catch-22 reference! nice.
I did not make this headline up
Amateur Barwis Porn. MGoBoard denizens are ahead of the curve on this, but Jeremy Gallon has a number of videos up that document parts of his Michigan official visit, and they're pretty cool. Here's the legendary "you can't do this" Barwis pushup we've heard so much about:
Not that you didn't know this already. Michael Spath talked to Red about the ficky-ficking against Ohio State on Saturday:
He also took about five minutes to rip the hell out of the replay system and the CCHA officials. He's very aware of what the two games (ND and OSU) could end up costing his team in the long run. But while he wants to see wholesale changes to the replay system he doesn't know that it will change because enough programs (ones that don't get TV often) probably wouldn't benefit from introducing new technology.
The other main topic of Red's press conference was the availability of Mark Mitera. Michigan's captain appears to be a go this weekend:
"I'm expecting that he'll play this weekend, but we're going to go day-to-day now that we're down to the last week," Berenson said after practice. "I'm looking at it as if he'll play. Gonna put him in a defensive rotation (Tuesday), and we'll see how he looks as the week goes on."
Also, Brian Lebler was injured Saturday—it's a shoulder thing—but is practicing and is day-to-day for the Ferris series.
A pairwise note. the Hoover Street Rag caught something I didn't when I surveyed the situation:
Miami has a better record, but since they haven't reached the 10-win threshold (when the head-to-head series is taken out) it isn't counted. This weekend, they play OSU. A team under consideration. If they sweep, they win the category and the comparison, even if we sweep Ferris State.
Michigan would have an opportunity to take the comparison back by doing better than Miami in the CCHA tournament, as unless Michigan and Miami are upset they're schedule to meet in the semifinal.
Er, really? The topic of a ninth Big Ten game will not die:
"That was a discussion that may move forward," Alvarez said. "We've discussed nine games. That will be something we'll probably take to the coaches."
The ADs are aware that 9 X 11 = 99 and 99 can't be divided by two; one team would only play eight Big Ten games. This would be absolute chaos if one of those teams was locked into the Big Ten title race, though. If one team is 8-0 and the other is 9-0, who's the champ? If one team is 8-1 and the other is 7-1, who's the champ? I just can't see that working out.
My best effort to a workable system: All league schedules are set just like they are now with the exception of one particular week. This week is kept clear until the previous season ends. The last place team in the league gets matched with a pre-arranged MAC opponent. They probably wouldn't mind, as they would have an easier path to bowl eligibility.
At this point you have ten teams in two groups:
The group of two have one and only one available option for their ninth game and get matched up with that option. The other six (or eight) teams get randomly matched up with one of the two teams they miss, with an emphasis on 1) variety and 2) fairly balancing home and away. I don't think it would work out exactly right every year, but the differences would be pretty small.
You are then hoping there are no worst-to-first miracle seasons, or you're putting in some sort of emergency championship game in the event that happens, or you're actually counting this MAC game in the conference standings, or you're just fine with making a mockery of the championship. I'd love to see a ninth conference game—I'd love to see anything other than Wisconsin-Cal Poly, really—but it just doesn't work.
catch-22 reference! nice.
The big house looks pretty sweet from the field with the new press boxes in the one video.
That taller guy is definitely Je'Ron Stokes. When Rich Rod makes that comment in the "Hold The Rope" video about "commitment", Je'Ron throws his head back and laughs, because of course, at the time Je'Ron was the only one in the room who hadn't committed.
I think they should add 2 games, not 1. That way, everyone plays everyone. No more avoiding Michigan and OSU.
Big 10 teams then would only have to worry about scheduling 2 non-conference games, though that likely means they lose out on revenue earned from playing a cupcake (because one game would be home, the other would be away). Thus, this is unlikely to ever happen as teams with fiscally irresponsible athletic departments like OSU depend on having 8 home games to avoid losses (of games and money).
It would also mean teams would be less likely to schedule Notre Dame. Big 10 teams would also be less likely to schedule an inter-conference game against a BCS opponent - like OSU vs. Texas or USC. But since I'm of the opinion that no one cares or remembers who you played out of conference in August or September, I personally would be ok with it.
About effing time we started talking about Indiana Univeristy football around here!!
Go Big Red! Bring on the MAC!
Isnt the white guy in the vids the younger Boren? If so, two things: 1) When was this vid taken? I assume recently bc of Stokes and Gallon, which would be LONG after the Boren/UMICH fallout. Bizarre. 2) I need to scale back on following recruiting bc I should not be recognizing someone that obscure. Of course, Im probably completely wrong and thats not a recruit whose family basically ostracized themselves from the progrum.
That the white guy is Brendan Gibbons, the Fla kicker, which would explain his joking around with fellow commit and Florida product Gallon.
Barwis has so much energy, I have no idea how he ever falls asleep. Or, does he sleep? Geesh.
I don't think I've ever been this turned on by push-ups in my entire life!
And yeah, that includes the boobies variety.
Coach Rod knows his NCAA recruiting rules. Imagining a run up the tunnel, completely legal (and kind of hilarious in its own way) and not the Lane Kiffin package of secondary violations.
The Pittsburgh Panthers would leave the Big East for the Big Ten in a heartbeat.
Notre Dame will never ever join.
Pitt slides nicely into the Big Ten, with strong football tradition in-state and along the Eastern region, an age-old Penn State hatred which OSU and UM fans can appreciate, and improved basketball program. Plus Michigan hasn't played Pitt, since the Eisenhower administration.
The Big 10+2 can pull a mitosis maneuver, divide into two 6 team divisions, North and South, and have at it, like the Big 12 does. You can retain the intra-league rivalries easy enough (i.e. UM vs. OSU) every year.
And then there's the Big Ten championship game and....
Mo'Money! Mo'money! Mo'money!
This essentially removes Michigan from the #1 spot on Penn State's conference rival list. So, then we would only have like nine other teams in the B10 that hate our guts more than anyone else.
Simply put, Pittsburgh might not be a viable option because its within the current geographic footprint of the conference. Take a look at all the recent major conference expansions--they're looking at adding territory, and ultimately, increase any potential television coverage.
Obviously, Notre Dame is clearly within the footprint, but IRT football, they're clearly seen differently in terms of television coverage, i.e. they bring their own network with them and they're incredibly popular. On a side note though, ND isn't a member of the Association of American Universities, whereas Pitt is a member.
If the conference went to a round robin, then all the schools would be looking at five home conference games, five away conference games and two non-conference games.
The first problem with that scenario is it takes away the possibility of scheduling eight home games--a big revenue generator for most any B10 program. The most anyone could do in one season is seven.
Secondly, you have to look at who is going to be scheduled for the non-conference slots. Do teams play a couple of lower-tier teams? Do they play a single higher-tier team in a home-and-home and a lower-tier team? If you do the latter, you're looking at alternate seasons of six, then seven home games.
What happens IRT tie breakers? Head-to-head competition seems logical, but what happens if there are multiple one-loss teams? Do you look at overall record--in which case, the non-conference games now come into play? Or do you go with the team that's rated higher in the polls/BCS?
Given current economic conditions, I have to imagine that the number of bowl games will contract. That said, I suspect most ADs will be wary of a true round robin because it may reduce the number of bowl eligible teams from the conference as well.
They could just play 13 games and still have 8 home games.
In the early '80s, Ohio State one year played only seven conference games, and finished 6-1, including a win over Michigan. It was in 1982.
But Michigan played eight conference games, losing only to Ohio State in the finale, 24-14.
So Michigan finished 7-1, Ohio State 6-1 in the Big Ten.
Ohio State beat UM but Michigan went to the Rose Bowl, only because Ohio State and some other lame-butt conference team didn't play each other that year. Nice for us, not for Bucks. And almost no one remembers it.
Who wants that again?
Nine conf games a year is RIFE with other awful issues. Not the least of which is how, with an odd numbers of teams (11), do you ensure there is a fair alernating of home-road conference schedules for all teams (5-4 one year, 4-5 the next, and so on)? My head hurts just thinking about it all.
Keep it the way it is. It's the only solution.
Twelve teams in Big Ten is NOT the solution -- unless someone can satisfactorily answer how UM-OSU does NOT get reduced to either Texas-Oklahoma (big annual game between division rivals played early in the year), or Nebraska-Oklahoma (former big rivals now in different divisions, who play only occasionally mid-season and rarely in conf title game).
Well it seems likely to me that if Michigan and Ohio State were in separate divisions they'd play in the conf title game a LOT.
But still, that wouldn't be every year, so to hell with that...
Wisky was Northwestern-bad back then.
When OSU whined about us going to the RB despite us losing to them, our reply was "Well, we didn't lose to Wisconsin on our on home turf."
Your solution to bringing a ninth game to the Big Ten is to, uh, create a miniature BCS Championship situation?
THAT CAN'T GO WRONG AT ALL, EVER! WHERE DO I SIGN UP?????
Go back to ten teams, play a round-robin schedule, with 3 non-conference games. Let NW join the MAC.
or the other one?
Northwestern is the standard-bearer of the conference, academically. IMO, the Big Ten would have the academic reputation of the ACC if the University of Chicago were still in the conference.
Or if Notre Dame had joined. I would rather the Big Ten aspire in this direction than that of the SEC.
The chances of Northwestern joining the MAC are nil.
My fear/dream would be for the elite, athletic institutions to form their own conference (Rice, Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Wake Forest, Duke and a resuscitated Chicago). They would be on the same "footing" and thus each school would not be at such a disadvantage year after year. It would be large enough to garner attention and bowl bids, and the few other D-1 institutions with such academic ambitions (UVa, UM, UC-Berkeley, UNC, Texas) would likely kill to be part of that conference.
9 conference games is the worst idea ever.
You either do 8, or you do 10 and play everyone. 5 home, 5 away, and have 2 OOC games.
We'd have to alternate between 6 & 7 home games every year assuming we keep the home & home with ND, so I doubt that happens as the Athletic Department basically needs 7 home games a year for the financial side of things to work.
But seriously, 9 games is a terrible idea. They just need to make it so teams don't miss Michigan and OSU in the same year. That's ridiculous. Pair OSU with Indiana and Michigan with Minnesota or something.