"(I) think about 'The Lion King,' Simba gets hit over the head and (he's told) 'the past can hurt,' " Harbaugh said Monday afternoon. "'You can either run from it or embrace it and learn from it.'
Stumbled across this online ... if you're ever watching an ACC game and want to know who you should be pulling for, please consult the following flowchart:
Edit: If you can't read it in the embedded form, original size picture is here: [imgur link]
ESPN is reporting on their ticker that while Notre Dame prefers to stay independent in football and in the Big East in all other sports, if Notre Dame was forced to join a conference, they would look at the ACC before the Big 10.
Haven't found a link yet, but I'll post one as soon as I find it.
To me, this makes no sense. What rivals do ND have in the ACC? There's Boston College,Georgia Tech and Miami, and Pitt. Of those, BC and Pitt are the only rivalries that I'd consider real.The ND-Michigan and ND-MSU rivalries dwarf the ND-Pitt and ND-BC rivalries.ND plays Purdue every year too. And they play Penn St. and Northwestern occasionally. Notre Dame to the ACC just doesn't make much sense.
It's being reported that WVU sent paperwork in to the SEC today, Rutgers is in contact with the Big 10 and ACC, and UConn is also in contact with the ACC. I checked the "Texas to join Pac-12" thread but didn't see anything about any of this, so apologies if this has already been discussed.
I've been sitting here watching college football live on ESPN and listening to the thoughts of everyone on the Ohio St/Miami and Penn St/Alabama games. Everyones seems to be picking Ohio State and Alabama to win their respective games. This led me into thoughts of who would I rather see win those games and I ask the MGoBlog community the same question. Do you root for the Big Ten regardless of who is playing or do you stick to your guns about who you truely dislike? Myself living in the south surrounded by SEC fans I hear all the time that "The Big Ten is garbage" which is mostly based on Ohio State's implosion on the national championship/BCS stage of recent years, especially against the SEC. Personally I pull for the Big Ten every chance I get but I won't lie by saying that I wouldn't be happy if Ohio State loses a big out of conference game. I'm pulling for Penn State to beat Alabama but my dislike for Ohio State has me wanting them to lose this game for my own personal sanity. What does the MGoBlog community have to say about this? Do you pull against your rivals no matter what or do you support your conference?
[Edit: Note that I was writing this when Brian posted a front-page reference to the same idea on Slow States. All I can say is either great minds think alike or this is freaking obvious.]
What happened to the biggest rivalry of the old BIg 8 conference, Nebraska-Oklahoma, when it was split across divisions when the Big XII was formed? I'll answer that for you -- it was eclipsed by Texas-Oklahoma, a divisional rivalry. The collapse of that game is a major reason why Nebraska is leaving that conference to join the Big Ten.
What would happen to the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry if it were split across divisions? Could it be eclipsed by Penn State-Ohio State, a divisional rivalry? This isn't as far-fetched as you might think. An occasional championship matchup will not make up for turning the regular-season game into a trophy game instead of a must-win game with the divisional title almost always on the line. In the long run, the loss of this dynamic could damage the Michigan program and ultimately the Big Ten brand.
This doesn't need to happen.
It is possible to create both geographic equity (i.e., what Penn State wants) and competitive intensity (i.e., what Michigan and Ohio State should want) in a divisional alignment that preserves or protects all major rivalries. The only real question here is how to split up the quadrangle of hate (Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, formerly a triangle) -- no matter how you do it, you're going to lose part of that. Without further ado:
- Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern
- Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, Illinois
Protected regular-season games: Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State, Iowa-Nebraska, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern.
- Michigan, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Northwestern
- Michigan State, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Illinois
Protected regular-season games: Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State, Iowa-Minnesota, Nebraska-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern.
I'm not sure which of these two are better in terms of the quadrangle, but you get the idea. This protects most border-war and all in-state rivalries while spreading out the divisions, thereby not screwing anyone in that regard (i.e., like Penn State would be if you put them in an otherwise western division).
Finally, lest you argue this is the ACC redux, let's take a look at their current alignment:
- Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami
- Boston College, Maryland, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Florida State
I don't know if there are protected rivalry games across the divisions, but regardless, this is not a consistent system. Like the quadrangle of hate, the main problem for the ACC is how to handle the four North Carolina schools and, actually, I think the current scheme has got that right. The main problem with it is they don't split up Virginia-Virginia Tech, resulting in Maryland being split from Virginia.
If the ACC were to follow my methodology with regard to the Big Ten, it would look like this:
- Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State
- Boston College, Virginia Tech, North Carolina State, Wake Forest, Clemson, Miami
Protected regular-season games: Maryland-Boston College, Virginia-Virginia Tech, North Carolina-North Carolina State, Duke-Wake Forest, Georgia Tech-Clemson, Florida State-Miami.
There, fixed two conferences in one go!
The ACC has more than doubled their TV revenue with their new contract. They now make $155 million a year, as opposed to $67 million a year previously. Unlike their previous contract, they sold all their rights to ESPN, who (thankfully) won a bidding war with Fox.