All is not lost! - OSU AD running scared
My appologizes if someone already posted this -
OSU AD Smith felt compelled to put out a video on the web because he is getting so much pressure on moving the game. It sounds like there is some hope the powers that be may cave if the fan bases keep up the pressure.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:24 PM ^
I wanna see Subcommandante Wayne get all up in his grill. Go Wayne!
August 27th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^
Brandon should take a page from this guy's book. He's from the business world and should already know this, "The customer is always right."
August 27th, 2010 at 1:26 PM ^
Maybe OSU will push for it being our last game. I couldn't imagine anyone there having enough sense to do that.
August 27th, 2010 at 8:13 PM ^
Maybe OSU fans can channel that... energy they always have into making a change for GOOD! By making a change, I mean not fucking over the greatest rivalry ever. Dare I say unite?
August 27th, 2010 at 1:27 PM ^
We're not the only ones with a terrible athletic department video player!
August 27th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
It plays the damn Snickers ads perfectly then chokes on the actual content. I think Jim Delany must have designed this.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:39 PM ^
...with Betty White?
August 27th, 2010 at 1:28 PM ^
Can someone summarize his statement?
August 27th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
The schedule's hardly been discussed. Divisional alignment and nine conference games have been discussed at length. 90% of the feedback he's gotten has been to keep the game where it is. He's listening. Juggling the needs of twelve organizations is sensitive, and he can't (yet) discuss it publicly.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:41 PM ^
It means they're not getting a mixed message, with half saying they hate it and half saying they love it. It's pretty unanimous that it's a bad idea. So at least we have that going for us.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
they're even more opposed to it than we are.
Once they talk (beat) some sense into their AD, we may be able to talk some sense into ours.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
"Thanks for all the emails and please don't panic. We haven't even discussed scheduling yet. We have spent 100% or our time discussing division alignment and how to add a 9th conference game. Your input is very valuable and will be given consideration. (between the lines he seems to be saying that the fan response will be valuable in negotiating what the schedule will look like). Please don't send me anymore emails on this subject I can't take it anymore. 90% of emails are against moving the game"
August 27th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
We need to keep the emails coming. We're getting to him.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
>Nothing has been decided, and there has been very little talk about schedules. Most talk has been about divisions.
>They are taking their time so they will be in position to go to 9 conference games, and they have a target year in mind.
>They want every B10 team to have 7 homes games a year
>Over 90% of the feedback has been in favor of keeping the game at the end of the year
>There has been a lot of good feedback that has given him new perspectives and new information to work with, but also a fair share of your 'ANGRY RABBLE RABBLE I HATE YOU' type feedback that hasn't been helpful.
>Luckily the B10 has history to look at for an example, and they will draw on the results other conferences have seen when going to 12 teams/divisions.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^
I wouldn't characterize this as "running scared," but it does give me an ounce of hope this could still come out right.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:35 PM ^
Yeah, he appears to be doing his job and being reasonable more than running scared. Hopefully it's not just talk, but he's saying all the right things.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
Nota bene, David Brandon.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
...That OSU's Athletic Director seems to make more sense on this important issue than our own? Through the whole process, and the comments, I get the feeling that Gene Smith is be kinda dragged kicking and screaming into this more than Brandon, who seems to be whole heartedly endorsing it. That dichotomy scares the crap out of me.
And at least he issued a statement regarding fans concern, and was condescending to them.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
At the risk of sounding like a douchebag, this is because we have an AD and you have a pizza salesman. I mean this literally: Gene Smith's entire career has been in athletics administration, where he's constantly making these kinds of decisions. DB has been in business (very successfully, I might add). The decisions DB makes tend to be based on dollars and cents, because there are no important traditions at Domino's Pizza. They're fundamentally different types of businesses. Of course, I think DB is applying exactly the kind of reasoning that one might expect; I don't think it's fair to say he's "bad" at this or that he's not doing a good job. He's just not sensitive to some of the crucial factors in this job that are new to him.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
+1.
I would have Pos'd more if I could
August 27th, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
You are kidding me right. It may be dollar and cents but if you customers arent happy, the dollar and cents business part become peripheral. There is something bigger here for DB. Its not that simple, maybe Delaney is putting pressure. This is just my opinion. I think you underestimate him as a leader.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
There is no possible way he could have learned anything about tradition and the rivalry from actually playing in it! I only wish I could neg this more than once.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:19 PM ^
Brandon never had to play OSU in October, in a cross-divisional game that was only for pride. He doesn't know what that would be like, anymore than we do.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:41 PM ^
You make some good point, but just to make sure, you do know that Dave Brandon actually played for Bo and while I don't think he played he was on the field for these Michigan-Ohio St games so he is a little bit more than just your average corporate CEO type concerning Michigan traditions. He actually lived them while 99% of the people on this board just read about them.
He should have the good sense to know better. Not sure if it was b.s. or not but your A.D. seemed to at least understand the anger being spewed out.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
Oh yeah, I'm aware. I actually think Brandon could be a great AD, but I worry that his lack of experience in this particular arena coupled with the timing of his hire (right at a historic juncture) could create havoc. It's just that every time I hear him talk about this, it seems to carry a tone of "this will be great and create more marketability and make more money"...and that's really missing the point. I don't know if he believes it or this is just toeing the line for Delany, but it's disconcerting to say the least.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
I think he is toeing the line. DB knows that you do not criticize in public. In private, I hope he is doing what he can. If someone can point it out to me, because I cant recall one time where there has been criticism from DB.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
Unlike our guy.
And I have no problem with your point.
August 27th, 2010 at 5:39 PM ^
Maybe DB would get it if we put it in terms he understood:
"Imagine if Domino's merged with Pizza Hut and Little Ceasar's, and those entities agreed that Domino's would no longer deliver pizza. How would you feel about that?"
Now that may make the lights go on.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
+1 for you sir, as the bearer of good news.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
At least according to this, everything is very preliminary.
But... the OSU president favors moving it earlier?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5501871
August 27th, 2010 at 1:31 PM ^
I didn't find the video all that encouraging. All his "we're doing our best, but it sure is complicated" talk sounded more like he was saying they're going to do what they want and claim that the fans just don't get how complicated a 12-team, 9-game conference schedule will be.
Plus, he says they're not talking about scheduling yet, just focusing on divisions. Well, isn't that the big issue? Whether or not UM and OSU end up in the same division?
August 27th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^
There are two issues that people are arguing against but they typically go hand in hand. One is divisional break down and the other is whether to move the game or not. The latter is generally thought to be the obvious outcome of the former. That doesn't necessarily have to be true.
What I got out of the video is that divisions are pretty much set, but they are going to try to keep The Game as the last game of the season and that the feedback is the main reasoning for that.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
so you're saying there's a chance?
August 27th, 2010 at 6:01 PM ^
But I've pretty much given up on that. There is not anything we are hearing in any way shape or form that says they will give up on putting Michigan and OSU in different divisions.
I think moving The Game away from the last game of the season is the more grievous error. We may be making some progress on that front . . .
August 27th, 2010 at 1:54 PM ^
If they're focusing solely on the divisions first and decide to split U-M and OSU, then that inevitably leads to the game being moved because--if Brandon is to be believed--they don't want the championship game to be a repeat of a game from the previous week (and so all the games during the final week will be intradivisional).
It seems to me they made a fundamental mistake at the very beginning of this process. It appears they decided that absolutely everything was on the table and open to be changed. Instead, they should have identified what Big Ten traditions were essential and could not be altered--and Michigan and OSU playing the final week of the season should have been at the top of that list. Once these essential traditions were identified, they then could have moved forward with creating the divisions.
August 27th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^
August 27th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
He claims they haven't talked about schedule, only about conferences.
But that's the point! If Michigan and Ohio State are in separate conferences, the Big 10 will use the possibility of a rematch to force The Game to move.
Also, regarding scheduling "every consideration will be on the table"
ARgh!#$@
"My email is blowing up". LOL, keep emailing!
August 27th, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
then there is a rematch. So what.
It does not absolutely have to force The Game to be moved. That is an arbitrary rule.
The issue is not that you will have to play a tough team two weeks in a row, every B10 championship game opponent will have to play two tough teams in a row - their final division opponent and the B10 championship game opponent.
Michigan and OSU will just happen to have the same opponent for the final division game and the B10 championship game. Yes, it's a little bit different, but I can't help thinking this is more about TV deals than any "real" problem.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:33 PM ^
For anyone else who can't get OSU's DelanyPlayer to work, the vid is also on the Youtubes:
August 27th, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
Delanyplayer. I thought mgoblue.com sucked, but oh boy have I been spoiled these years.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
My take is, it sounds like divisions are set, but they have not pinned down the schedules
Sounds like they might be willing to have it at the end of the season. Honestly, I think that would be a good compromise.... you still get the "culmination and climax" of the season effects, even though it will not likely weigh in to whether one team or the other goes to the B10CG
August 27th, 2010 at 1:49 PM ^
I want to play them last no matter what. Whether it decides anything or not, bragging rights are definitely on the line.
August 27th, 2010 at 6:30 PM ^
Not perfect, but a comprimise.
When they do play twice in a row, the second time will be quite a different experience . . . different stadium, probably at night, different sort of hype.
It won't just be a replay of the first game.
At the end of the day it won't happen often enough to worry about it and blow up everything else to prevent it.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^
That has to be the compromise. It's the only thing that makes sense at this point, especially considering that they've already finished with the divisions.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:42 PM ^
And I agree that this is the compromise.
It seems to me that through all the double speak, one thing has been clear from the beginning: The Big Ten is using historic performance as an the primary indicator of conference alignment. If that is indeed the case, then of course Mich and OSU will be in separate divisions, because they are the two best teams, historically, in the conference. (Even when that formula only goes back to the addition of PSU)
Another thing, that I have only just now considered. In other conferences, your divisional record is based on your total conference W/L record, not just on your divisional W/L record, correct? If that's the case, then the outcome of The Game is still going to affect both teams chances of getting into the Conf. Championship game, right?
So for those two teams to play each other twice in a row, both teams would have to be at the top of their divisions, and still be able to sacrifice a loss en route to the championship game. When's the last time The Game followed that scenario - 2006? And how many of us were itching to get a rematch then?
August 27th, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^
Basically any year that the two finished at the top of the conference. I went through this morning and it was 1992 (Michigan undefeated), 1997 (Michigan undefeated), 2003 (both had 2 losses going in), 2006 (both undefeated going in).
2006 is a very good point, but I think you have to wonder what that game would have been like knowing it meant nothing for the conference and you had to play again the following for everything. The obvious answer is that they were playing for perfect seasons.
I think 2003 is the best example against having back-to-back games. Just like 2006, the first game doesn't have a bearing on the conference, but you don't have the added benefit of having either team be undefeated. I think this is exactly what they are afraid of, but that happened once in the 20 years that I looked at.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:06 PM ^
In 2003 UM only had one conference loss heading into the game (Iowa, other loss was Oregon). I think OSU was the same way - only conference loss was to Wisky. OSU actually tied Purdue for second place - both had 6-2 conference marks. Not sure if they played during the regular season.
In 1997 OSU actually finished in a 3 way tie for second with Penn State and Purdue. All had 6-2 records. I'm guessing OSU's other loss was to PSU since the Lions were undefeated in early November when UM played them. So there might not have been a rematch that year.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
You are exactly right on all of that. In 1997, PSU lost to MSU the same day so OSU needed to win AND have PSU lose. That makes my point stronger, though, that almost all of the games have something riding on them even in cross-divisions on the last game of the season.
In 2003, if Purdue was in Michigan's division, the Michigan needed to win to make it to the CG against OSU. If Purdue was in OSU's division, then the divisions were locked up going into the game.
I think this helps make my point that the chance of having a meaningless game just before the CG is slim to nil. If both have their divisions locked up, at least one is likely undefeated and that alone is worth 2 shots at spoiling.
August 27th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^
My preference is definitely to be in the same division, but yes, I could accept that. It's an OK compromise. It's the double-whammy of being in separate divisions and playing in October that is just unacceptable.