Ohio Chatter DEV

FatHobbit

enigmaax;462061 wrote:The biggest argument OSU and Michigan fans have against doing this basically boils down to, "it hurts our mythical status as the greatest rivalry". Its all about "feelings". Maybe its sad, but nobody gives a shit how you feel about your routine. There's no way to tangibly quantify that meaning, so really, it is worthless.

enigmaax;462155 wrote:I don't know, I'm just throwing this out there. For starters, people go pretty hardcore for this one all week, all gameday, and then all night. For a lot of people, they're spent afterwards. Is is possible to keep that pace and create the same excitement for two weeks in a row? If one game is mid-season, will people put the same into it as they do now? And then, if they have six weeks to recover, would they be willing to do it all again when it is for a conference title? Or, which of those scenarios is more likely to maximize the interest (and thus, money).

The other thing is that TV ratings are going to mean something also. To maximize that, you need more than just OSU-Michigan fans. Are outsiders more likely to watch both games if they happen in back-to-back weeks or if they have six weeks between them and bring completely different dynamics?

The problem I have with your argument is that it's the customers feelings we are talking about. There are quite a few people that care a lot about this game. That's why it's worth so much to advertisers and everyone else. There are examples of other rivalries in other conferences that have been diminshed because of how they've been rearranged and we don't want that to happen to our rivalry. If the goal is to alienate all the main customers and ruin the rivalry then by all means the big 10 should proceed and do it however they wish. I hope they are smarter than that.

And I get your point about having to bring in outsiders, but if you alienate all the core fans and ruin the rivalry the outsiders won't give a shit either. It's the emotion and the feelings that make everyone want to tune in. (Which is why the media loves to come up with bs stories for all the big games. They want to try to get the viewers emotionally invested in the game.)

purple_rein

It will be interesting to see how it turns out enigmaax.

2 other points:

I hope that they move the end of the conference schedule back up to the 3rd weekend of November so that there is a week off before the Title Game. That way you wouldn't technically have OSU-UM 2 weeks in a row, just 2 games in a row.

I also hope that no matter what they decide (but especially if they move the game to October) that they only schedule 2011 and 2012 for now or something like that and then reassess things after the 2011 season. I just hope that they leave themselves an out to reformat scheduling if whatever they decide turns out to be bad, instead of making concrete schedules through 2020 or somthing crazy like that.

enigmaax

FatHobbit;462278 wrote:The problem I have with your argument is that it's the customers feelings we are talking about. There are quite a few people that care a lot about this game. That's why it's worth so much to advertisers and everyone else. There are examples of other rivalries in other conferences that have been diminshed because of how they've been rearranged and we don't want that to happen to our rivalry. If the goal is to alienate all the main customers and ruin the rivalry then by all means the big 10 should proceed and do it however they wish. I hope they are smarter than that.

And I get your point about having to bring in outsiders, but if you alienate all the core fans and ruin the rivalry the outsiders won't give a shit either. It's the emotion and the feelings that make everyone want to tune in. (Which is why the media loves to come up with bs stories for all the big games. They want to try to get the viewers emotionally invested in the game.)

Is moving the game really going to alienate OSU-Michigan fans? I would imagine the thought is that those fans are going to feel just as passionate about the rivalry regardless of when it is played. It isn't as though the fans watch because it is the last game of the season. It just happens to have been that way for a long time. Honestly, is anyone who is really invested going to say "well they changed the date so I'm not watching anymore"? So if the value is a constant for Game A, the next question becomes, how do we maximize the value of Game B?

FatHobbit

enigmaax;462287 wrote:Is moving the game really going to alienate OSU-Michigan fans? I would imagine the thought is that those fans are going to feel just as passionate about the rivalry regardless of when it is played. It isn't as though the fans watch because it is the last game of the season. It just happens to have been that way for a long time. Honestly, is anyone who is really invested going to say "well they changed the date so I'm not watching anymore"? So if the value is a constant for Game A, the next question becomes, how do we maximize the value of Game B?

I do think playing the game at the end of the season makes it a better game. One team is usually pretty good and needs the win to get the big ten title or make it to the national title game. How many times has OSU been in the hunt for the national title only to have Michigan knock them out? How many times has the winner of the game decided the big 10 champion? If they played earlier in the season they wouldn't have nearly as much on the line.

I also think the possibility of a rematch diminishes the first game and possibly even the title game. Currently each team gets one shot at their rival and players only get four games in their career. Players are known for their record in the game. Archie is proud that he never lost to Michigan and I love that big mouth Mike Hart never beat OSU. If they are in seperate divisions they still get another shot to beat their rival in the title game and maybe that early season loss didn't matter so much. If they are in the same division and the last game of the regular season maybe a loss keeps one team out of the title game and that keeps the stakes high. That's what makes the game a big deal. I can see where a rematch in the conference title game might have national title implications, but that won't happen nearly as often as it does now and I don't think people will be as excited to watch a game that has already been played once.

enigmaax

FatHobbit;462315 wrote:How many times has the winner of the game decided the big 10 champion?

I agree with most of what you say. Here's something to consider regarding the quoted statement though. And let's assume (as it seems the Big Ten is) that OSU and Michigan are regularly going to be in the same position of deciding the Big 10 title against each other.

If they are in separate divisions and play the last game of the season, the theme ends up being, "oh well, loser gets another shot next week"
If they are in separate divisions and play earlier in the season, you have another six weeks to build up the redemption, revenge, etc - both teams are still playing out a string of games to try and get another crack at their rival for the title. There's just more to sell there.

If they are in the same division and play the last game of the season, it is "OSU vs. Michigan - Our biggest game....for the right to play someone else for the Big Ten title". It just goes back to, do you want to guarantee that your two top programs NEVER play each other for the actual Big Ten title anymore.

purple_rein

^ You are exactly right enigmaax and that is what the powers that be are thinking to a tee.

The problem is the assumption that it will happen regularly.

In order for moving The Game to be worth it to me, OSU-UM would need to play in the Title Game every other year. However, the last 17 years tells us that it will be once every 5 years. That is not enough to justify moving it. On the other hand, you can play it the last game and 4 out of 5 years there will be something on the line whether one or both could head to the Title Game with a win over the other.

I will take a Game that means something 80% of the time versus a Game that means everything 20% of the time but nothing the other 80%.

vball10set

^^^damn,rein-I'm getting dizzy reading your post, especially that last line-LOL..but, I do understand where you're coming from, and you make a legitimate point.

krambman

Manhattan Buckeye;462180 wrote:"Mark May just said that the OSU/MU fans should cool it and have the game mid OCT, because, as he puts it, Texas-OK have done it and there fine...."

You have to be shitting me. Assuming this is correct, does dumbass May realize UT and OK were in DIFFERENT CONFERENCES prior to the merger? UT was in the old SWC, Okie was in the Big 8, it isn't relevant.

Texas-Oklahoma was also never at the end of the season, and while that game may hold more national interest year-in and year-out, it isn't the biggest rivalry game for either team. Texas A&M is Texas's biggest rival and Oklahoma St. is Oklahoma's biggest rival. When are those games played? Oh, that's right, the final game of the season. Michigan-Michigan State is a game comparable to Texas-Oklahoma, OSU-Michigan is not.

FatHobbit

enigmaax;462336 wrote:I agree with most of what you say. Here's something to consider regarding the quoted statement though. And let's assume (as it seems the Big Ten is) that OSU and Michigan are regularly going to be in the same position of deciding the Big 10 title against each other.

If they are in separate divisions and play the last game of the season, the theme ends up being, "oh well, loser gets another shot next week"
If they are in separate divisions and play earlier in the season, you have another six weeks to build up the redemption, revenge, etc - both teams are still playing out a string of games to try and get another crack at their rival for the title. There's just more to sell there.

I really don't believe anyone outside of OSU and Michigan fans will be excited to see a rematch. The bowls always try to avoid them. Do you (or anyone else) know if we can get the tv ratings from other conference championship games when they had a rematch to see how they compare to seasons when they didn't have a rematch?

enigmaax;462336 wrote:If they are in the same division and play the last game of the season, it is "OSU vs. Michigan - Our biggest game....for the right to play someone else for the Big Ten title". It just goes back to, do you want to guarantee that your two top programs NEVER play each other for the actual Big Ten title anymore.

I don't think that would be any different than having Texas and Oklahoma in the same division in the Big 12.

I just read on ESPN that they are splitting up Wisconsin and Iowa. I think that's a horrible idea too. I really don't like the idea of having a rematch.

derek bomar

Why can't they be in different divisions, yet play the last week of the year? They'd rarely play for a rematch and if they did oh well, we could handle that.

enigmaax

FatHobbit;462383 wrote:
I don't think that would be any different than having Texas in Oklahoma in the same division in the Big 12.

But look at some of the things that have happened as a result:

Prior to last season, the five previous years' scores were 62-21, 38-17, 21-7, 70-3, and 42-3. Is that really what you want to see in your title game? I will say that the Texas-Oklahoma game has also been somewhat lopsided from year-to-year, but still, if you are trying to drum up viewers which is going to sell better - two rivals in a rematch or the number one team versus a barely .500 division champ that is a 30-point dog going in?

Remember the stink about the three way tie between Texas, Tech, and OU a couple years ago? Oklahoma ended up playing the fourth or fifth (Mizzou and Oklahoma State were both 5-3) best team in the conference for the championship. Again, is that what you want for your title game? In that case, even if the unthinkable had happened and Oklahoma had been beaten, it would've just been that much worse for the conference - Oklahoma would've been out of the title game and potentially a team from another conference would've been in. Had it been Oklahoma-Texas again for the conference title (or TT as one of those teams), at least you would've pretty much guaranteed that the winner would be playing in the national championship game.

I think those possibilities are what the Big Ten is trying to avoid. But, it does all go back to what purple rein said, "The problem is the assumption that it will happen regularly."

FatHobbit

enigmaax;462455 wrote:But look at some of the things that have happened as a result:

Prior to last season, the five previous years' scores were 62-21, 38-17, 21-7, 70-3, and 42-3. Is that really what you want to see in your title game? I will say that the Texas-Oklahoma game has also been somewhat lopsided from year-to-year, but still, if you are trying to drum up viewers which is going to sell better - two rivals in a rematch or the number one team versus a barely .500 division champ that is a 30-point dog going in?

Remember the stink about the three way tie between Texas, Tech, and OU a couple years ago? Oklahoma ended up playing the fourth or fifth (Mizzou and Oklahoma State were both 5-3) best team in the conference for the championship. Again, is that what you want for your title game? In that case, even if the unthinkable had happened and Oklahoma had been beaten, it would've just been that much worse for the conference - Oklahoma would've been out of the title game and potentially a team from another conference would've been in. Had it been Oklahoma-Texas again for the conference title (or TT as one of those teams), at least you would've pretty much guaranteed that the winner would be playing in the national championship game.

I think those possibilities are what the Big Ten is trying to avoid. But, it does all go back to what purple rein said, "The problem is the assumption that it will happen regularly."

I can agree that it's a problem trying to create the divisions so they are balanced. I don't think that splitting up OSU and Michigan or changing the date of the game is the answer though. I also really don't like the idea of teams playing rematches in the title game, but unless they only play 5 games that's always going to be a possibility.

I'm curious, who would you put in each division?

jhay78

Fromt the Stewart Mandel/SI article:

Fair enough, commish, but if you haven't noticed, Switzerland is closer to Pasadena right now than Michigan. Even when the Wolverines do get it going again, they're going to be in a division with at least two other regular contenders (perhaps Penn State and Wisconsin) that will likely prevent any one team from reaching the title game annually. In the years OSU and Michigan don't play for the Rose Bowl -- i.e., most of them -- shouldn't they at least play for something more than a run-of-the-mill conference win? The ACC tried this same thing with Miami and Florida State. Five years later, they've yet to meet in a title game.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/08/24/cfb.mailbag/index.html?eref=sihp#ixzz0xjMs2GQE

enigmaax

FatHobbit;462511 wrote: I'm curious, who would you put in each division?

I wouldn't go to divisions to begin with. I would use the divisional scheduling theory (you have to do something), but I would not create divisions. Then, if we wanted a title game, I'd take the two best teams. The same risk of having back-to-back games between the same teams for the title is there, but I'd be willing to take that chance to ensure the two best teams play for the title.

If I had to make a divisional choice, I might take the original 1896 charter members on one side:

Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Nebraska

Okay...not really.

Probably North/South (though I wouldn't call it North/South):

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Nebraska

I guess the more I think about it, the more I really am in favor of splitting Michigan and Ohio State without necessarily moving the game from the last game of the season. It is worth both the risk and reward in my mind to have them occasionally play in back-to-back weeks (it isn't going to happen all the time, so when it does it will just add to the rivalry).

enigmaax

enigmaax;462548 wrote:I wouldn't go to divisions to begin with. I would use the divisional scheduling theory (you have to do something), but I would not create divisions. Then, if we wanted a title game, I'd take the two best teams. The same risk of having back-to-back games between the same teams for the title is there, but I'd be willing to take that chance to ensure the two best teams play for the title.

If I had to make a divisional choice, I might take the original 1896 charter members on one side:

Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Nebraska

Okay...not really.

Probably North/South (though I wouldn't call it North/South):

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Nebraska

I guess the more I think about it, the more I really am in favor of splitting Michigan and Ohio State without necessarily moving the game from the last game of the season. It is worth both the risk and reward in my mind to have them occasionally play in back-to-back weeks (it isn't going to happen all the time, so when it does it will just add to the rivalry).

FatHobbit

I can agree to disagree. I still think it's a horrible idea to mess with something that has worked so well for so long.

enigmaax;462548 wrote:
Probably North/South (though I wouldn't call it North/South):

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Nebraska

You just know those southern teams would never want to play in the northern stadiums. They couldn't handle the cold.

enigmaax

Ha ha...indeed.

enigmaax

georgemc80;460929 wrote: OSU/UM
Army/Navy
Auburn/Alabama
UT/ATM
Fla/Ga
USC/UCLA
Duke/UNC
Harvard/Yale
Pitt/WVU

just to name a few better rivalries in no particular order

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5498692

Ha ha...here's one I guess we can all share a laugh about. The article is about Iowa and Wisconsin being in separate divisions (someone else posted the link on another thread). One of the comments demonstrates how perspective can be completely different depending on where you are:

"personally i don't think it is that big of a rival. just because iowa shares a border with wisconsin doesn't make it an important rival. right now penn state vs iowa is the best "rivalry" in the big ten. as an iowa fan keeping minnesota as the last scheduled game each year is more important than wisconsin every year. "

purple_rein

It is obvious at this point that the divisions will be:

Ohio State
Penn State
Indiana
Purdue
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Michigan
Michigan State
Nebraska
Iowa
Northwestern
Illinois

I am assuming that the plan is for the last week of the season to be in-division rivalry week. That would put us against Penn State and Michigan against Michigan State.

If we make enough of a stink, I hope the Big Ten considers just swapping those games. Make the last week The Game plus Michigan State vs Penn State and all the other rivalries.

It is just funny how they seem to be preserving every rivalry except The Game.

krambman

purple_rein;462964 wrote:It is just funny how they seem to be preserving every rivalry except The Game.

This is what I don't understand. All along the reasoning they've been giving for splitting up OSU and Michigan is because their game has so often been for the Big Ten Championship that they want to still give them the opportunity to play for the championship in the title game. I thought that if you were going to split that rivalry for the purposes of a possible rematch that you would have to give other rivals the same opportunity, and split Purdue and Indiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Illinois and Northwestern (and probably Penn State and Michigan State, and Iowa and Nebraska). This would make it so that everyone's protected cross over game would be their arch rival. However, apparently the Big Ten feels like doing away with the biggest rivalry in sports in favor of preserving every other traditional season-ending rivalry.

dwccrew

Ghmothwdwhso;461135 wrote:"Bolded".. That's what it takes for OSU to go on a streak. UM went on a streak when OSU was pretty good. Just check the record for the last 1/4 century.

I believe OSU beat pretty good UM teams in 2001 (OSU was underdog), 2002, 2004 (OSU was underdog), 2005 (OSU was underdog), 2006 (Michigan unbeaten #2) and 2007 (winner of the game was conference champ). The only seasons UM was not very good were 2008 and 2009.

Michigan fans can rationalize all they want, but the reason OSU has had the edge of the last decade is because the Ohio pipeline of players to Michigan has been shutoff by one, Jim Tressel.

Archive

Michigan/OSU rivalry in jeopardy?