RE: Michigan - Ohio State in Separate Divisions
Here is a reply from Bruce Madej suggesting (in my opinion) that there is little chance that The Game will remain at the end of the "regular" season. His closing line is especially telling. Let me know what you think.
Dear Nicholas,
Thank you for your note on the importance of Michigan-Ohio State football game. President Coleman and other university leaders have asked me to respond on their behalf.
I want to assure you that no one understands the tradition of this Big Ten football rivalry more than Athletic Director David Brandon. He has experienced this legendary rivalry first hand as a player, as a fan and supporter of the athletic program and as a U-M regent.
Expansion of the Big Ten is certain to bring some changes. We know there will be a conference championship game in 2011 and we expect to soon learn the details of the divisional alignment. Clearly we would like to have Michigan and Ohio State play the last game of the season for the Conference Championship (as has happened so many times in the past). However, based on a 12 Team - two division conference with a championship game format, in order for this to happen in the future both teams will have to play their way into the championship game. Which, we hope happens many times!
Certainly one of the priorities of the Big Ten commissioner and the Big Ten athletic directors is preserving the traditional rivalries, like Michigan-Ohio State and Michigan-Michigan State. This will continue to be a driving principle...as will creating competitive balance between the two divisions.
Just like the renovations to the Big House, we believe the Big Ten can move forward and make improvements while maintaining the traditions that are so important to fans.
Go Blue,
BRUCE MADEJ
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
the yellow embed box is much nicer than my original post.
but ya, we all got the same load of bs.
i wrote a follow up email. we'll see if i hear back. doubt it.
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
Exposes the fact that Bruce didn't personalize any emails in response to the OSU game (other than addressing the inquirer by name).
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:54 PM ^
By Bruce you mean the halpless intern who was assigned to reply to these. Some poor kid spend the day going:
Open email. Paste Form Letter. Type in name. Press send. Repeat
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
I wouldn't mind skipping MSU once in awhile, but why change what's worked for 40+ years?
The Game. The Game. The Game.
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^
75 years, to be precise. OSU has been our final Big Ten opponent every year since 1935.
Now that you mention it, if we had to have a protected cross-divisional game, MSU would be a much better choice. That game isn't at the end of the year as it is, and generally doesn't matter much in the Big Ten race. It's a rivalry simply because we share the state. We could be in separate divisions and it wouldn't really matter.
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 PM ^
alternating MSU and PSU every other year.
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 PM ^
He does not even try to hide it with the usual form letter BS. He pretty much says that if we want to play OSU the last game of the year, it will have to be in the B10 Championship game.
He seems pretty blase about it too. Isn't he supposed to look out for the full interests of Michigan, not just the dollars?
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AuZuyC3BPhlbgl_WVKg2kVk…
Probably the best article I've seen about it.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:28 PM ^
these people will have to look their children or grandchildren in the eye and explain why they thought sacrificing The Rivalry to the TV gods was worth it. Every last one of them will have to live with their actions and carry the burden of knowledge and, for some, shame.
The image of what they have done will be emblazoned within their awareness. We all shall see what happens, but they will have it in their minds' eye, along with what could have been, and what they could have done differently. And they may look away, but their children will not.