Aaaand We Don't Even Fix The Divisions
Maryland prez tells regents MD, RU in Leaders Division w/OSU, PSU, Wisconsin, Purdue & Indiana. Illinois moves to Legends
Michigan will play OSU every year; other division opponents will play them once every six years. Good job, good effort Dave Brandon.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
we get a bodybag game with Illinois every year now.
Yeah, that's about the only plus. Damn this sucks divisionally. And to top it off, they're keeping the leaders/legends names too? Oh yippee.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:05 PM ^
I am fully onboard with this being the worst thing ever.
But is this really Brandon's fault? This seems like Delaney's fault.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^
I'd blame Brandon for not pushing for us to be in a division with OSU in the first place.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^
Can we stop pretending like Brandon has no control over these things?
The Michigan AD has a lot of say in conference matters and if he doesn't, he is incompetant.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:06 PM ^
That is the most idiotic statement I've heard all month.
You don't know the first THING about college athletics. And I'm not gonna throw the "I know more than you card out" ...but fuck it, I know more than. I've worked in college athletics administration for over 10 years INCLUDING in the B1G AND at Maryland.
Maryland HAD to make this move, they were BROKE --- thanks to Debbie Yow (who was the AD when I was there). Michigan has more money than they know what to do with thanks to Dave Brandon. Maryland is in DC, Michigan is in the struggling state of MICHIGAN.
Some how we've got a new Crisler, a "new" Big House, a "new" Yost, Under The Lights, The Big Chill, etc. --- and plenty more on the way.
We've started D1 LAX, we've hired Brady Hoke, we've helped our basketball team reach #4 in the country.
Yet the man who oversees all of this is incompetant. What a moronic statement.
Dave Brandon knows this will make him and his university more money --- PERIOD. People in Maryland are going to pay to see Michigan play on the road there and people in Michigan will pay for to see Maryland just like they pay to see us play Minnesota and Northwestern.
The University of Maryland just had to cut sports...do you know how BAD that is for an athletics department? Of couse not. Meanwhile, we just started a LACROSSE program --- do you know how EXPENSIVE that is?! Of course not.
Don't post on things you have no idea about.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:29 PM ^
All you really did was state the obvious: This is much better for Maryland than it is for Michigan.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:39 PM ^
It's interesting that your entire answer revolved around the finances of the relative athletic departments. And those finances are vitally important, no doubt. No one is arguing that this isn't a good move for Maryland (and I'm not sure why saving Maryland's AD enters into a discussion of Dave Brandon's, apart from a general point that an AD who is a competent financial administrator is an important thing to have). Protecting the financial standing of one's department is obviously a vital component of being a good AD.
But there are two other things that I would argue an AD is charged with that Brandon has been less successful at.
1. Preventing the teams under your perview from being at a competitive disadvantage. Some of that is financial, which Brandon (and Martin) obviously succeeded at, see New Chrisler. But other parts of it are structural. By publicly supporting the conference structure as it now stands, he has allowed Michigan to exist in a competitive disadvantage with every other team in its division, due to our protected crossover with OSU, who is sure to be the dominant team in the other division.
2. In a program like Michigan, with its history, he's also charged with protecting tradition. This is a tricky matter, particularly in the shifting age of college football as it exists. He's certainly done better than some, say Oliver Luck or DeLoss Dodd, but he has nevertheless overseen a few years in which the OSU rivalry, one of the key elements of Michigan's tradition, has seen a decline in importance. I, for one, don't believe that if Gene Smith and Dave Brandon had stood together and insisted that OSU and Michigan remain in the same division, and had marshalled the overwhelming support of their fanbases in the interest of the same, that said decline needed to happen.
November 19th, 2012 at 8:11 PM ^
They're now be visible in more homes, they'll reach the east coast more than they do and it allows their network, the best and biggest conference network in all of college sports to grow as well.
This move makes NO sense from a purely football standpoint. NO sense from a loyalist standpoint.
But this is about MONEY. This is about never having to cut sports like Maryland did. This is about continuing to build new facilities so you can claim to be "the leaders and the best."
For 15 years we said that even referring to basketball, but we weren't leading or the best of shit. Our team was average and our facility was well below average. Go walk around Crisler now --- not only do you get one of the best facilities in the country, but you get one of the best TEAMS in the country to play in it.
THAT is what Dave Brandon is responsible for --- not "OMG, we've got to play Rutgers" or "OMG, Maryland can't fill its stadium."
He's trying to run in athletics department in hard economic times in a state that has been hit as hard as anyone.
If Maryland had an AD that worried about raising money and being financially stable as much as Michigan did...we wouldn't be having this conversation. PERIOD.
My post wasn't just about money. It was also about a good AD vs. a bad AD. Debbie Yow was/is a BAD athletics director and it's showed. Proud Maryland cut sports and has no money. Kevin Anderson has had more pressure on him to get those teams back and fix the problem, this is what they had to do. But because of a good AD, Dave Brandon --- Michigan will never have those issues. Instead we're ADDING one of the most EXPENSIVE sports you can add in Men's Lacrosse.
Sidenote: At my current school, we've considered adding MLax due to pressure from alumni. We did a study and it was going to cost it at least 1.6 million ANNUALLY just to have a team. Who knows what it would cost to be good. Brandon added a sport that doesn't really do anything for the University (they were fine this long without it) and he's financially stable enough to continue to build new things for UofM.
He's far from incompetant. In fact, he's one of the best in the business.
November 20th, 2012 at 1:39 AM ^
"He's trying to run in athletics department in hard economic times in a state that has been hit as hard as anyone."
Now I'm scared to think about the way he would run it in good economic times. I don't think he is going to take his foot off the pedal. We may get Nebraska like PSD's.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
Brandon always acts like he's got everything under control or everything that occurs is directly in line with what he had planned all along.
He should be furious about this, but he'll come out with some lame public statement pretending its a good thing.
Its not really his fault, but for someone who likes to pretend to be a master of the universe, this makes him out to be the regular guy that he is.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
DB has been shockingly willing to be a mouthpiece for Delaney/B1G office over the last few years.
Maybe he's positioning himself to be the future B1G commish.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^
He has ties and a love for Michigan football which is why he moved from Dominos CEO to athletic director. I don't see him caring much about Big 10 commissioner.
What I do see is the Big 10 athletic directors collectively losing their minds in order to expand the Big 10 market. Rutgers and Maryland in no way guarentee viewership in NY and the Metro DC area.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/8/20/1633680/what-becomes-of-the-game-mi…
SAM WEBB: Let's say that you're making the call on Big Ten Divisions, you are making the decision, are Michigan and Ohio State in the same division?
DAVID BRANDON: No.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:49 PM ^
And wish I had never seen it. This comment is troubling, "tradition is evolving."
No tradition doesn't evolve, it remains the same! The longetivity and familarity behind a practice or event make it a tradition. New traditions can be made but traditions by definition cannot evolve! Those new tradition must be allowed to settle and take root or else they are just fads. That is why The Game should NEVER be moved from the last Saturday in November.
None of us weren't alive when the tradition started but so many of us fell in love with The Game and much our love has to do with those who have built on and CONTINUED the tradition. We would be remissed to just tear it all down for some sort-sighted conference re-alignment.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:02 PM ^
I don't know if that's the smoking gun you're making it out to be. He could just be toeing the company line. A corporate guy like Brandon isn't going to rock the boat.
I think the fundamental problem is that a lot of schools in the league see Michigan and OSU as cash cows and absolutely do not want to go a year without playing either of us, so the league split us up to ensure that everybody gets a crack at one of the Big Two.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:11 PM ^
Either A. Brandon wants a dumb setup (which he said he did) where Michgian and OSU are in separate divisions, or B. As the AD at one of the two flagship schools in the conference he was unable to tell Purdue, Iowa, Indiana, etc. that they can suckle at the teat of our extra bowl revenue and inflated TV contracts but they can't take our traditions. Oh, and they get to play Nebraska and PSU every year so not exactly a kick in the balls.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm not sure how realistic option B would have ever been. Is he going to tell his colleagues, in a conference that has always been about sharing the wealth, to F off?
I also don't get any sense that OSU was willing to stick its neck out for this, either.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
I agree. That's not really how business partners behave off of television.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^
This isn't a hard sell. In exchange for millions of dollars in increased revenue and heightened exposure that comes from being in a conference with Michigan and OSU, other teams have to accept the fact that Michigan and OSU will play a meaningful (as in they are competing in the same division) game every year at the end of the season. Just like they have always done. To make up for keeping things the same for us, they get even more money thanks to BTN/expansion and we've added another elite program that is even better at traveling to your stadium and buying tickets (Nebraska) who you get to play every year.
Not to mention, we are sacrificing exposure for this whole deal. Every Michigan game was on TV before the BTN. That was not the case for other schools in the league. Now Michigan fans are essentially subsidizing games (forced to pay for a premium channel to get games they used to see without it) between Indiana/Minnesota/Northwestern and shitty non-conference opponents.
If Dave Brandon as Michigan AD under those circumstance can't get that done then he is useless at that (very important) facet of his job.
Michigan, OSU, MSU, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa on one side. PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue on the other. That isn't some insane, imbalanced scenario that people who are getting rich because of their association with Michigan/OSU can reasonably object to.
November 19th, 2012 at 5:27 PM ^
They are playing a meaningful game against each other at the end of the year.
I pay nothing additional for the BTN.
I'm not sure what you're saying, really.
November 19th, 2012 at 6:44 PM ^
1. You'll feel differently that first time we play Ohio State in the final regular season game when we're already scheduled to play them in the championship, especially if we win the first one and lose the second.
2. Congratulations on having a more expensive television package that some people cannot afford. For instance: In the past every Michigan game would have been on televison before the BTN. However, you cannot get BTN on the minimum Comcast line-up, you must pay extra.
Its quite obvious what he's saying.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:17 PM ^
Michigan and Ohio State are the Big Ten. There is no conference without them. Brandon continually either disagrees with what the fanbase wants or goes along with the also-rans in the conference to our detriment (SEE divisional alignment in the first place).
If he can't occasionally pair up with the OSU AD and tell folks how it is going to be (especially when they could have a very nice division with PSU, Nebraska, and Wisconsin) then what is the point of being the big fish?
November 19th, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^
I agree. I'm not a big fan of Brandon, but it seems silly to keep blaming him for every bad thing that happens at the conference level. Big fish or no, I'm not sure Brandon actually has the clout to simply do whatever he wants and tell the rest of the conference to get in line.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
He's no DeLoss Dodds, that's for sure.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
The big fish thing was just brought up for people who act like DB is a helpless child at the mercy of powerful nefarious forces from schools like Purdue.
The real problem, as Brian pointed out, is that he wants things that are dumb (like Michigan and OSU in separate divisions).
November 19th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^
This is insanity. Nothing else to add.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^
"Gr8est Conference Ever!"
- 
November 19th, 2012 at 2:08 PM ^
You owe Dave Brandon another few years of not complaining. Plus, what makes you think Brandon has the power to "fix" the divisions? Plus plus, if further expansion is possible/probable/imminent, why not wait to do the "fix" until the final situation is evident?
November 19th, 2012 at 2:08 PM ^
I posted this in another thread, but there was simply zero chance of the Big Ten allowing Michigan and Ohio State in the same conference. Really, zero. I am certain that it was never on the table.
The vote would have been 10-2 (or 12-2 if Mississippi and Rice or whoever the hell we just added get to vote).
November 19th, 2012 at 2:26 PM ^
You replied to my statement, and I see your point and haven't thought about it from your angle. However, I contend a slight variation of your argument. If a school knew they wouldn't be put in their division, they'd be pretty willing to sign up for it. So, say, if you told Wisconsin and/or Nebraska that they'd be opposite M and OSU... i'm pretty sure they'd be comfortable with that.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:33 PM ^
I agree that Wisconsin and Nebraska would have been ok with it. They can more or less fill their stadia with any schedule they are given, and they will be more competitive with Michigan and Ohio State in the opposite division.
I'm thinking more about the Indianas and the Illinoises and the Rutgerses (?) of the world. They need draws to fill their stadium, and Nebraska and Wisconsin are okay, but don't measure up to Michigan and Ohio State. Indiana, Illinois and Rutgers would pitch a fit if they were put in a division without Michigan or Ohio State--it would be a huge deal for them. Penn State, Michigan State and Iowa, on the other hand, would probably object to being in a division with both Michigan and Ohio State--they see themselves as occasional contenders for a title, and being in a division with both of those teams would pretty much take away any such chances from them.
From the point of view of the rest of the league, everything would be too unbalanced with the "big two" in the same division.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^
that vote is even worse (11-1/13-1).
November 19th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 3:04 PM ^
ADs have to think about the bottom line. Having U-M or OSU in your division likely means a guaranteed sellout game in your stadium.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^
Take a look at the Northwestern-Nebraska game this year. The TV money is split no matter what and one of PSU/Nebraska every year isn't any less profitable than M/OSU in terms of ticket sales across the conference.
There is no credible reason for not having Michigan and Ohio State in the same division.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:18 PM ^
As others have said, if this was truly such a bad deal for everyone else in the division, why wouldn't there be 6 or 7 votes for it because the other division would be that much easier?
In reality, if you assume that there are four powers, it shouldn't matter which two of the four are in your division, it should be fairly balanced. I always assumed that the problem was that people always talked about it as geographical splits and then it didn't make sense to have three of the four in one division.
Also, a point in favor of teams voting for it. Say you're Indiana, being in the same division with Michigan and OSU assures you of one big gate a year. That's probably worth voting for it outweighing having a tougher road to winning the division.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:32 PM ^
If Michigan and Ohio were in one division, that would make it easier to get to the title game if you are in the other division. So it would probably be a more even vote.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^
Let's say that all 14 schools are given a piece of paper, and told, "assume that you will play your biggest rival no matter what. Now given that fact, if you could have any single team in your division, which would it be?" I'm guessing that they would open up the papers and see 13 "Michigan"s and 1 "Ohio State" written on those slips of paper.
Now let's say that they are given a second slip of paper, and told, "assume you don't get your first choice. If you could have any other team in your division, which would it be?" I'm guessing that they would find about 12 votes for Ohio State.
This isn't so much about competitiveness, and it certainly isn't about TV money. It's about the appeal of the home football schedule. If you were a Big Ten athletic director, and you knew that there was a possibility that for 10 of the next 12 years, your home schedule would not include either Michigan or Ohio State, would you vote for it? The athletic director doesn't care about being in the title game as much as he cares about money. The TV money is the same no matter what, so really he mostly cares about selling season tickets.
Attractive schedules get the alumni on campus, and alumni on campus donate more money than alumni who don't return to campus.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
Technically, it'd be playing in Maryland, but I'm sure we'll tell them that their stadium is too small and request that they move the game to RFK or whatnot...because who could have ever had the foresight to see that Maryland is a nothing in terms of football (and Rutgers is a nothing hopped up on red bull and jager).
November 19th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^
They also like those giant gross sandwiches with microwaved chicken tenders and mozarella sticks.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^
Ughhhhh. This sucks. Was this even thought through sufficiently by the higher-ups?? Stupid question, I know.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:10 PM ^
not david brandon's fault and don't get the attempt to blame him here
November 19th, 2012 at 2:11 PM ^
The only way that 14 teams would have SENSIBLY worked would have been to eliminate the cross-division rivalry, or expanding to 9 games.
They're clearly not doing the first. I doubt they do the second.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:14 PM ^
They can't do the second until 2017 at the earliest. We're stuck with this for 3 seasons at least or until we get to 16 teams and are forced to move to 9 games.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^
The only way that 14 teams works is to make that the maximum conference limit, eliminate OOC games and have every team play 13 conference games, with a EPL type league champion decided. Then let the conference champs play in a playoff, a la, the Champions League.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^
I would love that so hard.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^
They should get rid of the "guaranteed" matchup then. I know "The Game" is great for tradition and tv, but at the end of the day, it's going to be a 50/50 win/loss game that could adversely affect our conference win percentage right before the B1G championship.
Plus, the other matchups are downright silly - why would Northwestern have to face Rutgers every year and MSU face MD? Absolutely no reason for that... no history, tradition or desire....
November 19th, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^
It's wise not to whine about a lack of history and tradition right after advocating for cancellation of The Game in the name of an easier schedule.
Comments