Seriously.Okay, fine. So the fire's raged on for going on 72 hours. That's quite alright, because frankly, it's still a bunch of absolute bullsh*t.
I've let the counter arguments wash over me and I've tried to approach this thing pragmatically. To be fair, tradition historically does have a funny way of keeping innovation in check. It also occasionally has been known to preserve completely failed institutions solely for the sake of protecting the status quo. Try as I may to embrace progressive, forward thinking philosophies, even often unpopular lines of thinking, this is not one of those times.
As those fighting the bi-partisan facebook good fight rage on, the need for a 2000+ word manifesto has been filled in spades. Bucknut's immortal Ramzy:
There cannot be any shock or disgust about the mix of outside influence on the players or components of college football, because that influence is so old that it’s practically a part of college football tradition. No, this is a requiem for college football tradition itself. If the annual meeting between Ohio State and Michigan at the end of the schedule is altered, disrupted or moved, then nothing is sacred. If you think that the Buckeyes and Wolverines’ rivalry is the same regardless of when it’s played, you are simply too young or too ignorant of history to know any better. There’s no “agreeing to disagree.” Ohio State and Michigan must play to end the regular season and not one week sooner. This sacrilegious idea is borne from the absurdity that the Big Ten needs to have the potential for an Ohio State-Michigan conference championship game, and by playing to close the season it creates the potential for a quick rematch. This is like saying that Independence Day needs to be moved from its spot on the calendar to create a buffer between it and another, new patriotic holiday that hasn’t been invented yet, and the two cannot come close to overlapping because of, well, just because. There’s no agreeing to disagree. This is stupid far beyond the level of giving Charlie Weis $40 million guaranteed to do anything.
While it's no secret that a good majority of the league (and probably to some extent college football fans in general) may be experiencing topical burnout on the matter, it's as important as ever that they recognize that this is bigger than two fan bases; this is an attack on the very foundation of which college football is based. The pageantry, the recurring observance of something you can pinpoint on a timeline, fold the whole damn thing back 60 years, speak to someone from an era long since lost from that point in time's same geographic place, and instantaneously share a mutual, common experience about the same event. Jim Delany, Gene Smith, and Dave Brandon would rather default to a perverse interpretation of the importance of "playing for the Rose Bowl" and pretend that playing for a division crown would in any way marginalize everything that The Game is. This is nothing if but tragic. Naturally Brandon had a Gabriel Byrne in "End of Days" worthy agenda in mind to add to the topic Wednesday:
“I’ve heard that a lot the last couple days: what would Bo (Schembechler) say? Bo hated the idea that Penn State was allowed in the Big Ten. He hated it, he fought it, he thought it was a terrible idea. I love Bo, I owe a lot to Bo, I respect Bo immeasurably, but I can tell you the Big Ten is a much better conference right now that Penn State is in it. Bo would hate the idea that we let Nebraska in the conference. He would hate the idea of splitting into two divisions, and he’d hate the idea that we’d have a championship game to get to the Rose Bowl, as opposed to the way it’s always been. And there are a lot of people out there that feel the same way. … The favorable reaction to (Nebraska entering) was 99-1. People love the big brand ‘Nebraska,' great school. But now the reality is setting in… . You can’t split into divisions, you can’t have a championship game, without some changes occurring.”
Dead legendary coach strawman is dead.
Furthermore, Barry Alvarez continues to disgrace everything HBO's The Wire ever taught us. The latest news comes with word that Iowa and Wisconsin will all but definitely be in different divisions. Alvarez also states that the proposed 9-game league set would be good to go in time for the 2015 football season. This brings us closer and closer to a scenario of the same line of thinking outlined by Scott Dotcherman last week:
RUST BELT: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota — 412 league wins over 17 years GRAIN BELT: Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern — 428 league wins over 17 years
And without warning this all of the sudden feels an awful lot like the LeBron "The Decision" moment all over again. Echoing the sentiments of Will Leitch, the entirety of this just makes me feel frankly stupid for caring so much in the first place.
College football is the closest thing we have to tribal pride in this country. It's a living, breathing metaphorical means to vicariously live through an institution that in one 4.2 second touchdown play is capable of rekindling an entire 4+ year undergraduate experience and/or an entire childhood's worth of emotionally associated memories. While Ohio State-Michigan will live on and it's likely the next generation of Buckeyes and Wolverines won't know the difference between playing the last Saturday in November and the third in October, it doesn't mean we're foolish for wanting more than anything for them to have what we had, to have what our fathers had, and what our grandfathers had. It's beyond a shame Delany and co. won't let us share that with them.
Comments
I don't even want to think about a football season without THE game. I think I just sprained my soul.
"While Ohio State-Michigan will live on and it’s likely the next generation of Buckeyes and Wolverines won’t know the difference between playing the last Saturday in November and the third in October, it doesn’t mean we’re foolish for wanting more than anything for them to have what we had, to have what our fathers had, and what our grandfathers had."
Man, those future kids sure sound dumb. They can't even read a calendar!
Comparing the addition of Penn State to moving The Game to October is not a good analogy. Everyone knows Bo was against the addition of PSU, but I believe this game is going to change, and not so much for the better.
It really sounds like a no win situation.
Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska in the "West"
Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin in the "East"
The Penn State-Wisconsin swap satisfies the condition that geography doesn't matter, and pissing off Penn State fans by putting them out West is just icing on the cake.
All of this is not surprising. Our world is completely upside down and has been since 9/11. Everything keeps getting dumber. Why wouldn't this? What a joke.
Maybe we should've taken Rutgers after all....
I agree that moving the game to any other week is a bad idea but at this point appears to be a runaway train. Instead of making it another generic conference game between IU and Minn, I think it'd be interesting if it was the first game of the season. You would have a summers worth of excitement and anticipation built up. I don't know if NCAA rules would prevent a conference game that early in the season but ifthe game is going to be moved I think week 1 is the best option.
Yea, my arms are getting tired. Been walking on my hands almost for 9 years now!
Maybe Bo was on to something. This whole thing smells like penn state's fault.
The comparison to LeBron's decision couldn't be more perfect.
I've been against this whole split the two into seperate divisions talk since the beginning but now it's just pissing me off. It infuriates and frustrates me to no end that we could have such an slow-thinking person running the conference. It probably doesn't help that the two ADs don't seem to care either. I just can't wrap my head around the fact that they are willing to lose something that is truly special because they want to make them possibly "play for the Rose Bowl" in the CCG. Guess what Delany, every conference game (whether it's UM-OSU, PSU-WI, etc.) is "playing for the Rose Bowl", because if you win all your conference games and the CCG then you'll be going to the Rose Bowl no matter what the divisions look like. Keep The Game where it is.
After reading a lot of different perspectives on this question, including Luke's passionate and smart take (above), and thinking over the pros/cons myself, I'm convinced that it would be better to keep Ohio State and Michigan in the same division, keep The Game as the last regular season game. I'm still not convinced, however, that splitting the two teams in separate divisions will "ruin" the rivalry and/or cause the sky to fall on the BT.
This morning, Rob Oller wrote an excellent piece in defense of keeping Ohio State and Michigan together. I'm very sympathetic to Oller's main argument that the traditions associated with The Game reflect a certain "wisdom of the ages" that trumps the supposed techno-expertise of conference elites/executives sitting around a conference table eating their power lunches.
However, Oller skips over the problem that, while we can rely on age-old wisdom in trying to preserve the traditions of The Game, the divisional aligment of the new BT will involve human design - one way or the other. Oller writes, "What is obvious to the rest of us is that the solution often lacks common sense. Decision-makers analyze every angle until their methods of evaluation become mechanical. Emotion has no place in the process. The public, meanwhile, relies more on feel and simplicity. Choose the path that makes the most sense, not the most money." In other words, he is assuming that the BT powers-that-be would divide Ohio State/Michigan strictly or mostly because of money. Has he considered that those "power brokers" really, honestly believe that splitting the two programs "makes the most sense," all factors considered, and that those power brokers felt like they were relying on some common sense of their own and/or were trying to preserve other traditions besides The Game?
Regarding those who are most dogmatically opposed to splitting Ohio State and Michigan: Did you spend any time, yourself, trying to come up with an ideal two divisional alignment? I almost wonder if there is an inverse relationship on this issue between dogmatism and how much thought one put into the scenarios?
If we insist on keeping Ohio State and Michigan in the same division, then we could/should have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPLAINT if the alternative is a straight E/W geographical alignment. Otherwise, we'd be saying that we get to preserve our traditions just as they are, but then we're going to alter other schools' traditions "in the interest of competitive balace." No, in all fairness, we will have played our veto card and it would improper to then make several additional requests/demands. A lot of people on here argued for a straight E/W alignment (for one thing, they probably saw the writing on the wall), and that's fine. I think that the E/W model is significantly flawed, but I'm willing to live with it, if it means keeping The Game closer to its traditional place. But I don't see it as an easy, black & white, anyone who disagrees with me is a soulless monster, type of decision.
Does anybody have Smith's e-mail address? If so it needs to be posted and then flooded. Moving The Game is like school in summer. No class.
Doc
No, I blame Notre Dame.
athletic_director@osu.edu
can't call it the rust belt division without Michigan and MSU...Detroit is the definition of rust belt.
Can we give back Nebraska and keep everything the way it is? I'll make that trade.
Did anyone else catch Barry Alvarez saying that Iowa and Wisconsin were also being put in different divisions? Obviously, there is no regard for past rivalry games being considered for the "NEW" Big X,XI,XII.
Let's get some perspective here. 1 to 2 generations lived with the game not at the end of the season. 2 to 3 generations have lived with the game at the end of the season. If the game stays in the middle of the season for only 30 more years it will have been there longer than its been at the end. Think about that, only one generation (a relatively short span of time in the grand scheme of the rivalry) will have to pass before this will be the tradition. Have some perspective people, and stop lionizing your own small window of time.
At a time when Ohio State was a fledgling little brother to Michigan. I came across that fact yesterday, but it didn't seem relevant since even if there were 30-40 years where the game was played in mid-to-late October, there were almost 80 when it wasn't. Your point isn't lost on me, it just seems if something was damn near perfected in the mid-30's, why fix what isn't broken?
I've put in a fair amount of time thinking about divisional alignment, but I don't see how that relates to being "dogmatic" about preserving The Game as much as possible.
It seems to me an inescapable truth that early games are less important than later games. As the season plays out, we find out who is a contender and who is a pretender; the last game has a special sense of urgency because we know where everything stands and there are no later chances to make up for a bad result. Even though Michigan was awful, they knew that their tilt against Ohio State was for bowl eligibility. Had that game been in October it would have merely been "a down UM team versus a solid OSU team, so what."
It also seems to me an inescapable truth that cross-division games are less important than divisional ones, because of the head-to-head tiebreaker for the division title. Lose to the other good team in your division and you have to hope they lose two other games elsewhere. Lose to a good team in cross-divisional play and you can still win your division by simply beating your divisional competition.
OSU-Michigan as an October cross-divisional game is something akin to Michigan-ND. Sure, it's an interesting game between perennial powers, and it might impact poll standing and ability to get to the BCS title game... but it's just not all that meaningful.
When the UM AD talks about wanting to "play for the Rose Bowl," what he is quietly sweeping under the rug is that the meaningless version of The Game (October cross-division) is the only OSU-UM game that will be played in most years. I figure it's somewhere between 1-in-10 and 1-in-15 for OSU-UM to meet up in the Big Ten title game.
Do we diminish OSU-Michigan a little bit and play for a division title instead of a conference title? Or do we diminish it a lot and hope to make up for that with a big rematch in the Big Ten title game? The latter is too infrequent to be a reasonable trade, to me.
I think everyone realizes the geographic problems of putting OSU/Michigan in the same conference.
I think the point, though, is that what they consider to be reasonable scenarios look like this:
1) OSU/Michigan in the same division. Penn State in "west" division and has to travel a lot. They already have to travel a lot, so it's not a huge deal. Maybe they even get a protected cross-division rivalry with OSU.
2) OSU/Michigan in separate divisions, but play The Game the last game of the year. Very occasionally there will be a rematch in a week, but it's unlikely to happen particularly often.
3) OSU/Michigan in same division with Penn State. Hope that Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin can be strong enough to hold western division.
4) Various other non-geographic division arrangements that preserve competitive balance and rivalries in some way.
...
...
...
999999) OSU/Michigan in separate divisions, move The Game to a somewhat meaningless midseason date because television ratings might be hurt if the two teams played back to back.
This is the problem. Everyone knew there was going to be some change with the divisions, and people have been discussing various reasonable proposals for months. NO ONE thought that moving The Game was even on the table, as doing so would be so against what makes Big Ten Football Big Ten Football. It's like saying "Where do you want to go to lunch? Subway, Wendy's, Applebee's?" and you respond with "How about we just take this puppy and grill him up." Yes, it is technically a solution to your lunch problem, but most people did not consider it a reasonable possibility!
First line should read "in the same division."
I'm also pretty sure that it wasn't anywhere close to The Game until they moved it to the end of the season.
Great post. I have been in the stands for 28 OSU-UM games. I have watched 14 wins, 13 losses and a tie. Please B10, we cannot have BASEBALL games being played when OSU and UM face off. I am okay being in different divisions. I can even take one or maybe two additional games after The Game. But mid November needs to be respected. With the season already dripping past Thanksgiving, I can handle that. Maybe we play UM third week of November and someone else (bring it Hoosiers!) the following week just for laughs?
The B10 should be pushing to eliminate the silly rule that you need 2 divisions to hold a championship game. Divisions sure are divisive. And the two divisions up top don't drip of much tradition. I hate me some lions, but wisconsin means nothing to me. This whole thing seems to be set up to make the middle-range teams feel they still have a chance at something. Since when does Alvarez call all the shots?
... but it's The Game now.
Would you prefer we go back to the days before "gasoline-powered automobiles", so your point is relevant?
McFate, I agree with much of what you wrote, but you didn't mention what divisional alignment you prefer.
Obviously, keeping Ohio State and Michigan in the same division wouldn't happen in a vacuum. A straight E/W dividing line keeps them together. But do you like that alignment?
If not, I'd be concerned we might potentially get into bull-in-china-shop (or Univ. of Texas) territory: Ohio State and Michigan vetoing any alignment that puts them in separate divisions, yet also inisting on "competitive balance." I think we need to be clear about the possible COSTS associated with keeping Ohio State and Michigan together. We might be fully willing to pay those costs, but let's not pretend that they don't exist.
I still think we should play a round robin and have the top 2 play at the end of the year. the problem is then choosing if you have 2/3 with the same record and no head to head, but I think that would be no worse than choosing a division champ a la B12 south from 2 years ago
Some level of balance is all I'd expect. OSU-UM-Nebraska-PSU in one division is wrong, for example. I wouldn't mind OSU-PSU-UM as long as the other division got both of the johnny-come-lately powers (Iowa-Wisconsin) to add to Nebraska.
Ideally it would be OSU-UM in one division and PSU-Nebraska in the other (PSU and Nebraska have some history so the PSU fans wouldn't mind that). It's only for football so the distance doesn't matter so much. But I wonder if OSU-UM would be the ones objecting to that because it hands a division over to the new kids on the block.
Could it be that Delaney and his bunch have only been looking back the last 10 years or so? I hope not. Make no mistake, scUM will one day return to prominence; most likely a couple of years after DickRod is gone. I can see having a good possibility of The Games every year or so. The solution is so simple but these fools can't see the forest through the $$. Keep The Game singular!!
Mike, very good breakdown on the scenarios, except maybe you tilt the field in your favor . . .
1). What if PSU doesn't want that and they are able to persuade several other conference members of their position? Do Ohio State and Michigan try to wrap it around their necks?
2). I suspect that this scenario is very unpopular.
3). This is the realistic alternative, assuming that PSU put up a fuss about scenario 1 above. Fine, but let's be clear about it.
No, Mike, there are not thousands of other viable scenarios before you get to splitting Ohio State and Michigan, unless you're talking about minor tweaks like where to put Indiana and Ill, etc. Sure, there are hundreds of bad options, but only a few good ones. You covered the three primary approaches above, but if you have some additional ones up your sleeve, by all means, give.
If Ohio State and Michigan use the "We are the biggest and best programs in the Big 10" excuse how does that make them any different than the arrogance everyone complained about Texas having. At the end of the day this may or may not work out, but seperating Iowa and Wisconsin, while not as huge of a rivalry nation wide, certainly affects their programs just as much as it does Ohio State/Michigan. Obviously, no one here cares about them though. Not everyone else wants to change or have to deal with it, but they are. So maybe Ohio State and Michigan will have to do the same thing here.
I don't want it to change, but it probaly will. If not now, somewhere down the road, and you know what? I'll still be just as excited for the game then as I am now. There are parts of every program that certain genrations don't get to know. In my Life I've only witnessed Ohio State in the Rose Bowl 2 times for instance. I never felt the love of Woody Hayes that many have. Infact, I'd take Tressel any day over any other coach. In 15 years there will be kids who don't care who Tressel was and may have this strong tie to Urban Meyer or Bo Pellini.
It's your fault Willingham!
I know everyone loves to hate on JoePa and Penn State for expansion and the death of the conference or Armageddon whatever people are thinking is going to happen, but isn't Barry Alvarez even more to blame? This guy has been the won leaking information, giving perspective about who may be added, when they are, how the divisions are getting split. Seems like every time anything comes out about expansion, Alvarez is there talking. He seems like a much more logical person to point your anger at.
At the end of the day, whether you like it or not, expansion and the changes it's bringing are meant to do exactly what we've all be complaining about. Make the Big 10 relevant and competitive with the SEC in the national spotlight. If this isn't important, than I suggest we all stop complaining with all the national media goes on an on about how great the SEC is and how no one else can compete.
While I agree that the reason behind expansion was to make the Big 10 relevant late in the season and to compete with the SEC for the media spotlight (also $, which isn't a bad thing), I do not see how moving the OSU-UM game accomplishes this. Sure, the Buckeye and Wolverine fans will still be as passionate but will everyone else? I'm sure you've heard this many times before but The Game is nationally known because of the tradition (and I don't care that it was different prior to 1935 because those were different times and college football wasn't what it is today) and if this is changed, I just think they're not really increasing the spotlight as much as they had hoped.
This is just my opinion and I don't want you to think I am attacking yours.
That's not a bad idea.
Maybe the compromise is mid-November, before Thanksgiving.
Your second pargraph makes me sick. That's your attitude, roll over and let it happen. Just because you dont "get to know" parts of a program sure as hell is no excuse for not respecting it. You are far to young or ignorant to see the big picture. How are you going to "get excited" for OSU v UM when the game is just another early season win or loss. Playing this game at the end of the season is what makes it The Game.
The good thing is it seems like they're willing to try what works.....Perhaps they'll see the err of their ways and make changes down the road. All we can do is watch it unfold.
I suggest any athletic department donors write to Gene Smith that they will be withholding all donations if The Game is moved. If they want to make a few extra $ by moving it earlier, then they obviously don't need the support of the donors anymore. If they listen to money, money is the only way to make them think rationally about the issue.
Your first paragraph presumes that Ohio State should be regarded the same as Iowa, or Northwestern for that matter. The premise is false. It's no accident that Ohio State pulls in about $100,000,000 per year through the athletics program, and schools like Iowa and Northwestern, well, don't.
Ohio State and Michigan produce the most money for the conference, which, by the way, is shared with peons like Indiana and Northwestern. The lesser schools get the same cut of the conference take as we do. How many BCS bowls has Indiana been to, and brought back that money for Ohio State? I get that the even revenue sharing can be a good thing, but don't take the money Ohio State and Michigan bring to the conference and then in the same breathe fuck with our rivalary. If Ohio State and Michigan are going to subsidize the rest of the crappy programs, then leave the sacred things alone. If that's arrogant, then let the rest of the teams bring in their own money, and we'll see how much they like that alternative.
Agreed. I wrote G.Smith requesting a refund for my UM/OSU game tickets if anything other than a November date scheduled.
...we cannot have BASEBALL games being played when OSU and UM face off.
Why not? It's not like anyone is going to watch baseball instead of The Game. Pshhh.....c'mon man! I believe that if Ohio State and Michigan take turns kicking each other's arse then the rivalry will be preserved, regardless of the date. Owning Michigan is nice and hope Tressel totally undoes what Cooper did to us (and then some), but I don't want to go through another decade+ of Michigan owning us. Ever! That's not a rivalry. If that's the way it's going to be the I really don't care if the "rivalry" is preserved.
This is too steep a price to pay for Nebraska. They have great tradition, but they're a bad coach away from being in complete and utter mediocrity. They have 0, ZERO, in-state talent. And a sparsely populated state with no major media market (a big factor in why the Big 12 fell apart - not many eyeballs outside of Texas).
Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse...they're all better options in hindsight.
If only...
I'm pretty sure other teams have played conference games in the first week (weren't some of those FSU/Miami games week 1 Monday night deals?) It would be strange, but at least you wouldn't know for sure that Michigan sucked before kickoff...
Ultimately though, the addition of the CCG makes EVERY game on the schedule a little less meaningful.
To me, the best argument for moving The Game (regardless of divisions) is that the emotional drain on the players would almost certainly lead to a letdown should the winner (or even the loser, I guess) move on to the CCG the next week. I'm less concerned about an immediate rematch.
As for splitting the two teams up, it would be a little weird if Ohio State and Michigan NEVER played for the Big Ten Championship.
But the bottom line is that after this year, The Game will never again be the final Big Ten game of the season. Things ARE going to change.
Bad idea, unless you're a TV exec. The FSU/Miami games that started the season for a while were great to watch, but the losing team was basically out of the NC discussion right from the start of the season, which is bad. The purest paradigm of college football greatness was OSU/Michigan 2006 - #1 v. #2 the day after Bo died. It simply does not get any better than that.
At a fundamental level, the rivalry is awesome because you know every year that if we beat Michigan, x will happen. That means it needs to be the last week of the regular season. Beat Michigan and we play for the Big Ten title keeps the rivalry in place.
If we HAVE to split the two, then do it the second to last week, then you don't get the matchup twice in seven days, and probably 7-8 years out of ten you know that beating Michigan means you knocked them out or sealed yourself a bid in the championship game. Once in a while we'll both need something weird to happen that last week, but it's waaaaaaaay superior to something in October.
My whole point is, if the decision has been made, then there's nothing that anyone can do about it. Again I don't like, but there's nothing that complaing and bitching about will change. I was addressing the point that was made in the article about a whole generation missing out on the meaning of the game. My point is that every generation talks about the good old days, or how much better it was when they were young. Or you should've seen it when this happened. The point was relevant and I'm sorry if it made you sick or if I'm ignorant.
You can attack and name call all you want, but I would venture to say that in 10 years no matter what day the game is played on, you'll still say it's the best rivalry in sports. That's the point I was trying to make.
The point I was trying to make is that is the exact attitude people hated about Texas and adding them to the conference. They make more and no one else is important was the Texas mentality, they just went one step further and reaped the benefits of being the biggest. If we want to look and say who cares about the rest of the conference other than us and Michigan, well what's the point of being in a conference at all? As for money and ratings, the game will bring both no matter what day it's played on.
To be fair:
I'll bet Bo would've hated the idea of hiring Rich Rod too...
I'm not suggesing it will. I'm only suggesting that expanding is going to cause changes. Some liked and some that are not liked. If you are on board for one, you may have to deal with the other. I do believe you can finish the season with Ohio State Michigan on one side and Penn State Nebraska on the other. Again, I don't want it to change, but it may be something I have to deal with. I'll join facebook groups and stuff like that, but at the end of the day it probably won't change a thing.
Which is worse:
1.) Moving The Game to the middle of the season...
or
2.) Keeping The Game at the end of the season but having Nike create new uniforms every year for it?
1)
I believe tradition and rivalry are important, and i'm not saying I totally disagree with you, yes Ohio State and Michigan clearly bring in way more money, fame, attention to the Big 10 than the rest of the conference. However, we shouldn't be surprised in a conference where everyone has a voice, if other schools/people involved don't care. Yes the rest of the conference benefits from Ohio State and Michigan, but Ohio State and Michigan benefit from crappy Indiana games on the Big 10 Network too. The decision is about to be made or has been made, and I don't know that it will be a favorable outcome, but I just don'tt see it really hurting the game that much.
can someone please explain to me why having OSU and UM in separate divisions necessitates them not playing the last game of the season against each other? am i an idiot or am i right in saying that that shouldn't impact anything at all (other than a potential big ten championship game rematch)?
seriously guys, i've been wondering this for months. can someone please give me a reason why OSU/UM has to be moved?
This stupidity: http://11w.rs/d4zyiV
Are you really prepared to give them up if he calls your bluff?
If money is the driving force, like everyone is suggesting, then it would matter who was added as they powers that be would've made the decision to split them no matter what.
I don't believe Delany and them care who wins or doesn't win. The only explanation I've heard that jibes with Delany's unsatiable desire to dominate is that television networks concerned that their ratings will suffer, and their profits will be lessened, with a Big 10 Champ game that features Ohio State and Michigan in back-to-back weeks (OSU-Mich play in last week, then they play week after that in champ game).
Even assuming the ratings would suffer -- I don't think they would -- and given that OSU and Mich would have played 3 or 4 times in the last 17 years, I don't think this is a worthwhile explanation.
1
It would be a travesty to change anything about OSU-Mich in late November. Just because the league needs to change with the times doesn't mean you should change what makes the league special. The end of season rivalries should always stay as that. Even in other conferences they still have their rivalries and still finish the season with a championship game. Alabama-Auburn is an excellent example of what should happen to "The Game". Their rivalry is comparable and still they would play a championship game afterwards. They didn't split them up years ago in different divisions so they would "play for the championship". They kept the rivalry as is just like they should do with OSU-Mich.
I understand that some would like OSU-Mich to remain the final game for the season, but it is becoming more clear that in order to stay ahead of the pack the Big "artist formally known as" Ten needs a championship game.
My choice is to keep OSU-Mich right where it is and roll the dice on whoever OSU will face in the championship game. I also think Penn State should stay in the same conference, it would suck not to beat up on them every year. The west should have Nebraska, Wisconsin and Michigan State which I think will balance out the divisions.
1
Alabama and Auburn are in the same division and it doesn't seem to hurt their rivalry and the SEC still makes a killing off of the Championship Game.
Why can't the Big Ten know-it-alls see this?
Your scenario works best for both sides.
Keep the game at the end of the year and put OSU and UM in different divisions.
What if they started dong "Breast Cancer Awareness Pink Jerseys" or Cammo uniforms?
I agree though....1 is worse
And I agree with you. I do see this happening but I also believe they are just trying too hard when it comes to divisions/scheduling.
i guess i can see potential problems with a rematch but hell i don't know. this feels like using a sledgehammer to clear out an anthill
also by this logic you absolutely have to play from within your division on the last week of the year because that scenario could happen with any two teams
Being out here in California and having no connection to the "Decision" it was to hard to watch because for a year and a half through his subtle comments and his reluctance to make a stand I knew he was leaving Cleveland. Seeing all of the Cleveland fans getting behind and hoping and praying he was staying made me feel bad. Now being a Bucks fan and caring, I see the same subtle writing on the wall from the directors and the commissioner and I feel that terrible pain. It's on the wall and it is going to sting bad. THE ONLY WAY TEXAS OKLAHOMA WORKS EARLIER IN THE YEAR IS BECAUSE IT MEANS THE DIVISION. ALABAMA AUBURN WORKS BECAUSE ITS IN DIVISION AND THE LAST GAME OF THE REGULAR SEASON (CHANCE TO SPOIL). If they split the divisions it will make the game against the worst team in our division more important than the Michigan game, and the rivalry will fade over the next 10 years. When all is said and done, if Penn State is the other class of our division they will be the most important rival in 5 to 10 years. College football loses another Oklahoma Nebraska and the SEC has claim to the most important and historical rivalry with the Iron Bowl. Giving that league another step to stand on and something more to "sell and brand itself with" Delany.
I agree, it became the game because of the greatness of the 2 teams and the meaning of the outcome for either team that won. It also had some upsets but it was always competitive. The last 20 years one team or the other has dominated for quite a stretch. It's not to say that there weren't great matchups, but everyone just laughed as if it was a given that Ohio State would lose in the 90's when they played Michigan. Just like the 2000's it's been a given that Ohio State was going to knock off Michigan. Now Michigan has a garbage team. In my opinion this has hurt the rivalry more than anything. It started with the App State loss, and has trickled down to today. People nationally don't care about the game that much right now because Michigan Stinks.
That game in 2006 was special, of course that was the first time in over 100 years of playing eachother that happened. However, short of Michigan upsetting an undefeated Buckeye team this year, the rivalry has lost a little of it's luster. I understand that is only looking at a few years, but our world today is what have you done for me lately, and for 20 years now this rivalry has been one sided for long stretches of time.
If you look at other sports/conferences you see it. UK/IU used to be a huge basketball rivalry, then Indianna sucked for 10 years, now no one really points to that game anymore. Duke/Carolina hit a lull for a stretch when Carolina sucked. Teas and A&M doesn't have the appeal it once did. UCLA/USC no one even cares about anymore. It's not to say those teams haven't had good games in that stretch, but they have or had become so one sided, they lost their appeal to a national audience.
or hell, now that wisconsin and iowa are separated, why CAN'T we just put OSU and UM in the same division? they aren't going for an east west split now, so who gives a crap? that was really the only bugaboo, now they can just put UM and OSU together and even the conferences out from there. PSU has to fly out to nebraska and iowa, boo hoo nobody cares
DOes anyone honestly thinkg that a UM/OSU championship game would carry ratings that are significantly higher the Penn State and Ohio State or Nebraska and Michigan? If any combination of those 4 names make the chamionship game, the ratings are going to be excellent.
If Delaney fucks this up, and Gene Smith, Jim Tressel, and Gordon Gee allow it to happen, I will never look at my beloved alma matter the same way. Sure I'll always love OSU. Nothing changes that, but it is a sad day in a OSU alum's life when the leadership of the school doesn't put a firm stake in the ground to save the best tradition in collegiate athletics.
I say protest the game! Don't show up if it's on another date. When schools lose millions......I'm sure this would never come into fruition though. Too many people want to see the game regardless.
http://ohiostatebuckeyes.com/f...
I just don't get it!!! If you are in the business of selling something and you have a great event like The Game don't f with it! Create a great atmosphere for the Big Ten Champ when the OH or Penn St. plays Neb / Iowa or some combo. Any combo of top games in the Big Ten at the end of the season will stand on its own merit as Doc Sat pointed out.
I'm not one to comment often, I've probably thrown out 5 comments in the two or so years I have read this blog, but not only is this an illogical idea, but there is evidence that this doesn't work (Oklahoma/Nebraska) and there is evidence that leaving it alone works (Auburn/Alabama).
Case studies Delany!!!!
that will never happen.
Nice.
and hundreds of generations before that existed without any football at all. Instead they went to public hangings and bear baiting and, y'know, old timey stuff.
Which is to say, I don't see your point.
We have something now which many people, for many years have agreed is 'good'. We can either try to keep that, or we can go the way of Nebraska-Oklahoma, and have the next generation not really know who that team is, or why grandpa keeps ranting about how great 2006 was, when anyone can see we didn't even win our bowl that year.
I have a gut feeling, like i just ate some bad indian food, that Delaney is going to royally fuck this up.
this is even a question?
why don't you just toss in an analogy about pre WWII germany to make sure you touch on every crowd.
not so good at history. bear baiting is about all I can remember.
I'm just fine with the pink jerseys. I'd rather have the game in October than Camo jerseys.
don't even get me started on ethanol, Denny....
how would we see the players? they'd blend right in to the field turf...
maybe that's an advantage.
sec has speed, we have stealth.
I'd rather them play naked than move the game.
but you're disregarding the past. that's the mistake you're making. you cannot forget about your history, your past, your tradition, the foundation of WHO YOU ARE. The Game IS OHIO STATE. The Game IS MICHIGAN. The Game IS COLLEGE FOOTBALL BECAUSE OF THE TRADITION AND WHERE IT IS ON THE CALENDER. Disregarding the past is a tremendous mistake that delany and yourself are making.
ohio state and michigan do NOT benefit from crappy indiana games on the BTN. W/O tOSU+UofM the BTN wouldn't be created. no one would be watching those indiana games if not for the 2 powerhouses that made the conference what it is. the reason that indiana game is on the BTN is b/c the BTN couldn't get tOSU or UofM that weekend since they're on ESPN/ABC.
You know, in all of this drama I've expected the boardroom types to soak up this marketing drivel -- Gene Smith and Dave Brandon, Delany -- and for Gee and Coleman to go along with it. Lost in all of this is my disappointment with Tressel, however. As the last link to the Woody coaching true in the rivalry, he more than anyone else should know how important this issue is to the fanbase. I wonder what Tressel's father would have thought. Lord knows that Smith wouldn't dare fire Tressel over publicly disagreeing with the party line on an issue like this with the fanbase 10 to 1 against moving the Game. I guess I expected Jim Tressel to stand up for tradition, given his emphasis on tradition. Instead, we get a gee-golly-whiz it'll sure be great to play Michigan any time in the year, the players will gosh darn get up for that game if it was in March. That's not good enough, Tressel. Cash your $3.5 mill check while the rest of us miserable people grow increasingly disillusioned with the entire college football machine.
really guy? really?
really.
I can understand wanting to have tressel say something about it, but at the end of the day it's all AD's and Delaney making a power play for money.
I guess I just wanted someone to step up to the plate and say that this isn't right, even if it is inevitable now. When the most high profile individual associated with the programs to speak out against this is Desmond Howard, you know that someone on the Buckeye side has dropped the ball.
That's exactly what's going to kill the rivalry. You're going to sell the tickets because of the game date? Sounds a bit irrational to me.
see, but Desmond is no longer a part of the program. sure he's an alumnus/former player/whatever but he doesn't work for UM.
i agree that Smith wouldn't fire Tressel, but still he's an employee at the end of the day.
-1 for irrelevant basketball analogy!
Wow. I agree...
This is the time for one of our guys (AD, Coach, Pres) to step into manhood!
I minus -1 your -1. Rivalries are always relevant no matter what sport they are some lose their luster and some dont.
Every comment I've made has said I don't want it to change. I don't think it's accurate to say I'm just scoffing at history or disregarding it at all. Believe me I understand the tradition and foundation of Ohio State football. But to just say moving the game to a different date kills the rivalry is absurd in my mind. I believe national championships, Heisman winners, countless NFL players, top 10 all time in wins, the band, the skull session, OH-IO are all parts of extremely importtant parts of tradition as well. Ohio State will not lose it's identity by switching the date of the game. The Game will lose some of its meaning with the addition of a conference championship, but we all knew that was coming anyway.
We all laugh about other schools and how they cling to certain traditions. Notre Dame leaps to mind, yet when the table s are turned the reaction is exactly the same.
So Ohio State and Michigan get no revenue from advertising dollars that are spent on those games?
It really wouldn't matter what any of them had to say unless they threatened to go independent, but honestly they wouldn't eve consider that and everyone would call that bluff.
Brian, if ever there was a candidate for the real-life personification of the nihlists in the Big Lebowski, you are that man.
There is one other option (if option would be the right word) that no one has mentioned. Assuming an "opposite" division alignment, the two teams could meet on the 2nd to last weekend of the season - 3rd weekend of November, as in prior years, and take the last weekend as a bye week. Still last game of the regular season, a little more spotlight being outside of rivalry week, and a (marginal) break between the Game and a potential rematch. Would suck to never have a true bye week during the season, but would also help regardless of the opponent in the conference championship game, giving the virtual equivalent of scheduling a Georgia State in late November.
Does not eliminate the issue with double jeopardy, but solves one problem at least...
I'm just being realistic about it all. Maybe if Jim Tressel was firey about it fans would be happy that he's fighting for the rivalry etc. But will it really change anything? In addition to that, when has Tressel ever given any kind of speech that strayed far away from "oh golly gee" or however you put it. Do I love the idea of it changing dates? No, but it's going to take more than a few thousand people joining a facebook page and threatening not to go to a game to make a difference. It's certainly not going to make much of a difference if Tressel speaks out against it. If Delaney has his mind set on cash, it's going to take TV people, an other multi-millionaires petitioning for this to not happen. You would need advertisers to threaten not to advertise during the game, or other Big 10 games. It's not going to happen. The game will still be ratings gold and still make money. If Delaney decides to make this decision, it's because there is a lot of evidence that it will make more money. The only way that changes is if they stand to lose money.
The only real tradition in college football is the Cash it generates. If you don't want the game to change, then somone has to present to Delaney a way to make more money off of the teams playing once a year, in the same division on the last week of the season. Or prove that ratings won't suffer if the teams play 2 weeks in a row, which I honestly think would be awful.
I don't disagree with your assessment that moving the date of the game will happen. What I can't wrap my mind around is your mentality of, "because this is already a fait accompli, we might as well put ourselves over the barrel and get over it." You'd be a great guy to stand next to a polling place and tell the incoming voters, are you really going to go vote? Do you realize how little of an impact your going to have on the course of events?
I don't care if Tressel speaking out against moving the game wouldn't change the outcome. The point isn't that the outcome is changed. The point is that someone in a position of power would speak out against the change. It would be a symbolic indicator that at least someone who matters in all of this hasn't been compromised by the money-changers in the temple. And if you think symbolism doesn't mean anything, then lets do away with Script Ohio, because when you think about it, it's pretty silly; bandmembers walking in synchronized time, and the entire stadium erupting at the dotting of the i. But we love it anyway, because it is symbolic of something bigger than us and of the tradition that stretches decades in the past.
You say that a few thousand people in a facebook group won't matter. You're probably right, but only because there are too many people like you out there who adopt the same dreary, apathetic, cynical attitude towards the possibility that you could make a difference in this.
I never said no one should do it, or for that matter that no one should join a facebook group. In fact I think it's a great idea to show your displeasure, but at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. I consistently stand for hopeless causes. I'll send an email to the AD. I'll do all that, but realize in the end that those guys to care a bit about what I have to say. I consistently go to the poll and vote for candidates/issues that I know have zero chance of winning because my views aren't neccssarily the same as the people in my state/community. I know it won't make a difference but I go do it anway. I So I understand and frequently participate in futile endeavours, but I'm also realistic about what my feelings, opinions, and believes will really accomplish. I don't need Tressel to get out there and carry on on my behalf though. The only place I care about him leading is on the football field, and he's done that well.
So, call me what you want, think what you want as well, just know that your overall classification of "people like me" isn't correct because you don't know me at all. I'm just not going to be one of these people who looks at the leaders of the program different because Tressel didn't speak out against this. I'm not going to be someone who is willing to deny my ticke, and I'm certainly not going to be one of the people who thinks that Ohio State's identity as a program hinges on the game being the last one on the schedule.
Phil Steele weighs in!
http://www.philsteele.com/Blog...
Piss on Ramzy
Desmond is not the current head coach at UM and as such,can pretty much say whatever he likes with no consequences.
Someone over on MGoBlog had what I thought was a pretty good idea. Have the Michigan fans wear Scarlet and have our fans wear Blue for their respective season openers. That would be a strong signal to the higher ups.
Gosh! As much as the thought of Rutgers(no! not Rutgers!) in the BigTen nauseates me, if it would preserve the OSU/UM rivalry, I could change my mind!
If we could only get Notre Dame.
OMG! You can't be serious.
Delany, geez, if not the last game of the year, can you make it the SECOND to last game of the year? That will ensure that the two teams don't meet in consecutive weekends.
I'm going to take it a step further and quit following and supporting all of college football. That is the only kind of action the businessmen of the situation understand.
College football will never see another dime or second of viewership from me again if they are willing to trample on the best part of of my experience for a few more dollars.
This ins't just a game, it is an entire week and the culmination of the season, and it is the type of thing that transcends sport entirely. This is generations of people's memories and bonding experiences with their friends and families being carelessy disregarded for a chance at a little bit more money and maybe some additional spotlight.
Unfortunately, fans will continue to shell out money to be a part of something that repeatedly proves they only care about the fan's wallet and not their experience.
If they play the last week of the season, there is very little chance they will ever meet in the title game anyway because the loss typically knocks a team out of contention.
This seems like making a plan based on something that happens 10% of the time instead of basing it on what happens 90% of the time.
The chances or them having a rematch are pretty small...Alabama and Tenn have been playing a cross divisional rivlary game since 1992 and have never once met in the title game.....because a loss typically knocks a team out of title contention anyway.
And even if they did end up in a rematch, what is so bad about having your two best teams, and biggest rivals in all of sports, play twice? That is doubling the best thing the conference has going.
"Double Jeopardy" isn't much of a threat IMO....Alabama and UT have played a cross divisional rivalry game every season since the inception of the SEC title game in 1992 and have never once met in that game.
Even if it does occur, I don't see what that problem would even be......that the SEC and B12 fans who don't care anyway wouldn't be interested? Chances are most of them aren't going to care regardless.
Chances are that they wouldn't both be going to conference title game anyway.
I don't see why they conference has to split up to begin with.
What is so terrible about playing everyone in the conference?
Isn't playing the teams in a conference a reason for being in the confernce?