Big 10 divisional alignment - Michigan doesn't want to be in OSU's division

• enigmaax

  Manhattan Buckeye;457967 wrote:Weren't Texas and Oklahoma in the same division in the old Big 12? I don't recall either of them complaining.

  
  Well, you must have missed the divisional tiebreaker a couple years ago. There were a lot of folks complaining then and that wouldn't have happened had they been in separate divisions.
  
  Also, the fact that they were in the same division made for some really crappy Big XII title games. It may have helped each one get to a national title game or two because they didn't have the task that other conferences do/will in having to play a good team in the conference title game, but when your conference title game ends up 70-3 (and the loser has like five losses), is it really good for your conference?
• ts1227

  

  purple_rein;457975 wrote:The problem is that with this plan you are banking on OSU vs UM in the B10 Title Game happening a lot which will not be the case. Instead, 80% of the years you have a watered down version of The Game and then MAYBE 20% of the time you get the big rematch.
  
  I don't see how the spike in ratings once every 5-7 years for a OSU-UM Title Game will make up for the dip in ratings when The Game is moved to earlier in the year and becomes just a big rivalry in college football but not THE rivalry of college football.

  To play devil's advocate, and actually agree with CBF somewhat (hell has frozen over)... a lot of times the game is watered down anyway. Sure, OSU and UM fans get into it always, but when it is lopsided like it is right now there is diminished interest from many of the fans of the schools as well as college football fans as a whole. I bet a lot of the OSU and UM fans were out mowing their yard by halftime of the fast few Games.
  
  You can play this or any rivalry game in late August or late November... if both teams aren't at least decent, no one gives a shit in that particular year. Look at the SEC "rivalries"... they are spread out all over their calendar. When the teams are good people care, when one or neither are good people don't.
  
  Look at USC/UCLA. Good historic rivalry. It's even later than OSU/UM traditionally, but it got lopsided over the years and people stopped caring unless UCLA had a chance to fuck over USC for the title. The fact that it is in December adds NOTHING to it 95% of the time. Even USC/ND which is often considered a top ten rival... the date dances around depending on who is the home team, people only care when the teams are good (people cared for the Bush Push year, people didn't give a shit last year)
  
  It's not the date... it's the teams involved and whether they are playing worth a shit.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  enigmaax;457977 wrote:Well, you must have missed the divisional tiebreaker a couple years ago. There were a lot of folks complaining then and that wouldn't have happened had they been in separate divisions.
  
  Also, the fact that they were in the same division made for some really crappy Big XII title games. It may have helped each one get to a national title game or two because they didn't have the task that other conferences do/will in having to play a good team in the conference title game, but when your conference title game ends up 70-3 (and the loser has like five losses), is it really good for your conference?

  Most title games are crappy anyway - aside from Florida/Bama in '94, K-State/aTM in '98 and Nebraska/Texas last year (and maybe GT-Clemson last year which had no real ramifications) - I couldn't tell you the results of any game. Plus it would have diluted the Red River Shootout (the REAL name), which is played earlier in the season, unlike the OSU/Mich game.
• krambman

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;457967 wrote:Weren't Texas and Oklahoma in the same division in the old Big 12? I don't recall either of them complaining.

  
  That's because when the Big XII was formed both Nebraska and Colorado were better than both Texas and Oklahoma. The Big XII was formed in 1996. Colorado won the National Championship in 1990, and Nebraska had just won the National Championship in 1994 and '95, and would share it with Michigan in 1997. On the other hand, Texas hadn't won a national championship since 1970 (although they had won the Southwest Conference in 1994 and '95) and Oklahoma hadn't won a National Championship since 1985. Why would Texas and Oklahoma have complained about being put in the same division? They were on the easy side of things. It wasn't until the early 2000's that the power in the Big XII shifted from the North to the South.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ^^^
  
  Very true, but Texas/Oklahoma each had more history than Colorado, and all Texas needed was a good coach, and all Oklahoma was to get over the Switzer years reputation. With OSU, Mich, PSU and Nebraska the Big 10 now boasts 4 of the top 6 teams in terms of wins. I think it is pretty arrogant for Michigan to think they are that much ahead of PSU and Nebraska to believe that it and OSU can't live in the same division - and IMO they are in worse shape than Texas was back when the Big XII was formed - not to make the discussion Serious Business/Soapbox material, but Michigan is a dying state, it doesn't provide the homegrown talent it once did, its national rep has taken a hit and as long as Tressel is at OSU the Ohio HS pipeline isn't as fertile as it once was.
• WebFire

  ts1227;457987 wrote:To play devil's advocate, and actually agree with CBF somewhat (hell has frozen over)... a lot of times the game is watered down anyway. Sure, OSU and UM fans get into it always, but when it is lopsided like it is right now there is diminished interest from many of the fans of the schools as well as college football fans as a whole. I bet a lot of the OSU and UM fans were out mowing their yard by halftime of the fast few Games.

  
  Some OSU fans sure do have short memories. Michigan has had 2 down years, 2! And even in Tressel's dominance, aside from 2008, the biggest score spread was 14, and that was a Michigan win! Just 4 years ago, OSU and Michigan duked it out to a 3 point finish to determine who played in the national title game. Hell, even last year, Michigan was only down 3 deep in the 3rd quarter, and the game wasn't decided until an interception in the 4th quarter.
  
  When you look at The Game, you can't just look at the last 2, 5 or even 10 years. If that were the case, The Game would have been garbage when UM was 10-2 against Cooper.
• ts1227

  

  WebFire;458026 wrote:Some OSU fans sure do have short memories. Michigan has had 2 down years, 2! And even in Tressel's dominance, aside from 2008, the biggest score spread was 14, and that was a Michigan win! Just 4 years ago, OSU and Michigan duked it out to a 3 point finish to determine who played in the national title game. Hell, even last year, Michigan was only down 3 deep in the 3rd quarter, and the game wasn't decided until an interception in the 4th quarter.
  
  When you look at The Game, you can't just look at the last 2, 5 or even 10 years. If that were the case, The Game would have been garbage when UM was 10-2 against Cooper.

  I'm not an OSU fan
  
  My point was every year isn't like the 2006 game, and unless it's something close to that, what exactly does the date really help? Last year was a decent game, but I still wasn't compelled to watch that much of it.
• vball10set

  ...to true fans of both OSU and tsun,this is the game that's circled on the calendar,the game that can make or break a season,regardless of their respective records (and I don't mean as far as standings or bowl invites or any of the residual after affects are concerned)...this is THE GAME,and it's integrity should be preserved. I would like to see both teams remain in the same division to ensure this integrity,but if it happens that the presidents vote otherwise,I'll go with the flow--just as long as these two meet...EVERY YEAR!!!
• Sykotyk

  

  This was my proposal, and I still stand by it:
  
  First, cross-division games (played every year):
  Ohio State-Penn State
  Michigan-Michigan State
  Purdue-Indiana
  Illinois-Northwestern
  Wisconsin-Minnesota
  Iowa-Nebraska
  
  Division A:
  Ohio State
  Michigan
  Indiana
  Illinois
  Minnesota
  Iowa
  
  Division B:
  Penn State
  Michigan State
  Purdue
  Northwestern
  Wisconsin
  Nebraska
  
  This keeps alive the Ohio State-Illinois, Ohio State-Indiana, Minnesota-Iowa, Penn State-Michigan State, Wisconsin-Nebraska (who stated they want to play eachother).
  
  Moving 'the game' from the last week of the regular season would be unbearable. OSU-Michigan is not just another game. it is THE GAME. We are the Big Ten, not the SEC, Big XII, or PAC-10. We hold tradition sacred. Or, at least I always thought. The odds are, OSU-Michigan playing for the title from two divisions is going to be very unlikely as OSU-Michigan in the regular season will already alter their standings and potentially prevent a team from making the title game.
  
  Plus, I don't want a rematch. If OSU wins the regular season, that's it. Michigan had their shot. There's no do-overs.
  
  Sykotyk
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "This keeps alive the Ohio State-Illinois, Ohio State-Indiana, Minnesota-Iowa, Penn State-Michigan State, Wisconsin-Nebraska (who stated they want to play eachother)."
  
  I wouldn't consider any of these to be big games, the Michigan St./Penn St. game in particular has been forced by the old Big 10 to give PSU some sort of "last game rival" which really hasn't worked out, IMO these games have to happen every year:
  
  OSU-Michigan
  OSU-PSU
  Indiana-Purdue
  Minny-Wisconsin
  Michigan-Michigan St.
  Nebraska-Iowa (for geography)
  Nebraska and a guarantee of at least 2 of OSU/Michigan/PSU
• believer

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;458137 wrote:"This keeps alive the Ohio State-Illinois, Ohio State-Indiana, Minnesota-Iowa, Penn State-Michigan State, Wisconsin-Nebraska (who stated they want to play eachother)."
  
  I wouldn't consider any of these to be big games, the Michigan St./Penn St. game in particular has been forced by the old Big 10 to give PSU some sort of "last game rival" which really hasn't worked out, IMO these games have to happen every year:
  
  OSU-Michigan
  OSU-PSU
  Indiana-Purdue
  Minny-Wisconsin
  Michigan-Michigan St.
  Nebraska-Iowa (for geography)
  Nebraska and a guarantee of at least 2 of OSU/Michigan/PSU

  I agree. Living here in State College I can attest to the fact that Penn State does NOT see Michigan State as their rival. That honor falls to Ohio State.
  
  I've had a real difficult time the last 8 years explaining to co-workers and neighbors that while Ohio State considers Penn State as a key game, it pales dramatically in comparison to the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry. Penn State will want Ohio State on its schedule every season.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I could give a crap if the game with PSU is kept every year. It's more a rivalry for State Penners than it is for Buckeyes. We already have a rival.
  
  That's why I want to PUT BOTH OSU AND MICHIGAN IN THE SAME DIVISION AND KEEP THE GAME AS THE FINALE EACH YEAR.
  
  What we're seeing here is a bunch of very insecure folks who either want to duck OSU in the division or other Big Ten fans who are simply jealous of the attention that game draws each season, even when one or both teams are down.
  
  Too bad.
  
  It's a wonderful tradition and there's no reason it needs to end.
  
  Putting OSU and UM in the same division -- and crossing PSU into Nebraska's division would take care of any traditional powerhouse imbalance arguments that might pop up.
  
  And having OSU-UM in the same division and the last game of the year won't detract from a championship game. Anyone who think so (you listening insecure and jealous fans from other schools?) is forgetting that you have to win the Big Ten title to have a shot at a BCS championship.
  
  That game is going to be huge no matter WHAT game precedes it.
  
  Where is it written a conference can't have two HUGE showdowns in a row (whether they're a week or two apart)?
  
  No where.
  
  Keep the traditional rivalries alive, use common sense on the divisional alignment and DON'T TOUCH THE GREATEST RIVALRY IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL.
  
  It's stupid how some folks over think these things.
  
  You watch, though, the folks in charge will screw this up, somehow. Take it to the bank.
• believer

  

  Writerbuckeye;458155 wrote:I could give a crap if the game with PSU is kept every year. It's more a rivalry for State Penners than it is for Buckeyes. We already have a rival.

  You're preaching to the choir. I'm simply saying I have a hunch Penn State will lobby to have Ohio State on the annual schedule for the rivalry factor, gate receipts, etc.
  
  You can bank on that.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  believer;458162 wrote:You're preaching to the choir. I'm simply saying I have a hunch Penn State will lobby to have Ohio State on the annual schedule for the rivalry factor, gate receipts, etc.
  
  You can bank on that.

  Umm, it is take it to the bank, haven't you received the memo?
  
  Kidding aside, I agree. OSU and Michigan want each other (or should want each other). PSU wants Ohio St. And IMO they deserve that meeting once a year, same division or not. I'd like to see Nebraska/Michigan develop that sort of relationship.
• the_system

  Someone over on one of the Husker boards said Unsportsmanlike Conduct was hearing the following divisions might be leaning towards:
  
  Nebraska (permanent cross over PSU)
  Iowa
  Michigan
  Michigan State
  Illinois
  Northwestern
  
  
  Ohio State (permanent cross over Mich)
  Penn State
  Wisconsin
  Minnesota
  Purdue
  Indiana
• Sykotyk

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;458137 wrote:"This keeps alive the Ohio State-Illinois, Ohio State-Indiana, Minnesota-Iowa, Penn State-Michigan State, Wisconsin-Nebraska (who stated they want to play eachother)."
  
  I wouldn't consider any of these to be big games, the Michigan St./Penn St. game in particular has been forced by the old Big 10 to give PSU some sort of "last game rival" which really hasn't worked out, IMO these games have to happen every year:
  
  OSU-Michigan
  OSU-PSU
  Indiana-Purdue
  Minny-Wisconsin
  Michigan-Michigan St.
  Nebraska-Iowa (for geography)
  Nebraska and a guarantee of at least 2 of OSU/Michigan/PSU

  
  And every game would happen ever year as everyone of them would be divisional games (i.e., play every year). Except Nebraska against two of OSU/PSU/Michigan would stack on division quite high, or require a ridiculously stupid mandatory cross-division game for the sake of playing for television and nothing else.
  
  The simple matter is you can't please everyone every time. But, there's some major things to avoid and some major things to continue. One being OSU-Michigan (preferably a divisional game). Keeping all state/cross-state rivalries (Minn-Wisky, Iowa-Nebraska, N'western-Illinois, Indiana-Purdue, etc).
  
  There's nothing to say OSU-Michigan can't play back-to-back weeks. However, for a rivalry with such history, it's ridiculous to think both teams could play a game with such ferver and then turn around and play a 'do-over'.
  
  OSU-Michigan rematch in the title game would draw interest. But, so would OSU-Nebraska. Michigan-Nebraska. Ohio State-Penn State. Ohio State-Wisconsin, Iowa-Penn State, Iowa-Michigan, etc.
  
  Plus, if it were obvious both OSU and Michigan would be playing in the title game (say, both 7-0 going into the game guaranteed to advance), you'd have a lame duck of a game. But, if you moved the game from the last week of the season because of the CHANCE that they may play each other in the title game, you're ruining history for a chance at something that has little probability of happening as the outcome of the first OSU-Michigan game would go a ways into affecting which of the two teams has the best chance to actually make the title.
  
  Don't mess with tradition. OSU-Michigan, last game of the regular season. Winner take all, no do-overs.
  
  Sykotyk
• Big Gain

  There are 10 other schools in the new Big Ten. It's possible ANY 2 teams could meet in the last week of the regular season and again in the Championship Game the following week. The only way to avoid this issue is to have all games between teams from different Divisions played early in the Big Ten scheduled. Keeping games against same Division opponents for the end of the schedule.
  
  JoPa doesn't want Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in the same Division either. Tressel is the only one who WANTS(not afraid?) OSU, PSU and U of M in the same Division.
  
  BTW, in the new 2 Division set up, every school is allowed to have one "rival" game in the other Division, which means they would play that school EVERY year and not miss a year playing in the rotating games with the other Division. If they split the 12 schools geographically like they should, keeping OSU, PSU and U of M in the same Division, then Illinois would be Ohio State's "rival" game since they play for a Rivalry "trophy", the Illibuck.
  
  Something else to be considered. RIVALRY TROPHY GAMES, there are TWELVE Big Ten Rivalry Trophies. These games MUST be played regularly.
  
  Paul Bunyan's Axe - Minnesota/Wisconsin
  Old Oaken Bucket - Illinois/Purdue
  Paul Bunyan Trophy - Michigan/Michigan State
  Sweet Sioux Tomahawk - Illinois/Northwestern
  Purdue Cannon - Purdue/Illinois
  Heartland Trophy - Iowa/Wisconsin
  Old Brass Spittoon - Indiana/Michigan State
  Floyd of Rosedale - Iowa/Minnesota
  Illibuck - Illinois/Ohio State
  Land Grant Trophy - Penn State/Michigan State
  Governor's Victory Bell - Minnesota/Penn State
  Little Brown Jug - Michigan/Minnesota
  
  I know NO ONE on here who has their version of Divisional breakdowns has made ANY consideration of these traditional games.
  
  Carry on.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Big Gain;458393 wrote:There are 10 other schools in the new Big Ten. It's possible ANY 2 teams could meet in the last week of the regular season and again in the Championship Game the following week. The only way to avoid this issue is to have all games between teams from different Divisions played early in the Big Ten scheduled. Keeping games against same Division opponents for the end of the schedule.
  
  JoPa doesn't want Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in the same Division either. Tressel is the only one who WANTS(not afraid) OSU, PSU and U of M in the same Division.
  
  BTW, every school is allowed to have one "rival" game in the other Division, which means they would play that school EVERY year and not miss a year playing in the rotating games with the other Division. If they split the 12 school geographically like they should, keeping OSU, PSU and U of M in the same Division then Illinois would be Ohio State's "rival" game since they play for a tradition "trophy", the Illibuck.

  
  
  Ohio St. - Illinois isn't a rivalry, they didn't play in '03 or '04. We survived. If it means an annual game with OSU to keep PSU happy, I'm fine with it. I'm guessing both schools want the rivalry.
• sjmvsfscs08

  East Division
  Indiana
  Michigan
  Michigan State
  Ohio State
  Penn State
  Purdue
  
  West Division
  Illinois
  Iowa
  Minnesota
  Nebraska
  Northwestern
  Wisconsin
  
  
  That is the best breakdown, case closed. Let Michigan-Minnesota, and Illinois-Ohio State or Purdue play every year, basically assign everyone a permanent cross over game.
• GeneralsIcer89

  Here's mine, with protected cross-overs.
  
  Illinois (Northwestern)
  Indiana
  Michigan (Minnesota)
  Michigan State (Penn State)
  Ohio State (Penn State)
  Purdue
  
  Iowa
  Minnesota (Michigan)
  Nebraska
  Northwestern (Illinois)
  Penn State (Michigan State, Ohio State)
  Wisconsin
  
  If you play everyone in your division, and 3 of the other division members, every trophy game is covered. Since it isn't a trophy game, OSU-PSU doesn't *have* to be protected. I just marked it as such, since it has become somewhat of a rivalry recently.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "I know NO ONE on here who has their version of Divisional breakdowns has made ANY consideration of these traditional games."
  
  Because many of them aren't traditional and aren't played regularly now.
• believer

  

  ^^^That's true. Quite frankly with the lone exception of the OSU-Michigan tradition, all the rest of the Big Televen fluff tradition (IE: Old Oaken Bucket, etc.) can easily go down the crapper...and no one would care.
• vball10set

  believer;458668 wrote:^^^That's true. Quite frankly with the lone exception of the OSU-Michigan tradition, all the rest of the Big Televen fluff tradition (IE: Old Oaken Bucket, etc.) can easily go down the crapper...and no one would care.

  fixed---and I agree...the only thing I'll mention is that at the Big Televen (I like that) meeting in Chicago,Tom Osborne mentioned he'd like to renew their rivalry with Iowa (that was played through the 90's)....so they may keep those two together
• the_system

  vball10set;458704 wrote:fixed---and I agree...the only thing I'll mention is that at the Big Televen (I like that) meeting in Chicago,Tom Osborne mentioned he'd like to renew their rivalry with Iowa (that was played through the 90's)....so they may keep those two together

  Nebraska and Iowa only played once in the 90's (1999) and once in the 2000's (2000) with Nebraska killing them both times. I think you'd have to go back to the very early 80's to find when they played before that. But you're right, it is obvious a good rivalry would come out of that game. I think a Wisconsin-Nebraska matchup would be big as well.
• vball10set

  ^^^you're correct--I should've said that they started the rivalry back in the 50's and continued thru the 90's (even though it was only one year)--and I didn't realize they played in 2000...thanks for the info