but that’s really for a completely different thread…
LikeLike
This is basically the proposed Big Ten divisional allgnment that is being proposed that has so many people upset…
East:
1. Ohio State
2. Penn State
3. Wisconsin
4. Minnesota
5. Purdue
6. Illinois
West:
1. Michigan
2. Nebraska
3. Iowa
4. Michigan State
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern
(Cross divisonal rivals games by number: 1 vs. 1, 2vs. 2, etc…)
Would anyone like these divisons if they switched Michigan & Penn State? So it now looked like this…
East:
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Wisconsin
4. Minnesota
5. Purdue
6. Illinois
West:
1. Penn State
2. Michigan State
3. Iowa
4. Nebraska
5. Indiana
6. Northwestern
LikeLike
Any divisional alignment that doesn’t have UM and OSU in the same division, and Wisconsin-Iowa-Minnesota in the same division, is going to get my objection.
LikeLike
The KISS formula is easily the best scenerio.
It’s not fair to PSU to put them in the west….
It’s not logical to split OSU and UM and/or to not have them play the last WE.
It’s not logical to split Neb, Iowa, Wis., and Minnesota.
You could have had as interdivisional protected games: OSU-WIS; PSU-NEB; UM-Iowa.
They’ve screwed this up; now the question is how much.
LikeLike
I like your scenario #2 best, but switch Nebraska to 3 and Iowa to 4 so that Wisconsin plays Nebraska and Minnesota plays Iowa, cross-division.
Due to competitive balance issues I just don’t see Wisconsin and Iowa being in the same division. Scenario #2 would then be an issue for Wisconsin-Iowa but other than that…scenario #2 is probably the best you’re gonna get.
LikeLike
What is so imbalanced about having Wisconsin and Iowa in the same division? Outside of Ohio State, none of the other 10 programs have been dominant in the past 10 years. Penn State had a couple good years. Michigan had a couple of good years. Ditto Wisconsin and Iowa.
Michigan has been bad the past years, so what is so imbalanced about them being in the same division as Ohio State?
I just don’t think see how splitting up the “Big 4” solves any issues. Everyone assumes Michigan will return to former glory. They might, but who says it be in the next 5 years? By then, maybe Ohio State or Penn State falls on hard times.
I’m just don’t think it matters that much. Everything other than KISS is just trying to fix something that might or might not ever be broken.
LikeLike
There’s a logical reason to put OSU and Michigan in different divisions. I wouldn’t do it, but it’s at least logical. There is no logical reason to put IU and Purdue, or NW and Ill, in different divisions.
LikeLike
This doesn’t work because you aren’t maximizing the games between the four brand. There would be years where Nebraska wouldn’t play Ohio State or Michigan. Nebraska was invited to join largely because their games against the other three brands would automatically be of national interest.
LikeLike
PSU, WI, IL, UNL probably have no problem with the 1st, but MN, Purdue, IA, OSU and UM fans probably do have problems. IN, NW and MSU would probably have mixed feelings.
In the 2nd OSU and UM, along With WI, IL and UNL fans are probably ok, but MSU and PSU join Purdue, IA and MN in the unhappy camp.
LikeLike
With all the whining and gnashing of teeth and lamenting about a game which will not be discontinued but will continue to be played is astounding!
This argument is really beginning to get old here guys. If I had some pull I would get a couple of you guys on opera where you can be all the dram queens you want to be. For Gods sakes would Delany hurry up and make a decision so the UM and tOSU fans will be officially miserable and we can begin the phases of healing already. I am not sure things could not be any worst if Texas was involved.
In the case of tOSU and UM fans I would advise , gentleman, recheck the glass. I believe its well above half full.
Sorry for the rant.
LikeLike
I heartily endorse this statement.
LikeLike
Glad to know you guys are superior enough not to care. Good for you. Thanks for the contribution.
LikeLike
Glad to know you think anything other than exactly what has been is a downright abomination. Good for you. Thanks for the (lack of) contribution.
LikeLike
I have a completely unrelated question for Big Ten fans: Why don’t Big Ten teams play more non-conference games in recruiting hotbed states like Florida, Texas, California, and the South in general?
Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Penn State might not feel a need to do this; the tradition and name sell themselves. But what about Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, etc? If they can’t, or don’t want to, play against SEC, ACC, or Big IIX teams, couldn’t they stand to benefit from games against Houston, TCU, USF, UCF, etc? Illinois, for example, could replace the soon-to-be cancelled Missouri series with games in the South. Plus, it could continue to spread national interest in Big Ten schools even more.
Thoughts???
LikeLike
Northwestern plays at Historic RiceStadium, Sept 18th
LikeLike
Will anybody be there?
LikeLike
Nerds will descend on the city like a plague of locusts.
LikeLike
the nerds go to Purdue. Northwestern is dweebs. think Mike Greenberg from Mike & Mike.
(j/k stv…sort of)
LikeLike
So loki, what does NU have to look out for with Rice? I have not seen them play on TV in maybe 3 years.
LikeLike
@StvInIL
Who knows about Rice this year. Three quarterbacks still fighting it out, new RB transfer from Michigan, a poor defense that returned almost everyone. We could score 40 on NW or lose 50-0. The Texas game next week won’t tell us much and we should beat North Texas easily the week after. So we should still be a big unknown before the game.
LikeLike
Northwestern also opens up at Vanderbilt Sept 4th. I don’t think there is an interest over all.
The BT typically plays MAC or some Missouri valley teams for about half their non conference games. I can see where the travel is reasonable, though these are all home games for the BT.
I have seen TCU, Wake Forest and Duke on the wildcat’s non conferences schedule in the past. Nobody says it but I get the feeling that the Big Ten teams would really rather not see SEC teams until Bowl Time. Early losses could hurt the rankings and that east Coast bias thing is real after all.
LikeLike
I think its at least as likely that the SEC wants no part of a home and home with the B10.
LikeLike
Michael my first instinct is to guess economics. There is a lot of pressure to maximize the number of home games. As we’ve heard in the last couple of days one of the delays around announcing a move to 9 conference games is to make sure the schedule can be arranged to guarantee each school a minimum of 7 home games every year. I’m sure that the current preference is already for 7 home games and with 4 conference road games that means no more than 1 non conference road game. So the pressure is to maximize the number of home games.
LikeLike
Northwestern also has home-and-home against Cal, Stanford and BC in the next few years.
I think most Big Ten teams are already doing what you suggest, though perhaps not as often. I would say most schools average non-conference road game a year. 4 schools (Iowa, MSU, Michigan, Purdue) have regional rivals they play each year, which cuts down on their options.
In the past decade, these are out-of-region away games (presumably part of a home and home for each Big Ten team:
Ohio State-Texas, USC, Washington, NC State, Arizona, UCLA
Penn State-Boston College, Nebraska, Virginia, Syracuse
Michigan-Washington, Oregon
Northwestern-Duke(3), TCU(2), ASU, Nevada, Kansas, Syracuse, AFA, Navy, UNLV
Iowa-Syracuse, Nebraska, Kansas State
Wisconsin-Fresno State, UNLV(2), Hawaii(3), Oregon, Arizona, UNC
Minnesota-ULL, Cal, Tulsa, CSU, Baylor, Syracuse
Illinois-Cal(2), Rutger, Syracuse, UCLA, SDSU
Purdue-Oregon, Arizona, Wake Forest, Hawaii
Indiana-Kentucky(3), NC State, Utah, Washington, Oregon, Virginia
MSU-Rutgers, Hawaii, Cal
That 63 over ten years. Not common, but not exactly rare either.
LikeLike
Because there’s no evidence that playing an occasional game in recruiting hotbeds actually helps a school get recruits from that area?
LikeLike
In the big scheme of things, geography will play some role in recruiting. It’s a simple numbers game… bigger population base is going to equal larger percentage of football studs.
However, there are multiple factors beyond geography (i.e. =admissions standards, campus life, facilities, etc) that will define where a recruit chooses to go, or whether a coaching staff can even pursue a certain athlete…
In the end, an eligible athlete’s decision is likely going to hinge on the dedication the coaching staff/program has shown.
LikeLike
The economics of filling your own stadium is the big part of it. That’s why, unfortunately, you have seen the FCS/Div 1-AA type schools populating the schedules. If you go back and look at the schedules in the 80s and 90s, it was a bit different.
Starting in the 90s and through 2003, UM played at UCLA, Boston College, Colorado, Syracuse, and Washington. They also did get TV eyeballs from some big states by hosting those same schools, plus Washington State, San Diego State, Utah, Houston, Rice, Baylor, Ok St., Memphis, Florida St, Miami Fla, Memphis, and Maryland. UM did approach Tennessee to have a home and home (at the time, those were the two biggest stadiums), but Tennessee declined, claiming they didn’t want a potential rematch in a bowl game (I seem to recall other SEC schools claiming the same thing to other Big Ten schools). During this era, the talking point at UM was that they ideally wanted their three non-conference games to be one top-10 opponent, one top-25 opponent, and one top-50 opponent. Obviously that’s changed over the last 5-7 years, so the priority at UM is now to get all home games, except for one home-and-home (usually ND, but that appears to be getting thinned out a bit).
For Michigan, the Notre Dame matchup (although not annual) is very common, and considered a “national” matchup, with pretty good national ratings, even though it is technically an in-region matchup. Ohio State doesn’t have a big non-conference rival like ND, but I like what they have done in trying to schedule an ongoing top 10 home-an-home against the likes of Texas, USC, and ND.
Hopefully, the big marquee non-conference games matchups continue to make enough TV money that it encourages more big matchups and better tv for us all. I hope the economics do allow Michigan to have a four game non-conference schedule like we saw in 1991 (BC/ND/Florida State) or 1994 (BC/ND/Colorado) or 1996 (Colorado/BC/UCLA) or 2002 (Washington/ND/Utah).
LikeLike
Ohio State just finished series with Texas and USC. They have CAL, VaTech, Oklahoma, Miami and Tennessee in upcoming years.
LikeLike
Jon Chait and the New Republic (UM fan) gets involved: in the cause: Wanted: Midwestern Grandstanding Politicians
LikeLike
Very conflicted. On the one hand there is my deep love for Ohio State-Michigan. On the other hand, I hate politicians sticking their noses where they don’t belong.
I hate to say it, but I still support the politicians staying out of this. It’s not their decision to mess up. 😦
LikeLike
They’re all (with one exception) public universities. The state legislature has every right to involve itself on an issue that has their constituents as outraged as this.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with that necessarily. I don’t know the Big Ten state/school relationships. That being said, here in Nebraska, the Athletic Department is entirely self sufficient and takes no money from the state or the school. In fact it gives money back to the school.
LikeLike
I’m not just talking funding. I am saying that a public school is an arm of the state government and the state government has a legitimate interest in what the public school does — irrespective of where it draws its funding sources from.
LikeLike
And I’m saying if the athletic department is accepting state funds, than the state legislature has no business meddling in its affairs.
LikeLike
Should have obviously read if the athletic department is not accepting
LikeLike
tell that to Texas. politicians interefere, thats what they do. they’re like in laws, you’re going to hear their two cents regardless of whether they should be involved.
LikeLike
Whether they accept state funds or not, they are an arm of the state government.
Imagine a business divided into product-based departments. One of the departments is self-sufficient and largely manages its own affairs. Does this mean it does not have to answer to the Board of Directors should they take an interest into its operations?
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – is the athletic department building that new arena with its own money?
LikeLike
Nostradamus, don’t fall for this canard. Does the NU Athletic Dept own the land, the facilities, maintain the infrastructure and so on for NU Sports. Does it pay for all scholarships for its athletes? The university and the athletics dept are entwined and cross-subsidies abound.
LikeLike
@Schwarm,
Ultimately my understanding of the arena is that the funding is going through the city of Lincoln as the taxing power of the city allows for lower interest rates. The city will own and maintain the arena and Nebraska will be a rent paying tenant.
@rich2,
As far as I know the Nebraska Atheletic Department does own its facilities. For the facilities that it doesn’t own such as the University owned Coliseum (Volleyball) the athletic department pays the University to rent the facility. As an aside this is one of the proposed reasons for moving the volleyball team to the current basketball arena when the basketball teams move.
The Nebraska athletic department pays the University for scholarships, books, and room and board for its student athletes.
“Nebraska and Louisiana State were the only schools whose athletics programs reported receiving no subsidies in each of the four years studied.”
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaa-athletics-funding-analysis_N.htm
Nebraska and LSU are the only two entirely self sufficient programs in the country that receive no form of subsidies from the school or the state.
LikeLike
Who paves the roads that lead to and from the arena?
LikeLike
That would be the city of Lincoln the state of Nebraska on the some of the highways into Lincoln, and the federal government on some of the highways and I-80. So if Nebraska doesn’t get an annual game with Iowa, the city of Lincoln, the State of Nebraska, and the United States government all have the right to hold a hearing on the issue because they have roads/highways/interstates leading to the stadium?
LikeLike
Whether they have the right to hold a “hearing” on it or not, I don’t doubt the right of any of the organizations you’ve mentioned to consider and pass a resolution expressing their dismay in order to put public pressure on the school to act in a certain fashion.
LikeLike
Huskers of all labels,
I can sense that you believe that running a “self-sufficient” AD is important. I don’t understand the importance you attach to this phrase. Athletics is not independent from academic programs and student life — all of which is heavily subsidized by the citizens of Neb. How can you take a vast web of subsidized operations upon which the NU Athletic Dept cannot exist without and then say that the NU Athletic Dept is “independent” or “self sufficient.” It sounds like there is a PR value to the concept for you. If there was an external value then more AD would be “self-sufficient” since the status is heavily influenced by how costs are initially allocated and then amortized at the university. What meaning do you derive from this status? Efficiency? Thrift? Help me out. OSU, Texas and ND are not “self-sufficient” according to the article. NU and LSU are. What does this mean to you? How then do you compare NU, LSU, OSU, Texas and ND, for example in light of the varying degrees of “self-sufficiency” you observe?
LikeLike
@rich2,
” I can sense that you believe that running a “self-sufficient” AD is important. I don’t understand the importance you attach to this phrase.”
Then you sense wrong. It is a cool trivia item, nothing more than that. This isn’t the issue though. I only brought it up in the context of this discussion that with a case like the Nebraska athletic department where the program takes no state or school funds, rather it gives money back to both the state and the school; that legislative hearings seem inappropriate. Heck, I think legislative hearings over conference divisions, who plays who, or when a game is played are inappropriate anywhere. That being said, like I mentioned earlier if an athletic department is being subsidized by the state, than the state probably has some right to hold a hearing however absurd it may be.
“Athletics is not independent from academic programs and student life — all of which is heavily subsidized by the citizens of Neb. How can you take a vast web of subsidized operations upon which the NU Athletic Dept cannot exist without and then say that the NU Athletic Dept is “independent” or “self sufficient.””
I can say the Nebraska athletic department is financially self-sufficient, because the State of Nebraska and the University of Nebraska system contribute zero dollars towards it. I realize this isn’t the case in most places as the latest NCAA report that came out last week stated only 14 FBS athletic departments turned a profit. I fully realize the University of Nebraska football team plays at the University of Nebraska and on the campus. Again this wasn’t the issue in this discussion.
” Help me out. OSU, Texas and ND are not “self-sufficient” according to the article. NU and LSU are. What does this mean to you? How then do you compare NU, LSU, OSU, Texas and ND, for example in light of the varying degrees of “self-sufficiency” you observe?”
Apparently this is supposed to have some sort of higher meaning to me as all Nebraskans pride themselves on the fact their athletic department is self sufficient. What it means to me is that schools like Ohio State and Texas are still much more profitable, but by law they either accept student fees towards the athletic program, their coaches are treated as state employees and thus by law their base salary is paid by the state, or in the case of some 110 FBS programs they flat out aren’t making money right now, etc. That is why the self-sufficient thing is nothing more than trivia. It is a cool fact, nothing more or nothing less. My point in all of this though is if the state isn’t sending money to the athletic department either directly or indirectly (funding the University and then the University giving money to the Athletic Department) they have no business in its affairs.
Look I went to a public high school here. Obviously it was funded by the state. That doesn’t mean it is prudent for the Nebraska legislature to hold a hearing about when my old high school should play its rival. The state has a Board of Regents (or whatever the state wants to call it) to oversee the University, A chancellor or President to run the school, and an Athletic Director to run the athletic programs. The school belongs to a conference that has bylaws and rules about how it will be constructed and the process for establishing the schedule. This is an issue for the President/Chancellor the AD and the conference.
LikeLike
I just can’t go with that. At this point, the amount they each take from the state has been steadily declining and one state legislature shouldn’t intervene for the entire conference anyway. Granted they’d have more right to come here than Congress would have to fight the BCS.
LikeLike
It need only “intervene” with its school to make a big difference.
Look, I’m not saying it’s a good thing for the legislatures to do this routinely, but on something that has people as angry as this, it’s totally legitimate. If the universities don’t want that kind of butting-in, they can just go private.
LikeLike
Sure what you say sounds good Adam, but it’s a slippery slope. Beware.
LikeLike
I guess I see it as a bilateral thing. The universities deserve non-interference from the Legislature — as long as they don’t act so far outside of the bounds of what the legislators’ constituents want that the legislators don’t feel a backlash.
Like all situations where trust is involved, there’s no clear-cut, logical solution. Both sides need to act in good faith and earn it from the other.
I’d say the schools have lost my trust on this one.
LikeLike
@ everyone above.
Every year the Nebraska pays $2M to the state in sales tax and $500k to the city in sales tax (most of it incorporated into the price of the ticket, since the university isn’t taxed as a non-profit organization.)
UNL is the city of Lincoln’s largest taxpayer by a fair margin.
The arena will be owned by the City of Lincoln, not the University (though they are a prime tenant). The primary reason most Lincoln voters (including myself) approved the arena was not because of Husker Basketball, but because it was necessary to replace Pershing Auditorium, which has been losing money for 25 years, and avoid the duplicate refurbishing of the Devaney Center, which was structurally incapable of hosting major concerts.
Nebraska also has a fairly energetic state auditor. He has done purchasing card audits at the university that resulted in overages of $260. So on one hand you have the responsibility of being a huge economic engine, then on the flip side they have to realize that they are part of a university with a lot of professors and people not making $1.8M/yr.
Yes, NU is a public school, held accountable to public standards. But being the major economic force in a state of 1.7M does put it in a unique position, as Nostradamus indicated.
LikeLike
Let’s review the opinion on this blog of politicians:
Politicians trying to keep their constituent schools in the same conference (Texas): inappropriate, meddling
Politicians trying to keep their schools in a BCS conference (Kansas): inappropriate, meddling
Politicians trying to get the more successful conference to add one of their constituent schools (Iowa, Virginia): inappropriate, meddling
Politicians trying to stop moving the Ohio State-Michigan game 3 weeks earlier: perfectly reasonable use of public resources
Seriously?
LikeLike
It’s less the end to which it’s applied than whether you trust the institution not to overuse the technique.
LikeLike
Eric, I agree. They (politicians) have done nothing but muddy the situation at Texas unnecessarily so. Multiply that by 10 or more and what a mess. College football would be paralyzed by the same BS politics that paralyzes our government from doing the will of the people.
LikeLike
Politicians shouldn’t get involved with this.
It should be between each university and its students, fans, and alumni.
LikeLike
Media hound politician making hay where they have no business or substantive issue? This is tailor made for………..Sarah Palin!
LikeLike
WAC Sports Network announced today. Not sure why, but there it is…
http://www.wacsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=10100&ATCLID=204983813
LikeLike
That’s cute. It’s a broadcast net like the SEC Network that syndicates the games to local over-the-air stations, along with some regional cable channels. I’m encouraged by the coverage in Washington state. That suggests Boise has a strong following outside of Idaho that they’ll be bringing to the MWC. And I have the feeling that Fresno is responsible for more of the Cali. interest than SJSU.
LikeLike
Oh gosh yes on Fresno State. Fresno State is the team for the Central Valley and they have supporters throughout the state from former Central Valley residents. San Jose State is barely on the radar and keeps talking about dropping football altogether.
Losing Fresno State is the death blow to the WAC.
LikeLike
Why can’t Ohio State and Michigan be in split divisions but still play the last game of the season?
If the only concern is possibly playing back-to-back games, let’s play out a hypothetical:
Both schools are 11-0 (7-0) heading into the Big Game on the last Saturday in November. Michigan has already beaten Nebraska and Iowa and Ohio State has already beaten Wisconsin and Penn State, so they have both sealed spots in the Championship Game.
There are two one-loss SEC teams, a one-loss Pac-12 team, and Texas and Boise State are both unbeaten.
Texas is third in the polls, the SEC schools are in fourth and fifth, and Boise is in sixth. Everyone has a season ending rivalry game and the SEC, Pac-12, and Big Ten each have a Conference Championship the following week.
Don’t you think that the Ohio State-Michigan game will still matter as much as ever, if not more? The Big Game is a must-win for both schools if they want to remain in the National Championship picture. The Conference Championship Game is a must win for the winner of the Big Game if they want to go to the National Championship Game. And the Conference Championship Game is an opportunity for the Big Game loser to ruin their rival’s season. Hell, if the two Ohio State-Michigan games are split and there are upsets in the other national games, we might even get some idiot commentators arguing for a third Ohio State-Michigan match-up in the National Championship Game.
It seems likely that Ohio State and Michigan will only play for the Big Ten Championship once a decade with the winner gets to the National Championship. If they have to play two weeks in a row and we have to read a bunch of stupid columns, so be it. Both games will be worth watching, and the Big Game being played the last week of the season the other nine years each decade is what’s most important.
LikeLike
Let’s play out another hypothetical:
Both teams are 8-3 going into the “Big Game,” and 6-1 in league play. OSU wins to get to 9-3, while Michigan loses to finish tied with Northwestern at 6-2, but wins on the head-to-head tiebreaker. Michigan then plays OSU again the next week and wins.
Gripping stuff, that. I think your hypothetical assumes an unlikely best-case scenario. If we do get a rematch, I have a feeling it’ll be more likely to be my scenario.
LikeLike
Both teams are going to lose two non-conference games and then tear it up in conference? That sounds extremely unlikely.
LikeLike
Yeah, almost as unlikely as Michigan losing to Appalachian State and getting taken to the woodshed by Oregon, then winning 8 in a row.
LikeLike
How about this scenario if they are both in the same division:
OSU is 6-1 and has secured a position in the title game. Michigan is 1-6. They play the last week of the season. Does OSU rest their starters to heal up for the title game the next weekend?
You might say that would never happen, but all it would take would be one injury to have people questioning the coach’s decision.
You might think that this record setup would be a rare occurrence. You would be wrong:
2009
2008
2005
2004 (flipped)
2003 (flipped)
2002
1999 (flipped)
1997 (flipped)
1995
1993
That’s 10 times in 17 years where one of the teams might have the CCG berth clinched before this game. There’s a reason the last few games of an NFL season are pretty terrible.
LikeLike
There’s no way OSU rests its starters for the UM game, ever. Last year, Alabama was 11-0 and Auburn was, what, 7-4, 6-5? Alabama couldn’t afford to rest its starters because, in college football, one loss, especially a late-season loss, can cost you a national title.
LikeLike
Let’s say you have 9-2 Michigan and 9-2 OSU
1) Both clinched their divisions
2) Can’t really make the BCS title game judging from other conferences
3) Everyone accepts that, if PSU beats MSU that weekend to finish at 9-3, they will get the BCS at large birth from the Big 10. If they lose, the Nebraska/Iowa winner, who will also finish 9-3, will get the birth.
Thus:
Whoever wins the championship game gets into the BCS
Whoever loses the championship game, does not.
Whoever wins the first game between the schools…gets to brag for 1 week
1) Do OSU and Michigan show anything fancy before their rematch?
2) Do they play any players who are even the slightest bit injured?
3) Do people around the country want to watch that game? It’s the third biggest game at most for the conference, there are other big games being played across the country, and the 2 teams will be playing again the very next week.
LikeLike
Looking back at the last 17 years, how many times have BOTH Ohio State and Michigan had at least 2 losses heading into the Big Game? Can’t be more than twice.
And how many times have they both had two losses and still been in a position to have hypothetically clinched divisions over Nebraska/Iowa and Penn State/Wisconsin? I’m pretty sure it’s zero.
I bet we would go 50 years without a pair of two loss rivals playing a rivalry game with no conference implications and then the Conference Championship Game back-to-back.
LikeLike
Good point but the conference now has more players able to upset the applecart. We can no longer think like its 1970’s. I say the two losses are possible now.
LikeLike
Let’s say OSU beats PSU and UCLA (in non-conference play) but narrowly loses to Wisconsin on the road and suffers a loss to Nebraska at home in a cross-divisional matchup.
Let’s say Michigan defeats Nebraska and Iowa in its division and defeats Penn State in a cross-divisional matchup, but falters against Michigan State and Notre Dame.
That doesn’t seem impossible (well, if Notre Dame ever becomes respectable on the field), and there’s lots of similar scenarios you can construct.
LikeLike
For Ohio State to have clinched the division after the first seven games (in order to make The Game meaningless) Wisconsin would have to have four conference losses and the other four teams in Ohio State’s division would have to have three three losses.
Basically Ohio State would have to be 5-2, Wisconsin and one other team 3-4, and everyone else 4-3. I think we’re talking about a 100 year flood.
LikeLike
Let’s say we are reaching the point of absurd. I am for
LikeLike
Sorry.
I am for KISS. If not KISS, don’t isolate PSU on an island. Irregardless of divisons, play OSU and UMi on the last week.
For the first time in 6 months, I will not follow this blog! I am ready for some football!
LikeLike
Senior Day. The last time that the Senior class of the home team gets to play on their own field in front of their own fans.
Against their big rival.
Rematches, CCG bids, bowl bids… that will take care of itself.
LikeLike
With the three (later 4 in 2015) inter-division games not counting in a tie-breaker for the two divisions within the conference, the Big Ten teams have essentially become “semi-independent”. Not independent like Notre Dame, but not as closely tied to the conference as before.
This would make winning your own division an absolute prerequisite to going on to the Big Ten Conference Championship Game. In parallel with that requirement, however, is the primarily goal of going to the national championship game and/or a BCS bowl.
Does it then make sense schedule-wise to have the inter-divisional games played in the first part of the Big Ten schedule with the intra-divisional games coming in the second half?
Let’s use a hypothetical 2012 schedule for Michigan as an example with Nebraska, Northwestern, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan State in the West (W)division and Ohio State as the protected rival from the East (E). The opener against Alabama is being rumored and the Notre Dame game is actually scheduled for that date. The two MAC teams are representative of typical non-conference opponents for Michigan. For this example, we’ll have Purdue and Indiana as the other two eastern (E) teams on the schedule:
Hypothetical 2012 Schedule
Sep. 1 ALABAMA (in Dallas, TX)
Sep. 8 MIAMI-OHIO
Sep. 15 EASTERN MICHIGAN
Sep. 22 At Notre Dame
Sep. 29 BYE WEEK
Oct. 6 At Indiana(E)
Oct. 13 PURDUE (E)
Oct. 20 At Ohio State (E)
Oct. 27 ILLINOIS
Nov. 3 At Iowa
Nov. 10 MICHIGAN STATE
Nov. 17 At Northwestern
Nov. 24 NEBRASKA
If Michigan were to go undefeated or 5-1 through the first six games, then what are the stakes for the Ohio State game in October? Well, its not a Big Ten championship because the first games against Indiana and Purdue don’t count towards the tie breaker. Instead what happens is that the OSU game now becomes important because of it has direct implications to the national title–and not the Big Ten championship or the Rose Bowl.
Let’s say Michgan is 4-2 or 3-3 after a slow start–what does the Ohio State game mean? Well, a victory gives the team a lot of momentum going into divisional play, i.e. the games that do decide if UM goes into the Big Ten championship. A loss doesn’t hurt those chances, but it certainly makes the odds longer.
The last five conference games then define the season in terms of the Big Ten championship–and if the team is undefeated or has one loss–a BCS NC or BCS bowl bid. One other thing that it does is reward teams that come together and get hot towards the latter half of the season if they stumbled out of the gate early. And like the wildcard system in baseball, it keeps the fans interested in their teams because even seven games into the season, they can still win the Big Ten championship regardless of their record in the first three B10 games.
At this point going forward, you have teams who want to play spoiler within their division and there are teams with strong seasons to date that have every incentive to win out for the B10 CCG and for a BCS berth. Even the clubs that had a bad first half could be rewarded with a shot at the B10 CCG if they finished strong.
We’ll see if this happens or something like it, i.e., if the majority of the intra-division games are played in the latter half of the conference season or not. If yes, then it means the Big Ten is structuring itself in such a way that teams have a stake in some outcome (division championship, conference championshiop, national championship) as far into the season as possible.
A few other things come to mind. First off, this represents a real cultural change for the Big Ten. It means the B10 is stepping away from the Michigan/Ohio State/Rose Bowl centric image of the conference to one that values getting into the BCS national championship game and performing well in the post-season.
The second thing that comes to mind is that this setup might make the games on the Big Ten Network late in the season somewhat more valuable then in the present. Adding Nebraska adds to the inventory of the games, but going to nine-conference games and setting up the schedule this way adds to the quality.
This set up could also work if the conference went to 14- or 16-teams with no problem. Assuming that happened in 2015 or later, that means programs would play six or seven intra-division games and three or two inter-division games.
LikeLike
Have any of you people ever played football? Do any of you understand how intense and absolutely exhausting it is to play a rivalry game like Michigan vs Ohio State? The players have NOTHING LEFT after that game. And you people want either of those teams to play the very next in the Big Ten Championship Game, a game that not only determines who will win the BT, but oftentimes who may play in the National Championship Game? How can you expect either team to even be at HALF their best for the Championship Game. Don’t any of you people think? Is that what your tradition is, not using your brain. And you call Delany stupid? I’m sick of your whining! All because of a calendar date? They aren’t taking the Game away, just moving it. If you can’t get up for OSU-Mich, no matter what date it’s played, you aren’t a fan. Stop your incessant whining!
LikeLike
What do you mean, “you people”?
LikeLike
What do YOU mean, “you people”? 😛
LikeLike
Is it anything like how Florida plays Florida State in their last game before the SEC Championship? Because that seems to have really set Florida back in that game (7-3 record).
LikeLike
Sorry that I lost my temper. My remarks were insulting and unfair. This site is full of intelligent people. But there are a lot of good reasons for moving the game. Moving it lets other teams like share the spotlight. For years, the conference has been far too Ohio State/Michigan-centric. When either team is down or loses a big game, the national perception is that the Big Ten sucks, because many people think those two teams are the Big Ten.
The Big Ten needs to provide Penn State with a real rival (probably Ohio State) and feature that game on the final week. People will watch OSU-Mich no matter when it’s played. Adam, it’s a obvious handicap for Ohio State to play either PSU or Mich one week prior to the BT championship game, but playing Penn State wouldn’t have all the history and intensity of playing Mich, so it would be more manageable. A great program like Penn State needs to get promoted to the max, and that will never happen if all the talk is always about OSU-Mich. I’m 54 and I’ve been a big OSU fan my entire life, but and the perception has always been the Big Two and Little Eight (or nine). That has to change in a big way if the Big Ten wants to prosper. We have to promote Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin. We don’t have to promote Ohio State or Michigan because the media already does incessantly. All this whining about the game hurts the Big Ten big time with all the negative publicity. We need to shut up for the good of the Big Ten.
LikeLike
I’ll say first that I value Penn State and Nebraska very highly. Fantastic additions to the league. Glad to have both of them.
That said: PSU has belonged, “properly speaking,” for less than 20 years. Nebraska just joined. I just don’t see why the league has an obligation to force a season-ending rivalry for either one of them. I think it’s fantastic that OSU willingly took on playing PSU annually (in the 11-team format), even if that “unbalanced” OSU’s schedule, because it was for the good of everybody and cultivated a rivalry with PSU. But I just don’t see why the 70+ years of history in the Michigan/OSU rivalry should give way to that on the final weekend of the year.
I think it does a lot for PSU to put them in with the other 2. It makes those rivalries last longer than just the game that week; you’re “competing” week in and week out through the standings. Even when you don’t play each other, you’re still playing each other. There’s a perception in some quarters that that’s tying up 3 of your top “brands” and that that is a risk for the league, but I think that’s a risk that’s worth it to do right by Penn State and OSU/Michigan.
The final-week rivalries are largely a function of history. The new members don’t have much to speak of. Hell, MSU has belonged for 60 years, and their final week was apparently sufficiently free that Perles could concoct the season-ender with PSU when the Lions came on board.
I am of the opinion that an important part of the Big Ten’s brand is its embrace of tradition. This is a league that has clung to its traditional relationship with the Rose Bowl. Sat on an ultra-awkward 11 members for almost 20 years. Maintains fairly consistent standards in who it considers for membership. Delights in things like a bronze pig trophy. Hell, for years the Big Ten didn’t let teams play in the Rose Bowl in consecutive seasons! OSU once turned down a Rose Bowl invitation! Even when they budged on the consecutive seasons rule, they clung to a Rose Bowl-or-bust rule a while longer.
I think people are way, way, way too quick to write off these soft-focus features of brand identity (and FtT alludes to this in the main text of the prose above). But it’s the small touches, like John Facenda reciting “The Autumn Wind” on those old NFL Films videos, that amplify something good and make it great.
I won’t apologize for being earnest and not a cynic. But that’s what makes the Big Ten what it is. One of those things it is, is Michigan/OSU in the last week of the regular season. This whole notion of trying to engineer a rematch in the CCG is the wrong direction. The only way to think about the divisional format is 2 leagues, with 2 Big Ten Champions; and you’d never let UM and OSU play for different Big Ten titles. The CCG is (according to NCAA rules, literally) the equivalent of a bowl game for the teams involved. The most analogous way to keep that Michigan/OSU rivalry is to put them in the same division playing at the end of the year. You don’t need to be obsessed with promoting those two schools to buy that (I didn’t go to either one); you just need to accept that it’s part of the fabric of the Big Ten, and not doing that would be selling out our identity just as much as betraying Minnesota and not giving them divisional games against Wisconsin and Iowa (and a divisional matchup between Iowa and Wisconsin).
LikeLike
with all due respect Doug that is the worst possible reason to move the game. The Michigan Ohio State rivalry has become to successful so it should be degraded so that some other rivalry MIGHT grow to replace it? That’s not how rivalries of that magnitude develop. Michigan Ohio State became a great rivalry because of the history between the two NOT because some suit thought it would be a good idea.
There is plenty of opportunity now for great rivalries to be built on the field. Nebraska, Penn State and every long time member of the conference has every opportunity to build a great rivalry. Including with Michigan and Ohio State. But you build them on the field NOT by clear cutting one of the stronger assets you currently have.
LikeLike
I think people who don’t have a huge objection to moving the game think this way.
1. The last week of the year has been diminished with 12 teams. Not the Game. The time slot is. Next Year it is only for a CHANCE to play for the Rose Bowl.
2. Many who agree with the split, are not willing to give up forever the game never being for the Rose Bowl.
3. Many believe the great games of yesteryear would not be so great or remembered, if it were only for a Chance at Roses. Because the CCG would trump the game before.
If the divisions play out like this.
UofM-NEB-Iowa-MSU-NW-Ill
OSU-PSU-Wis-MN-Purdue-Indy
Rivalry week around Halloween would look like something like this.
UofM-OSU
NEB-PSU
Iowa-MN(Floyd of Rosedale
MSU-Indy (Brass spittoon)
Illi-Purdue(Purdue Cannon)
NW-Wis (great rival as of late)
Last Week of Season like this.
UofM-MSU–Neb-Iowa–NW-Illi.
and
OSU-PSU–Wis-MN–Purdue-Illi
I just think UofM and OSU fans are overestimating the importance of the last regular season game. It was huge in the old Big Ten. But now the best it can be is for a CHANCE at Roses.
LikeLike
Correction:
Purdue v. Indy–last week of the season.
LikeLike
“I just think UofM and OSU fans are overestimating the importance of the last regular season game.”
sorry willarm but I don’t think we are overestimating the importance to US. And it has always been about more than the Big Ten to us as the game is huge to us even when one or both are down. Its our tradition and we value it. And to many its offensive to be told that it should be dismissed merely to create room for schools that haven’t built equal rivalries. Nothing is stopping them from building rivalries on the field. Why dimisish ours because some feel there is to much focus on our game and not theirs? Let them earn the focus.
LikeLike
Hank I respect your opinion and have thought hard about this situation as a UofM season ticket holder.
But my point is only this….The last game of the season is diminished greatly if only a chance of a Rose Bowl birth is the prize.
I would hate for the game never again to have the Rose Bowl on the line.
I don’t think this is trying to build others up. I think if they go this way it is because they have decided that The Rivalry should still mean Roses for one and not the other on certain years.
LikeLike
@Willarm
if the game on the last weekend of the season wouldn’t have the Rose Bowl on the line how does moving it earlier and into a seperate division make it more meaningful?
LikeLike
A Michigan/OSU rematch in the Big Ten Championship Game isn’t “The Game” anyway. “The Game” will never have the Rose Bowl on the line again no matter what they do. “The Game” is the game that they know the two teams will play annually in one or the other’s home stadium.
LikeLike
Hank; If they are in the same division the game doesn’t have the Rose bowl on the line and never will again.
Take 2006 for instance. If that game was played in late OCT. It still would have pitted two undefeated teams vying for a chance at a NC. How is that diminished?
OSU (at home) Beats UofM by 3, and a controversial late hit helped OSU secure that victory.
Still a classic UofM OSU game.
But if that game was played next year it would have been for a chance at a Rose Bowl–Great game but diminished IMO.
Under a division structure they would have re-matched on a neutral field for the B10 title. Rose Bowl birth and again a chance at the NC, those are the goals I’m talking about not a CCG.
I believe The Rivalry is built on one team stopping the other from achieving something. If it is just a CCG, I believe that will hurt the rivalry more then moving the game up a couple of weeks.
Especially since the last season game of the year is not as important as it once was under a division structure.
I guess I’m saying i would rather lose a diminished time-slot, than lose a chance to play OSU for a Rose Bowl ever again…
That is how this UofM fan looks at it.
LikeLike
Adam
If they are in the same division they can never play for a Rose Bowl again….If they are split they can….
LikeLike
Adam
You really think If OSU and Michigan re-matched it would change the ire towards each other?
You think an * would be put in the program saying this match-up really wasn’t considered part of the OSU-Mich legacy? Because it was in a CCG? That is laughable…
Typical Adam comment.
LikeLike
Willarm if they are in the same division the game could determine who goes to the championship game which determines who is going to the Rose Bowl. So it is playing for a shot at the Rose Bowl.
rivalries are built in division. the teams you are fighting EVERY season on the road to post season play. Would the Yankee Red Sox rivalry be as intense if they were in seperate divisions? No. it’s a function of being tied in the same sack and ALWAYS fighting to get out. The Yanks used to have a rivalry with the Tigers but since they were seperated it has faded. no one is even aware it existed. The Michigan Ohio State rivalry would survive a decade or two but eventual wither. And for what? A chance something else might fill the void? An occassional matchup in the championship game? thats a pretty poor trade imo.
LikeLike
Yeah, I don’t need that anymore. Glad to have had a chance to contribute.
LikeLike
Hank I believe playing for a CCG (when it happens) is a diminished prize result…
TN-Alabama are in different divisions and are huge rivals that have not diminished. When it’s Bama week it’s Bama week.
LSU-Florida
Georgia-Auburn.
Nothing diminished. A rival diminished is Nebraska-Oklahoma because they didn’t play yearly.
Just my take.
LikeLike
Sincere ( slow clap) Slow clap gradually turns in to a turant of aplaude for Doug. Could not have explained it better myself.
LikeLike
NO Big Ten team will need ANY promotion IF they prove it on the playing field…
The ONLY difference between a 10-0 Indiana team and 10-0 tOSU team is frequency of this record.
If Indiana is 10-0… they will be highly ranked, and highly discussed…
The hyperbole regarding Michigan-tOSU is SERIOUSLY over-rated when it comes to modern day TV broadcasting… Look no further than Boise State or Texas Christian University, AND THEY DO NOT PLAY IN MAJOR CONFERENCES…
You win, you will get attention… doesn’t matter who you are… Problem with ESPN is they devote too much time to last year’s teams…
LikeLike
Since the absurd idea of splitting Ohio State and Michigan is apparently coming to fruition, here is another absurd idea:
Michigan and Ohio State, steamed that the Big Ten has insisted on wrecking their rivalry, secede from the Big Ten and form a new conference with the Big East football schools. This new league takes on the Eastern 11 name. Michigan State follows the Wolverines out. (I suppose the Spartans wouldn’t have to follow the Wolverines, as its athletic program is capable of standing on its own, but other without Michigan, they wouldn’t have any true rivals in what would be left of the Big Ten.) The Big Ten responds by adding Missouri and Kansas. Now, it’s probable that Penn State would want to move to the new Eastern 11 as well, but for argument’s sake, the Nittany Lions stay put in the reconstituted Big Ten.
Eastern 11
Michigan
Michigan St.
Ohio St.
Cincinnati
Louisville
Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
UConn
West Virginia
South Florida
Big Ten
Penn St.
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
So, which conference is the better football conference? Which conference is the better basketball conference? Which conference would Notre Dame be more inclined to join? The new Eastern 11 and its TV markets, along with Michigan and Ohio State, would no doubt fetch a substantial TV contract. Meanwhile, the Big Ten would find it difficult to negotiate as lucrative a TV contract without Michigan and Ohio State.
Is this idea absurd? Yes, of course it is. Neither school would ever leave the Big Ten, nor would I want them to, and playing in a league with the likes of Cincinnati, Louisville, and especially South Florida would make most Michigan fans want to vomit.
My point is, despite having only two of 11 votes, both Michigan and Ohio State wield substantial clout, and if they really wanted to, they could throw their weight around, maybe not to the extreme that I allude to, but something could certainly be done. Unfortunately, as the comments from the Michigan and Ohio State administrations seem to indicate, they aren’t averse to ruining the rivalry, and that is simply mind boggling.
LikeLike
No one is forcing OSU and Michigan to do anything. If the Big Game gets moved or OSU and UM get put into different divisions, it will be because they’ve agreed to it.
You really think Minnesota and Indiana are dictating terms to Ohio State and Michigan?
LikeLike
both Brandon and Smith have said they each only have one vote. the clear message, whether spin or not, is that they lost the vote. If they’ve agreed to it it is because neither is prepared to blow off or up the Big Ten. When they lose a vote they go along with it whether they like it or not. Whether you want to call that forcing or not is largely semantics.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. We’ve talked about this on the ESPN message boards to death. I cannot believe how much they are over thinking this and usually Delaney is a wizard. In this case I hope he comes to his senses.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Count me as one who thinks the concern over playing Mich-Ohio St earlier in the year is way overblown. With a 12 team conference (done in the name of progress….err$$$$), they should be satisfied that they will play each year, regardless of when or division alignment. Once they pick a week, it’ll become the traditional time to play each other that people will become attached to in only a few seasons. This really seems like a nothing issue.
LikeLike
My sentiments exactly. The Big ten is really a brotherly league after all but our Michigan and Ohio State brethren can behave like spoiled children at times. Understandably they have been the focus of the league for a long time. (ATTENTION!) Times change but they are reluctant to FOR THE GOOD OF THE LEAGUE. Even at their most eluquent, the argument still comes down to give me all , becaues we are tOSU and UM. This is not an argument with any merit in a league 12 muketiers is it?
LikeLike
I believe that the core issue in this entire debate is Respect for the Traditions of the BT (and each member institution). This debate isn’t just about UMi vs. OSU in the Regular Season Finale… It’s about ALL of the BT Traditions & Rivalries. Iowa vs. UWi vs. UMn, UMi vs. MSU, OSU vs. PSU, etc…
“Remember The Game” is, imo, the rallying cry for BT fans that want to break with tradition as little as possible, while embracing UNL (& even PSU, to a degree) as our newest sibling(s).
I’m a Hawkeye. I don’t root for UMi or OSU (except in OoC/Bowl Games), but they’ve earned the right to end their season against each other.
I believe the Time Zone Alignment (East/West) is the best option. I do not believe that it is without flaws. But, the flaws (balance, recruiting…) of the Time Zone split are easily overcome by the Traditions & Rivalries that will be maintained/initiated with this alignment. UNL vs Iowa & UWi & UMn, PSU vs. OSU & MSU & UMi, etc…
If arranged properly, with a 9-Game 5-0-3 Model, UNL would play 1-2 of the “Big Three” in the BT East each year (as would Iowa & UWi). If my calculations are correct, there would be 4-5 matchups of the “Big Four” and 11± matchups of the “Big Six” annually (not counting the BT Title Game presented by Honor, Respect & Tradition).
If this alignment proves untenable, after a period of time, by all means, alter it. Until then, let’s follow the “Big Ten Way” and prove it’s not all about the “Big Tenjamin$”.
LikeLike
Well said. I have no affinity for either school. But more important than my concerns over whether the league over-promotes them or some such silly pettiness is preserving Big Ten tradition.
LikeLike
EARN THE RIGHT??? Wow that’s lofty. The big two have earned the right to play each other for the Big two CCH. Now this statement is equally as rediculus. Both the subjects reside in a leauge and are subject to abide by league policy and standards. The game is not lost. It may be played until kingdom come. But I can see where it has to be strategically moved as we all support the Big ten confrence and not the Big Two confrence. The trird to the last week of the saeson is a better place to play the annual match. Which no longer buarentees what it once did. League- wise the game has already changed even if tOSU and UM fans want time to stand still, just for the. Now UM and tOSU fans, it’s not 1970s any longer. Check the calendar.
THINGS THAT GAVE THE GAME a NATIONAL VALUE
Big Ten championship
Uptic in national rankings
The Rose bowl selection
A national championship possibility
None of thes things may figure in this game going forward no matter when it is played outside of the Big Ten CCG.
LikeLike
it was only a matter of time
Hitler Reacts to OSU and Michigan in different divisions @ Yahoo! Video
LikeLike
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/8/27/1636963/ucla-chancellor-chuck-young-tells
Good read from Cal Blogger on Pac12 expansion stuff and really, really bad journalism.
LikeLike
guido,
thanks for the link. nice to read through the comments to see how the west coast thinks as we do not get that input here.
LikeLike
SEC tops Big 10 again! Georgia followed up Alabama’s 2008 Fulmer Cup Title with a win in 2010, narrowly edging out Minnesota.
http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2010/08/27/another-arrest-for-uga-embarrassing-but-not-humiliating/
I don’t agree with the writer’s premise that all schools would be so tolerant, but SEC schools tend to be. The other point the writer makes is that its all about money. Heard that theme before?
On-line doesn’t have the chart the printed version does, but in fairness to UGA, UGA’s 23 arrests in 3 years isn’t exactly all armed robbery (not to downplay the seriousness of the offenses-but the majority were the type of bad judgement issues common to 18-22 year olds).
3 were DUI, 2 were public intoxication, 4 were underage drinking, 1 was speeding while in possession of a concealed weapon and 4 were a UGA specialty-driving without a license. Several of the rest also involved driving w/o a license-my favorite was the guy driving a motor scooter on a sidewalk with a suspended license. The other 9 arrests were battery (various levels)-6, obstruction of law enforcement officer-1, hit and run-1 and 1 leaving the scene of an accident (along with DUI and every other thing the officer could throw at him).
LikeLike
I am in favor of the East/West split (in no small part because I think Northwestern could win the West as often as anyone in the division), but I thought I would channel the lawyery vibe this blog has and present the case for the split. Feel free to refute each of these points.
1. The worst case is if both are in the same division, but one has clinched the division before the season ending game.
There’s a reason no one like the last couple weeks of the NFL. The best teams rest their starters because they have already have their playoff position assured.
This event could happen with OSU-Michigan. It might not happen immediately, and it might not happen for 20 years, but eventually the coaches will view it as too risky to have their star players in injury’s way when they have the CCG the next week.
All it will take is one key starter getting hurt late in the game when their team has a sizable lead.
2 A championship game would be huge
I tend to hold with the sentiment that OSU-Michigan happening in the title game would not be a common event, maybe once every 5 years or less. However, if and when it happened, it would be unbelievable. Imagine a game at a neutral site (which of course means half of each fanbase mixed together) with everything on the line including bragging rights for the foreseeable future. Add in all of the bad blood that would inevitably be inspired by the previous game. I would love to attend, if I weren’t so terrified.
3. Fans will care about OSU-Michigan no matter when it occurs (or honestly what sport)
OSU-Michigan permeates through all sports, regardless of scheduling. OSU-Michigan basketball is hotly contested, OSU-Michigan softball has an extra kick to it, and you have not seen a “bad blood” game until you see OSU-Michigan hockey. If there were an OSU-Michigan tiddly-winks game played in February, it would be the biggest tiddly-winks game of the year. None of this is affected by moving the regular season football game by 3 weeks.
4. The regular season game between OSU and Michigan cannot be as big if there is a championship, regardless of division and scheduling setups.
OSU-Michigan became big in no small part because for many years it was the de facto Rose Bowl play in game. Even in years that it wasn’t, usually one team had a shot and the other team was trying to spoil. If they are in the same division, this event can never happen again.
There will never be Buckeye players celebrating with the fans with Roses in their mouths unless they meet in the championship game.
5. The conference cannot have an equitable balance of cache in the East/West split.
While Wisconsin and Iowa have been on-the-field competitive with Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan (if a collective 30-45 record counts), they simply do not carry the same level of media coverage. Just look at attendance. For 2009, the top 3 and 4 of the top 5 in conference would all be in the East.
This setup would inevitably lead to a “The Real Division” and “The Other Division” breakdown.
6. Penn State/Nebraska isn’t a great division basis either.
I can’t find one Penn State fan that wants to be an island in a West division. Plus, having a “Noobs” division just seems uncool.
5. Several great rivalries exist that are not the last game of the season
OU-Texas
Florida-Georgia
Florida-Tennessee
USC-ND
Alabama-Tennessee
Alabama-LSU
Tennessee-Nashville PD
A good number of these are obviously not on the OSU-Michigan level, but that’s unrelated to scheduling. OSU-Michigan is not big simply because it’s the last game of the season.
LikeLike
Well said “M”. I favor an East-West split but am coming around to the divisions of MI, MSU, NE, IA, IL, NU and OSU, PSU, WI, MN, IN, PU. I would add three more reasons to yours.
6. Expansion and a division split will have irrevocably changed “The Game”. The reason OSU vs. MI became such a heated rivalry is that for a very long stretch, starting with the Woody vs. Bo years, that game either decided or had a direct impact on the Big Ten representive in the Rose Bowl, period. More often than not the winner of The Game went the Rose Bowl. With expansion, The Game will no longer determine who goes to the Rose Bowl, the CCG will, which leads to . . .
7. The Big Ten wants to make the CCG into a huge event that will (and should) supplant The Game as the focus of fans and media. The Big Ten places great pride in its Rose Bowl tie-in and it is only natural to focus all efforts to highlight the CCG. Contrary to popular perception, I do not believe that the Big Ten is trying to engineer a OSU vs. MI rematch in the CCG. The Big Ten is trying to ensure that both divisions are evenly balanced, both competitively and brand image, to maximize the chances that two really good (and popular) teams will meet in the CCG.
8. Natural new rivalries. One overlooked item of the likely split above is that matches up very nicely with 2×2 pairs of natural geographic rivalries. WI-MN would be paired off for the last game, IA-NE are likely to develop a very good rivalry and secondary rivalries such as OSU-PSU and MI-MSU are likely to take on much greater significance. The drawback of not having OSU-MI as a potential year-end semi-final is somewhat countered by the elevation of these rivalries.
The bottom line is that expansion will change some Big Ten traditions, most notably The Game. The New Coke analogy does not hold water because the decision has already been made to add Nebraska, irrevocably changing the classic formula. The issue is what the Big Ten does next.
While I would prefer a straight East-West split, I completely understand the likely division split and am starting to get excited about it. It would be even better if they go to a 5-2-2 scheduling split in 2015 to keep the IA-WI rivalry on an annual basis and create natural new ones such as MN-NE and NE-PSU.
LikeLike
Well said dude. Assuming they want to split the big 4, putting PSU and Neb together is easily the stupidest way to do it.
But as to point 3, I totally disagree. The OSU/UM bb games (for at least the past 15 years) are a total joke – the UM crowd really doesn’t give a crap about the sport in general. MSU/UM is far, far hotter in all other sports – particularly hockey. UM has at least 3 hockey rivals ahead of OSU. OSU is a piss-ass hockey team historically (getting a little better) and no one really cares. That said, there is some weird state-wide Ohio and Michigan rivalry generally that has nothing to do with college sports. I suppose it goes back to the Toledo war or something. It’s really a little weird from my perspective as the two are pretty similar until you get too far south.