Even Rivals thinks it's a bad idea

I don't like conference-title rematches for the simple fact that the second meeting effectively whitewashes the outcome of the first.  No one remembers what happened the first time around.  That's all the more true when the second game decides the conference title.  We could win by 30 the first time and lose by a field goal in the rematch and we wouldn't have bragging rights.  And college football is all about playing once a year.  You get your one shot and that's that.  If we'd taken on OSU in a 1996 Big Ten championship game (if one had existed), think we'd have won a second time?  In a climate-controlled dome, Shawn Springs probably wouldn't slip again.  And if we'd lost the rematch, no one would even remember that epic first win.  This is a case where you can have too much of a good thing.  One meeting a year (and only in Ann Arbor or Columbus - no NFL stadiums) keeps it special. 

(As for the specific issue of playing back-to-back weeks vs. playing a month apart, that makes no difference to me.  The conference just seems to have arbitrarily decided that that's "bad" for some reason.)

But do you really want to watch them play for the title at Lucas Oil Field, in a result that effectively invalidates whatever happened in the first meeting? 

I want there to be one game between the teams, at Michigan Stadium or Ohio Stadium, per year.  No neutral sites, no do-overs.  You win, you have bragging rights (and probably the division title).  You lose, you wait until next year.   That's how it's gone for a century, and judging from the fact that it's routinely called the top rivalry in the country, why change that?   

In the long term, it doesn't look like it matters. But at the time, when the National Championship picture was much more fluid, each game definitely matters. So yes, it may "invalidate" the result, but only after the fact, and only in certain very rare situations.

For example, in 2006 there was no way of knowing that USC was going to fall to UCLA - a 1-loss Big Ten champion Michigan may not have been a holy lock for the NC game. And let's be honest, OSU and UofM were a bit overrated on the national scale that year, at least based on the inability to beat the national cream of the crop.

2006 was a highly unusual situation - OSU and UofM were consensus 1-2, both were undefeated, and a 1 loss team was basically guaranteed to make the NC game. Also, a 2-loss Michigan or Ohio State team probably still would have landed a BCS bid.That's not that common - essentially all of those stars need to align for a rematch to make game 1 truly meaningless.  This will be rare enough that the situation will be more interesting than lame. And again, game 1 is only meaningless in retrospect - at the time, game 1 will, in all likelihood, still have a lot of meaning. It will still be exciting, both teams will still play to win, and both fanbases will still show up.

If you care more about the past, then your rationale makes sense.

However, I think the main issue is how much the games matter leading up to them. I don't think the teams, the fans, or the TV ratings would slack just because people know there may be another matchup... at a neutral field... in the near future.

Once it's in the past, it's history. Doesn't matter in and of itself; it's just one more notch in the record books, like any other. Wins/losses are not discounted because they are further in the past. All are equal, which means the most recent wins are no more significant than the oldest, if you are evaluating the situation retrospectively.

And bragging rights? Really? How about "get a clue". Unless you are a part of the program, you have nothing to brag about because you did not contribute. You are not a participant. You are a fan. The team puts in the work. You get to watch the results of their preparation one day a week -- it's a privilege.

Like I said before, unless the rematch in the title game is a lock before the initial game is even played (which I think would be significantly rarer than the chance of a rematch), then the first game does mean something no matter what. If OSU beats M to earn the right to play in the B10 title game, then M beats them for the title, how does that invalidate the first game? OSU would not have even had a shot at the title had they not won the initial matchup; the opportunity, and I think any rational person would agree, is worth something.

And even if the rematch is a given, then the initial game is something for the record books, if nothing more. From a backward-thinking perspective, that is quite meaningful. After all, the only "bragging privileges" M fans have re: OSU, at the moment, are derived from wins that are mostly a decade or more old.

Yet, from a forward-thinking perspective, there is only one thing that matters: The next game. This is the perspective of winners, of champions: those who create the future instead of dwell in the past.