Gene Smith: "Strong likelihood" of Michigan & ohio being in same division
Looks like all the talk of there being East & West is going to be the case.
I asked AD Gene Smith likelihood of #Buckeyes and #Wolverinesbeing in same division- "Strong likelihood"
February 18th, 2013 at 3:43 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
we find out that the report is legit and can start thinking of him as only 97-98% idiot.
February 18th, 2013 at 5:14 PM ^
Gene Smith may have arbitrarily answered the question. No proof of thought whatsoever. 100% idiot is still possible.
February 18th, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
is right twice a day. He's still an idiot, but in this case I hope he's a correct idiot.
February 18th, 2013 at 3:49 PM ^
I don't think it takes that much brainpower to tell someone something that you were told. Hell, he probably wasn't even supposed to say it.
February 19th, 2013 at 11:11 AM ^
Was he at the Schott Center when he said it?
February 18th, 2013 at 3:45 PM ^
I hope he's right too. The B1G is tough enough most years without having Ohio as an annual cross-division game while MSU nibbles on Indiana's nut sack.
February 18th, 2013 at 3:56 PM ^
This may be a question that has been answered before, but when are we likely to find out exactly who will be in what divisions?
February 18th, 2013 at 3:56 PM ^
Shirley you can't be serious. Either you give up The Game (not happening), or we're stuck with playing a way harder schedule than the rest of the West. Being Champions of the (actual) West isn't worth it.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^
I think it's equally as difficult as the East and I want us to stay in separate divisions. I actually like the idea of playing Ohio back to back at the end of the year. I'm probably in the minority on that one, but that's just my opinion. NEG AWAY.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
I don't want any part in playing Ohio back-to-back weeks. What if we beat them in the regular season and they beat us the following week? That makes the win over them in the regular season 99% meaningless. We could brag all we want about splitting the series in any given season, but all they would have to do is point to the Big Ten championship trophy and we would be owned. Sorry, but I want to avoid that scenario. Obviously it can be reversed, but I never want it to happen in the first place, so they need to be in the same division. Also, what happens if they beat us in BOTH games? We would never hear the end of that.
February 18th, 2013 at 5:07 PM ^
The question isn't whether our division is harder than the other division is; everyone in the division has to play the same teams. In fact, I'd be just fine with having the six best teams in the conference in our division and making the championship game a cakewalk every year. The issue is that we would have to play OSU every year, while everyone else would have to play significantly easier protected rivalries. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage if we want to keep playing our rivalry game.
On playing OSU twice: I'm open to the idea in and of itself. But in a lot of years, Michigan and/or OSU have already won their divisions, so the (first) Game would meaningless. Think of Oregon/Stanford. Or think of marriage: if it's so great, why don't you want to do it twice? Maybe because the fact that it only happens once (hopefully) is part of what makes it so special.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:07 PM ^
I think it's equally as difficult as the East and I want us to stay in separate divisions. I actually like the idea of playing Ohio back to back at the end of the year. I'm probably in the minority on that one, but that's just my opinion. NEG AWAY.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
While it's true that websites tend to promote a herd mentality, Brian doesn't have some obscure minority viewpoint here. The vast majority of people I've spoken to - regardless of whether they visit this site or even root for Michigan - think the idea of playing Ohio on back to back weeks is crazy. It will make the first, on-campus game meaningless. You have to remember, that second game won't be played on campus. It will be played in a domed NFL stadium in front of a corporate crowd. It will not be the same. Worse yet, the first game isn't going to mean as much, either, if both teams have clinched their divisions already.
It's also a safe bet that the league will get sick of having back-to-back games very soon. It's very likely that the league will insist on all November games being intradivisional. That means no more Game on the final week of November, if we're in separate divisions. If we're in separate divisions, the Game will be moved to October - count on it.
And then there is the problem of competitive balance. If we're playing Ohio every year as our protected rivalry game while MSU is playing IU, Nebraska is playing a probation-weakened PSU and Iowa is playing Purdue, that puts us at a big disadvantage in the division standings. If we're going to be playing Ohio every year, we need to be in the same division.
February 18th, 2013 at 5:35 PM ^
Mark my words - if/when Michigan and OSU actually do play on back-to-back weeks (which may well happen in 2013) - you'll hate it. Maybe as a hypothetical it doesn't seem that bad. But when we celebrate winning the Game only to realize that we've got to do it again the next week (and this time, against Meyer's full starting lineup), that will suck, hard. If we lose the rematch, it'll be like the game in the Big House didn't even matter.
February 18th, 2013 at 7:04 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 9:09 PM ^
but don't call him Shirley.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:10 PM ^
Nope, it's gonna be Godzilla vs. King Kong (H/T):
February 18th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^
Oh, so close! However we can't have 6 vs 8 team division.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:32 PM ^
While we're making unbalanced divisions (6 in the east, 8 in the west), why don't we just send Maryland and Rutgers to the other division (because obviously), Michigan State to the other division (because lil' brother shouldn't sit at the grown-ups table), and heck, let's just send Penn State to the other one too. Michigan plays OSU 7 times, and the winner of the best-of-seven faces the winner of the Little Eightish in the championship game.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^
Not gonna happen. state is lobbying to be in the West according to reports.
It's gonna be Michigan, indiana, maryland, ohio, penn state, purdue & rutgers in the East.
illinois, iowa, state, minnesota, nebraska, northwestern and wisconsin in the West.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
I was just going to comment in this thread about State, but you totally beat me to it. I still can't believe MSU wants to be in the West. .... makes no sense... I guess they better hope there's a cross division rival still calculated into it. I mean, have we ever not played Sparty since we've both been in the Big Ten?
February 18th, 2013 at 5:37 PM ^
Makes total sense. They know that in a division that includes Michigan and Ohio, they will have little to no chance of ever advancing to the B1G championship game. In the West, they will only have to contend with Nebraska, which as a program recruits much closer to their level.
It's cowardly on their part, but it makes sense.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:50 PM ^
UM's large eastern alumni base is a selling point for televising Big Ten games in the New Jersey area. I believe UM also has a significant alumni base in DC as well. It makes sense to place your premier teams in the same division as the two recently added out-of-region teams.
February 18th, 2013 at 5:00 PM ^
Still kind of sad though. Michigan won't be playing the charter members every year which has always bugged me even when they did rotate off the schedule for a short period.
illinois, minny, northwestern, purdue and wisconsin.
February 18th, 2013 at 6:33 PM ^
But if they go to a 10 game schedule they'll play 4 teams from the other division which is good.
February 19th, 2013 at 9:09 AM ^
Until the league expands to 16 - 20 teams.....then, no.
February 18th, 2013 at 5:02 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 5:09 PM ^
I would be okay with that. The possibility of playing MSU twice sits a lot better with me than playing Ohio twice. It's a midseason game as it is, and it probably wouldn't happen as often as Ohio rematches would.
February 18th, 2013 at 6:59 PM ^
You're probably correct and that makes me sad.
February 19th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^
Those are actually pretty well balanced Divisions, both competitively and geographically.
February 18th, 2013 at 6:56 PM ^
I also like that West division. I really like Michigan playing State, Nebraska, Iowa, Wiscy, and Northwestern. That's how it should be. I also understand that the East in this picture is total crap. I wish we could replace Marland and Rutgers with USC and Texas. (Or almost anyone else...)
February 18th, 2013 at 3:53 PM ^
Also, always a "strong likelihood" he says something stupid.
I hope he is correct but he is never anyone's go to source.
February 18th, 2013 at 3:58 PM ^
The inner/outer scenario obviously made too much competitive and historical sense for it to be considered.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:21 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 4:39 PM ^
ditto for Maryland and Rutgers joining the big10 right?
geography doesn't really matter - the 'old' big 10 teams aren't driving to Rutgers, Maryland or Nebraska, nor for that matter, Minnesota. If it was about travel costs they'd just have a 'flyers' division and a 'tires' division and minimize travel for teams within a drive of each other -- which would look a lot like the concept in question.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
Never had a chance...hence why the conference made it only one of two options on a survey administered to the public. Nice logic.
We're not talking about sending the Nebraska Cross-Country team to Piscataway more often over the course of a decade - rather establishing competitive balance in the one sport that would rely on a divisional model.
February 18th, 2013 at 6:46 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 10:19 PM ^
I didn't realize you were giving me a choice. In that case, I pick "wrong".
The proposal may indeed be "right or wrong" or may be discussed without arguing it's merits - but you didn't do that. You said it was wrong for a specific reason - a reason that doesn't hold water.
February 19th, 2013 at 5:05 AM ^
It never had a chance of happeneing. If the B1G made devisions based solely on competative balance the debate would never end because all schools are up and down competatively. They also said they can't use geographical names for the divisions unless they are actually geographically aligned. There was never any chance for the inner outer idea. I never bothered reading about its merits..I took 1 look at the map and knew it would never happen.
February 19th, 2013 at 2:09 PM ^
I'm not really arguing if it was a viable option or not, as much as I'm arguing with someone saying 'geography' is the reason without explaining what he means. It's not really about the pros and cons as much as diluting it down to one (extremely vague) issue.
Something about the map struck as you as obviously wrong - that's fine and you're not alone. But if you put up a map of the existing alignment you would have the same reaction. It makes little sense geographically. Therefore, obviously, geography isn't the only criteria, nor is it a deal-breaker if things aren't geographically logical or unconventional.
February 19th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 4:01 PM ^
Sorry - not buying the "Gene Smith is an idiot" meme at all. In the past two years he's managed to dodge any significant NCAA investigation into what sure looks like fairly massive and widespread extra benefits being given to his players, told the NCAA there were no violations and they bought it, avoided any real sanctions when the shit did sort-of hit the fan and then managed to replace a beloved coach with an even more beloved coach all the while seeing his football team go undefeated.
I wish we had an "idiot" like Gene Smith in charge of our Athletic Department when Stretchgate was unfolding. My guess is that Smith would've told the Freep to go f themselves and banned them from the facility forever.
February 18th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
February 18th, 2013 at 4:40 PM ^
Didn't Ohio just lose some scholarships and have to serve a bowl ban in 2012, when they otherwise would have played for the national title? They didn't skate completely.
On the "Smith is an idiot" front, how dumb does he look for not applying the bowl ban in 2011 when his team was 6-6?
February 18th, 2013 at 5:32 PM ^
I would be totally OK with Smith being AD for the 15 minutes it would take for him to do this.