Leaders must make unpopular decisiions

Submitted by Blazefire on

Alright, look. Nobody wants the game moved. Hopefully it won't be. There's no reason to expect that it will. Right now it's just talk about what COULD happen. But all this anti DB rhetoric is just stupid.

David Brandon has two options right now. One, fruitlessly fight and state that any thought of moving the game is sacrilige, or be open, accepting, and try to galvanize the fanbase against division when and if the time comes. If he fights this idea tooth and nail, then the results within the fanbase when and if it does happen will be unaccepting at best. However, if he takes a fore-thinking position, attempting to have an even hand and lead us into an uncertain time and place, as he has already been doing with other issues, then it will provide a rally point for the rest of us. Unpopular now, but ultimately freeing, and potentially cathartic before the fact, should i t come to pass.

 

I think we should all support him for being willing to take the unpopular, but ultimately most helpful stance.

coldnjl

August 24th, 2010 at 9:07 AM ^

Our athletic director has done so much for this school in the short time he has been here, but entertaining the idea of moving the game draws fire him statements? Are we really that big of whiners that we can't acknowledge the possibility of moving the game and maybe replacing it with a Michigan-Nebraska or -Penn State game for the good of the conferance? I personally don't want to see it moved, but if I don't get my way, I am not going to call for his job and whine about a game being moved

Needs

August 24th, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^

It's for the good of Penn State and Wisconsin. Their whining about being subordinated to UM-OSU is finally gaining traction in conference headquarters. This is all about making JoePa and Alvarez happy (it's no coincidence that they've been the driving forces in expansion).

And if the Game moves, it's not going to be replaced by Nebraska or Penn State. Penn State's going to play OSU, Nebraska's going to play Iowa or Wisconsin. Our final game will be MSU. The final game of our year will have the national prominence of the Egg Bowl or, best case, UT - A&M. Most years, it will be the third most important game on the week it's played in conference.

joeyb

August 24th, 2010 at 9:46 AM ^

MSU won't be last. The whole point of splitting Michigan and OSU is to get more high-rating games. Michigan vs MSU is only high rating in the state of Michigan and maybe the Big10 footprint. They will put games that have Big10 championship implications year in and year out as the last game of the season. Think of it as a two week playoff. Michigan-Nebraska in the first round and OSU-PSU in the second, the hope being that Michigan-OSU get to play again in the championship game.

Raoul

August 24th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

my fear is that they try to make the final week of Big Ten play a rivalry week with six intradivisional rivalry games. MSU's biggest rival besides U-M is PSU, but PSU is likely to be in the division with OSU. So that pairs U-M up with MSU by default.

jmblue

August 24th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^

This news is depressing.  That's why I'm trying to get people to fight it while we can, before it becomes official.  You seem perfectly willing to accept it.   Hoping that we don't play MSU won't do anything.  Contact people and let them know you're pissed off about that idea. 

  

spider

August 24th, 2010 at 12:18 PM ^

It doesn;t really matter when we play, cause we are going to get squashed.

 

It is sad, but noone is really talking about the important games this season. There not OSU. MSU, Wisky, Iowa or Penn State......the REAL important measuring sticks are Pudue, Indiana, and Illinois. We are a combined 2-4 against these teasm in the last two years.

Right now, they are looking at money, in making decisions. Don;t get so emotionally invested in things you have no control over. WHat I can say, is once Mich gets back to winning, and if this alignment stuff becomes a joke, then we will have more pull in getting the "Game" back to the fional week of the regular season. For now, I am more worried about how the hell we are going to stop Marve or Chapelle than this!

me

August 24th, 2010 at 9:31 AM ^

but if the thought is to divide PSU/OSU/Neb/UM into two divisions, just make those games the final games of the season.  So let the final weekend be PSU/OSU and NU/UM. 

Screw Wisconsin, they don't get to play Nebraska on the last weekend.

jmblue

August 24th, 2010 at 6:03 PM ^

Don't get your hopes up.  Alvarez and Bielema are publically lobbying for Nebraska.  We aren't.  Instead, Brandon is trying to build up MSU.  It seems apparent that in his mind, MSU is the great consolation prize.  Maybe he's been in politics so long that he's been brainwashed by all the politicians who make a big deal of out UM-MSU. 

Brodie

August 26th, 2010 at 4:40 AM ^

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it's a political move. State lawmakers have been trying to promote the Michigan-State rivalry for decades and as the promotion from the AD gets more overt ("that school in East Lansing"?!), I can't help but wonder if this is part of some larger political plan for Brandon.

GVBlue86

August 24th, 2010 at 9:14 AM ^

Actually there is very big reason to think it WILL happen. Other than that I totally agree. If he fights it and loses, he and the University looks way worse.

drewhat

August 24th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^

Everybody keeps talking about the last game, the last game.  Doesn't anbody think Michigan will ever make the Big Ten Championship game?  I personally think Michigan will play in it every year.  In that case the last game will be determined by records.  And if everybody truly wants Ohio State to be the last game of the year then they have to be in seperate divisions.  If not it will never be the last Big Ten game of the year.  There will always be one more.

Baloo_Dance

August 24th, 2010 at 9:28 AM ^

This may have been beaten to death in other threads...but in my opinion the idea that OSU and Michigan will never play for the Big 10 title sounds way worse than OSU and Michigan playing in October. 

Also, the biggest thing that is diminishing the importance of The Game is the Big 10 Title game, not the potential date of The Game.

IPKarma

August 24th, 2010 at 9:38 AM ^

I think it improves our chances of having higher rankings and getting to BCS Bowl games.  If we're in the same division and we lose to OSU, no BigTen championship game, and probably no BCS bowl.  If we're in different divisions and we lose to OSU, we can still make the BigTen championship game, and can still get to a BCS bowl.

Need a statistical analysis here, but I believe odds are improved.

Needs

August 24th, 2010 at 9:29 AM ^

A lot of the power of the Game has been that it almost always controls the ultimate fate of both teams and that those fates are clear. Determining which team advances to the championship game is lesser than 'who will go to the Rose Bowl' or 'who will win the conference championship' but it's a chance in degree, not of type. Playing the game in October with nothing clear at the point it is played will change the essence of the Game. The solution is fairly straightforward, UM and OSU in the same division. The winner most often to the Championship game. It's a mini-version of 2006.

And if both OSU and UM strongly suggest this, is the conference really going to ignore 2 of its 4 power programs?

drewhat

August 24th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^

Either way The Game is never going to be the same.  If Michigan and Ohio State are in the same division the only thing the last game could determine is who gets a chance to play for the conference title.  Then the Big Ten Championship game becomes a bigger game.  As a Michigan fan for a long time I will take a Conference Championship any day over a win over Ohio State.

Needs

August 24th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^

Think of how the seasons will differ in the two possibilities.

Michigan and OSU in same division: The season builds to the final game, hopefully with a berth in championship game at stake, or, in the worst case, an opportunity to deny OSU a chance at the championship game. And before people deny the power of the latter scenario, remember what '95 and '96 felt like, when we beat OSU to deny them a chance at the national title. Those games provided immense schadenfreude, which is an emotion not to be underrated, as well as joy in UM fans and , more than any other, created the complete neurosis around the Game among OSU fans. At any rate, the Game remains the focal point of both team's season, the game that must be won if the team's ultimate goals are to be achieved. The passion and the consequence are somewhat reduced but remain essentially the same.

Michigan and OSU in opposite decisions: The Game played likely in late October or early November. If both teams are having successful seasons, a loss may knock one out of the championship game, but that could not be known at the Game's conclusion. Then commences furious speculation about what would have to occur for rematch to happen. The possibilities of a rematch lie in subsequent games, but the idea of 'rematch' is subordinate to 'reach championship game.' If only one team is having successful season, win is just a single step and not the ultimate step on path to championship game, a loss can be overcome, and the focus immediately turns to the next game and recovering from the "stumble." The consequence of the Game, and thereby the passion surrounding it, are indellibly changed.

Section 1

August 24th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

... there is that big payoff at the end -- playing in the storied Bud Light Big Ten Championship Game, in a domed stadium in Indianapolis.  (New Jersey wasn't available?  How about Miami or Phoenix, for better weather?) 

Having Michigan's (effectively) big game with Ohio State played in Indianapolis is only slightly less thrilling than playing the Michigan-Michigan State game in Ford Field.

KBLOW

August 24th, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^

That's the essence to me.  I don't see the championship game coming close to diminishing The Game as much (or at all) as moving it to a date when it really won't matter who wins it.  

But as to the other points about who our last game is with, unless it's PSU or Nebraska it's gonna be MSU and that will totally suck.

Magnus

August 24th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^

I think many of us wanted conference expansion so we could have a conference championship game.  That's good for the conference.

This is one of those "unintended consequences" that not a lot of people considered prior to expansion.  People didn't think, "Well, if this expansion thing happens, then what are the divisions going to look like?  And consequently, how will that affect the schedule?"

Many of us (including me) didn't think that far ahead.  But now many of you (not including me) are pissed that The Game might have to be moved.

Yeah, it sucks.  We've been used to it the way it is.  But there's virtually no way around it.  Every single option diminishes The Game's luster a little bit.  Deal with it.

uvadula

August 24th, 2010 at 9:39 AM ^

I agree, I didn't think about it either. It does suck that it's coming at a downtime for UM letting all these other conference scrubs try to grab a bigger slice. I care that the game will lose some luster, but we've done that to ourselves by not making it somewhat even these last few years.

I think if we get put in separate divisions it could be a good thing for UofM. We could take advantage like Nebraska did last year. They weren't an incredible team but they made it through their division and appeared in the conference championship and looked good and now people are talking about their return to glory.

Section 1

August 24th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

Or at least it doesn't have to.

Now, having a dominant OSU meet a dominant Michigan on the last game of the regular season, followed by the winner of The Game going to a Conference Championship in a domed stadium in Indianapolis, to play Illinois, might appear to diminish the Big Ten Championship Game Brought to You By Pzza Hut; to that I say, "Meh."

I read Jon Chait's online column on this subject; I agree with every word of it, and I haven't yet heard a good argument against it.

There are, it seems to me, to be two mental models.  One mental model holds as the highest value, the tradition, the sights, the smells, and the feel of The Game in late November, as teh culmination of the season.

The other mental model sees the world through the prism of NFL football on tv, and nothing means anything without a playoff system.  The Big Ten, and college football, as NFL Jr.

You can guess which camp I'm in.

Magnus

August 24th, 2010 at 10:25 AM ^

Even if UM-OSU remains in late November and the Big Ten championship is played a week afterward, the fact that UM-OSU wouldn't be deciding the Big Ten winner almost every year diminishes the game's luster.

If UM or OSU has a chance for the best record in the conference on the day of The Game, the winner will still have to play another game to win the championship.  That automatically makes the game more inconsequential.

Do you care more about the ALCS or the World Series?  Do you care more about the AFC Championship game or the Super Bowl?  Etc.

Section 1

August 24th, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^

I don't care about the AFC Championship OR the Super Bowl.

A "Big Ten Championship" is, to me, like an intermediate bowl game.  A bowl game, to get to another bowl game.  Like whipped cream, on top of a sundae that already has ice cream, fudge sauce, peanuts and a cherry.

Bowl games are fun, and a nice, sometimes odd, conclusion to the college football season.

I abhor "college football playoffs" for the same reasons that Bo Schembechler did.  Unintended conseqeunces.  As you rightly point out.

Look, I shouldn't pick on you.  You're a smart guy, and you understand the situation very well.  And sure, it is hard to argue with your interpretation of how The Game is diminshed in all of this.  I know that, and to a great extent I am just venting here. 

I'm one of those people who really truly don't care about professional football and the model(s) for playoffs, etc., that derive from the NFL.  Screw the NFL, and screw playoffs.  The Ivy League looks better and better all the time.

caup

August 24th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^

Guess what?  In 2004 the ALCS was THE defining series of that season.  The Game can still be THE GAME and the bullshit Big Ten Championship Game Brought To You by Pizza Hut can be the necessary commercial exercise that it is, played in an antiseptic dome in early December. 

The Game should always be THE pivotal roadblock/passage to postseason success.

EDIT: this is in response to the post by Magnus. I'm in lockstep with Section 1 on this.

joeyb

August 24th, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^

You come up with 1 matchup out of the last 6 years in two different sports and that is your rebuttal?

THE GAME will still be THE GAME no matter when it is played. It doesn't matter if one team ruins the other's season in the September, October, November, or December, it will still be THE GAME.  The only way that THE GAME is no longer THE GAME is if we stop playing it every year.

cjm

August 24th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^

I think you've hit the nail right on the head.  Not a lot of people thought far enough ahead on this one.  My take away is that Brandon has done nothing but upgrade the program since he arrived.  He obviously wants what's best for Michigan and I think he will try to make that happen.  That doesn't guarentee The Game stays the same.

KBLOW

August 24th, 2010 at 10:38 AM ^

The main reason I didn't think of the moving The Game scenario is that Jim Delaney made such a big deal about preserving the rivalries, blah, blah, blah.  For him and the Big Ten not to understand that the rivalry of The Game isn't just OSU and Michigan, it's OSU and Michigan for all the marbles.  At least keeping it at the end of the year leaves some marbles for keeps. Earlier in the season and with us each in different divisions does render it as close to meaningless as you can get. 

M-Wolverine

August 24th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^

There's a bit of change, and harm to the rivalry, or the full blown trashing of the rivalry. Just because we agreed to a bit of change to gain something, didn't mean we wanted the whole thing thrown out the window. I know a championship game would prevent the ultimate battle for it all between the teams, one game for it all.  But I didn't think that meant they'd trash the whole thing.

HoldTheRope

August 24th, 2010 at 1:37 PM ^

As much as I hate to admit it, this is pretty much spot on. I wanted a conference championship game for years and I never even considered the possibility that The Game would be moved as a result. I won't like it when it eventually happens, but it is what it is.

DesHow21

August 24th, 2010 at 9:30 AM ^

10 other threads on the same topic started today.

 

Funny how when others start redundant threads you are the first one to jump on their throats....but don't apply these "rules" to yourself.

HHW

August 24th, 2010 at 9:30 AM ^

he might actually, along with OSU's AD, be fighting it tooth and nail behind closed doors.  However, he's a member of the B10 and, correctly, he is not going to go public with his disagreement with the rest of the B10 ADs and the Commissioner.  I think in public he is prepping us for a change, but privately he is trying everything he can to make sure the game doesn't move.

Most likely this lies on Delany's shoulders.  He seems to be the money grabber.  Both UM and OSU make plenty of money off their respective programs, they have less monetary reasons to move The Game.

Swayze Howell Sheen

August 24th, 2010 at 9:37 AM ^

Yes, leaders must make unpopular decisions. But the question, for a particular decision, is much simpler: is it a GOOD decision?

In this case, being "agreeable" to moving THE GAME is short-sighted at best, and quite damaging at worst. Who benefits? Well, as some posters have said, PSU clearly does. In this scenario, PSU/OSU will become the most watched Big 10 game to end the regular season. Who else benefits? Perhaps Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska, depending on which of those play each other last (but maybe not so much). Clearly MSU could benefit. If they get to play UM the last game of the season, their view of the rivalry (that is the most important) becomes more "true" (alas). 

I don't think it can be understated how making THE GAME the LAST game of the regular season is what makes it special. Each team has seen everything else the other has on tape; the only things you haven't seen are the things that are being saved up just for one game. Recall that one of the main reasons that it became THE GAME was that in the early Bo/Woody years, the conference championship was in fact decided virtually every year on that day. Before any notion of a Big 10 championship game, THE GAME was a championship game.

By moving the game to some lame october date, THE GAME will simply become A GAME. It won't decide anything (on that day), and it will be viewed as less and less of a big deal. A GAME just doesn't quite have the ring to it, does it?

Dave Brandon clearly should not be fired for one bad decision; whoever suggests he should be is clearly overreacting. And indeed, he has yet to make this bad decision. But I believe strongly that he should fight the decision; by making it as public of a battle as possible, he could make some headway. Get the UM/OSU faithful to rally against it. If he doesn't fight it (and indeed, goes along happily with it), he is certainly to blame. And it's something we'll all regret. 

The only way I would ever be happy with something like this is if Michigan had a chance to play an equally prestigious last game of the year. And the only way that's going to happen, alas, is if the last game is against ... wait for it ... Notre Dame. If DB pulled that switch off, well, I would give him his pimp suit back. Just a thought.

 

 

bigmc6000

August 24th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^

And I'll say it again - this is exactly what happened in the Big 12.  OSU-PSU are UT-OU and UM-OSU is OU-NU.  Even if we protect the UM-OSU game so it's played every year it doesn't, ultimately, mean squat.  Yeah, great, OSU-UM will become a tie-breaker if we happen to have the same record as another team in our division whereas PSU-OSU will become the division tie breaker, most likely deciding who goes on to the Big Ten Championship game, 1 game to decide if you, possibly, will get a chance to play for the NC or the Rose Bowl.  1 Game that can either propel you in the rankings and keep your NC hopes alive or stop them dead in their tracks.  That's what makes inter-divisional games so meaningful, they actually MEAN something.  Just look at all the great rivalries currently considered in CFB.  Auburn-Alabama, same division; UT-A&M same division; Florida - Georgia, same division; UT-OU, same division.  I mean, the list goes on and on and despite that fact that big teams like Florida-LSU play every year no one even thinks of it as a big rivalry.  I actually had to go look up who they played cross-division.  Tradition is, arguably, what makes the Big Ten stand out amongst all its peers and our AD's are willing to kill that for a few dollars, it's really just sad.

raleighwood

August 24th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^

"Leaders Must Make Unpopular Decisions".....

.....while this is true, good leaders don't have to make bad decisions.  They also don't have to go along with the crowd because they are outnumbered or outvoted.  I'd have much more respect for BD in this particular situation if we had a sense that he was standing up for Michigan.  Instead, it looks like he's laying down.

The Game is the single biggest symbol of tradition in all of Big Ten history.  There's not really even a close second.  To let it evaporate like this is sad.  Sure, the game will always still mean something, but it will never be the same.  You can't create tradition (ask Sparty and PSU about their last game "tradition").  That's why is so important to hold on to it if you can.

Besides, isn't it a little arrogant of the Big Ten to posture for a Michigan - OSU matchup in the championship game?  Where do PSU, Nebraska (and even Wisconsin and Iowa) fit into this equation?  There's only one thing about this alignment that they could get wrong and it looks like they're going to do it.  That's not leadership. 

bigmc6000

August 24th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^

"If he fights this idea tooth and nail, then the results within the fanbase when and if it does happen will be unaccepting at best. However, if he takes a fore-thinking position, attempting to have an even hand and lead us into an uncertain time and place, as he has already been doing with other issues, then it will provide a rally point for the rest of us."

What?  I think you have those two backwards.  If he fights tooth and nail he will have the support and respect of the fanbase, DB will be the base of the rallying cry to save The Game.  If he "takes a fore-thinking position" the fanbase and Michigan football is going to be effed from the inside!  Maybe I'm out in left field here but I don't think I am, if you want something and you know it's best for the people you work for/care about you don't just roll over and agree to what some penny pinching bean counters want - you fight for it.  If your company told you they wanted you to move to another state because it's cheaper for them to put you there but they are going to keep everyone else where they are would you just say "oh, ok, I'll uproot my family and move so you can make more money" or would you fight it and do what's best for your family?  Hopefully you'd do what's best for you family and in this instance DB isn't doing what's best for his family - he's selling himself, the university and our tradition out for cash.

 

I have respect for the man who fights for what's important and what he believes in, not for the man who gives up what's important to him and who he represents for a chance at a few dollars.  Don't be a sell-out DB, do what's right...

M-Wolverine

August 24th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^

You're right on.  People would understand if he made a huge deal of it, and somehow the Big Ten didn't back down, but he fought it tooth and nail.  He'd earn respect for that. To just go along with it (publicly at least...privately doesn't matter, since we'll never know), or worse, think it's a good idea (which if THAT'S the case...what is he doing in his job with that understanding of Michigan?), then he looks horrible.  He'd have to be Don frickin' Canham to not be thought of the guy who let the M-OSU rivalry get trashed under his watch.  Took us 6 months to start looking fondly back on Bill Martin; and I thought that was never going to happen.