The Survey to Save Michigan-Ohio State (but won't)
HT DIABEETUS.
The Big Ten doesn't actually care what you think about the destruction of longstanding rivalries so they can have more NYC/DC viewers in the duration of tiered cable's death throes. However BTN has put up a survey for the purpose of discussion points on their Monday show that represents the first crack I've yet seen in the conference's apparent immunity to public opinion on its expansion plans. This, like the survey when they announced the division names, will of course be duly ignored; I say let's tell them anyway.
Take the Survey on Facebook.
Take the Survey on the BTN homepage.
Call your friends and family and that girl you studied abroad with what's her name, and make them take it too. Whatever you answer in the rest, say "VERY IMPORTANT" for Question 9, and use 17 to ask they put Michigan and Ohio State in the same divisions.
The questions, and opinions:
1. What is your favorite B1G school?
This one is thrown in there to weed out the hardcore fans when they break their mouse by clicking on this SO HARD.
2. My favorite school is in which division?
???? I think it says "Leaders" in the song; I'm guessing that one. Also I'm guessing if everybody says "I have no idea" that can become a talking point against the division names.
3. As the conference expands beyond 12 teams, should the new teams be added to an existing division or should new divisions be drawn from scratch?
Start from scratch please.
4. What do you think of the "Legends" and "Leaders" names? (Strongly Like to Strongly Dislike.)
Again, this is put here to make you break your clicking device. Gently. Gently.
5. Should the B1G change or keep the current division names?
Gently!
6. If you think the division names should be changed, what should they be changed to?
This is an input box; write what you want. Like most old timey NHL fans I prefer divisions named for historical guys, so Yost-Stagg or Bo-Woody. Brian likes East-West. North-South. Plains-Lakes. Big Ten-Little Four. Persistence-Perseverance. Wait no not that last one, they might actually go for that.
7. If divisions were to be changed, what criteria should be used to determine them? (Rank by importance Competitive balance, geography, protect traditional rivalries.)
I suggest putting "Protect traditional rivalries" first because they're all important but at least that might put M-OSU in the same division.
8. How important is it for IN-STATE rivals to be in the same division? (Very important to not important.)
Irrelevant. Every in-state school is already traditional rivals with the other one.
9. How important is it for TRADITIONAL rivals to be in the same division? (Very important to not important.)
VERY important. Rivalries need something at stake, and beating your divisional rivals counts as virtually two wins if you're against them for the championship invite. If we're not with Ohio State the game becomes a "protected" rivalry, which means we'll see them every year while our division rivals face them maybe twice a decade.
10. Currently, the number of conference games the B1G plays is 8. Should this increase?
The answers they give here include "Yes, increase to 10 games (2 non-conference games; 5 home conf games and 5 road conf games)" which, hell yeah (now that ND is gone I think 2 games is plenty to have a warm-up and an interesting matchup) except it will never happen because they make their money off of home games and more conference games means more losses at the end of the season and fewer bowl-eligible teams.
11. What is your preference on a B1G Basketball Tourney? (Every team qualifies, or 12 of 14 teams qualify.)
They don't let you go less than 12. So 12, obviously.
12. Currently, the B1G has no divisions for basketball. Should this be changed?
I'd go for a tiered system before divisions. Don't care either way; if I knew they wouldn't screw it up I might be more inclined.
13. If yes, why should there be divisions for basketball?
Text entry. Share your opinion; mine is above.
14. If no, why shouldn't there be divisions for basketball?
Text entry.
15. When people reference "B1G", do you recognize that to be the Big Ten Conference?
Obviously you do, but think about what this could mean in context: if everyone is saying "no" then the talking point becomes "Nobody even knows what B1G means." I'm all for talking points that hurry along the demise of that embarrassment of a logo.
16. With 14 teams currently, should the B1G remain the "Big Ten", or should its name be changed?
I don't have a better name for it; we should have sued the Big XII and the Big East when we had the chance because "Big" is the nickname that grew up organically and should be the qualifying piece of information in the name, not the number.
17. Do you have any further thoughts on B1G expansion?
PUT MICHIGAN AND OHIO STATE IN THE SAME DIVISION! Also don't add Maryland and Rutgers, name the divisions from whatever's on the motivational poster in your boss's office, make another stupid looking logo, etc.
GO VOTE!
December 2nd, 2012 at 12:05 PM ^
Because having us play on back-to-back weeks is even worse.
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^
Did you watch the B1G Championship game last night in that sterile 25%-empty NFL dome? There is no way it matches the passion and intensity of the Michigan - Ohio State game in Ann Arbor or Columbus. Playing Ohio State in the B1G Championship game will never be The Game, Rose Bowl or not.
Better to keep it as a game to win the Division. You want to advance, you have to beat your rival. That's beautiful.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:12 AM ^
in what universe is keeping Michigan and Ohio State together less fair than trying to engineer a situation where they play in the B1G CCG every single season?
December 1st, 2012 at 3:58 PM ^
Totally suggesting "In the Weight Room" and "In the Community" for new division names. Actually, they might actually consider this. Not sure if I would love that or cry myself to sleep about it. Maybe both.
December 1st, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
My best case scenario... Let me know what you think.
New "Legends": Michigan, Ohio, MSU, Purdue, Nebraska, Iowa, Maryland
New "Leaders": PSU, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Rutgers
Protected cross-divisional rivalries: Brown Jug, Land Grant (MSU-PSU), Illibuck (Ohio-Illinois), Old Oaken Bucket (Indiana-Purdue), Heartland (Iowa-Wisconsin), Nebraska-Northwestern, Maryland-Rutgers
Annual Divisional rivalries: Paul Bunyan, The Game, Heroes (Nebraska-Iowa), Governor's Victory Bell (PSU-Minn), Paul Bunyan's Axe (Wisconsin-Minn), Land of Lincoln (Illinois-Northwestern)
"Lost" rivalries (won't occur annually): Purdue Cannon (Illinois-Pudue), Old Brass Spitoon (MSU-Indiana), Floyd of Rosedale (Iowa-Minn), Maryland-PSU, OSU-PSU
December 1st, 2012 at 4:22 PM ^
| Yost Division | Stagg Division |
|---|---|
| Ohio State | Penn State |
| Michigan | Minnesota |
| Michigan State | Nebraska |
| Illinois | Wisconsin |
| Northwestern | Rutgers |
| Indiana | Maryland |
| Purdue | Iowa |
Every one of those rivalries you mentioned is protected. Geographically Maryland and Rutgers are with the circle of hate but which schools in the other division would they drive to anyway?
December 1st, 2012 at 4:38 PM ^
The only thing I don't like about those divisions is that I want either Maryland or Rutgers in with Michigan. Michigan already is a national brand and can recruit nationwide, but if playing either Maryland or Rutgers every year even influences one really good recruit in the Mid Atlantic region every few years towards Michigan, I still don't want to miss out on that.
December 1st, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^
of historical division names but I feel very strongly that Yost shouldn't be an option. I know this is an unpopular opinion but the men we choose to honor should be remarkable and upstanding in every way... on the field and off of it.
December 1st, 2012 at 6:58 PM ^
signed,
Thomas Jefferson, slave owner
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:58 AM ^
The Land Grant game is not protected in your setup... otherwise everything is there.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:45 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 2:01 PM ^
State fans seem really upset about having lost it, so not so sure
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^
Too much fooling around with "Competitive Balance" which is a moving target.
Wait until they get to 16 then divide them up East and West and let it all shake out. The West can hold its own just fine with Wisconsin, Nebraska, etc.
December 1st, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^
Fuck the Illibuck, I'd rather play PSU every year.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^
There's not going to be much difference between Penn State and Illinois for a long time. I'd rather play for the turtle than for the satisfaction of curb-stomping a Penn State team that has 65 scholarship players, most of whom are 2* and 3* recruits.
December 2nd, 2012 at 6:00 PM ^
That sounds delightful?
December 1st, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^
I'll be entering on at least two machines and passing along to friends.
December 1st, 2012 at 4:20 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 4:26 PM ^
When you talk about taste there's always going to be a sizeable % who likes the thing everybody hates. Someone out there would think it would be awesome to make the colors purple and green and write "BIG SOME AMOUNT OR OTHER" in Comic Sans.
So. What. The consensus opinion is strongly established; when everyone's against you just throw up your hands and say "okay, you win this one" even if you and the rest of your tiny minority actually have control over this.
December 2nd, 2012 at 4:23 PM ^
I like B1G as well, and it will work when we go to 16.
People hated it at first for the reason you mentioned - the repetitive repeating of TEN in the logo which was dumb. But B1G alone, which they have had enough sense to move to, is cool.
Now if we could just get rid of the Carolina Blue in the logo . . .
December 1st, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^
Fixing the football situation is easy: drop M and OSU in the same division, move the championship game to a home stadium and go to a 9 game conference schedule, 10 if they expand further. In general, football is already well monetized.
Basketball is not, and the Big Ten is a dominant basketball conference. I bet if they expanded the B1G-ACC Challenge into a full blown conference wide tournament, broadcast on BTN and the ACC Network, they could make a lot of TV money and eliminate a bunch of body bag pre-conference season games. Two weekends in December plus the week in between, after finals and before the decent bowls start. I would watch that.
December 1st, 2012 at 4:51 PM ^
I voted for the divisions:
In The Classroom - In The Community
December 1st, 2012 at 5:09 PM ^
I don't like any of the solutions to our rivalry game with Ohio. A protected cross division rivalry is bad in the long run. And the idea of having them in our dvision, while it makes sense, think about what the other division looks like. The big powers in the other division are Penn State (who knows if/when they will return to true dominance), Nebraska, and Wisconsin. One of those 3 will always be in the championship game???
I say NO! The championship game should, more often than not, be UM vs. Ohio. The only way to achieve that properly is to DROP the cross division protected rivalry. We only play Ohio when both of us make it to the championship game. Which will probably be a little over half the time.
I'm sure that my position will not be popular, but at this point, I like all the others far less.
December 1st, 2012 at 6:04 PM ^
Dropping "The Game" which is the "biggest rivalry in all of sports ala Red Sox-Yankees", is not going to happen. It's a non starter. So you have to work from one of two bad solutions.
Either put them together or keep as is, with Michigan having the hardest protected rivalry. Frankly whoever gets OSU is going to get the hardest protected rivalry every year - let's be frank, OSU has been the class of the conference the past 10 yrs or so. (yes we had 2007 but we lost that year too) So you are going to screw whoever gets protected rivalry with OSU and screw to a lesser degree whoever gets protected rivalry with UM.
You say Wisconsin, Nebraska, and PSU together would be weaker than UM + OSU. I dont think so. That understates what Wisconsin has built, what Nebraska has been for a few decades and what PSU has a very good chance of returning to when the smoke clears in 4-5 years.
Big 10 Championships since 1998 (shared or outright)
Wisconsin: 4
Michigan: 4
Ohio: 7
Iowa: 2
No one else with more than 1.
It speaks to a view that this is 1988 not 2012. PSU has not been a "top dog" but in the top 4 year after year. And Nebraska would be a top 3-6 you can't deny that. (Frankly you could say Iowa has been better than PSU the past decade + but I'm going off 30-40 years)
So the bottom line is you have 4 premium traditional programs - UM, OSU, Nebraska and PSU. How you'd split them over the past 10-15 years is OSU head and shoulders above rest and the other 3 in a bucket. How you'd split them 30 years ago doesnt matter.
Then you have Wisconsin which unless you believe is going back to 1985 is a good program. They have taken IMO the spot of what Iowa used to be under Hayden Fry - the team that was very competitive and could beat OSU or UM on any year.
The next tier is MSU and Iowa IMO. Iowa 10 yeas ago you'd put up with Wisconsin - but they have fallen on tough times. Who knows how they will be in 10 years. Same for MSU.
Everyone else you can throw in a bucket and shake it out.
So unless you believe we are returning to the Big 10 of 1985 putting OSU and UM in the same divison and then claiming all the other teams dont desere to be together because they'll have an easy division is deluding yourself.
To protect "the Game" and avoid having Michigan have the most difficult protected rivalry I'd put them together. "The Game" would be for entry into the Big 10 championship game every 2 of 3 years IMO - thus giving it a lot of sway.
The other point is with OSU and UM separated they will almost NEVER play in the championshiop game. Why? Since one will always win the game between each other which will create 1 loss for that team. That 1 loss still counts in their division standings, and most years OSU or UM is going to just stumble somewhere else on their schedule creating 2 losses. A 2 loss team will almost never come out of a division to the Big 10 championship game. One of the other teams in the division of "the Game"'s loser is going to either go undefeated or have 1 loss most years. (I am speaking to the current 8 game schedule not a 9 or 10 game) Hence the downside of them playing if not in the same division. If they go to a 10 game schedule, my argument on this specific point will be less valid.
As for divisions I'd put OSU, UM and MSU/IOWA* together
and put Nebraska, Wisconsin, and PSU together.
Frankly these 6 should have protected rivalries with each other in some combination because having say Wiscosnin with a protected rivalry with Minnesota and OSU with Nebraska is unbalanced.
*MSU would be the better program today but 4 years ago Iowa. So who knows in 10 years.
December 1st, 2012 at 10:18 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 11:32 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 6:10 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:03 PM ^
"East/West. North/South. Really anything that makes a damned bit of sense and can be remembered by everyone who doesn't think a marketing degree is next to godliness."
My answer to their division names question.
December 1st, 2012 at 6:26 PM ^
We can either split the Indiana teams or the Michigan teams if we stay at 14 teams and want to keep things geographically East/West
Split Indiana:
West-----------------East
Nebraska..............Penn State
Minnesota.............Michigan
Wisconsin.............Michigan State
Iowa........................Rutgers
Northwestern........Ohio State
Illinois.....................Maryland
Purdue...................Indiana
Split Michigan:
West------------------East
Nebraska..............Penn State
Minnesota.............Maryland
Iowa........................Rutgers
Wisconsin.............Ohio State
Northwestern.......Purdue
Illinois.....................Indiana
Michigan State..... Michigan
I didn't really try to coordinate the protected matchups, but both scenarios are equally difficult for Michigan.
Any preference?
December 1st, 2012 at 7:14 PM ^
As soon as I heard about the expansion I was already envisioning an East-West split. I was thinking in terms of an Indiana split, but I could be happy with a Michigan split. To tell the truth I'm really not keen on the UM-MSU rivalry, it strains family relationships! On the other hand the MSU folks have been missing the MSU-PSU land grant rivalry that they've had the last years.
Is the East - West split just too logical for people?
The case of Alabama & LSU being in the same SEC division, along with AL's intrastate rival Auburn, is the model for MI & OSU being in the same division. It seems to work ok for them, although there has been talk of a North South split.
December 1st, 2012 at 9:09 PM ^
They're not going to bust up M-OSU. We will always play. It'll be almost impossible to get "always play" games in if they are cross division, so they kinda have to move M and OSU to the same division. Once w'ere in the same division, it's no matter at all to put the M-OSU game last. Like, that simplifies the whole scheduling process type of no matter.
December 1st, 2012 at 9:37 PM ^
East:
- Michigan
- Mich St
- Ohio
- Penn St
- Rutgers
- Maryland
- NW
West:
- Illinois
- Wisconsin
- Indiana
- Minnesota
- Nebraska
- Iowa
- Some other school I can't remember oh yeah Purdue (That's for you Brian)
Illinois and NW could go either way and these would still be reasonably fair. In theory you could move Wisconsin into the East but I'm guessing that's a total non-starter.
December 1st, 2012 at 10:27 PM ^
Where's the challenge in the west? It's a Wisconsin vs. Nebraska division. Meanwhile, in the east, you've got M, OSU, PSU and MSU? Unless MSU continues to fall (and they may), that's just unbalanced like whoa.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:34 PM ^
Well, Iowa's having a down year but most of the time they're usually solid and frequently they'll be contenders. Northwestern goes up and down but they'll put together a contender every few years too. The East is definitely stronger, but there's seven teams in both divisions, and the imbalance isn't so stark that you won't have a competitive championship most years. And it keeps all the major rivalries together with a minimal need for "protected crossovers".
December 1st, 2012 at 6:51 PM ^
I voted on 4G and wifi echoing Seth's proposed divisions. Nobody has really brought up having the championship game on the higher ranked teams home campus though. This feels like voting in real life. I simply think I am just canceling out some idiot's opinion and nothing will really get resolved the way I would like it to.
The Big Ten conference is like the EA brand of gaming. All they care about is money, resulting in dumbed down gaming and payable add ons to games which used to be free back in the day. Bioware who is owned by EA atleast listened to the fans after the Mass Effect 3 debacle and attempted to resolve the problem. I will still never by another EA game, sports or otherwise. My point is I hope that the Big Ten officials listen to what we the fans have to say on a subject near and dear to our hearts. Will they? I doubt it though.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:24 AM ^
I don't think the home game for the higher seed in the conference championship is any better than what we have, Stanford's attendance for the Pac 12 CCG was almost as bad as the B1G's
December 1st, 2012 at 7:00 PM ^
Let's call the new divisions "Tastes Great" and "Less Filling". That's what they are in my Fantasy Football league.
December 1st, 2012 at 10:33 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 8:06 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:29 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^
Clear optical division with Red and Pigmentally Diverse. Requires a bit of tinkering and does not protect The Game:
|
Red or Dead |
Do or Dye |
|
OSU Nebraska Rutgers Indiana Maryland [Oklahoma] [Stanford] |
Michigan Minnesota MSU Northwestern PSU Illinois Iowa |
If we choose not to expand further, we can fudge Illinois or ask them to make their orange a bit more crimson.
December 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 PM ^
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:28 AM ^
Then we can leave Illinois where it is and forget about further expansion.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:27 PM ^
I, for one, am excited to hear that everyone LOVES THE DIVISION NAMES AND CAN'T WAIT TO TRAVEL TO NEW JERSEY TO PLAY FOOTBALL GAMES!!!! Seriously, the Big 10 told us everyone LOVES the dumbass division names, they'll tell us we still LOVE the division names and LOVE adding crappy universities with crappy football and basketball teams with indifferent fan bases.
The only question is the percentage they tell us LOVE everything. I'm guessing its about 60-40.
December 1st, 2012 at 8:29 PM ^
December 1st, 2012 at 8:58 PM ^
that I took it twice.
December 1st, 2012 at 9:29 PM ^
Actually, I think this is a good sign: I don't recall them asking for anyone's opinion before admitting Nebraska, before the divisions debacle, or before allowing Rutgers and Maryland to join. It's at least conceivable that one of the Geniuses at the league office realized that their fans were getting ticked off, and decided to get some input from fans before they did something else stupid.
December 1st, 2012 at 10:15 PM ^
Rather than following the SEC's model of fairly contiguous regions that contain most of the traditional rivalries, the Big Ten followed the ACC's plan. Put Miami and Florida State in different divisions to promote the possibility of a Miami v Florida State appeal in the conference championship game. What a thrilling enterprise. The potential of this happening has surely recused its absence as a historical event. The anticipation that it will happen is more important than the distinction that it hasn't yet happened.
Likewise putting Michigan and Ohio state in rather arbitrary divisions means that, while a rematch will probably happen with the frequency of Haley's comet, that anticipation will be richly rewarding to all. What SEC fan isn't dismayed that Alabama and Auburn lack the potential to appeal their losses in the Iron Bowl to the SEC championship game? What Georgia fan doesn't feel tremendous remorse that Florida was robbed of a second chance to best them this season in the conference championship? The lack of anticipation has surely empoverished every SEC fan everywhere.
Furthermore, by eschewing regional divisions like North and South, the ACC created nebulous concepts that could apply teams in either division, creating a perfect harmony of brand. Atlantic. Coastal. Don't confuse ubiquity with genericism. It is a resonance to which few conferences can aspire. This is the secretsauce to the branding success of the ACC, and from this pecuniary fortunes concatenate. This is the concept that the SEC ignored at their peril, and unsprisingly the SEC has paid the price. By following the ACC's lead the Big Ten is following the tried and true course to conference success. Legends. Leaders. The fact that many teams in either division could easily be called by either moniker is a harmony of perfect fiths, resonating dulcet tones from the gut of middle America all the way to the Eastern Seaboard. Poaching an ACC team was merely creme in the Big Ten's coffee.
December 1st, 2012 at 10:41 PM ^
OK, I know this alignment would never happen, but what if the Legends division became:
- UM
- OSU
- MSU
- Minn
- Iowa
- Wisc
- Purdue
..and the other division (full of....who cares...and joined the B1G late anyways)...
- Neb
- PSU
- Indiana
- Illinois
- Northwestern
- Maryland
- Rutgers
Basically, most of the original Big Ten Powers would be in one division and the winner would most likely play a conference championship against a team that was fairly new to the B1G anyways. Heck, why not add a 6 more teams and just put all of the original Big Ten in one division, call that the Big Ten Division! Haha
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:40 PM ^
Comments