Why scheduling the Michigan - OSU game earlier in the season might be good
Recent interviews with Dave Brandon and the OSU athletic director have strongly suggested that Michigan and OSU might meet earlier in the season instead of the traditional final season game. While nostalgic, traditional pundits have cried about the fall of Rome and begun wearing sackcloths, there some wisdom to be recognized here. Consider these reasons in favor of change:
1) The Michigan - OSU rivalry has thrived best when it represents a meeting of two competitive teams deciding the Big 10 championship. Lately Michigan has been in disarray with the loss of strong players, the controversy of Rich Rod and the Freep jihad/NCAA investigation. The Michigan - OSU game has been an anti-climatic end of the season, verging upon the one sided rivalry of the little brown jug game, which has seen Michigan usually beat Minnesota, even in 2008. During previous years with Bo and Lloyd Carr, Michigan and OSU have been the top two teams in the Big 10 and the final game has decided who goes to the Rose Bowl or BCS bowl. That is no longer true. As a result, the traditional rivalry has begun to stagnate and the game is not long THE GAME to watch.
If Michigan - OSU is played earlier in the season, but Michigan and OSU are the top two teams at the end of the season, they will still play in the Big 10 Championship at a neutral site, and the final game of the season will mean something again.
Allowing OSU to play someone else at the end of the regular season, allows them to play other strong big 10 teams like Nebraska or PSU, or perhaps even Notre Dame. Michigan can also play Nebraska or PSU. If they remain mediocre, perhaps they could play Minnesota or Purdue and win the last game, instead of suffering a beatdown from OSU.
2) Currently uncompetitive games with Michigan - OSU just cheapen the rivalry. We have seen special, kitsch OSU uniforms to worn at the game. How much longer before we seen QVC channel specials selling nostligic memorabilia from the Bo - Woody era, and derivative items The Michigan - OSU game has been most popular when it involves two equially competitive teams, and then draws natural popular attention
3) Relignment of Big 10 - Jim Delany may be following the example of the ACC in setting up two division that divide traditional rivals between two divisions. Then if the two teams are both winners of each division, they get an extra pop at the Big 10 championship game.
So the traditional rivals are:
Michigan - OSU
MSU - PSU
Indiana - Purdue
Illinois - Northwestern
Minnesota - Iowa
Wisconsin - Minnesota
and with the addition of Nebraska, instead of Nebraska - Iowa State,
there is geographic rivalry of Nebraska - Iowa or the big Red rivalry of
Nebraska - Wisconsin.
Putting opposing teams in separate divisions, while allowing one cross-division rivalry to be preserved makes sense. Some teams will continue to schedule the rivalries at the end of the year. However, OSU might prefer to play a higher ranked team like Nebraska or PSU, if Michigan remains in the doldrums. ABC/ ESPN and the Big 10 network will like that.
3) Under the new realignment, the twelve Big 10 teams could be divided into three Tiers.
Based on the last couple seasons -
Tier A - OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Iowa
Tier B - Wisconsin, MSU, Purdue, Northwestern
Tier C - Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota
Tier A teams have been competing in good post-season bowls, and often times in the Top 25 rankings.
Tier B teams have generally been had winning seasons, and played in some post-season bowls, but have not been in the Top 25.
Tier C teams don' t usually have winning seasons and don't usually play in post-season bowl games.
Michigan has ben in Tier C the last couple years, but hopefully will at least be in Tier B this year, if not Tier A, but expect to resume Tier A performance in 2-4 years either or Rich Rod or someone else (similar to Notre Dame with respect to Brian Kelly).
The Big 10 championship game will probably involve two Tier A teams, but if there are upsets, an underdog from Tier B might sneak in. The final game of the regular season has involved traditional rivals, but perhaps it is time to have equally competitive teams squaring off at the end of the year to make the game interesting and popular.
4) There are other big games for Michigan besides OSU. Of course, there is MSU, but the other top tiered teams like Iowa, PSU, and Nebraska will be equally competitive games, once Michigan rebuilds a competitive team. In the meantime, perhaps having Michigan play Minnesota or Purdue at the end of the year, if it allows them a game they can win. Fans are more happy and give more money, if they watch a game that MIchigan can win.
5) Beside Big 10 fans, a lot of east coast fans follow the Michigan-OSU rivalry. Wall street financial types could attend the Michigan-OSU game earlier in the season, and still go to Yale- Harvard or another east coast game like Army- Navy. That kind of scheduling might sell a few more elite suites at either Michigan or OSU stadiums.
6) Allowing Michigan - OSU game to be scheduled earlier will avoid the bitter late November weather, and allow the date to migrate to the weekend around Veterans' Day or Halloween, when people might have a free Monday to recovery from the weekend's debauchery and revelry.
7) It would give the Detroit Free Press a reason to start a new journalistic jihad against Dave Brandon, instead of Rich Rodriguez, or whoever the coach is. The Free Press seems to enjoy sensationalistic, bombastic journalism. I am sure Drew Sharp will have an op-ed piece proclaiming the end of the world, if the Michigan-OSU date is changed. But will it sell any newspapers. Other more level-headed people probably enjoy more quiet, commonsense journalism.
Or we could continue with the current Michigan - OSU game at the end of the season - where we have an anti-climatic, one-sided rivalry, which leaves everyone in SE Michigan nostalgic for a bygone era, or for smashmouth football, which is no longer competitive in post-season bowl games. Perhaps, we should give change a chance, and explore alternatives that might allow Michigan to play Nebraska or Iowa or PSU at the end of the year, which would still draw good ratings for ABC/ESPN, and make an interesting weekend in Ann Arbor!
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:12 AM ^
Anything that alters the tradition of the college game's greatest rivalry, cannot be good in any fashion whatsoever.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^
But the addition of a 12th team and breaking into divisions will automatically altar the tradition of The Game, regardless of how they settle this issue. But, yet, I think overall big 10 expansion is a really a good and exciting thing.
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:23 PM ^
Yes, but if we want to keep the Game as close as possible to what it is now, the solution is to keep us in the same division and play the last week of the season. Then we'll play for the right to go to the conference game. Not exactly the same as before, but pretty close. Putting us in separate divisions and playing a midseason game would be a far, far greater break with tradition.
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:05 AM ^
Please understand all fellow Mgoblog readers, that my post above was an attempt by me to pose as a devil's advocate to have people consider and discuss various reasons that Dave Brandon and the Big 10 might consider in how they might set up Divisions in a realigned big 10 and how they might schedule Michigan and OSU during the regular season in light of having a Big 10 championship game between the winners of the two divisions.
Clearly, I hear and respect the overwhelming sentiment that most people would like to keep Michigan and OSU as the final game of the season, as it has been historically. I can relate to that sentiment. However, that does not always make a convincing argument to the leaders of the Big 10 and the athletic directors of the Big 10 schools.
I see that many people would like to keep Michigan and OSU in the same division, so that we could maintain the big 2/ everyone else situation, such that the winner of the Michigan/OSU game would likely win the division, and then go on to play someone else in B10 championship game, and then play in a bowl game around Jan 1.
I wanted people to consider that in placing Michigan/OSU in the same division, that means they can never compete in the Big 10 championship game, and a game between Michigan and OSU would not IN THE FUTURE decide who wins the Big 10 championship.
The current situation with Michigan football is frustrating, since the team has had an abysmal record under Rich Rod. Moreover, Michigan has yet to figure out a way to beat a Jim Tressel OSU team more than once in the last decade. I would like to see Michigan return to greatness soon, winning the vast majority of its games during the regular season, including Notre Dame, PSU, MSU and OSU. I hope that comes sooner than later, although Rich Rod may be behind the eight ball, if the NCAA COI disciplines him severely. If so, we may be in for another rebuilding transition, but I hope not.
I think people need to consider than the Big 10 may expand further, especially if they can convince Notre Dame and perhaps 1-3 other teams to join the Big 10 conference, in which case, we go through another realignment, perhaps adding two more division for a total of 4. Moreover, if we add major players like Notre Dame, the competition for the Big 10 championship becomes more fierce. It does not guarantee that we will do better in post-season bowl games or in the polls, and may just make a Big 10 undefeated season more rare. I.E. the days of the Big 2 and the 8 dwarves as in the past may be gone, and instead Michigan and OSU may face significant competition each year in their respective divisions and for the championship.
Moreover, adding two division at least means that Michigan / OSU regular season game would not decide the championship. However, what if the Big 10 Championship game were to be played at the home field of the leader of the two divisions after tie-breaker rules, which would allow the Big 10 championship game to possibly be played at Michigan stadium in Ann Arbor? Would people prefer that to a neutral site at NFL stadium in the midwest someplace?
August 22nd, 2010 at 7:21 AM ^
...says The Game is...
...no longer THE GAME, having lost its upper-case significance well before the Big Ten joined the 20th Century of college football by adding a conference championship game. Michigan's 1-8 record against Jim Tressel already took care of that. Michigan vs. Ohio State is now just another date on the football calendar for most of the nation.
His solution?
[D]on't just move up U-M vs. OSU to sometime earlier in November or late October. Move it up to September. Labor Day evening every year!
If you're agreeing with Drew Sharp, you've got a problem with your argument.
Also, QVC? Seriously?
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:52 AM ^
Was he crying that the rivalry was dead when Michigan was pwning OSU with a 10-2-1 record the previous 13 years before? I hope the vision of the AD's and Delaney is not so narrow.
Sharp gets me so mad. I just...I just want to dance.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:56 AM ^
... why even play The Game? Or just play it on a normal rotation. It is not special and certainly does not need to be a protected rivalry game so why even care whether it happens every year? What is all the fuss about?
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:12 AM ^
I cant believe I am responding to anything Sharp wrote
But come on, he just wrote to get that 1-7 shot in and claim the rivalry is dead. Like PearT Griffin said, I wonder what Sharp was penning about the rivalry 10 years ago.
He just wrote that to needle MICH fans, which is his specliaty.
I have no problem seeing the possible silver linings or advantages under certain divisionsal situations of moving the game, even if it means you can say I 'agree' with Sharp. He doesnt believe anything, he's just talking to talk.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:34 AM ^
It is the greatest rivalry in college sports, possibly all sports -- why f%ck around with it? Does Delany really think he is smarter than everyone else and can tweak The Game and make it better by moving it to the middle of the season and possibly playing twice? If he really wants a legacy as commissioner of the B10, he should go ahead and ruin the UM-OSU rivalry and he will have one.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 AM ^
Sure, we all know that money is hugely important, but the money is possible in the first place because of tradition. Tradition isn't a recipe for pizza sauce you can change whever you feel like it; it's something that is built up over decades through the deep emotional investment of generations of fans, many of whom attended the schools involved.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:46 AM ^
...but the thought of messing with this game makes me want to throw my monitor through a window.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:51 AM ^
Or we could continue with the current Michigan - OSU game at the end of the season - where we have an anti-climatic, one-sided rivalry, which leaves everyone in SE Michigan nostalgic for a bygone era, or for smashmouth football, which is no longer competitive in post-season bowl games.
Really? It has been one sided for over 20 years, but just the "bad" one-sided the last nine. UM's record before that was 10-2-1 against OSU. Also, am I the only one that is tired of hearing that the B10 teams play a 1920's style of smashmouth, 3-yards and a cloud of dust football. That cliche is tiresome and I wish someone would take it behind the shed and put it out of its misery.
Keep them in the same division, play the game at the end of the season for a right to be in the B10 Championship Game. What's wrong with that?
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
The last paragraph was meant to be sarcastic, not persuasive. Michigan had dominated OSU prior to the arrival of Jim Tressel at OSU during the last part of Bo - most of Gary Moeller and the beginning of Lloyd Carr's coaching career. However the one win over the last decade for Michigan has supremely frustrating for of all us Michigan fans.
That would be simple to fix if Michigan could install a coach, who could implement a better effective defensive, which would contain, if not shut down, OSU's offense and be effective in the post-season bowls.
However the expansion of the Big 10 to at least 12 teams, allows for a Big 10 Championship game, which will decide who goes to the BCS bowls from the Big 10, instead of the traditional Michigan OSU game, when both teams were dominate. Now with Nebraska and PSU in the mix, there is more competition for the Big 10 championship, and Michigan will need to beat more than OSU to win the Big 10.
First, of course, Michigan has to finish its rebuilding, if not under Rich Rodriguez, some effective coach (perhaps Jim Harbaugh or Les Miles or someone else), who will allow Michigan to win 7-9 games in the Big 10 conference, in addition to the majority of the non-conference games. If Rich Rod can do that in a couple years, it will probably be faster than bringing in a new coach unless the new coach can effectively utilize and retains the student athletes recruited by Rodriguez.
I give Rodriguez less than a 50-50 chance to be coaching here next year based on sentiment alone. Based on past record, he needs at least 6 wins in the Big 10 schedule to make Michigan competitive again for a Big 10 Championship. If Rodriguez is tossed and most of the recruits leave, then we will have wait another 2-3 years before we can rise to the level of competition needed to win the Big 10. That means no chance at winning the Big 10 until 2015 or 2016. The GAME with OSU cannot survive in that competitive vacuum without Michigan getting some upset wins against OSU.
August 22nd, 2010 at 8:54 AM ^
are you fucking high?
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:20 AM ^
No, I was attempting to be sarcastic with the last paragraph.
Also I am putting up the devil's arguments I anticipate that OSU and Jim Delany will make in supporting a change in the schedule, in order to promote the idea of the Big 10 Championship game.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 AM ^
craptastic thing about moving The Game is that something else would have to replace it and be the last game of the season. I hope that it would not be MSU. I guess Neb or PSU would be OK if we still had the same year end opponent each year.
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^
replaces The Game as the final game of the season, I will boycott that game. I will not sell my seats but leave them empty. If enough other season ticketholders do the same, they might reconsider. Having even 5,000+ empty seats for the final game of the season would be two-by-four upside the head for UM and OSU (and BTN).
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:15 AM ^
if they are going to expand the Big Ten again, which they seemed ready to do, they will have to take that into consideration when re-aligning the conference--or are they going to re-realign again in a year or two. Maybe, i guess.
Competitive balance is cool and all, but they have to consider travel costs, as well. In fact, I bet that will be the bottom line as it were. This is all about money anyway.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:32 AM ^
First, we are talking football not non-revenue sports and all of the football programs make enough money to pay for travel. Second, and more important, with an 8-game B10 schedule, we will play 5 division opponents and 3 cross-division opponents. With a 9-game b10 schedule, we will play 4 cross-division opponents. The difference in travel is marginal at best.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:27 AM ^
TX vs OK is not the last game of the season. FL vs TN is not the last game of the season. Yet those bitter rival games seem to thrive just fine in their respective conferences, both with Divisions and Conf Champ Games. USC vs UCLA remains at the end of the Pac 10 season, but they don't have Divisions or Conf Champ's. I think it's inevitable that when we graduate to the 12-teams & multople divisions and Conf Champ games that this is one of the results. As Dave Brandon has said, change is inevitable and we are going to have to deal. There are 10 other teams in our conference now besides UM & OSU. It's not the Big Two/Little Eight anymore. I love tradition, but tradition gets "adjusted" with expansion. If you have one, then the other naturally follows as a force of nature.
GO BLUE!
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
1. UT/OU and UF/Tenn have never played the last week of season. They've always been early or midseason games. Those conferences have allowed their rivalries to be preserved at their traditional time. They did not force them to be shifted dramatically in the schedule.
The point is not that all games other than the finale are meaningless, but that we've traditionally come to anticipate certain games at specific points in the schedule and that's a good thing. Tradition dictates that we play ND in September, MSU in midseason and OSU at the end. It gives us a nice balance - one rivalry early, one in the middle and then one to cap things off. Why should we want to deviate from this?
2. UT/OU and UF/Tenn are division rivals. The games between them are critical to determining the division champion. The proposed arrangement would put UM and OSU in separate divisions. That is a very important distinction. When you have two divisions, it's almost like having two mini-conferences. Your division games are more important than your cross-division games, because of the head-to-head tiebreaker. If OSU isn't in our division, that game won't matter that much in the division standings - and that would be a huge departure from what we're used to.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^
The UM -OSU game has been played at the conclusion of the season since 1935. Your conclusion that it's become one-sided and non-competitive is incredibly short-sighted. How is possible that continuing this rivalry in the manner it has been played for 75 years could in your words "cheapen the rivalry"?
Don makes a great point above: tradition is what makes the huge sums of money in college football possible. Much more than almost any sport, college football relies on the memories of its fans, and when you mess with these traditions - such as the UM -OSU game concluding the regular season in November, you mess with your fans' connections to these events, and you slowly, but irrevocably damage your product.
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:12 PM ^
No doubt the traditional nature of Michigan vs. OSU is considered precious, if not sacrosanct by most alumni from both colleges.
However, the economics of the Big 10 and NCAA BCS football has already begun to distort things. Expansion of the Big 10 to 12 teams has provided programs with Nebraska and PSU, who have records on par with Michigan and OSU in terms of National Championships and recent regular season records. The alumni can afford to pay for season tickets, if not luxury suites to watch the games, and Ann Arbors loves football weekend for its business and hospitality revenue.
However the nature of the Michigan - OSU game over the last decade needs take it up a level in terms of parity of competition. Maybe that will happen under a new coach, if not under Rodriguez or under even under Lloyd Carr. In the meantime, we certainly be nostalgic about bygone Heisman trophy winners and the 1997 teams, but soon it becomes repetitive. Michigan needs an upset victory against OSU in the next 2-3 years to re-establish the competitive parity of the GAME.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:43 AM ^
I feel like the only one who seems that this move actually makes a little bit of sense. If "The Game" as the last game is such a big deal to us Michigan fans, then The Game last year would've been better attended by Michigan fans. The Big House looked more red than maize or blue. It may be that red stands out more, but we can't deny that attendance on our end was poor. This scenario guarantees that if both teams are the two best teams in the Big ~Ten, they will meet in a championship game with everything on the line--exactly the same as The Game "used" to be. (By that, I mean the sort-of Michigan fans will be back supporting the team and not complaining about RR). All of us agree that M-OSU is the most looked forward to game of the season, and this scenario guarantees us a game every year. I'm happy with that. The teams won't suddenly stop playing like they hate each other because it's not the last game of the year. Plus, I would not want the situation where we play OSU in back-to-back weeks for reasons discussed all over the MGoBoard. With the addition of a championship game, I think this might be the best choice to preserve the rivalry and keep the fans engaged.
As an end of the year game, a showdown with Nebraska sounds the most promising to me.
Does anyone else think this way? Also, I'd love to hear arguments from the other side.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 AM ^
Does anyone else think this way?
Mark me down as a "no" vote.
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
Yes, last year's game was lack-luster and not attended as well as it should have been. But you don't make long-term changes to The Game based on the fact that Michigan has had two bad years that are completely unprecedented. You really have to assume that Michigan will return to excellence. And, honestly, if we don't it doesn't matter what you do--there's no change to The Game that will keep rivalry as amazing as it is, so you might as well plan on a return to outstanding matchups.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 AM ^
so, you are saying that none of the other varsity sports have to travel, or that football makes enuf to pay for everyone?
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
I am saying there is no compelling need to apply these divisions (or any divisions) to other sports. Delany has said so himself. I will bet $1,000 that whatever divisional alignment they come up with for football does not apply to all other B10 sports.
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
Whenever you find yourself agreeing with Drew Sharp, think again.
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:18 PM ^
I was being sarcastic about Drew Sharp and the Freep. I consider the smear campaign led by the many Freep Sports "journalists" as a major contributing factor to the poor morale amongst Michigan fans, along with the poor pass defense secondary of MIchigan for the last few years, and ability of Rich Rodriguez to shoot himself in the foot without anyone else's help. Although I used to be a Free Press delivery boy in my youth in Ann Arbor in the 1970's, I don't read the newspaper or its website anymore. There are other more effective and palatable sources of sports, like Mgoblog for example.
I just hope that the Freep can find some other source of sensationalistic journalism, so that the Michigan football program can finish rebuilding itself and return to a winning tradition.
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:31 AM ^
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
During most of our losing streak to OSU we have been a good team. So I don't know where you are coming from that "The Game" has been uncompetitive for years! 2006 was probably the greatest game in a generation with #1 vs #2 and a trip to the BCS National Championship game on the line. If Henne was healthy for the 2007 game, I think we would have won that game! In this series you sometime get one team winning for several consecutive years! In the 90s when UM winning we didn't here anything about "The Game" losing it's luster.
It's tradition that "The Game" is our final game of the season. If UM and OSU are in separate divisions I don't see what the big deal is playing each other again in the b10 championship game. I think it would be a great rematch to play each other on a neutral field.
I won't be happy if the "The Game" is moved to October!
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
Just keep us in the same damn division and play it last. So simple. So easy. So not gonna happen. Meh.....
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:37 PM ^
If we keep Michigan and OSU in the same division, you can't have them play in the Championship game, and the Big 10 championship will never be decided between either Michigan or OSU, It will involve Michigan or OSU for one division, and then another team from another division, perhaps PSU or Nebraska, in the final championship game.
Dave Brandon has some wisdom in supporting the realignment of Michigan and OSU into separate divsions, because it allows for the possibility of Michigan and OSU meeting in the Big 10 Championship game to decide who wins it all and goes to the BCS bowl game. Having them in the same division never allows for a final meeting for the championship. All you have to do is allow Michigan and OSU to always play each other as cross-division rivals every year to allow the annual rivalry game at Ann Arbor or Columbus to continue. Then if both teams win their division, you get a rematch again in the championship game.
August 22nd, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^
Here is the point that you, Brandon and other proponents of this idea are missing: in all likelihood, we won't meet them in the title game very often. It will happen far less often than you think. For the two to meet, both teams would have to finish first in their divisions and win out from any tiebreakers that come up (no small issue when you're playing eight or nine conference games in a 12-team league).
The ACC put FSU and Miami in separate divisions, assuming they'd meet in the title game on a regular basis. They never have, and the title game has been a poorly-attended disaster every year. You cannot bank on two teams regularly winning their divisions and making it through any tiebreakers to meet up. Conference title games are weird.
And even in those freak years when we would actually meet OSU, you know what? It wouldn't be the same. It would be a rematch, playing on a neutral, NFL field. It wouldn't be what we're used to. It would make the first meeting between the teams absolutely meaningless. Imagine beating OSU in the regular season and then losing the rematch. Which game do you think people would remember?
If we're in the same division, it will be as close as possible to what we have now. One game, for all the marbles (in our division, at least). No rematches. No neutral site. Just a single game, at the end of the year, played in either Ann Arbor or Columbus. That's what we've had for 75 years. I want to keep that.
August 22nd, 2010 at 1:43 PM ^
If Big Ten Expansion alters the fact that THE GAME is always the last game of the regular season, then I am going to be extremely pissed. Whatever happened to respecting the major conference rivalries? This is THE RIVALRY in the nation, let alone the conference. I'm willing to change the status quo in a lot of different ways to make expansion work, but this is not one of them.
August 22nd, 2010 at 6:31 PM ^
I understand your sentiment about the sacrosanct nature about Michigan - OSU being the final game of the regular season. However, expansion has introduced two major other football programs with PSU and Nebraska. That will change the Michigan - OSU game from the being the decisive game of the regular season.
If Michigan and OSU are in the same division, The Game will not decide the Big 10 Championship, it can only decide the winner of the division, and the Big 10 championship game will be played between the winner of that division and someone else.
If Michigan and OSU are in separate divisions. the Michigan - OSU game can still retain the possibility of reflecting the Big 10 championship struggle, and even allow for a rematch at the Big 10 championship game, if Michigan and OSU are dominate in each division that year.
However, the Big 10 championship game will likely be played at some neutral site, instead of Ann Arbor or Columbus, and how long a period do you want between the final regular season game and the championship game to allow players to recover and the injured to heal, so that both teams are at their best for the championship game.
Now if the Big 10 expands further to 14 or 16 teams, one might see even 4 divisions instead of 2, and then the championship game might spawn into a set of three games, first two games between the top 1 team of each division, and then a final championship game. Again, the Michigan - OSU game becomes less of a game, if Michigan and OSU are in the same division, assuming both teams are dominate in the regular season.
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^
You claim to "understand the sentiment" behind opposition to this, but I don't think you do. A lot of us like playing OSU once per year, with that one meeting being as meaningful as possible. What you're proposing would never make the scheduled meeting as special as it currently is, and you seem to be banking on a title-game rematch to make up for it.
What conference has the most successful title game, in terms of general interest? The SEC. That league hasn't split up any of its rivalries (UF-UGA, Ala-Aub, LSU-Ark, etc.). What league has the least successful title game? The ACC by far. They split up the rivalries. I don't want the Big Ten repeating their mistake.
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:56 AM ^
For both OSU and UM to be in different divisions but still play the final season game as traditionally the case. Then for both teams to win their divisions for a heated rematch 2 weeks later.
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 PM ^
Or did you actually think spending all this effort coming up with gems like "so east coasters can go to Harvard-Navy" was worth anybody's time?