Ohio State-Georgia Series Cancelled

By Kyle Lamb on June 1, 2012 at 10:05a
52 Comments

To quote wrestling legend Ric Flair, "to be the man, you gotta beat the man." If Ohio State or any Big Ten cohorts want to be the man, this isn't the way to go about it. 

According to the Athens Banner-Herald on Thursday, OSU cancelled a planned home-and-home series with the University of Georgia that was set to begin in 2020. The two schools had just reached a memorandum of understanding back in December. That sort of cancellation is like SEC speed in dog years.

The cancellation, reported to be on account of the new Pac-12-Big Ten scheduling agreement, is not as perplexing as the series was to begin with. The schools concocted the game only a little over a month after OSU had backed out of a series with Tennessee in 2018 on account of the addition of a ninth league game. But one wonders what changed in less than five weeks.

With Ohio State now backing out of games with two major SEC opponents, critics will have a blast. The Buckeyes last played an SEC opponent in the regular season Sep. 24, 1988, which was the second of a two-game set against LSU. Ohio State's SEC drought will end next August when Vanderbilt pays Columbus a visit, but that game -- the Little Giants against the New York Giants -- will do little to sway the doubters. 

Undoubtedly, it takes two to tango. There's little questioning that Ohio State's 23-year hiatus from scheduling the SEC was as much as the southern schools not wanting to step foot north of the Mason-Dixon line as it was OSU dodging high-caliber opponents. After all, OSU has taken on nearly all-comers recently; Miami, Texas, Southern California, to name a few.

But perception is reality. And Ohio State has now given the haters more ammo. Ohio State's noted troubles against the SEC in bowl games does nothing to aid the perception.

Financially, the Big Ten can and will go toe-to-toe with the SEC. In fact, B1G Commissioner Jim Delany said last month that by 2027, Big Ten teams will be pulling in well over $15 million each from the Big Ten Network alone. That's about as much as the ACC's total media compensation is expected to be with their new rights agreement with ESPN.

Some experts believe that the Big Ten will far surpass the SEC when their own tier-1 rights contract lapses with ABC/ESPN in 2015. 

On the ledger, I anticipate the Big Ten being able to have a conversation similar to the one Billionaire T. Boone Pickens had with rapper Drake on Twitter this week.

"The first million is the hardest," Drake tweeted to his nearly 7.5 million followers.

"The first billion is a helluva lot harder," the 84-year old oil tycoon, who inexplicably was following Drake, responded succinctly. 

The exchange is fitting in a way, because the two are about as diametrically different as the SEC and B1G. The SEC is the popular hip-hop artist with worldwide fame. The Big Ten is the old, conservative entreprenuer with little flash but a lot of substance. 

OSU fumbled away another SEC contest (photo: Cleveland Plain Dealer)

But as both interesting and meaningless as the rapper-philanthropist dichotomy is to dissect as a metaphor, on the football field the results have been totally different. It's more like Justin Bieber trying to go three rounds with Floyd Mayweather. 

It looks like Bieber is using the Pac-12 to dodge that bout.

There are many advantages to a scheduling partnership with the Pac-12. It creates additional exposure for the league west of the Rockies. It strengthens prospective rivalries and markets future Rose Bowl games. And, if you believe Delany is as shrewd as he is domineering, it might help nurture a landscape where the golden goose, Notre Dame, is gently nudged into conference affiliation. 

For as many strategical explanations as there is for the series, nothing would help Ohio State or other Big Ten schools as much as proving they are the man. The SEC, as pompous and sensationalized as it may be, has won six titles consecutively. The Big Ten cannot be seen as running away. And that's what Ohio State looks like it's doing here.

The Buckeyes are left with future matches against Oklahoma and North Carolina -- still a formidible slate -- but we know Biebs can go mano-y-mano with Joe Jonas. Until he can land a right hook from a heavyweight champ, comparing profit-loss statements will feel a little bit empty, even in such a witty, engaging 140-character environment as Twitter may be.

Some say the SEC became king by avoiding all-comers and insulating itself from other heavyweights. That might be true, but to quote another wrestling icon: "they've been to the top of the mountain, brother."

The ramifications of losing a game with Georgia goes well beyond the university. College football scheduling, quite honestly, sucks. Fans have to set their alarms to go off at the first of October because, frankly, the first four weeks are a snooze-fest. 

Few teams are willing to play other major-conference schools because no one can afford the loss. That's a product of the BCS system, yet we're supposed to believe the regular season means something. 

It will mean a lot more when teams aren't compelled to load their September slate with sacrificial Sun Belt schools. 

I hope Ohio State reverses course, though I doubt it. They could do itself, its conference and the entire college football landscape a favor by setting a precedent. Much will depend on what happens with the BCS and a possible four-team playoff this month as to how teams schedule going forward. Nonetheless, I'd rather OSU is part of the solution than part of the problem.

Bottom line is Ohio State hasn't beaten the man. They won't beat the man if they're unwilling to play him. 

52 Comments

Comments

Baroclinicity's picture

Spot on.

When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

cplunk's picture

Alabama and LSU are the man. The rest the SEC is riding their coattails. Auburn? Call me in fifty years when you have another championship season. Florida? Nice under Spurrier and Meyer, but neither of them are there now. Tennessee? Killer in the late 90's, brah.
Georgia? Arkansas? South Carolina? The rest? Compare yourselves straight up to OSU in terms of accomplishments in the BCS era, the post-WW II era, the "modern" era, all-time wins, all-time championships, etc, etc. They don't even belong at the table.
I'll take crap about the B1G from Alabama and LSU, and I won't laugh at a Florida fan because scoreboard from 41-14 lasts at least ten years, but everybody else is just a little yappy dog standing behind the pitbull. I could not care less what they think or say.
Perception only matters as long as BS polls and rankings are used to determine who gets access to championships/playoffs. As soon as conference champs are in, perception can go where it belongs- in talk at the water cooler.
 

causeicouldntgo43's picture

Well put - yappy dogs go away....

OSUBias's picture

Any scenario that results in OSU=Bieber is bad news.
Great read, sad as the topic is. I was looking forward to both of these matchups.

Shitter's full

Flava Flav's picture

A playoff without recognition of conference champions will continue to kill out of conference scheduling. Teams no longer need that bump to get into the top 2. Look at Oregon's loss to LSU last year; would have been the reason for their absence from the playoff despite winning the PAC12.

Catch 5's picture

Yes, but if conference championships are the determining factor, what good is a big OOC win?  I think that the champions-only will have a worse effect on scheduling - especially in stronger conferences like the SEC.  Why should they schedule a top-10 caliber team when it will benefit them nothing as far as getting to the playoff if they win and could push them out of it were they to lose?  No, the main reason I'm against a champions-only model is the effect it would have on scheduling.  I don't have as much a problem with the 3+1 model that Delany is pushing now, but really prefer the top 4 - let the best teams play for it.

Make their asses quit! - Nick Saban

Run_Fido_Run's picture

You make a good point that the champs-only model wouldn't necessarily encourage tougher out-of-conference scheduling, but I'm not sure it would necessarily hurt it, either.
Sure, the SEC schools will figure they only have to win the SEC and can schedule creampuffs ooc, but isn't that what most of them are doing now? 
Under champs-only, champs with 1-2 losses might need a marquee ooc win to elevate themselves above other conference winners.
In general, I suspect ANY 4 team model will discourage aggressive non-conf scheduling.

OldColumbusTown's picture

UNLESS... they can somehow create an effective means of measuring strength of schedule, and then emphasizing its importance out of conference (i.e. putting a premium on rewarding the schools who scheduled like opponents rather than FCS creampuffs, or directional U).
I honestly don't see how it would be that hard to create a new "BCS" type of measure where you gain points or rewards for being a conference champion, strong conference strength of schedule, and strong OOC strength of schedule, and then get penalized for losses.
Teams from stronger conferences (such as the SEC currently) would go into the season either taking a chance on a weak OOC SOS and relying on winning the conference with 0/1 loss, or take the initiative to schedule a challenge in the OOC to help improve their overall profile.
If Alabama were to play Chattanooga, Kansas, Florida Atlantic, and Louisiana-Lafayette in the non-conference slate, but then lose two conference games (while still winning a tough SEC), they may be risking their lot as one of the "top 4" when compared to a 1-loss B1G champion, 1-loss Big 12 champion, 1-loss PAC 12 runner up, and 1-loss Notre Dame, who all played at least two high-level OOC opponents. 

Catch 5's picture

That could possibly be my biggest gripe with this whole thing.  We are now talking about 2-loss teams as having a place in the championship discussion.  Yes, I know LSU won it all a few years ago with two losses, but that should be an anomoly - no team with two losses should have a place in the national championship picture (even SEC teams!). 
Fido, I disagree - since an undefeated Auburn was left out in 2004, two things happened.  The "S-E-C" mentality was born, where teams began stressing the strength of the conference along with their own teams, and SEC teams began scheduling better.  As a rule, most teams have at least one BCS-level OOC opponent every year.  Last year saw LSU-Oregon, LSU-WVa, Bama-PSU, Au-Clemson, Vandy-Wake, Ga-Boise St, Ark-Tex A&M, among others.  While the financial point is strong, I don't know if that is enough to risk injury to your stars when you could have them on the bench before halftime.  Especially in a major BCS conference where you have a tougher schedule to begin with.  I guess it is just one of those things where we probably won't know all the consequences until it happens.

Make their asses quit! - Nick Saban

45buckshot's picture

money.
if a loss wouldn't kick them out of the playoffs, then teams will schedule big marquee games for the cash.
like he's saying, pre-October is a snooze-fest. If OSU was playing Georgia in Sept., what would the tv ratings for a game like that look like?
advertising dollars...

Veni, vidi, vici

UM3

Buckeye Chuck's picture

This is correct. For all the people who claim that a playoff system would damage the regular season, I think the opposite is likely true: a playoff system that prioritized conference champions would not only make every conference game ultra-important, it would dramatically lower the risk involved with losing a nonconference game--thus making it more doable to schedule the better teams instead of a steady diet of Akrons.
But there's still a financial aspect to the Bucks not wanting a home-and-home with the likes of Georgia. The size of our athletic budget and the guaranteed sellouts of a 105,000 seat stadium mean that fear of losing aside, we simply can't go on the road in nonconference games all that often. Almost everyone on the BCS conference level will expect that return trip.
 

The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.

Ramzy Nasrallah's picture

I knew I had heard T. Boone "say" that before.

Kyle Lamb's picture

Good find, Ramzy. I thought it sounded familiar too but I couldn't remember why.

 

Ohio Guy in Jersey's picture

You really believe other think OSU is running from the SEC?
The sticking point with scheduling in the past was that most southern teams were unwilling to play in the north.
Now it's politics.
Canceling the Tennessee and Georgia series had nothing whatsoever to do with football. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know much about college football today and probably isn't worth talking to.

Kyle Lamb's picture

Yes, I really believe there are a lot of people that will think it. 

I don't think the average sports fan considers politics when debating these things. 

Ohio Guy in Jersey's picture

In all honesty I think this is manufactured controversy. It's the kind of thing that might get a little play on a slow May or June sports day because OSU moves the needle a little for the general sports fan. Otherwise, there's nothing there.

Buckeyes_Terrapins's picture

'mono-y-mono' means 'monkey and monkey.' What you're looking for is 'mano-a-mano,' or 'hand-to-hand.'

RedStorm45's picture

unless he was secretly referring to the MONOtone nature of their music...yeah, that's a stretch haha

BuckeyeSki's picture

"to be the man, you gotta beat the man."

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

Banned from BlackShoeDiaries since 2008. Crime: Slander/Defamation of Character Judgement: Guilty

hodge's picture

CPLUNK is spot-on here.  Not to mention, we're hand-wringing about a game that's over eight years away.  The SEC won't respect us until we beat the big guys, and they're just as averse to scheduling us as we are to them.  The beauty of their conference fandom is that they're constantly bouyed by their best, while subsequentially ingnoring their refuse.  If we beat Georgia, Vandy, Kentucky, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida and Ole Miss in seven straight years, we'll still be decried for not beating "the best of the SEC."  Even if those same seven teams were all that South Carolina had to go through en route to a division championship (I know, unrealistic).
Perception is a fickle mistress.  But, beating the SEC's leftovers will only make us feel better--it will do nothing towards improving our national perception.  Playing Oregon, USC, or Stanford will bode much better for our perception than some second-rate SEC school; and like it or not, that's all Georgia is.  If we want to be the best, we need to beat the best; accept no substitutes or crappy imitations.
Rest assured, we'll meet the big dogs on the biggest stage, and it's upon that highest of podiums that we can speak the most indelible volumes.

Catch 5's picture

What is it with the B10 and the P12?  I have always had a problem with the Rose Bowl being held up as the pinnacle of bowl games (even before the BCS era) because it is only open to these two conferences.  I know it is the grandaddy and all that, but so many of the games have been snoozers because one of those conferences would be down (or when USC would go to the BCSCG and nobody was behind them).  As a Bama fan, I grew up wanting to go to the Sugar Bowl - where they took the SEC champion and the best available team (that fit the demographic).  It usually ends up being a good game and a chance to play someone different.  With the Rose's affair with solely the P12-B10, you always get the same teams - and now this scheduling alliance will magnify that - especially if games like OSU-Georgia get tossed to the wayside to account for it. 
Perhaps I'm sad that the Rose is closed to everyone else - much of Bama's history occured in that game before it became exclusive.  I admit I would like to see them play in that game again (the BCS in 2009-10 was quite nice, though not really the Rose) were it somewhat open to everyone.  In this vein, I'm really not excited about the SEC-B12 champions bowl that they are now forming.  It is a good marriage between them and all, but I just don't like setting these things in stone.  Sure, have a bowl that favors these conferences, but if one doesn't have a worthy candidate, open it up to someone else

Make their asses quit! - Nick Saban

Run_Fido_Run's picture

You're mainly just giving us your perceptions, as a Bama/SEC fan and product of the SE, which is fine. 
But, from my perception, the Rose Bowl is a beautiful pageant, bursting with color, history, and class. It's everything we grew up loving about college football writ large. In contrast, the Sugar Bowl is a plastic football contest, which often involves two, but usually only one, excellent football teams.
Setting aside our respective biased perceptions, a quick comparison:
Average victory margin last 30 yrs: Rose Bowl 11.1; Sugar Bowl = 13.7.

Catch 5's picture

I agree with your take, and you description of the Rose.  I guess what I'm trying to convey is that is not a national game - and I feel that it should be if it is the most important and heralded bowl game.  In the past it was (as I mentioned, Bama played there several times - and it is part of the Bama fight song) but now it is only regionally relevant - which I feel is a shame given it's history.  The same goes for the proposed SEC-B12 game.  Given the current landscape it makes sense and looks great, but who is to say the B12 will even be around in a few years or that the match-up won't lose a lot of shine over the course of time (it likely will if history is any guide).  I guess it doesn't matter with the new playoffs coming to fruition as the best teams will be headed there, but it seems to me that a bowl game that draws from the full national pool would mean more than one that pulls the best from pre-set conferences.
Similarly, I don't get the marriage between the B10 and P12.  Someone else stated it above, but wouldn't it be great to see the B10 and SEC battle it out for a few years?  The travel for fans is a little more managable - and moves like this by OSU is (as the author pointed out) a sign that the SEC teams may not be the hindering factor in the lack of this type scheduling - as they have been accused of for some time.

Make their asses quit! - Nick Saban

Run_Fido_Run's picture

In some ways, you're answering your own question. Why has the most heralded and important bowl game been content to be exclusive with BT and P10/12 for the last, what, 65 years? Certainly not because they thought they were leaving money on the table, right? Likewise, if the Rose Bowl has seen the BT and P10/12, respectively, as both being such attractive partners, should we be surprised if those two partners also see each other as attractive?  
In addition, though, going forward we are in a cold war of sorts. The war wasn't really the fault of the SEC. It began as a fight between the BT and espn, but when the sides were drawn, the sec was aligned with espn. C'est la vie.
I didn't hate the SEC in the 1990s. I used to love watching the epic 7:30, 8 PM SEC battles in those days, when they SEC hadn't yet become college football's version of 24/7/365 "NFL Live." At that point, the BT v. the SEC was a healthy football rivalry. Now they're on opposite sides of the Iron Curtain.
Perhaps this partly explains why it would make so much sense for the BT and the SEC to play an annual September showcase, but also make no sense whatsoever.

NoVA Buckeye's picture

I hate to be "that guy", but doesn't 'Bama's fight song say "Remember the Rose Bowl and we'll win then"?

The offseason begins when your season ends. Even then there are no days off.

Catch 5's picture

See my post above - I pointed this out.  Part of my reason that I hate to see the Rose restricted.  It should be nationally relevant, but with the strict B10-P12 ties, it is marginalized.  I've just never understood why the Rose would want to restrict itself that way when it could have the first draw of anyone if it wanted.

Make their asses quit! - Nick Saban

Maestro's picture

meh

vacuuming sucks

btalbert25's picture

The Pac 12/B1G agreement is stupid.  If Slive and Delaney had any sense and could get past measuring their manhood they would realize that it would of made far too much sense for their two conferences to have an agreement.  The B1G plays far more games against the SEC than it does the Pac12.  I know people want to save the Rosebowl(the one game that PAC and B1G actually do play in) but why not actually play the games.  The ratings would be insane.  Bama and Ohio State on a Saturday night or Ohio State and Stanford, which do you think will get better numbers?  I've got a good feeling it'll be Bama.  Michigan and Georgia, Penn State and Florida.  Nebraska/LSU.  These are the kind of non conference primetime games that would create ratings GOLD.  Washington and Wisconsin, meh, not so much.
Hell the B1G and Big 12 makes more sense to me than the B1G/PAC agreement.  Since college football is about 1 thing, money, why not throw you stubborness out and give the people what they want, matchups against the SEC.  I have a feeling, Delaney knows how a lot of these games would go, and it's much better to play a conference that you could split or win more games head to head and then be able to sit on the sidelines and say we get no respect.
At the end of the day, though, it pisses me off that some deal that 2 conference commissioners come up with, ties the hands of Ohio State and who they can schedule.  Delaney's deal makes Ohio State look like they are running from the SEC and that is unacceptable.  I'd rather have a home and home against Georgia than any PAC12 team. A win against Oregon would do nothing compared to a convincing win against Georgia.

Baroclinicity's picture

Why can't we schedule both Pac 12 and SEC in the same year?

When you're holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

btalbert25's picture

Do you think the program would schedule 2 top 10 or 15 caliber schools in the same season?  Plus it would probably take a home and home so with the addition of a 9th conference game, Ohio State could potentially go from 8 home games in a season to 6.  I don't see them doing that.

703Buckeye's picture

Right now, the 9th conference game is a no-go.

"Attack the Strong, Trample the Weak, Hurdle the Dead!"
-Former OSU S&C Coach Lichter

btalbert25's picture

The last 20 years, to me it seems the most important bowls the B1G has partcipated in were the Sugar, Citrus/Cap One, Outback and other matchups that pit the SEC against the B1G.  How many times have we looked back and said well the B1G is 500 against the PAC12 in bowl games?  In my opinion, outside of the pageantry, B1G fans don't put the significance into the Rose Bowl they used to.  EVERYONE talks about the bowls that match up the B1G vs the SEC.  Those are what the fans care about.  Why should we care about playing a bunch of non conference games against a conference we only match up with in 1 or 2 bowls per year. 
All Delaney has done is made the B1G weaker with this deal.  It'll be much harder to schedule a top notch SEC team in the non conference.  Unless you are Ohio State and you want to play Oregon or USC and sacrifice a kent State game so you can play Georgia.  I would be all for that, but the potential for 2 losses to start the year probably isn't that desirable.

Run_Fido_Run's picture

The Big Ten and P12 athletics/academic relationship goes much deeper than fball t.v. ratings, which are important, but only to a point.
And, as far as the money goes, I suspect that the Big Ten and P12 are trying to leverage their media arrangements with Fox, potentially NBC. We might see a sports conglomerate of Fox/NBC/BT Network/P12 Network allied with Notre Dame and some other products versus ABC/espn allied the SEC, Texas, others. With the "cold war" looming, maybe it's better for the Big Ten and P12 to extricate themselves a bit from espn. If they were relying strictly on Fox, I'd be worried, but with NBC looking to step up, they might be able to weaken eSECpn.
In that sense, you might be understimating Delany/BT/P12 by implying that they're beholden to their egos and petty emotions, etc. I'm not happy at all with their public posture on home-field playoffs, but you gotta figure they have some sort of end game in this process. Even if that end-game is driven by an outdated, convoluted vision, it's probably well thought out in Delany's mind, if nowhere else.

Maestro's picture

Sorry I can't get worked up about any of this.  Trying to predict the state of a program that far into the future is a futile effort at best.  A win against Tennessee in 2000-05 meant a lot, now it doesn't mean much.

vacuuming sucks

bassplayer7770's picture

That's true.  Look at our Miami games the past two seasons.  In the end, they didn't mean much.
My understanding of the PAC/B1G Challenge is they will try to make the match-ups even.  In other words, the best of the B1G will play the best of the PAC.  I'm not sure exactly how far in advance the match-ups will be announced, but I'm sure it won't be anywhere near 5+ years in advance.
Regardless, I would like to see some SEC opponents on our schedule at some point.

Maestro's picture

Sure would be nice to shut some mouths, but until it happens in a bowl game or a national championship game it won't shut many.  Maybe I have just grown weary of fighting the confrocentric battles, but I just don't seem to have much effort for it anymore.  Go Bucks, that's all I have to say about that.

vacuuming sucks

BrewstersMillions's picture

I'm with you man. This is the college football world in which we live. As Ohio State fans our skins should have all thickened to a point that this sort of thing doesn't bother us anymore. Let the SEC throw out their cute little comments about 0-9* or 0-10* or whatever the heck they want. But there is a new era in Big Ten football on the horizon. First and foremost, the architect of the game that really kicked this whole SEC thing off is now coaching for the Buckeyes. Brady Hoke (it burns me to say it) is going to have Michigan playing angry, throw back, physical football, and Penn State appears to be heading in the right direction under BOB. Bielema has Wisconsin as a perennial threat. If Penn State can successfully get off of the mat and Dantonio can get MSU to the next level, the B1G has 5 teams that have a realistic chance of being top 15 contenders each and every season. I've written Nebraska off, personally. I don't see them ever returning to the big boy table. Times are changing. Meyer and Hoke are going to force Big Ten teams to change for the better or get left in the dust. We are going to catch up a lot sooner than later. And our conference is the one poised to do it faster, and with more teams. Watch.
EDIT-One the subject of the PAC thing....what are we supposed to do, gurantee a major conference non conference game out west AND one from the SEC? Why is Ohio State the only team expected to do that. We already will have a major game (assuming we'll see USC, or Oregon or whoever else might be good at some point) out of conference. The SEC isn't exactly beating the doors down to lock up guranteed, tough  non conference matchups. If they did that, how would they have time to play James Madison and Ap State in Mid October?

Do I come off as arrogant? Shame on me, I was hoping it would more obvious.

Poison nuts's picture

Word.

"Do not pass me, just slow down - I can move right through you" Superchunk - Precision Auto.

btalbert25's picture

I can agree with this, I mean both programs will probably have a different coach by 2020 and lord only knows who will be in what conference or if there are even conferences at that point.  It is kind of amazing though, that no matter how bad the people who run college football try to screw it up it keeps getting more popular.  I'm wondering at what point to the fans finally get pissed off and just have enough?  Probably after whatever kind of Cluster Eff these conference heads come up with for a "playoff" because you know they won't get it right.

Denster's picture

I'm so fucking tired of this.
So I'm guessing if the SEC had an agreement with the ACC or the Big 12 to play each other every single year, Georgia would definitely play the 9 game conference slate, the Big 12 or ACC opponent AND Ohio State? Riiiiiiight. Isn't this the same school that went like 40 years without going west of the Mississippi for a regular season game?

"It's a double-barreled pistol that fires hard work and victory..."

nickma71's picture

And you are concerned with what SEC fan thinks for what reason?

Steve Earle Bruce Springsteen's picture

The thing is, it's not just SEC fans. If this were, say, USC backing out of tough home-and-homes with SEC squads, we'd be all over them for it. This isn't a good look, no matter how you slice it. 
Marquee home-and-homes were brilliant moves under Tressel. They helped the program with recruiting, kept it in the national spotlight in September when everyone else was beating up on the Memphises and Akrons of the world, and garnered significant publicity, and any publicity is good publicity.
I'm hoping Ohio State replaces these teams with genuine oppnents. Yes, I want to play real opponents OOC, in addition to whatever Pac-12 team we happen to draw that year. For years, Michigan has mostly had a chickens**t out of conference schedule, outside of their games against Oregon. You know what their excuse is? "Well, we have to play Notre Dame every year."  Give me a break. Tough schedules breed tough teams. Teams that play Akron, Toledo, and Kent State every year lose by double digits in the postseason.

The North remembers.

741's picture

I'm pretty stoked to have future intersectional matchups with USC, Oregon, UCLA, Arizona State. The glass is half full folks.

NC_Buckeye's picture

Don't ignore the big picture. This B1G-Pac12 challenge is Delany's master scheme to get west coast viewers interested in the Big Ten (outside of the Rose Bowl matchup).
This has long-term implications as far as tier one contracts that would leave the SEC in the dust as far as per school payouts. And that is where the B1G is going to start clobbering the SEC. If we're able to start outspending them on asst coaches' salaries, facilities, (and possibly stipends to student-athletes) AND still have enough money to maintain the non-revenue sports. That's when the Freaky Friday scenario finally happens for the Big Ten in cfb. The highest class talent will start gravitating to the B1G and the sports media will be in our back pocket.
Man, will I crow when that happens.

Squirrel Master's picture

Pac12 is on the rise just like the B1G. SEC is dominant now but all things will be at least equal in 3-5 years. USC, UCLA and Oregon are big money programs that won't be dormant for long. Not to mention that this could bring Notre Dame into the B1G through association and boost this conference even more. As far as I am concerned, let the SEC not play major programs and lean on their in-conference games. Eventually the SEC will need outside help to stay at the top.
Losing this Georgia game may not seem like a big deal now but Georgia is the kind of team that could be a contender in 3-5 years. I am not sure what would be better, H&H with Georgia or annual games with USC and Oregon. I would find it hard to believe they will stick OSU against Washington State or Utah. It will be Indiana that will play those schools. Its just like in B-ball, OSU plays Duke or NC. They don't play Miami and Virginia Tech.

I saw a UFO once.......it told me to have a goodyear!

spqr2008's picture

I hope Delany is playing a long game, forcing ESPN to cough up huge money to the B1G and forcing Fox to increase their rate to keep running the BTN.

buckeye76BHop's picture

Wow...I'm not sure about the rest of my Buckeye compadres....but this makes us look afraid of playing the SEC in regular season.  IMO until we beat them in regular or post season...tOSU will always be a butt of an SEC fans jokes (or TTUN since they're going to get POUNDED by Alabama in early Sept.).  The excuse of PAC 10/B1G regular season obligations doesn't make any sense to me what so ever.  Sounds like we're afraid and that's that...I don't buy the SEC not wanting to play us...did you read the article.  They said "OSU" didn't want to play not Georgia.  Not sure where all this talk from the author about the SEC not wanting to play up in the north.  Not to mention these games would have been scheduled for early in the season...so weather would have no significants.  Oh well...I probably don't know what I'm talking about...I'm sure someone will say that.  Read it without being obtuse and you'll see what I see.  GO Bucks!  We need to play the SEC and beat them in order to be elite.  If Georgia's not good enough then schedule Alabama like TTUN did.  Win or lose at least we did it which is exactly what they'll say...GUARANTEED.  

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

Squirrel Master's picture

you missed alot there. There is nothing about OSU not wanting to play Georgia. They couldn't confirm a date for the game before the deadline at the end of June due to the new agreement with the Pac12. Therefore, they had to cancelled the "agreement", not contract, they setup with Georgia. OSU is not concerned about playing Georgia no matter what anyone says.
Secondly, SEC in the past stated they didn't want to play up north! They are notorius for not playing major programs outside of their conference with the occasional exception. Up north or out west, or anywhere.
Lastly, OSU beat Arkansas in 2010 no matter what the record books say. And they beat them easily. Arkansas had to mount a furious comeback to make it a game and that was even sketchy IMO.
There is no reason to think OSU is afraid to play anyone! Especially now! This team will no longer sit on its accomplishments in the past like it did the last couple of years. If anything, they should be afraid of this team in 2013! It will have SEC speed (or whatever you want to call it) and B1G strength! I hope OSU plays Bama or LSU next year for the title. they will show them who OSU is now!

I saw a UFO once.......it told me to have a goodyear!

buckeye76BHop's picture

"Dude" I didn't miss anything.  I get his point...however...I don't get the point about SEC coming up north (in Sept. not Dec.) nor do I think OSU wanted to play them in the first place...which is also not commented on. I'm not saying our staff, players or anyone else are afraid of GA...I mean the douche who canceled it (and I'm assuming Gene Smith had something to do with it).  Obviously it would generate $$$ so that's not it....so what is it???  I really like you Sq. Master but you aren't seeing what's right there.  Why cancel it then...because of a Pac12/B1G agreement to play each other as SEC and Big 12 will do?  Common man...why did TTUN schedule Alabama in 2012 bc they thought...hey we better schedule an SEC team this year or we'll never be able to...why did that happen but it didn't with OSU and GA???  There won't be anything different in 2012 than in 2020 or 21 besides a playoff which really makes this not make sense (At that point why would OSU want to play them in regular season if they may have two or more games than normal.  Also not commented on).  You're the one not seeing what's right in front of your face.  We may play an SEC team in a bowl game...obviously bc that's more than likely who will be there in 2013 and in the playoffs of 2014 and so on.  But wouldn't it be nice to beat them twice in one year if possible??? I say yes...apparently the powers that be at OSU say no (and many others for some reason are agreeing that we shouldn't play an SEC team in regular season...still not sure why but whatever).  

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul like getting the hell kicked out of you."

"I love football. I think it is most wonderful game in world and I despise to lose."

Woody Hayes 1913 - 1987 

klfeck's picture

Good article, but someone needs to study up on boxing jargin before using it as a methapor. Just sayin....

Kevin

OH!!!!!

Proud parent of a Senior at The Ohio State University