Change, whether we like it or not, is coming to the Big Ten Conference. Jim Delany
announced earlier this week that in the next 120 days (and maybe way sooner) the conference will look to finalize divisional alignments and select a location for the first ever Big Ten Championship Game. While the actual alignments and location are the subject of debate for all 12 of the teams that will play in the conference next year, only two teams can quarrel about history being changed.
Those two teams are Ohio State and Michigan, who take part in the greatest rivalry in the sport each and every year. Historically, "The Game" usually serves as the deciding factor in terms of who will take the conference crown, who will earn a trip to the Rose Bowl, and sometimes, who will either get a chance to play for the crystal.
"The Game" has been the season finale for both teams since 1935, and that is about to change. The Big Ten Championship will be held a week after this gridiron classic and will forever change the impact that the rivalry has on the conference in one way or another. Until we know the divisional alignments, and even then, the impact the game will now have on the conference will not be cut and dry, but what we can speculate is the different effects certain alignment options will have on the rivalry.
Rob Oller did a great job yesterday of breaking down the
various options for "The Game" in the new-look Big Ten, but today we'll take a shot of putting forth our own analysis of the possible scenarios the rivalry will take on in the coming years. We'll look at the pros of each option, the cons of each option, and finally give you our pick for which situation we feel is best to keep the tradition and history alive in the Ohio State-Michigan Rivalry.
OPTION 1: Same Division and Play the Last Game of the Year
Pros: Just like in past years, the game remains the last regular season game, giving both teams a chance to find themselves throughout the season and bring their best football to the table. The game will still have a large impact on the conference as it will have a good chance of annually deciding the Big Ten East (or whatever they will call it) winner and send one of the two teams on o the league championship game.
Cons: The game will no longer be the season finale and won't outright decide who the conference champion is right then and there. After beating each other up on the field, the winner will have to come out again the next week and play a solid Nebraska, Wisconsin, or Iowa team for the conference title. After giving it their all, emotionally and physically, on Thanksgiving weekend, will the winer have enough in the tank to avoid a championship game upset?
OPTION 2: Same Division, but Play the Game in the Middle of the Year
Pros: Texas and Oklahoma are in this model and it seems to work out OK for them. A loss in this game allows either team to rebound and come back to win the conference, and possibly even salvage MNC hopes.
Cons: This model takes away from the importance of the rivalry, as the unknown of the effects of the result diminishes the stakes at hand. The fact that a team can lose this game and still make the championship or win the conference is a bit bothersome and the place of this rivalry being the greatest in sports history will slowly fade away. Look at the rivalry games played mid-season compared to the rivalry games played at the end of the season. Which ones are on that pedestal of great rivalries in your eyes?
OPTION 3: Different divisions, but Play Annually, Anyway
Pros: The game would be played yearly and would still have an effect on conference record, thus still possibly determining the participants of the championship game. The possibility is also there for the teams to play again in the championship game, as winners of each of the two divisions. This can be both good and bad (more to come in the Cons section), but it would be really cool to see these two teams go at it twice in one season and the 2011 Buckeyes could be the first team to earn two sets of gold pants in one year.
Cons: The potential to play twice in one season takes away some the importance of the regular season game between the two. While one or both of the teams may be in a must-win situation in the regular season classic to earn a spot in the championship game, the chances are also there that the division winners already clinched a spot in the finale. Another problem with this scenario is the unfairness of a possible championship game re-match. If OSU beat Michigan in Ann Arbor and then a week later lost to them on neutral turf, is that fair to the Buckeyes that Michigan gets to go to the Rose Bowl? I certainly don't think so and neither does the BCS committee, thus the reason they chose Florida to play the Buckeyes in the MNC a few years back.
What's the Right Call?
If it were up to us (and Delany said he'd call us), we would somehow find a way to kill off divisions and let OSU and Michigan determine the conference championship every year. That just isn't feasible and if we have to choose one of the options, we might as well pick the lesser of three evils. The first option allows for the game to remain the regular season finale, sets up the best chance for this game to determine the winner of the division, and is the best choice to retain as much of the history and tradition of the rivalry as possible. Further, we'd avoid the awkward situation where the teams could potentially meet twice to end the season. If we had to guess today, this is the way the Big Ten will go, with Option 2 taking away the importance of "The Game" and Option 3 potentially causing a ton of controversy.
Comments
That is some firey red hair. Geez!
I prefer Option 1. "The Game" is still the last regular season game for us. It would still likely determine who wins our division. Then we'd go to the BT championship game. Then the BCS national championship (Yes, every year. It could happen). It would be nice if there was a week off in between our last regular season game and the BTCG, to give us a chance to sleep off the bloodlust and adrenaline cocktails we drink during "The Game."
BTW, what are the odds TP (HSiC) stays just to win the 1st ever BTCG?
Option 1 for sure. Since we've not yet experienced it, I think it's easy to underrate the cool factor of a Thanksgiving weekend game. Can it really get any better than cold turkey sandwiches and The Game on every TV in central Ohio?
How many times since 1993 has "The Game" been the league championship. And I mean that in the pure sense: BOTH teams walk on the field and the winner goes to the Rose Bowl. (I make this clarification because too often I hear things like "the championship is at stake" when ONE team could win and go to the Rose Bowl, but a win by the underdog means neither go...this is not a "de facto championship game")
I had no idea that Coop was married to Cher.
Option 1, please.
none of the above..... I hate conference Champ games and I think the weaken the League. Imagine OSU winning the East undefeated and ranked #1 and Wisconsin winning the West with 2 losses and ranked # 10. Now imagine Wisconsin winning the game ..... OSU still ranked ahead of Wisconsin, but Wisconsin wins the league and goes to the guaranteed BCS game. That puts a weaker team in a tougher game...... doesnt represent the league well at all. Why not forget the Champ. Game and just play a round robin schedule??? Best record takes the league??
"The fact that a team can lose this game and still make the championship or win the conference is a bit bothersome"
Um, that can happen whether it's the first game of the season or the last, or any in between for that matter (like last season...)
I'm with you, PBB. I wrote as much back when expansion was first announced but got killed for it. The majority of fans clearly love the idea of a championship game but I remain against it.
Option 1 for sure. Potentially playing Michigan twice a year would diminish The Game over time, possibly even approaching the Duke-North Carolina rivalry where they play at least twice every year.
http://backporch.fanhouse.com/2010/08/04/nick-swisher-did-not-need-tim-tebows-help-when-he-proposed/?icid=main|main|dl3|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fbackporch.fanhouse.com%2F2010%2F08%2F04%2Fnick-swisher-did-not-need-tim-tebows-help-when-he-proposed%2F
Funny Tebow/ Swisher story
My vote - Option 1.
"After giving it their all, emotionally and physically, on Thanksgiving weekend, will the winer have enough in the tank to avoid a championship game upset?"
Tangent: I think you meant to say winner, but I suppose if scUM ever beats tOSU again, we can call them the winers....
But my counterpoint to your Con above is simply that a lot of teams do it every year (in what sEcSPN calls Rivarly Week) prior to their respective Conference Championship games...
> Oklahoma v. Oklahoma St.
> Florida v. Florida State
> Alabama v. Auburn
> Georgia v. Georgia Tech
> Clemson v. South Carolina (after the post-game fight, one of my new favorite rivalries)
I also agree with Tim's point above about playing scUM twice in a year diminishing The Game...
Whatever happens, I pray that the tie-breakers are a lot cleaner, logical and fair than they are in the Small 12....
I understand the comparison to the OU-Texas game, but the comparison is of limited utility because the powers that be did not structure the timing of that game according to the Big 12 championship divisions. The Red River Shootout (now the Rivalry, thanks to SBC communications) has been played on that particular Saturday in October since 1932, at the Texas state fair. The Big 12 divisions and/or championship game had no impact on the timing of the game and no impact on its tradition. Like the Red River game, OSU and Michigan have played the Game as their last game of the season, in November, since 1935.
Given that we already have divisions coming down the line, I believe that Option 1 is the only Option. It hadn't occurred to me, however, that the OSU-Michigan winner would have to play the champ-game immediately following the Game. One way to balance that negative affect would be to force Nebraska and Wisky to play their game on the same day as the OSU-Michigan game. That could offset any advantage between the teams that are facing a post-rivalry game exhaustion effect, as I'd wager that these four teams would most often contend for the championship game (assuming PSU is in the same division as OSU-Mich)
I get your point a la OSU losing to Illinois in 2007, but what I meant was for at least a decade this game has had some effect on the conference championship or NC for one team or both. It wouldn't seem right for the loser to reap the benefits from solely a osu-um standpoint. There's a reason why people say the seasons a failure if you're 11-1 but your one loss is to michigan.
Your post presumes that Michigan will actually be good again on a consistent basis.
That is incorrect. I think the '01 game was Thanksgiving weekend and it was HORRIBLE. It totally killed the atmosphere you typically have on campus during M*ch*g*n Week. You had a short week to begin with plus a lot of the out of state students left early. I remember the logistical headaches of trying to figure out when the Mirror Lake jump would be since it obviously wouldn't be happening on Thursday. I think the jump that year consisted of about 3 people. I think moving the game to Thanksgiving Weekend and not the addition of a Championship Game, is what will most diminish the impact of The Game.
For starters: it's going to be worth $10-$15M
More often than not, the CCG means more meaningful games and a more exciting season for all teams involved, that's why there is support for it.
No CCG means 8 conference games and 3 missed opponents...it just doesn't work. We've already had enough problems with missing two teams, missing three would cause more issues than the occasional upset in the CCG.
Win your games and this is by far the best system.
It has happened on Thanksgiving a couple of times - 1995 maybe? I remember I watched the first 11 (victorious) games of the season on my brand new 27" TV in my dorm room, and had to watch the UM game at my grandparent's place, and when things turned sour, of course I blamed the TV.
Don't kid yourself into thinking they won't....RR will get fired eventually and they'll hire Harbaugh who will put them on the map of significance again
Option #1
Nice combo of his 'Gray' and hers 'not-quite Scarlet'.
Define more often than not.
No one watches the ACC championship. The closest things to meaningful games in the Big 12 championship were when Oklahoma knocked Missouri out of the National Championship in 2007 (and then got slaughtered in their bowl game) and when a three-loss Nebraska team nearly did the same to Texas last year.
Essentially, what everyone means is that the SEC has had good championship games, therefore we should have a championship game. I personally would argue that this has been luck. If Nick Saban stayed in Miami then the SEC championship game the last two years is a blowout win by Florida over LSU.
first off eff the scum! the game is too special and too big to be moved or given a chance to be played again the next week. my opinion is this is the first year they are full time scheduling the game after thanksgiving so remove the late season bye end the regular season as 2009 before thanksgiving give the conference a bye week of thanksgiving also it gives give fans an opprotunity to make travel plans, teams a chance to get healthy and recover from the biggest game of the year etc.
sorry should also have said option #1 and eff that crazy old man at penn state as well
Alex, I don't understand why you didn't present option #4: different divisions, but playing the Game earlier in the season. This option negates your cons for playing Michigan in consecutive games. Though it isn't my preferred option, the following site presents some good arguments for that scenario, like increased TV revenues for the conference: http://thepolesposition.com/
I prefer a straight east-west split of the conference, with OSU, Mich, MSU, Indiana, Purdue and Penn State in the East, because I think it's important to maintain local rivalries and to encourage fans to travel to games. So, I'd choose option #1, but I could see how option #4 has some attractions to it.
That's actually a photo from the presser held after his firing. Not a good day for the JHC.
option 1
At least the the last meaningful OSU v. UM Game will be played in the Shoe. All options above are the lesser of 2 evils. The magnitude of what is going to happen to the "The Game" will not be appearent right away, however given time "The Game" will be overshadowd by the BTC game. This makes me sick!
More like a brassy orange. Thats what you get from a box. Just sayin.
C'mon folks, this is riduclous. The last meaningful game? Yeah it's going to mean a lot when Michigan isn't bowl elligble again, and Ohio State probably has the Big 10 Championship locked up. Auburn/Bama is still HUGE, Florida/Georgia, even though it hasn't been competitive is still huge. Oklahoma/Texas, Texas/A&M, these games are still immensely important games that haven't been overshadowed by conference championships.
The game will always be huge to both schools, whether it's played in September or November. IF both schools are top 5 or neither is ranked. The game will never be diminished. I was one who thought it must only be played once a year, but now I'm even coming around on that stance. Anytime Ohio State and Michigan lock up it will be a big deal.
In addition to all this, I have to agree with an earlier poster who said since 93 how often has the game been winner to the Rosebowl or National championship anyway? I know tradition is important, but when these 2 schools lock up it's always going to be important. 2 of the top to all time winningest programs, with 2 of the largest fan bases in America, with all the history and tradition the game brings, it's always going to be meaningful.
Everyone is ragging on the CCG but no one is addressing the pitfalls of the alternative. So you're cool with having a situation where many of the
I mean look how the B12 and SEC schedules played out this year. Neb was one of the best teams in the Big 12, Texas should have to beak them to win the division and they didn't play regular season. Eliminate the CCG like you guys are saying and you have Fla and Bama who havn't played eachother. Would you rather have a bunch of awful tiebreakers to sort that out?
Comment FAIL but you get the idea.
Anyone?
Looks like 1997, 1998 (though Wiscy got the Rose Bowl bid because of longevity since going, and would have either way), 2003, 2006, and 2007 where the winner would have gone to the Rose Bowl/NC game.
Randy Edsall (don't laugh, but count how many times that is brought up when they play this year and UConn wins).
* actually UM would have gone to the Rose in 1998 with a win.
That is a great story, should be in Good Shizzy. The actual article references Ohio State:
http://www.floridatoday.com/ar...
Swisher is one of my favorite non-football playing Buckeyes
I have been to 'The Game' 28 times since 1978 (Missed a couple; and our record is 14-13-1 in Games I have seen). I will be there this year. I will be there next year - twice if need be. There are no perfect options here, but I vote for OPPOSITE divisions because the only thing better than beating them once is beating them twice. And 13 times I wanted just one more chance... one more chance. What OSU team over the past decade would have lost a rematch?
I would put one lay-up non conference game between the regular season Michigan finale and the conference championship (and add in another week off.) That would make OSU-mich the last regular B-10 game in mid-November followed by "Kent State" on Thanksgiving weekend, followed by an off week and then the B-10 championship. We'll be able to put everything on the line for michigan, recover and go back after Iowa, michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin or whoever for the crown.
Another idea not mentioned..... NO Divisions, add 2 more conference games + 2 non-conference games, best league record wins..... who cares if it is a split title?? Highest ranked team gets the automatic bid!
2001, 2002, 2003, maybe 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 if Hart/Henne got healthy (they did in the bowl game and beat UF), not 2008, not 2009.
For all the crap we give Michigan, the Game is always closely fought. Even when we had a Rose Bowl winning team last year, Forcier was doing some work on us in the nickel and dime passing game. We won that game because of the turnover battle. Bottom line, Michigan always plays us tough and I prefer playing them just once to not dilute the rivalry.
RE:Poll
I didn't take it as saying that Pryor would/could throw 30 times a game so much as he would call that many passing plays that may result in a pass or a improvised run by Kevin Durant In Cleats.(FULBJ)
1997 (um 7-0, osu 6-1, psu 6-1), 1998 (um 7-0 osu 6-1 wisc 6-1), 2000 (um 5-2, osu 5-2, pur 5-2, nw 5-2), 2003 (um 6-1, osu 6-1), 2006 (um 7-0, osu 7-0), 2007 (um 6-1, osu 6-1).
Only in 2003, 2006 and 2007 was the winner going to win the big ten solo, in 97, 98 and 2000 the winner won at least a share of the big ten. And since Ohio State didn't go to the rose bowl in 06 and 07 the jerk answer to your question is only in 2003. All records are in big ten play before the game was played.
Bingo. This is why option 2 doesn't bother me at all. It works for Texas-Ok and other rivalries.
I think it is natural to assume that the week after The Game there will be a let down, so to have it earlier in the season is the best way to prevent the letdown from effecting the winner's shot at a conference championship and whatever BCS bowl game (MNC or otherwise) that carries with it. If you schedule it right, the letdown would come against a non-conference team or a conference cupcake (Indiana, Northwestern, etc), where the letdown might be survivable.
The most important aspect for rivalry retention, imo, has nothing to do with expansion or divisional alignment. It is rather that the teams remain the elite representatives of the conference and stay competitive with each other. In an ideal world, imo, OSU would beat scUM by 1-7 points every year, and as a result, scUM would always finish with exactly 1 more loss than OSU (preferably 0 vs. 1).
Sorry max started my reply before yours posted. Oddly enough this list contains both a John Cooper win vs um and a Jim Tressel loss vs um.
I was thinking the same thing. She looks like Sweet Tooth from the Twisted Metal games.
But if the rivalry is NEVER for the B-10 championship, it is diluted.
(And we would have won 10 of 10 meetings last year)
None of the above. Messing with a perfect tradition is a bad idea. The championship game will be anti climatic half the time and may not generate any more money than having two teams in BCS bowls. It's not worth it.
Next up: Rotel stickers instead of Buckeyes leaves on the helmet.
Are camp check-in photos slow coming in? This is the one time of year where my fiance questions my heterosexuality (e.g. analyzing the muscle mass of other men).
Oh, I'm not saying that it's inherently a bad thing. I'm just saying that there are tradeoffs that those who prefer a championship seem to ignore. Mostly that you can either have easily have complete irrelevance (ACC) or the same round-robin type problem you have with the current Big Ten system if one division is significantly more stacked than the other (as seen in the Big 12).
There are no assurances that a divisional Big 10 championship game will work out as perfectly as the SEC game has, with the best two teams playing I think it will be largely luck whether it does or not, because no divisional grouping can foresee the fall of Michigan or a year like Illinois had in 2007.
Either way, you can end up with awful tiebreakers. Sometimes the championship game solves that problem. Sometimes it only means your conference champion get an extra pointless loss, possibly against a team that they already defeated earlier in the season.
Yeah, i'd have rather us added a round robin. More conference games.
But, how much fun is it going to be to go see the Buckeyes in a conference championship game in chicago.
I think you're missing my point. Last year, if we lost to Michigan, we still won the Big 10 and still would have gone to the Rose Bowl. The effect of the game doesn't change regardless of when you play it.
No worries, always good to have a second source, and I discounted 2000 because of hte 3 or 4 way tie.
I think the bigger point is, you have 5 (or 6) years out of 18, which is significant. I'd guess that the Texas-Oklahoma game is the only other rivalry that has had the same impact between teams in conference. It's what FSU-Miami was supposed to be before both programs tanked.
I like Option 1, but removing the bye week added into the season, and putting it between the last week of the season and the conference championship games.
Play the season so that the Big Ten rivalry games are all played the Saturday before Thanksgiving, take Thanksgiving Weekend off, and play the Conference Championship the first week of December, like all of the other CCGs.
The extra week off allows for the emotional energy of the big rivalry games to rebuild a little bit better than a single week, after which many teams are drained.
What dilutes a rivalry more than anything else? One team being irrelevant. That's why even though it's still a huge rivalry, people don't view Texas/A&M a great rivalry anymore. As long as both teams are relevant, which I believe Michigan will one day be again, the rivalry will not be dilluted. Again, how many games in the last 15-20 years did both teams have a shot at being big 10 champ because of the result of the game? There have been years where one team had a shot and it go spoiled, there have been years where one team had it locked up already.
Duke and Carolina basketball can play up to 4 times if you consider NCAA and ACC touneys and that rivalry is intact. I understand it's another sport, but it's often considered the rivalry that compares to the hate OHio State and Michigan have for eachother. There are many grea rivalries where the outcome doesn't mean a championship every time they play, or that play more than once a year. Just because it may be different than it once was, doesn't mean it's less signifcant.
But, in the end we'll probably have 2 teams in the BCS every year too, so you'll get that revenue plus revenue from a Big 10 Championship game.
I agree with Matt; OSU and scUM should be in the same division in order to avoid facing each other twice.
A round-robin schedule means 11 conference games. I wouldn't be opposed to this, but I'm sure the ADs would hate not having 3-4 guaranteed wins in a season.
That is the best option I have read. Keep OSU and MICH in the same division and have their last game against each other the weekend before Thanksgiving. Would be good for the players, and good for all of us scrambling for travel arrangements to either contest (should the Bucks make it into the CCG). This year's Thanksgiving weekend contest will cost out of state travelers 3 times as much as if it were the weekend before. I also agree with the other posters that the previous OSU UM games on Thanksgiving weekend have not been of the same intensity crowd wise. Perhaps you would not see the downfall if you moved it earlier in the season, but I would suspect it would lose some of it's magic.
http://jwinslow.fotki.com/phot...
I agree, having Thanksgiving weekend off would be a good idea, and it would put Mirror Lake jump-in back to the Thursday before Thanksgiving when students are still there. It would also let more injuries heal so that the teams playing in the championship game would be closer to full-strength.
Ramzy does a good job of dispelling the idea that the Game will be moved. In my comment above I suggested Nebraska be forced to play Wisky in the final game of the regular season, but it makes even more sense if PSU is shifted to Nebraska's conference.
http://bucknuts.com/index.php/...
WVU hanging out Dick Rod to dry, I think NCAA is going to come down hard on UM when it meets with Dick Rod in a few weeks, this guy has a long history:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/...
if we had nebraska and divisions in 05-07
OSU, Mich, Penn state are the 3 best teams and someone plays wisky or iowa for an expected meaningless thumping
I'd rather have a round robin and the 2 best records (tiebreaker BCS rank) play for the CCG. this avoids stacked divisions, best teams not playing, worthless CCG, etc
2006 OSU v Mich. Winner guaranteed a spot in the MNC game. Suppose OSU beat Mich as they did, then had to go play a conf champ game (not sure who the opponent for that year would have been, but certainly a team with 2 conference losses), OSU ends up losing and all of a sudden the Big Ten went from a guarenteed team in the MNC to possibly no team, especially if it was one of those years there were still some undeafeated teams, unlike 2006. If having a conf champ game is suppose to give the league more cred for being high quality football, wouldn't you want to ensure your best team has the best shot at getting the the MNC game?
What if we go to a playoff down the road and all the conference winners get automatics bids and there are only a handful of at large bids. Your confereces best team could potentially get knocked out of the entire playoff by losing in the conf champ game. If OSU is 11-1 going into the conf champ game and playing a 9-3 or even 8-4 team, the 9-3 team could clinch the automatic bid and OSU lost any shot at the MNC.
I just don't see much that can be gained from having a MNC. Ohio State has done just fine getting in the top 2 and never has there been a season where a Big Ten team was left sitting on the sidelines of the MNC ranked 3 or 4 (since the innagural BCS game in 1998) and winning a conf champ game might have been enough to push them over the top either in the human polls or increasing their SOS.
nvm sounds like PSU-Nebraska are in the "west" Are these are the best divisions/end of season games?
West:
PSU - Nebraska
Wisky - Iowa
Minnesota - NW
East:
OSU - Mich
Illinois - MSU
Indiana - Purdue
yeah, there should be a week off for the teams to prep for the CCG. that way the better team will usually win more and not be as affected by injuries, fatigue, lack of practice time, not being prepared.
in 05 OSU was 5th or 6th with losses to PSU and texas. Penn state was left out with 1 loss behind USC and Texas. If either had lost in B12 or Pac10 play, they still probably would have gotten the NC game over PSU based on rankings, even though PSU probly had a better SOS.
there no CCG could have left the big10 out of MNC
Judging from Tressel's record, the only option NOT on the table is losing to Michigan.
Hawt.
Option 1 = no brainer.
East: OSU, PSU, Michigan
West: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
I don't think it matters in any scenario. The SEC and PAC 10/12 usually put two teams in BCS games - that's all that matters from a national rep point of view AND $$$ view for school administrators. Sorry, the title of "league champion" is an intermediary step to greater national aspirations. OSU pretty much needs to have zero losses or no more than one to make a BCS game. year in, year out. They simply need to take care of business and win the games on their schedule. i feel pretty confident the league champion and runner-up will advance to a BCS game (or MNC game if undefeated).
Re: "The Game"
Jim Delany needs to handle "The Game" with TLC. To set his mind, he should imagine a B10, without Ohio State and Michigan.
"The Game" is the apex of all sports rivalries. Would the game of this century, the 2006 Ohio State-Michigan game been the same had it been a match up of two 6-0 teams? Remember what Michigan week was like, that year? ABC/ESPN had a countdown clock ticking down the whole week.
"The Game" needs to remain where it's been, since 1935.
Moreover, with TX, quietly - or otherwise - contemplating possible (probable?) independence, I have to imagine Jim Delany's has white-boarded a B10 map, without Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State. I'm just as confident this image has caused leaders at these schools to prop their chins in their hands and stare off, into the distance.
I am not unwilling to bet that college football's greatest powers may all be independent, someday.
You guys see this about Quinn Pitcock? The reason he retired from football was because of depression and...video game addiction.
http://kotaku.com/5605850/nfl-...
who woulda thunk' it.
I think people who want it to be the last game within a division are trying to hold on to something that is now gone. OSU and Michigan will never meet in the final game for both teams again (assuming at least one is always in the BTC). Unless they are in separate divisions.
If I'm the B10, I want my two flagship programs (and UM is the other flagship program) with a chance to play for the conference championship. It seems like the only way this makes sense is that you throw geography out the window, look at competitive balance to make the divisions, and put these programs in opposite ones. They can then play their annual game during the season like Texas/Oklahoma.
Coming from opposite divisions, they may even become more bitter rivals.
as a badger fan i think an east/west split is the only way to go ... with such a split you place 4 of the 5 most populous states in the east (pa, oh, mi, and in) thus "neutralizing" the inherent recruiting advantages the eastern big ten schools have over the western ones ... ohio state as dominated of late not so much because they have the best coach in the league (ferentz gets my nod) but because they can easily recruit the best talent - all tressel needs to do each year is place a wall around ohio and recruit the best in-state players in his state - a luxury not afforded any western school except, possibly, illinois (however, since chicagoland is recruited by everyone any way, and illinois lacks any real tradition, even this comparison to ohio is flawed) ... regarding osu/mich ... what i'd like to see is um/osu play the 2nd last game of the season with the last weekend set apart for the following games - neb/iowa, nw/ill, wi/minn, pu/indy, msu/um, and osu/psu - all games which would have or develop great rivalries
Looks like he was severly depressed and self medicated with the games. Others use drugs, booze, gambling etc. Having battled this insidious illness most of my life, I know the depths of despair it can send you to. Good to hear he is battling his demons as well as going public with it. There is still a great deal of stigma surrounding mental illness and it is always good when an athlete of any other public figure talks about it,
Best of luck Quint and I will keep you in my prayers.