Dr. Saturday's latest thoughts on moving The Game

I read that but was unconvinced.  Now, that could be because, like many people dealing with issues that have an emotional tie to them personally, I've become entrenched in my viewpoint and no amount of logic or reasoning will change my mind.

But, I believe that I do have good reasoning for disagreeing with moving The Game.  So, let me lay them out here.

1. To use an analogy that my I used with my friend at work today, The Game is like Wikipedia.  In theory, Wikipedia shouldn't work, the idea of a high quality site that anyone on the internet can edit seems laughable.  Most anything on the internet is vandalized as soon as possible.  It seems like 4chan would be all over an opportunity like Wikipedia.  But Wikipedia does exist and it is high quality.  Because of that, people are very conservative when it comes to changing anything about Wikipedia.  They don't know why Wikipedia works so they don't want to risk changing anything and irrevocably breaking it.  In the same way, we don't know what moving The Game will do to it.  Do we really want to live in a world where UM-OSU isn't considered the greatest rivalry in college sports?  I think not.  Therefore, I'd be very wary of ever changing anything about it if at all possible.

Now then, it's true that prior to 1935 we played before the last game of the year, but the 10-Year War changed everything.  Now, that same can't be made have everyone think that the rivalry won't be affected.

2. Case Studay I: Nebraska v. Oklahoma.  Nebraska and Oklahoma were bitter rivals until they changed from the Big 8 to the Big 12.  Once that happened, Nebraska-Oklahoma lost its luster compared to Oklahoma-Texas.  Now then, that's partially because NE-OU didn't play every year, that is not a problem that UM-OSU will have.  And, it's partially because rule changes increased parity in college football and hurt Nebraska decreasing their place in the national spotlight.  But a lot of the reason that the NE-OU rivalry became less important is because is was less important.  If NE beat OU, but NE didn't win the B12-North while OU won the B12-South and eventually the B12 Championship Game, OUwould go to the BCS (or Bowl Alliance or just Fiesta Bowl) over NE.  Since the game was inter-divisional, it didn't necessarily have an affect on if either team would be allowed to go to the B12CG.  Because the importance of the game itself was diminished, the rivalry was diminished.

That doesn't necessarily mean that championship games themselves diminish rivalries, the Red River Rivalry is extremely STRONG because there's a championship.  But TX and OU know that the road to the BCS goes through each other every year.  Whichever team wins that game will almost certainly be in the B12CG.  It's true that the RRR has been helped by OU and TX being [mostly] consistent national powers, but a large reason is still that they were in the same division.  The loser of that game was automatically behind the 8-ball when it came to being the B12 champion.

If UM-OSU are in opposite divisions, then our situation will much more closely resemble NE-OK than NE-TX.

3. Setting up a championship so that the 2 flagship programs of the conference is exactly what the ACC.  And how many times has the ACCCG been FSU-Miami... 0.  That's partially because FSU and Miami both turned into down-on-their-luck football powers thanks to the emergence of Florida and the SEC making recruiting that much harder along with a decline in coaching ability compared to the average.

Regardless, there is residual resentment that every other team in the ACC was set up to play second-fiddle to FSU and Miami.  We don't want residual resentment in the B10, one of our greatest strengths is that we are united as a conference.

4. A UM-OSU championship game will only be worth a relatively small increase in viewership.  Think about it, if UM isn't in the B10CG, are you suddenly not going to watch it?  B10 fans will watch it no matter what.  And since the championship game will be after Thanksgiving, it's likely that the B10 will schedule it so that it's by far the biggest game on in that timeslot.  Most people will watch that game because it's the best game on.

Yes, more people nationally will watch if it's UM-OSU compared to MSU-Minnesota.  But, the marginal increase will be small.  And the cost of that marginal increase is potentially a huge cost.  If moving The Game diminishes the value of the rivalry in any way, then it's highly likely that the decrease in annual revenue from that loss will not be made up by the relatively rare times that it's an OSU-UM B10CG.

Now then, to address your post specifically:

The reason the Game is so big is simply b/c when the teams play, the BIG TEN TITLE always seems to be on the line. This is the crux of the rest of this post: Overwhelmingly often, the M-OSU winner definitively determined the BIG TEN CHAMPION.

This is true.  But it's not going to be the same with a championship game.

If UM-OSU meet once in the regular season, and then again in the championship game, the UM-OSU game won't have been what determined the B10CG, that B10CG will have determined it.  Do you see the difference?  The B10CG will be an entity onto itself, in the same way that the SECCG is an entity onto itself.  The winner of that specific game will be the B10 champion, not the winner of the UM-OSU game.  The UM-OSU game will have been played earlier in the year.  And that game may or may not have had any affect whatsoever on UM and OSU getting to the B10CG.  By putting UM and OSU in opposite divisions, it's entirely possible that 1 team could lose The Game but both teams win their divisions then the opposite team wins the B10CG.  The winner of the UM-OSU game in this scenario would not be the B10 champion at all.

Once the B10CG exists, the B10 champion will never again be decided by The Game.

Thus, we shouldn't further dilute the value of The Game by essentially declaring that its outcome doesn't even effect if you have a chance to be the B10 champion.  Because that's what putting UM and OSU in opposite divisions does.  UM could lose to OSU in a given year, but then win all 5 division games and go to the B10CG to face Indiana who fluked their way in there.  In fact, we could go 6-2 or 6-3 (including the B10CG) and win the B10.  Yet we would've lost to OSU.  The Game itself won't matter nearly as much if OSU and UM are in opposite divisions.

And if The Game doesn't matter, then fewer people watch, and thus The Game is worth less financially.

Based on the above, if both M and OSU were in the same division, THEY WOULD NEVERDEFINITIVELY PLAY FOR THE B10 TITLE. They would only play for the division. Hence, the game loses it's significance. The Game went from 'determining the B10 Champion' to 'determining the division winner.' By definition, this would be less important.

You don't have a choice, the UM-OSU game will never determine the B10 champion (see my point above) so you might as well do the next-best thing and have The Game determine if you even have the right to go to the B10CG.

Obvious point: We must play every year to avoid the Neb-OU situation of the recent past. Hence, the protected rivalry game.

Agreed.  But that doesn't mean it still can't happen.  NE-OU became less important because the game itself didn't necessarily determine anything (again, see above point).

Obvious point: playing a 2nd time in the Title game WOULD BE AWESOME!!!

You sure about this?  How awesome would it be to win The Game but lose the B10CG?  Basically, we would've split but OSU gets to be called the B10 champions.  That doesn't sit well with me at all.

Not-so-obvious point: Would it not benefit (from an on the field competitive viewpoint) both OSU and M to move The Game a week or two earlier to avoid having to play the 2 biggest games of the year in consecutive weeks?

Then our final game will either be a complete-letdown compared to the usual game v. OSU or it'll still have to be big (i.e. Nebraska)  for people to care.  One of the advantages of UM is that everything in the season builds to a crescendo that peaks at The Game.  Thus, if you peak too soon then the last game is a letdown (and thus makes less money due to lower ratings).  To avoid that, you'd have to have a good last game which invalidates the point.

Part of the point of this is to keep the B10 relevant later into the season.  What will be more successful at achieving that goal- UM-OSU or UM-anyone else?

 In addition, this may reduce the number of times when the divisions have already been determined prior to the last week of the season (thus diminishing the stake of The Game some years).

And this is a compelling reason to keep UM-OSU in the SAME division.  Remember, The Game itself has no effect on who wins a division by itself.  If you lose the game, you still can control your own destiny by winning your division to get to the B10CG and thus the BCS.

Your last point is irrelevant for this discussion (at least I think it is, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that) so I won't address it.

Eh, this is long, maybe I should've made it a diary.  But, since we already have dozens of those on this very subject I opted not to.

A rematch is bad because it diminishes the value of The Game.  Please see my above post for an overly long explanation as to why I think that.

I am in the camp that wants Michigan and OSU in the same division, but if they split them I would not hold your breath that they will play the final game of the regular season. That would result in back to back games in the event of a rematch. My guess is they will move the game into late October or early November (though I heard a very weird rumor on Rivals Radio today that they were considering making it the first game of the season). Then, again, if they are going to fuck up The Game maybe they are figuring they might as well go all the way.