in town for free camps
Big 10 Championship
We still control our own destiny in the Leaders.
Are MSU and Nebraska world beaters? No, and they play each other and Northwestern.
If we can sweep the Legends, there's a good chance that we'll be tied for 1st and win the head-to-head tie breaker.
Hopefully, Hoke will feel the sting and play to win from here on out.
SLIGHT MOD EDIT: Hopefully, the OP does not mind if I do this, but let's make this the Monday Snowflakes thread too. Threads about more specific aspects of the game can exist separately, I would think. - LSA
I thought of putting this in one of the main page threads, but it didn't really fit anywhere.
There is something I read somewhere in the basketball coverage yesterday that bugged me a bit. Apparently, Beilein will get no bonus for winning a Big 10 Championship. There are apparently compensation bumps for thresholds met in the NCAA tournament, but not the Big 10. While I don't think the word "outrage," is correct, this doesn't seem right. It seems to me that Beilein should be rewarded, apart from how far the team goes in the post season.
I'd love for someone more knowledgable about salary compensation and contracts, especially in the coaching world, to comment. Is there any financial way that Michigan can do something? How can Beilein be rewarded for this achievement? Who makes this decision? What role does Brandon play? The Board of Regents? Do they tear up the current contract? Do the regents or the Athletic Administration award a bonus for the championship anyway, even though it isn't written in?
There are so many who should receive credit for this season: Novak. Douglass. Burke. THJ. Morgan. Smotrycz. Bill Martin for the facilities. Dave Brandon for follow through. The assistant coaches. But the key player is Beilein. With patience, calmness, and competence, he recruited, coached, encouraged, schemed, planned, and led, to get Michigan basketball to this point. I think it only fair for Beilein to receive financial recognition from the University of Michigan for what he has done.
Was talking to an MSU fan the other night after the game and I came up with a thought. I told him that I thought teams should earn the recognition of being the reg. season champ and there should be another distinction for the championship game. I said this on a bit of a whim, but the more I thought abut it the more it made sense.
Say UCLA would have won the PAC 12 Championship game. Would they really the PAC 12 champion even though they lost more conference games than both Oregon and Stanford? In my opinion they wouldn't be, they would be the championship game champion and should be rewarded with a BCS bowl game, but if you want every game to count, you have co-PAC 12 champions in Oregon and Stanford, which makes sense to me. They earned the right over the course of the regular season to get that distinction IMO. This is similar to what happens in basketball, where you have regular season champs and tourney champs.
So I'm wondering what you all think. I'm guessing this will have a negative reaction because it would help State, but I don't really care about that. I care about what is right overall, which I think is to have seperate distictions. I don't think a pure champion should be determined by a single game in this case, the teams should be rewarded with their season. If they want to make a BCS bowl outright then win both regular season champion and championship game champion. Technically they should but it doesn't always work out that way.
By the way, this isn't a defense for MSU, they don't deserve a BCS game IMO, but I do think they deserve a regular season champion for whatever that is actually worth. Any other year in the Big Ten they would be in the Rose Bowl. Now everyone has the same rules, so the new system isn't unfair to MSU, Wisc should go to the Rose Bowl, but they were the outright regular season champ, beating Wisc. during the season (regardless of luck).
I'm suprised one topic hasn't received more play in all the divison alignment discussion. Perhaps the thing that originally concerned me most is something Brian brought up: that putting UM and OSU in separate divisons but keeping a protected cross division rivalry will make it more difficult for UM and OSU to make the championship game, because each team always plays a top notch team in their protected game (each other). For example, one year Michigan and Nebraska might play the same schedule but UM plays OSU as a cross divison game and Nebraska plays Illinois. Those two games both count equally in UM and Nebraska's fight to win the division, but the OSU game is much more difficult, and quite a handicap.
However, upon thinking about it more, it seems like the disadvantage won't be so bad: I assume that the other superpowers, Nebraska and Penn State, are protected to play each other. This ensures that the 4 powers each have, on average, the same number of guaranteed difficult games. Likewise, Iowa and Wisconsin should probably have a protected game. The only way for the schedule to really screw us is when a normally mid level team, like MSU, has a great season by avoiding good teams in the other division. This seems rare enough to not be a major concern, especially given that the 9 game conference schedule means that each team will only miss 2 cross division opponents in a given year.
Thoughts? Is the road actaully more difficult for UM and OSU? Should we even care if it is?