That MSU-IU game will be a biggie!
I just asked my Dad, an ardent State alumn who was a Junior during the 10-10 tie about the "rivalry" and the "brass spitoon" and he was as baffled as I was. He was pretty thrilled about giving up the land grant trophy games though...
2 storied programs protecting their rivalry
Oddly enough, they do play for a trophy as it is, which is probably why they were grouped together.
For MSU this is a big step down from PSU every year, but honestly, would it have been fair to force PSU to keep playing that game? The truth is that MSU just doesn't really have any rivalries in conference (they do have ND out of conference) besides us.
I'm not sure, does it go to the winner?
They're including a bottle of Everclear and an old dorm couch to set on fire. Winner gets both. Wait ... so does the loser.
Long time first time....
This is just one more clear example of MSU basically not having a major rival other than Michigan, and that we will always and forever see them as a secondary rival. No wonder the little brother syndrom is so strong.
I will say that I would have preferred MSU vs. Iowa and Indiana vs. Purdue, for schedule strength fairness in the former and tradition in the latter
These are cross-divisional rivalries. IU and PU are going to be in the same division.
Wow that seems to work out really well for Wisconsin.
In any given year they could miss Michigan, Iowa, and Nebraska.
Once there is a 9 game conference schedule they could only miss 2 of the 3 but thats still a big deal IMO for a team that is fairly consistent at being toward the top of the conference.
Same goes for Iowa too I guess missing OSU, PSU, and Wisky.
Well, it's nice to see that dividing the conference won't change anything for the Badgers. They have a long history of avoiding quality Big Ten teams.
1993: No Penn State (10-2)
1994: No Penn State (12-0)
1995: No Michigan (9-3)
1996: No Michigan (8-4)
1997: No Ohio State (10-3)
1998: No Ohio State (11-1)
1999: No Penn State (10-3)
2003: No Michigan (10-3)
2004: No Michigan (9-3)
2005: No Ohio State (10-2)
2006: No Ohio State (11-1)
2009: No Penn State (11-2)
Missing a big in conference opponent helped them to those 3 Rose Bowls in the 90's. I don't think any opponent has missed as many powers as Wisconsin. And the new Big 10 conference won't change that.
howeva, now they have to win a championship game at the end, so it won't be quite as easy.
The people in Illinois are going to be so confused. "Michigan isn't our rival???"
begs to say- trying to get over so we can get a division championship. Sparty's current protected games are us and PSU. Will the crossover game count toward determining the divisional winners? If so, advantage Sparty and Wisconsin. Iowa must be POd by losing the Wisky game though.
Are all these games going to be played the last week of the season, or just UM-OSU? I think Ill-NW is the only other one that is currently played then (although Wisc-Minn have sometimes played at the end of the season). I would guess not (since that would move IU-PU, which is a pretty important game), but it could make scheduling awkward otherwise.
I think Indiana/Purdue and MSU/Iowa will play in the last week of the season. The other four will be inter-division, Michigan/OSU, Nebraska/Penn State, Minnesota/Wisconsin, Northwestern/Illinois.
I know they do the protected rivalry in the SEC but holy cow it creates some amazingly lop-sided scheduling. Michigan has to play OSU every year whereas MSU has to play Indiana - wow, yeah, that's "competitive" balance for sure... Looks like PSU, OSU, UM and NU are getting shat on every single year while Wisconsin and Iowa, perennial contenders, get a much, much easier game. Just put OSU and UM in the same division and do away with the protected rivalry game, it just creates way too much imbalance.
Watch this magic - I'm going to preserve all the above games:
Div 1: PU, Iowa, OSU, UM, MSU, IU
Div 2: Ill, NW, PSU, NU, Wisc, Minn
The fans and the AD's at Illinois, Northwestern, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota would never buy into that; they'd vote "No" on that alignment.
They all want to have at least one of either Michigan or Ohio State in their division. Anything less, makes them feel like they've been kicked out of the Big Ten and placed into the Leftover Conference.
Yes, but they ARE leftovers.
what is their season goal if they feel their division is weak? (Assuming that you meant leftover division.) Is it not to win the division? If UM and OSU are so dominating, aren't the other schools making a very poor statement about their own universities? Wouldn't this give them a great chance to knock UM or OSU off the ledge by winning the Big Ten Championship?
I wasn't talking about competitive balance at all.
Other Big Ten schools aren't thinking about how they could 'game' their way through an extra-weak schedule just to get into a playoff game. They are thinking about how to serve their fans, who want a quality Big Ten football product brought into their own sizable stadiums every week during the football season. For most Big Ten fans, having Michigan and/or Ohio State on the schedule is the marquee game of the year. Losing both of them, more or less permanently, would be intolerable.
double-clicked by accident
Div 1: PU, Iowa, OSU, UM, MSU, IU
Iowa fans would despise this arrangement. You'd be separating them from all their rivals: Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois.
The only way to really preserve all the rivalries is to go straight geography: UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, IU and PU in one division and the rest in the other. But the league has ruled that out.
Purdue/ Iowa. There is a rivalry that needs to be preserved.
Purdue versus MSU makes so much more sense than Iowa. But then you are stuck with Iowa / Indiana.
You'd think that this forced cross-division "rivalries" would be enough to tilt the scales against these divisions.
Iowa/Minn/Wisc/Neb/Ill/Nw - IU/Purdue/PSU/MSU/UM/OSU
East -West. No need for forced "rivalries".
What makes no sense is that Iowa and Penn State have been developing a rivalry over the past few years.
Why does PU-MSU make more sense that PU-Iowa? I don't see much difference. In fact, based on the past 15 years or so, PU-Iowa would probably make for a better game.
The battle for the Old Oaken Bucket must be the protected rivalry; PU/Iowa had to be a typo.
Some of those protected games are head scratchers...
Nothing beats the long, storied tradition of Iowa vs Purdue. This seems like an excuse to throw Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions and create "rivalries" so they can play The Game every year.
it's not possible to have 6 separate rivalry games because the best rivalries overlap.
Um, they must have been the last matchup picked, right? All the others make, at least, a little sense...maybe not Purdue-iowa so much, but the others.
They already play for the Old Brass Spitoon, so it actually makes sense.