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 1st, 2012 at 11:38 PM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 2:26 AM ^
December 2nd, 2012 at 9:09 AM ^
There is no way to do it without creating a competitive imbalance within a division. Right now Michigan and Ohio are the poster children for this problem, but even if it were balanced differently, the fact remains that somebody will have to play the dominant powers annually while others in their division do not. This could regularly cost, say, Minnesota its bowl eligibility, and so on.
The only realstic solution is 10 games with Michigan and Ohio in the same division. That allows for future expansion to 16 (I voted for Kansas and Virginia) and is perfection in the interim, especially if you schedule it so teams in the other division don't play both M and O in the same year.
No protected rivalries. Preserve as many as you can, and play the other division enough so the ones that are left out of the divisons still have some meaning.
YIN: Michigan, Ohio, MSU, PSU, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland, [Virginia]
YANG: [Kansas], Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^
There's a way to both balance the divisions somewhat and protect secondary rivalries. Say that the conference schedule stays at 8 games with 4 non-conference, allow (or strongly suggest) that teams schedule one of those non-conference games as cross-divisional games. Nor is there any reason why the entirety of the non-conference schedule needs to played before the conference schedule.
So split Michigan for the divisions and they still schedule each other at some point, mid-season.
This would actually give everyone a 9 game "conference" schedule, or even call for two inter-divisional non-conference games and assume that teams schedule two cupcakes to start the season. The cross-division rivalries would still affect records and probably regularly be tie-breaking kind of games of import, but they also wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
to assure that rival teams will play eachother twice every year. They could do it w/o divisions, but, since they're not THAT smart, divisions would force it to happen.
ie-Mich would always play State and Ohio twice, never having a "bye/1 game" year with them.
December 2nd, 2012 at 1:54 PM ^
In basketball, though, you can always schedule a nonconference matchup with a league team. We did do that once with MSU in the '90s.
December 2nd, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^
I suggested expanding to 20 schools and just name the divisions Founders and Foundlings or OGs and Refugees. I think that could fuel some serious resentment between the divisions. It'd be much more fun watching a cross-division game if they had to constantly refer to Penn State as an expansion team, especially since the mouthbreathers at BSD already think they're treated like second-class citizens.
December 2nd, 2012 at 8:03 PM ^
It sucks. Thanks for ruining the tradition and rivalries of the league. Blow me. IDGAF about Maryland or Rutgers, but thanks for adding them to the conference, limiting games with traditional conference members. Assholes.
December 3rd, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^
Comments