JoePa: Not Delaney's biggest fanJoe Pa got it started popping off about how the conference goes "into hiding for six weeks" thanks to the lack of a 12th member and subsequent conference championship game but Jim Delaney had the last word - for now - offering a slippery retort as to why that issue is currently on the "back burner".
This, of course, prompted much discussion yesterday as to which team the conference should add and why. Personally, I find myself in the somewhat unenviable position of agreeing with Delaney's decision, even if for entirely selfish and different reasons.
Considering I seem to be in the minority, I keep asking myself what I'm missing here? I'm pretty sure the majority of sports blog readers are looking at this largely from a football, and to a lesser degree, basketball standpoint and when I form my opinion focusing on the bread and butter known as football - specifically OSU football - I don't see the benefit of adding a 12th team. I think we can all agree Delaney, university presidents and athletic directors look at the issue through a much wider lens but let's put that stuff on the 'back burner' for now and look at a few reasons why adding a 12th team is unnecessary.
Which Team is Really A Good Fit? If the move isn't vital to the success of the conference, and it isn't, what's the point of adding a school if they aren't a slam dunk? I get adding Penn State. You get Joe Pa. You get a historically relevant football program and one big ass stadium, among other things. That makes sense.
I keep reading the Notre Dame talk but why would they join a conference? They have a sweetheart TV deal and the inside track to a BCS bowl. I haven't checked their balance sheet but I'm guessing they aren't desperate for scratch, either. So, if not a powerhouse program (historically, not currently), then who is worthy?
I'm reading names like Pitt, West Virginia, Rutgers. Seriously, Rutgers? We've already got a Rutgers, at least a midwestern version that plays in Bloomington. Honestly, Pitt and WVU wouldn't be bad choices, they do compete in both major sports but why would schools like OSU and Penn State be excited about adding a team in such close proximity to their campuses? I say no thanks.
The Football Season Ends Too Soon There's no doubt the conference teams stink up the bowl season - I want to say I heard Hooley quote a record of 15-28 in the last 43 games - but doesn't the honest fan believe an overall lack of talent, bad match ups, inferior top-to-bottom coaching and games played against southern teams in their climate comfort zone are just as viable 'excuses' as the season ending in November?
Plus, with the upcoming change pushing back the end of the conference season isn't this argument at least somewhat tempered? If that's not good enough then maybe the conference can slowly phase in another bye week. That could even give the teams an opportunity to stay healthy.
Lastly, Joe Pa's whole argument about the conference going into hiding in December and essentially becoming an afterthought nationally is pretty much useless commentary when you consider the Big Ten has placed at least two teams in the BCS bowls in 8 of 11 seasons. Are we sure that's going into hiding?
But We Need A Conference Championship Game The other conferences do make a ton of money marketing their championship tilts but at what cost? I'm sure some of you will insist this is simply me wanting to duck opponents but what's the point of playing an extra game and increasing your chances of falling victim to an upset when one loss can ruin your season if you truly don't have to? In most cases, an undefeated Big Ten team is going to find themselves in the title game whether the rest of the country likes it or not. Knowing that, I'd just as soon play one less game. Call it what you want.
Finally, and selfishly once again, adding a 12th team puts a huge damper on the meaning of The Game, ie. the first or second greatest rivalry in all of sports. I can't imagine OSU v. Michigan not being the climax to the end of the conference season. I've heard all the different arguments - putting them in the same division, opposite divisions etc - I don't want to hear it. The Game is the The Game. Please don't mess with it. Ever.
So there you have it. Now it's your turn to let me have it. Why is adding a team the right move?
Comments
CHRIS YOU ARE A BIG FATTY DUMB DUMB HEAD
actually i agree with you, i just wanted to let you have it
The Game will still matter. The Game is The Game, as you say.
Yes, it will still matter. But it will matter less. I'm with Chris on that, the only way I'd go for a 12th is with Notre Dame and even then I'm not a huge fan of the idea.
"The Game is the The Game. Please don’t mess with it. Ever."
Chris, this is as short-sighted as saying we need to save GM and Ford. I understand that among things like Tradition, there are a bevy of reasons why things should stay the same. However, regardless of whether The Game is truly the final Game of the regular season, the rivalry will still exist. Let's take a look at a few rivalries that live strong:
1) Florida-Florida State - The SEC Championship game rolls ahead regardless... and there's no love lost down in the Sunshine State because there's another game after this one...
2) Auburn-Alabama - ditto UF/FSU
3) North Carolina - Duke (basketball). Dickie V will be the first to coin this the best rivalry in college sports... And they play MULTIPLE times each year.. Hrmm...
4) NYYankees v. BoSox - See reason #3.
So whoopdie-do, there's another game AFTER The Game. That doesn't change the importance, nor does it change the fact that our scarlet blood boils around Thanksgiving for a week. Students will still be plunging into Mirror Cesspool, I mean, Mirror Lake...
Also, re: your use of the word "Climax"... Who says there can't be Round 2?
with a conference championship 2006 wouldn't of been what it was.
And if you were there, there will never be another game to compare to it.
I totally disagree with you.
I understand your arguments and you are mostly right. ND would be a great add to the conference, but you are right, why would they leave the sweet deal they currently have. They have a bowl game locked up every year, tons of money, a tv deal, and the offensive genius. How'd they get so lucky. Prayers I guess.
But Pitt and WVU would be perfect adds. We should welcome the competition, not shy from it. Saying why would we want to add a school so close is to avoid confrontation, isn't it? It can only make us stronger. Yes we would likely get fewer good recruits and thus be less great. But the recruits that do come would have to play against those other schools with the other good recruits and would be better in the aggregate.
The time off every year kills us. We get stale. We get fat. We get forgotten in the rankings. Another bye would help. They are tempering this problem with those fixes, but a 12th team and a championship game would elevate our playing, keep us fit, and get us huge exposure.
And I get saying it will deminish The Game, but trust me it won't. I don't and won't hate Michigan any less when the game isn't for the Big Ten title. On the rare year where The Game is "meaningless" aka neither of us are going to win or already have the conference title locked up, do you watch it any less interested? Do you cheer less to kill the wolverwienies? I don't. And what about the possible rematches? Can you imagine beating them twice in a year? (But I guess it would suck to lose to them twice in a year.....ha, like that would ever happen).
I'm also thinking about a great championship game setting between the Big Ten North and South champs on a snowy cold day in Columbus/Madison/Happy Valley/East Lansing/Ann Arbor. I suppose a neutral site like in Indy would be cool too or Ford Field.
Don't shy away from this because it would make our season harder and longer. That's taking the easy route and is frankly pussy and not tOSU. What Would Woody Do?
I say we shock the hell out of Joe Pa and kick Penn St. out - make it 10 teams again.
my feeling is that a conference championship game can be both a blessing and a curse. What if OSU is #2 in the BCS after beating Michigan and then has to play in the conference championship game against Michigan state (who they beat previously in the season).. OSU is 11-1 Mich State is 9-3 and Michigan State pulls the upset.
Now OSU is out of the NC game, the Big-11 has no rep in the NC game and Mich State goes to the Rose Bowl with a worse record than OSU. This Scenario has happened in the Big-12 (Colorado over Nebraska) and the Big-Least (Pitt over West Virginia)..........
The conference championship game waters down the meaning of the regular season..... 9-3 is good enough to win your 'Division' and all you have to do is get lucky on one game and you win the conference--- not a great way to determine a conference champion. I say that the Big-11 should find a way to play a full-conference schedule and get 2 crap Non-conference games off the schedules... add in 2 bye weeks and finish in Mid-December--the OSU-Michigan game can still be the last weekend of the season... play it the week of, or week before the conference championships in the big-12, SEC, and Big Least.
If we must add a 12th Team, I like Rutgers (not sure they would move) because that expands the recruiting base to the east coast and I like Missouri (not sure they would move either) because it puts Texas more into play.
I agree with the dropping the nonconference games. The PAC-10's round robin format is a much fairer system than any sort of division-based championship.
Look at the Big 12 last year. Their three best teams (3 of the best in the country) were all in the southern division, and all one loss teams. So you have to pick one at random to go beat up on poor 9-3 Mizzou and the championship game is completely meaningless in terms of choosing the best team in the conference.
If you can't beat a 9-3 team, you don't deserve to win the NC. Win all your games and you have no gripe. Lose and you shouldn't complain because it was your own damn fault you're not in the NC game.
Ohio State and the Big Ten are in a sweet spot that makes them eligible for better bowl games then they should be in by avoiding a championship game in the conference. I don't think the conference or a large number of coaches will want to change that.
not so easy to say,,,, I get your point, put it is REALLY hard to go undefeated in today's NCAA football. I still say that the PAC-10 way is the best, each team plays all others in the conference and the one who wins the most games, wins. Ties then go to head to head, no quirky formulas or Ties (last year OSU and PSU). This seems the most fair and gets the strongest team into a bowl game.
I proposed a 12-team conference yesterday but I personally think the Big Ten is perfect the way it is...except for its name. C'mon guys, there are 11 teams in the conference. Don't make yourselves look like idiots.
If for some reason the Big Ten gets a 12th team and they don't change the name of the conference, then I will have to protest the conference and all its games until they do.
And I can't stand conference championship games. They are meaningless games 95% of the time. Take last year's SEC Championship Game as an example. Alabama was 12-0. Florida was 11-1. If I'm not mistaken, 12-0 beats 11-1. Why on earth does Alabama have to play another game to decide the conference championship?
Or about about the Big 12 Championship game. What if a 9-3 Missouri beat an 11-1 Oklahoma? Missouri would be the Big 12 Champion? That is ridiculous.
Now I understand if there are two teams with the exact same record in the conference. But if the teams played each other during the season, then the winner of that game should be crowned champion.
6 easy steps for determining a conference champion:
1.) If there are two undefeated teams in a conference, then play the championship game.
2.) Overall Wins/Losses. if one team has a better record than everyone else in the conference, then they are the champs.
3.) If two teams have the same record and are not undefeated, then the winner of the head-to-head match up is the conference champ.
4.) if two teams have the same record but didn't play each other and are not undefeated, then looks at common opponents. Case in point, Florida lost to Ole Miss but Alabama beat them.
5.) If two teams have the same record, didn't play each other, are not undefeated, and their losses are not to common opponents, then look at conference affiliation. If one team lost to a conference opponent and the other team didn't, then the team that is undefeated in conference play is crowned the champion.
6.) If none of the above is true and you still have two teams with the same record, then play the championship game.
And no more shared titles (I'm looking at you Big East, Big Ten and Pac 10)!!! There is no sharing in competitive sports! Who wants to go to a sporting event and watch two teams or two individuals play to a tie? That is soooo disatisfying. Play until their is a winner.
I'm sorry but Penn State, and Penn State alone, deserved the Big Ten title this past year. 11-1 PSU vs 10-2 OSU. The numbers don't lie.
Amen.
Great game...but OSU didn't finish what they started so it leaves a bittersweet taste in my mouth. The 2002 UM/OSU game is much more satisfying than the 2006 version.
yes... you are very correct, but why not take out 2 crappy Non-conference games (YSU, Ohio U., Toledo, Akron, Central Michigan, Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan, North Dakota State, etc....) and add the 2 conference teams that rotate out and 2 bye weeks.... that gets all 11 teams playing each other (I think) and moves the last week of the Big-10 season to mid December. Gets the Big 10 on TV at the end and less time off before the bowl game (I think this is the cause for so many losses). This would be easy to implement, and has no downsides other than taking away sure butt-kickings.....
I totally agree. I think every team should play all their conference opponents. Each Big Ten team plays 10 in-conference games and 2 out-of-conference games (At least one should be against a BCS opponent--wink wink PENN STATE)
I also like the idea of throwing the non-conference games in random spots thoroughout the season. Don't have them all at the beginning of the year. Make USC travel to Columbus in November.
Ask Oklahoma and Nebraska how that worked out for their rivalry....
Disregard my Penn State comment...they play Syracuse this year.
I can get behind this idea. I agree with the stupidity of a 9-3 division champ playing an undefeated division champ. But that's what makes college football great. Every game counts. Win or you are done. It is hard to go undefeated and be the National Champ, but those who win, earned it. If winning were easy, everyone would do it.
To me, the Game should have major implications just like a couple of years ago when it was #1 vs. #2. Most of the time, this game has major implications over the outcome of the Big 10 and it should. So, to have them in 2 different divisions would preserve that. I couldn't imagine there being a championship game in the Big 10 and not at least have the possibility of these 2 teams playing eachother.
That being said, I do not want a conference championship game. I don't think it's important for these 2 to end the season against eachother, but I do hate the idea that they might play 2 times a season. That is what makes this rivalry so great. What satisfaction do you get over beating your rival, when 2 weeks later they turn around and beat you. That is what can happen with Duke UNC. The Red Sox/Yankees are a huge rival but it's more about who can win the division. ESPN has built their regular season games in April a big deal.
I think it would cheapen the OSU/Michigan game if you put them in different divisions where they could play 2 times a year. Also, it's reduces it's significance if you have them in the same division and the conference can't be decided by the outcome of that game.
Not to mention, the conference championship game does nothing but make money for the conference and schools. Was Missouri really the #2 team in the Big 12 last year? Absolutely not, but they were the ones playing for a chance at the BCS which would have knocked either Oklahoma or Texas from the BCS. I don't think conference championship game does much for teams but risk injury and give a greater chance of getting upset.
love the idea, but schools control scheduling... you would NEVER see that... PETE would decline.
True, it was unbelievable to charge the field in 2002, that whole season everyone was just in shock and disbelief.
but 2006, as a stand alone, 1 v 2, 250000 people showing up to columbus, the amazing half time show, Troy Smith sealing the heisman, Schembechler dying right before.
Out of all the colleges in the united states, No other single rivalry game was bigger than that one.
LOL
Hell yeah, add another conference game or two.
I would give my first born to see Florida or USC in the shoe the first saturday in november.
I'd pray for that 3:30 kick off where it's gray, 30 degrees and sleeting a bit, turning to 15 degrees and snow blowing around in the second half.
See what they think then of running it between the tackles.
All the talk about "hiding in December" will be moot when the BCS expands into a 16-team playoff. Call me an incurable optimist, but I'm certain that it will eventually happen.
i agree with what you say about ND. they will only join a conference when/if there is a playoff. also, even if there isn't a playoff in the near future look for them to join say the big 10 because im not going to be surprised if this congressional testimony forces the BCS to reallocate how they distribute the money involved.
There is no need for a 12th team, just add another bye week into the mix, USC had 2 bye weeks last year, so did ND and Florida. That first Saturday of December should be OSU/Michigan at noon, SEC title game at 3:30 and Big 12 title game at 8. The ACC title game is so worthless, it doesn't need to be shown.
I say we play our 4 non-conference games throughout the year all the way to the last weekend for college football in December and invite the gators to the shoe for that bitterly cold game in December and watch the elements eat them alive!!!
Lets be honest, the big10 won't add a team unless it is a financial slam dunk. They wouldnt hesitate to add ND right this very second, its just that no other teams in the region have anything to offer close to what ND does. So lets not pretend it is an absolutely preposterous idea.
The fact is, it would only help. Yea, outside of ND, the positives wouldnt be too overwhelming, but nonetheless, it would ONLY help.
i 2nd this motion.
frozen gators? i bet they taste delicious with a side of hater tots.
Um.
Ohio State doesn't play games in December in Ohio.
The Buckeyes do, however, play games in November. And the Gators do, however, play games as far north as Kentucky in November. So is the weather in northern Kentucky much different from the weather in Central Ohio come December? Probably not.
The Gators would still probably torch us if the game were in Columbus. Of course, they'd torch about every other team on their home field as well, so there is no shame in this.
All are valid points. So if nothing can be agreed upon, let's drop the meaningless games against teams like San Diego St. and play a round robin in the Big Ten. That way there are no more shared titles and The Game becomes nothing but stronger...
Maybe they would, but their offensive production is not as good when they play in bad weather. Their defense won them both national titles anyway....
If there is anyone out there that likes to talk about the X's and O's to football and likes high powered offenses then read this Offensive analysis on the Gator's. its quite long but honestly it points out to why teams have such a hard time defending their offense.
http://smartfootball.blogspot....
I am a true Buckeye fan who would love for Tressel to adopt a similar offensive strategy.
JoePa is saying the Big Ten is an afterthought because his squad was also a 1-loss team last year but was never considered for the national championship.
You could just put them in the same division of the conference. Make it the last game of the regular season. Still maintains a high level of importance by most likely determining who goes to the conference championship, and they would never have to play each other twice.
True, but then they will never play each other in what is supposed to be the biggest game of the conference season. Seems lame.
If you think it will matter, just look at what happenned to the Oklahoma Nebraska rivalry. They put them in separate divisions with dreams of year after year rivalry matchups in the B12 championship game. But all they did really was kill the once great rivalry.
NONE of these games compare to OSU v Michigan. Sorry.
Those two schools still play yearly despite sitting in different Big 12 divisions. I think Osborne's retirement had more to do with that rivalry losing some of its luster than the conference title game.
See below -- I put that more on Osborne's retirement than anything else.
They do not play every year. They play a one-and-one and then do not play for two years. Could you imaging going 2 years without The game?
http://www.huskers.com/SportSe...
You're right. I thought they played yearly, but next year they don't. Still I can't imagine a scenario coming up in the Big Ten should it move to 12 teams where OSU and Michigan wouldn't meet yearly.
I was there. And it was great. And we won. And we would have kicked their butts the next week again and I would have been there and that would have been great too. Only thing better than beating them once is beating them twice.
The BCS voters after our 1 vs. 2 matchup. I guarentee the country led by ESecPN will find a way to screw the eventuall confrence winner.
which is the only reason JoePa ever has and ever will open his mouth about anything...
dude is old and revered, i know. but he has been an opportunistic whiner his entire career - especially as he has gotten older.
for example: http://www.cbssports.com/colle...
I guess I should read everything before I post.
Smart Football might be the best thing on the internet right about now.
No one was impressed with PSU's win over us, thats why they weren't considered for the title game.
2009 prediction: This will be U. Meyer's last year at UF, leaving to take over at Notre Dame. Thus making Notre Dame the shit again.
Love it or hate it, Meyer is a hell of a coach.
What so yall have a chance?
I agree with you on the latter part, but re: the first - do you have any statistics? And what offense doesn't struggle in bad weather?
I mean, our offense barely looks functional when it's sunny and 80.
What is a yall?
Intercollegiate Division Faculty Rep Division
Ohio State Penn State
Michigan Pitt
Michigan State Iowa
Illinois Minnesota
Indiana Northwestern
Purdue Wisconsin
This seems reasonably balanced competitively, keeps the most number of historical rivalry games intact ( sorry Little Brown Jug) and is better than a mindless east/west or north south split. Just schedule OSU/Mich PSU/Pitt Indiana/Pudue, Iowa/Minnesota as the last week of the season. Secondary rivalry games such as Minnesota/ Wisconsin, Michigan /Michigan State and Ohio State/Illinois would also be intact.
Oops the spacing did not work out. read down for the contents of each division.
[Censored] adding a 12th team. Kick one of the teams out. It's the Big [Censored]ing Ten.
I agree with you entirely that Meyer is a great coach. I love Tressel and all but If i had my pick, I would have Meyer as our head coach. I love how he runs his system and I think to a competitive advantage he wins a lot of games with it.
The problem with Olentangy's Divisions (and it holds no matter who the 12th team is, AND no matter how you slice up the divisions) is that it destroys too many important matchups - not to get all "traditionalist", but it wouldn't be recognizable as the same conference anymore.
Take the Intercollegiate/Faculty Rep proposal above, keeping the eight-game conference season intact - do Penn State and/or Wisconsin rotate off OSU's schedule for at least THREE years at a time, or do we preserve those "big-boy" games and only play Pitt/Iowa/Minnesota/Northwestern once every four years? Either option is unacceptable to me, and adding a ninth game doesn't do enough to fix this.
The only reason this is seen as a problem right now is because of the BCS - and, following on that, the fact that the bullshit irrational fatally flawed human polls have any direct influence on who ends up playing in it. This is why the high-profile conference championships and later games are seen to be potentially harmful to Big Ten champions' BCS prospects. But this system isn't going to be around forever.
A better solution for the Big 10 right now would be to add a ninth conference game and on a year-by-year basis have the bottom two or three (somebody besides me is going to have to do the math to see how many teams it would take) finishers be the ones who rotate off the others' schedules the following year. While it's not quite a round-robin, it will certainly cut way down on the chances that there'll be "co-champs" with identical records that haven't played each other (the extra game will also decrease somewhat the chances that any two teams will finish with identical records). Combine that with a bye week or two that pushes The Game (and other Big Ten BCS contenders' last games) into the same time frame as the high-profile conference championships, and that'll be enough to combat the media- and poll-driven hits (which feed on each other) that our champs take until the BCS goes away.
please don't make me sit through a Rutgers-Northwestern game on BTN.
settled. let's do this for now. should we start in 09 or 2010?
The reason to add a 12th team/championship game is to possibly avoid the doomsday scenario for the B10 if a one loss SEC or B12 team were to jump an undefeated B10 team. ESPN talked about it a ton last year when PSU was undefeated. This single event would "officially" move the B10 to second tier status in terms of conferences (along with the PAC10....third tier being Big East/ACC).
Just please beat USC.
just don't watch it. Are you telling me that you watch the Northwestern-Indiana game every year?
There can be ties in the PAC-10 way, just like there is in the Big 10 way. If you recall, if Oregon State beat Oregon last year, they would have had the same PAC-10 record as USC, but would have had the head-to-head tiebreaker (just like PSU had over OSU). Also, head-to-head pretty much negates "ties", even though the Big 10 for some reason insists on allowing "co"-champions in such situations.
The biggest difference is that you wouldn't have teams tied that didn't play each other (like is possible in the Big 10), but the possibility could arise where 3 teams are tied, and each beat a team that beat a team that beat them (like the Big 12 south last year).
So yeah, it is a better model, but still not perfect.
are you saying that you think we'd lose bowl tie-ins if we had a conference game? How so?
JoePa has been arguing for a college football playoff since the 60s. He has 4 undefeated teams, with only 1 National Championship to show for it (the other NC came from a 1-loss team).
He's also always complained about the refs, so not exactly sure where the "opportunistic" part comes about. Heck, he's even complained about bad officiating, even when it has been in his favor.
As for opening his mouth, well he seems to talk quite a bit, just not about any "inside info" on PSU football.
St. Joe the Lion, apparently.
Why does everyone want to add a team? I say we DROP a team. The Big Ten. Play 9 conference games and it's fair and square.
See you later Northwestern, you can join the MAC.
Pitt would be a good fit. Notre Dame will never leave NBC or I'd say they might work. Cincy could work and it would be nice to shut their fans up.
Rutgers is not like Indiana.