maizenbluenc

September 1st, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^

Not sure if that is more painful or not. Guess it depends on which way the shaft is cut in half.

Seriously thought, maybe they did a big head fake:  Hmm, how do we make splitting Michigan and OSU more paletable for their fans? Ooooh, I know, we'll terrorize them about moving the game, and that will get them so upset, and riled up, that when we announce the game is staying on the same date, but OSU and Michigan are in different divisions, they'll be relieved instead of burning down Big Ten headquarters.

Joined: 07/21/2009

MGoPoints: 10630

joeyb

September 1st, 2010 at 2:02 PM ^

I think there were a good number of fans only protesting moving the game. Everyone I have talked to at work likes the idea of separate divisions but not moving the game.

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845

JonSobel

September 1st, 2010 at 3:16 PM ^

I'll be happy.

The division separation with a protected rivalry does create the possibility of a rematch game, but the odds of it playing out are pretty slim.  And with the separate divisions, if Minnesota lands in the same division as MSU and UM, that's every rivalry protected.  Plus, it opens the divisions to be called Schembechler/Hayes with the appropriate teams residing in each.

AND if Notre Dame joins up, they can be put in the Hayes division since Bo obviously would have told them where to go.

Joined: 10/07/2009

MGoPoints: 838

ToughD

September 1st, 2010 at 2:03 PM ^

I may be wrong but having The Game as the Finale is more important than having them in the same division.  I would rather it be this way than having them in the same division and not have them play in the Finale.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 75

Wolverine In Exile

September 1st, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^

with this division alignment we're:

- a Kirk Ferentz NFL job,

- another MSU nerd slaughter,

- Tim FIGHT WIN Brewster being Tim Brewster,

- Pat Fitzgerald being lured away to a real football program

from being an undiputed top 2 team in our division... I'd put our chances at 50% (Ferentz will get an offer, and Brewster will be fired)

/s

Joined: 11/08/2008

MGoPoints: 10790

KSmooth

September 1st, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^

This is pretty halfassed but infinitely preferable to the original plan.  If nothing else, next time the Real Men of Genius get together to rejigger the divisions -- odds are there will be more additions in the next couple of years -- we'll start out with Michigan and OSU still playing the last game of the season and with the rivalry still more-or-less intact.

Joined: 11/14/2009

MGoPoints: 3783

PurpleStuff

September 1st, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^

I sure hope this isn't the case.  All this does is guarantee that when M-OSU are the two best teams in the conference (which I imagine will happen from time to time) they will be playing for...absolutely nothing.  Otherwise one team is just playing spoiler and giving both teams a harder path to conference/national championships than the rest of the league.

The 2006 game would have been a lot less exciting/meaningful if all that mattered was who won the rematch played in Indianapolis the next week.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

Brodie

September 1st, 2010 at 2:23 PM ^

2006 is literally the only time that exact situation (where the loser of the first game could still reasonably win the rematch and still go to the NC game) could have actually happened. It requires every other BCS team to have one or two loses and the original game to be as close as it was. Not even in 1973, the last time we met undefeated before 2006, could that have happened.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10712

PurpleStuff

September 1st, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

In 2003, 2006, and 2007 (not to mention countless years before that), M-OSU played to decide who won the conference and still finished 1-2.  We wouldn't even have to do that to ensure a conference championship game rematch (essentially they would just have to beat PSU and we would have to beat Nebraska). 

If both programs are on track, we will regularly be playing back to back games, where only the second will count to determine who wins the Big Ten.  The fact that one team or the other won't have a shot at the national championship most years only makes it more likely that the Game will turn into an end of season Giants-Eagles game where both teams know they'll meet in the playoffs a week later.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

FGB

September 1st, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^

will not happen that often. It really won't, especially with another national power program joining the conference. A huge majority of the time, the Michigan-OSU game won't be a meaningless prelude to a rematch. To be that far ahead in the standings, that a team could suffer a loss and not at least drop into a tie for their division lead, it's just not going to happen that often.

Joined: 09/24/2009

MGoPoints: 3192

PurpleStuff

September 1st, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

If they drop into a tie, the tiebreaker would be head to head matchup, meaning that so long as OSU and U-M beat the next best team in their division they would still go to the title game.  We finished 1-2 at least 3 times in an 11 team league last decade.  It is way more likely that we will both win 6 team divisions (assuming both programs are running on all cylinders).

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

Blue in Yarmouth

September 1st, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^

I find you a very level headed poster but I disagree with you on this. Well.....Sort of anyway. I agree I would rather have them in the same division, but I see this as an adequate compromise since splitting them seemed to be a foregone conclusion.

I just don't see the scenario you are putting forth happening that often. I can see it maybe once or twice a decade, if that. The scenario I am referring to is the two of them meeting in the last game of the season with the outcome being meaningless. Chances are, at least to one of the teams standings it will be meaningful. Plus to the players (and most fans) the game is meaningful whether we are both 10-0 or 0-10. I could watch them play eachother back to back to back to back with nothing on the line other than bragging rights and be totally statisfied (assuming we won).

I am just saying (and too lazy to back it up with research) that I don't recall there being many times in the 20 some years I have followed UM that both UM and OSU had 1 and 2 in the conference locked up regardless of the outcome of the game. Plus, a reprecussions of a loss for either team that late in the season should be enough to garner tons of fan interest. 

Anyway, I just respectfully disagree.

Joined: 02/18/2009

MGoPoints: 6522

PurpleStuff

September 1st, 2010 at 5:18 PM ^

Just kidding.

I think everyone would prefer last game, same division.  I am just upset that we seem to have takent for granted that we had to choose.  To me this is just a win for the little 8 (or 10 now) at the expense of OSU and U-M (since the rivalry game is now no longer the most important game in the conference).  I also have yet to see any compelling reason for moving the teams into separate divisions or moving the date of the game.

As far as splitting the teams up, even if one would rather see them play last in a lesser of two evils decision, I don't think it can be argued that it diminishes the importance of the game.  This doesn't mean the game won't have import or that the rivalry will be severely diminished, but it does mean that as far as determining the conference champion, the regular season game between us and OSU will not be as important as the game between Michigan-Nebraska or OSU-PSU (or whoever happens to be the top challenger for the division title). 

To me the ideal scenario is for Michigan and Ohio State to be the two best teams in the Big 10 (no matter how often it happens, though I think we probably disagree on how likley it is to occur).  If that happens under this proposed split-division scenario, the first game obviously loses its significance as a "winner take all" event when we just have to play them again the following week.

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 15969

Brodie

September 1st, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^

Like I said last night, this is the only logical compromise. They had the divisions already agreed to, but the outpouring against moving The Game necessitates this kind of scheduling. Besides, I think 99% of people who e-mailed didn't know or care about divisional alignment and were chiming in about playing the last game. That's what mattered to most people, that's what's probably going to happen.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 10712

Moleskyn

September 1st, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^

Since so many threads have been opened to discuss this topic today, I decided not to open another one. But ESPN also says we'll be in seperate divisions.

The Big Ten will announce its much-anticipated, two six-team divisional setup for the 2011-12 season later Wednesday, with traditional football powers Ohio State and Michigan in opposing divisions and new member Nebraska aligned with the Wolverines.

In other news, the poll in that article asks if moving The Game to earlier in the season would diminish the rivalry or not, and 37% (!) said "Not at all." I think Sparty must have come out in force for that one...

Joined: 06/28/2010

MGoPoints: 10287

lbpeley

September 1st, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^

This is waaaaaaaaay better than moving it to the last Saturday in September or whatever other stupid shit they had planned. Quit your bitching. This way on the few years they do play twice it will only build UM's overall series lead that much quicker.

Joined: 01/29/2009

MGoPoints: 19651

Blue since birth

September 1st, 2010 at 2:41 PM ^

Am I missing something? Are cross divisional games going to affect the winners of their "home" division? If not... I'm not sure how keeping the game at the end of the season is anything but an aesthetic win. It'll be guaranteed to have no bearing on the conference championship and the BCS bid. Having the game at the end of the year is important. But this is a worse than moving the game IMO... By far!

Joined: 12/24/2009

MGoPoints: 205

ToughD

September 1st, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^

If Michigan and OSU are undefeated when they play each other in regular season then The Game doesn't really mean anything like it used to.  Then there will be a huge debate if the teams split the two games; regardless of the fact that there is a Conference Championship Game.  Hmmm...Just something to think about.  Looks like I'm moving over with those that said same division and finale game.

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 75

mgolund

September 1st, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

For the longest time, I was really upset about splitting up OSU and Michigan and moving The Game.  I am still unhappy about the prospect, but my anger is starting to dissipitate.

If the Big Ten really goes to 9 conference games, then there is a good likelihood that the championship game will be a rematch of some sort.  In that scenario, would it be better to play OSU for the championship (albeit twice), or some other team, like Penn State?  I am not sure what I would prefer anymore...

Joined: 07/23/2008

MGoPoints: 5145

ambamb

September 1st, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^

but a rematch in back to back weeks. If you only ply divisional  opponents in the last two weeks, there is no chance for a rematch in the last two weeks. Thus the need to avoid cross divisional games in the last week, as the other major conferences do.

Joined: 11/20/2009

MGoPoints: -40

Blueto

September 1st, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^

IMHO Keeping the game at the end of the season is far more important than not being in the same division. It preserves tradition AND I do not believe that The Game will not continue to be important in determining who goes to the championship game almost every year. Recent history shows that a rematch should only be expected once every 4 or 5 years which is infrequent enough to make it special and add to the aura of the rivalry rather than detract from it.

Assuming the B10 doesn't do something totaly stupid like make total B10 record second tiebreaker and thus all cross divisional games meaningless, the final cross divisional game will likely be important because with only 5 divisional games a tie at the top of the divisional standings is likely to happen frequently, or if they decide to let all conference games count equally in division standings then The Game's importance will be very silmilar to what it has been historically.

Joined: 11/18/2009

MGoPoints: 412

jmblue

September 1st, 2010 at 3:06 PM ^

Well, I think you all know where I stand on UM-OSU, so I won't repeat it.  If this is the case, it's a compromise between those of us who wanted same divisions, final week and those who wanted different divisions and October.  Neither side gets exactly what it wanted, but that's what compromises are.  I can live with it. 

At any rate, we should be proud that our lobbying efforts seem to have paid off, at least halfway.  What do all the defeatists (who ridiculed us and said an October game was a "done deal") have to say now?  I told you - there was no way they'd move the Game in face of overwhelming public opposition.  The league is not run by cartoon villains.  They don't want to alienate the vast majority of UM and OSU fans.  We just had to make our voices heard.

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102750

Enjoy Life

September 1st, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

The Big 12 split OU and UN and they did NOT play every year.

And, only ONCE in 15 years did they meet in the Championship game.

With M and osu playing every year, the odds are even less.

If we are in different divisions but play every year that is OK (not perfect but OK).

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2658