Rosenberg weighs in quickly on M/OSU separate divisions and gets it exactly right (wut?)
I don't think anyone can argue with the logic of this fresh Rosenberg column, which he gets exactly right IME. But try if you will. Excerpt:
"One of the great things about The Game is that when those two teams walk off the field, there is no doubt: The winners have won something that will last forever, and the losers have lost something they will never get back. It just won’t be the same if there is a rematch a week later."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100901/COL22/10090105…
Can someone provide the print version link thingy? I never paid attention in class.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
Where does that story detail the process and the dealmaking? It is just a kind of a long press release.
Again, I say, this subject was ignored by Rosenberg, in a column that people wanted to congratulate him for. And Rosenberg himself appears to have sneakily retreated from his original assertion that the Michigan and Ohio State administrations acquiesced in their divisional splits.
Someday we'll find out more. We'll find out how hard Mark Hollis fought te preserve the MSU "rivalry(?)" game with PSU. We'll find out how hard Minnesota fought to have a protected rivalry game with Wisconsin. We may find out what Wisconsin and Iowa wanted out of the deal. And whether Nebraska had any demands.
But most of all, someday -- no today, obviously -- we'll find out about the details as to whether, and how, the rest of the Conference insisted on a split of Michigan and Ohio State.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:07 AM ^
This quote from Brandon seemed of particular interest:
"There were a lot of opinions out there on a lot of decisions that had to be made, but for me, probably the most common response I got was keep it the last game of the regular season in November. There were very few people who didn't feel strongly that that was an important principle.
"Gene and I knew that from the very beginning, and at one point it seemed like it was in jeopardy. Thanks to the way Gene and I and the conference leadership and all of the A.D.s and Presidents got together and worked it out, came up with what we're looking at tonight, we're really, really happy."
He says he knew from the very beginning that keeping the game last was "an important principle." Yet, IIRC, when he went on WTKA a couple weeks ago he said that U-M and OSU were likely to be placed in separate divisions--and that he supported that move--but that he also believed separating them was likely to mean the game would have to be moved to earlier in the season.
So was this the point at which he felt the game was in jeopardy of being moved, and did he deliberately--and very publicly--leak this information knowing that only a firestorm of protest would keep the game as the final one?
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^