Michigan-OSU Article on ESPN.com (Good News and Bad News)

Submitted by bklein09 on

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5493560

The good news is that this is getting publicity. 

The bad is this:

"I'll tell you we'll go to great lengths to make sure that the tradition and rivalries are respected," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said this summer. He then added, "I think the important thing is, that they play."

Uh oh.

Maybe some of you had heard this quote. I had not.

MGoBoard
Football

smwilliams

August 24th, 2010 at 6:14 PM ^

The more I think about it, the more I can't stomach The Game being in the middle of the year. There are precedents. Red River Rivalry. FSU-Miami. But, neither of those carries the weight/historical significance.

I'm not against them being in separate divisions. It's been repeated ad nauseum on here, but the probability of Michigan-OSU both winning their divisions and playing on back-to-back Saturdays is closer to 20% than it is to 50% over a decade.

Joined: 08/20/2010

MGoPoints: 9917

pee on freep

August 24th, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^

So where is the good news from this?

Bringing on number 12 was good news, that team being Nebraska was good news IMO, having a championship game is good news. 

Any entertainment of moving the signature game of the conference, the greatest college football rivalry, which has been playing in the last game since 1935, any idea of changing any aspect of this game is bad news, bad news, bad news.

Jim Delaney, Pimp Brandon, Gene Smith all publicly saying its going to change... all bad news...

Bad news has less of an impact as the years go by... but, bad news and bad ideas remain bad news and bad ideas even when the publicity settles...  This is Fail.

Joined: 02/26/2010

MGoPoints: -1789

zippy476

August 24th, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^

I still don't understand why OSU and Michigan are being split up?

East - Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin/Iowa.....

West - Nebraska, Penn St., Wisconsin/Iowa....

I mean if you look at it the two best teams in the B10 are probably going to be Nebraska and OSU.....Why would you want them in the same division?

 

And the MSU game can either be in a "protected" crossover game or they can just be put in the East.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 370

Impaler 19

August 24th, 2010 at 7:34 PM ^

I have been reading all of the comments from everybody on this subject and finally decided I would add my $0.02 worth.  I am very aware of the importance the both UM and OSU fans place on The Game. 

Here is how I see things:

- I agree with those that say that the game needs to stay at the end of the regular season.  Part of what makes the game so important to most people is the fact that a loss can really screw with the other teams season and the fans of the losing team have to stew over the loss for a year waiting for revenge. 
- I agree with those that say that the teams(UM & OSU) need to be in opposite divisions.  This helps to give Delaney his wish of competitive balance and geographical balance.  I think that with the proper alignment this is also the best shot at protecting rivalries.

When first looking at these 2 points they seem to contradict each other.  As I was reading along in the comments an idea formed in my pea sized brain.  If they think outside of the box a little bit they might be able to make most people happy. 

I think that the key is held in how they decide the divisional winnerss.  Most people, myself included, think of the first criteria to determine the divisional winner as being decided by each teams record within their own disvision.  I think that if we look at it  a different way we have the solution.  What if they determined the winner of the division based on the teams record in the conference games, then if needed by their divisional records.  That way there is more emphasis placed on the inter-divisional games which in turn keeps the UM-OSU as important as possible with them being in different divisions.  I know that it is possible that a team may be able to win their division after having played a much easier schedule then other teams in their division, but we have lived with that scenerio in the Big 10 for some time now, just in determining the conference champion instead of a division winner.

Benefits that I see with this system:

- We can satisfy Delaney's 3 requirement - competitivness, preserving rivalries and geography.
- The Game retains it's importance to everybody involved.
- The Game stays at the end of the season so that we are as close to an "All or Nothing" scenerio as possible.
- I personally think that the chances of re-playing The Game in back-to-back weeks is going to be slim - especially if the conference record is the primary means of declaring a division winner.(ie. The team that loses The Game will have a strike against them.  Remember "All or Nothing")

For these reasons I think that we should do whatever it takes to keep The Game as the last game of the regular season.  Although many of us may consider our voice to be small I think that we can use the power of the internet to help keep The Game in the proper place.  We need to stand up and make our voices heard.  We need to be writing letters to David Brandon, Jim Delaney, the ADs of all of the other schools in the Big 10, ABC/ESPN decision makers and anybody else that we can think of.

I think that this is not something that many of us considered when talking about expansion but it is something we have to deal with.  I do not think that anything that they come up with is going to be perfect but we can make them strive for perfection.

Thank you for reading my thoughts.  Maybe they do not make any sense at all.  However, it would not be the first time that has happened on this board.

Joined: 05/05/2009

MGoPoints: 196

funkywolve

August 24th, 2010 at 8:01 PM ^

"Most people, myself included, think of the first criteria to determine the divisional winner as being decided by each teams record within their own disvision."

No offense, but I'm not sure who you are referring to when you say 'most people'.

In the Big 12, ACC and SEC the conference record is ALL games played in the conference.  They do not list the division/conference record based only upon the games played in your division.  If you look at the standings from years gone by, the records in conference play for these leagues list 8 games, not 5.  It makes the rotating schedule of games against the other division tricky and interesting. 

Big 12 South is a good example of the tricky and interesting part of the rotating schedule.  Texas has to play Nebraska this year.  Oklahoma doesn't.  Since Nebraska appears to be far and away the best team in the north, that's a big advantage for OU when it comes to who they and Texas play in the opposite division.

This also puts OSU/UM at a disadvantage if they are in opposite divisions.  If UM is in a division with Iowa, Nebraska and Wisky, UM will be playing OSU every year.  The other teams probably will not.

First tiebreaker for division games is usually head to head matchup.

Joined: 10/08/2008

MGoPoints: 20232

M-Dog

August 24th, 2010 at 8:11 PM ^

I'm getting pretty pissed at this point.

What Delaney is saying publicly to the world is that those teams are such unappealing opponents for a B10 championship game that he has to screw with 80 years of tradition of The Game, just so he can promise the networks that the opponents can possibly be Michigan versus OSU.

Anything to avoid the horror of a Michigan-Nebraska or OSU-PSU B10 championship game.  That would be just awful.

Well if Delaney is so intent on trying to artificially rig a Michigan-OSU B10 championship game, then the best way to do that is to make sure Michigan and OSU NEVER play each other during the regular season.  That way you will remove the problem that one of them will always have a loss. 

Satisfied?  The B10 championship game and it's TV rights are all that really counts, right?

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257507