Division Announcement Tonight

Submitted by Brian on September 1st, 2010 at 1:36 PM

Got your torch? Pitchfork? Great:

A person familiar with the discussions says the Big Ten plans to announce Wednesday night how it will break up into two divisions.

The person, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the conference hasn't released the information, says the process of putting six teams in each division was completed on Wednesday.

Random internet people at Frank The Tank's Slant, the unofficial home of expansion speculation are saying this is the breakdown:

THIS DIVISION

Michigan
Nebraska
Iowa
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern

IS THE DUMBEST THING IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE DIVISION

Ohio State
Penn State
Wisconsin
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois

I'm not vouching for that at all, but I haven't seen anything suggesting people have come to their damn senses and put M and OSU in the same division.

Comments

evilempire

September 1st, 2010 at 2:09 PM ^

Kobeashi Morou (wrath of Khan) senario I have raged about on mlive and mgoblue...a month ago, heres how this scheme benfits the Klingon buckeyes, the nittnay lion Rhomulans, and the ferengi spartans:

1) Michigan and Osu is moved up to october....this marginalizes the SS Wolverine because

2) Psu and Osu slide THEIR game to the end of the season which is what they both want cause they don't think the SS wolverine will rise again

3) Michigan & Msu will slide to the last game of the regular season, which benefits sparty due to the enormity of attention rivalry weekend gets (I was way ahead of Drew Sharp on this one)

4) Now Michigan has Nebraska, Iowa, Msu, & Psu EVERY year. Then there will be years when Psu & Wisky get piled on top of the.....oh joy

5) Osu gets 3 pinheads, Psu, and Wisky (who is always up and down over the years) and us.

So, in the end Michigan is screwed all the way around, Psu enhances themselves by playing osu at the end, Msu gets a jump start bay playing us at the end, and Michigan's will be tough EVERY year. Now you know why Osu barely raised a finger about all this, and why Psu (my contention) Balked BIG TIME, behind the scenes about moving the west (whichis the easiest FREAKIN move for ALL concerned). And our AD thinks this is all worth it so we might play osu once every ten years....twice.

mgoblue0970

September 1st, 2010 at 3:01 PM ^

Please cogently explain how michigan gets screwed?

The whining by those against this scenario is mind boggling... the Game is NOT meaningful because the it was played on the last weekend of the season.  The game is the game because of the 10 year war.  The game is the game because of the impact it has had on determining the Big Ten 10 championship over the years.  <-- take a deep breath and re-read that last sentence.  

If Michigan and tUoOS are in the same division, the tradition of those two teams playing for all the marbles is lost.  Period.

Personally, and I thing most Michigan Men (and Women) think this way... it's fucking tUoOS.  I don't care if they play football on Feb 29, or if it's hockey, basketball, or field hockey.  I don't care if they play football twice a year.  I hate those cocksuckers from down south; note: you cannot spell cocksucker without O-S-U... and I'll be there with my Maize and Blue on pissing off the "down in front brie and wine" crowd.

But then again, given all the fair weather fans who sold their tickets last November, and turned the biggest game of the year into a home game for tUoOS, I guess you may have some points.

Njia

September 1st, 2010 at 2:11 PM ^

I've been as solidly against this as anyone, but there is a smidgeon of merit (less than a tad bit) for the divisions this way.

Consider: Were U-M and TUOOS in the same division, it's likely that the loser of The Game would end up going to the third place bowl (or worse) in the B10, not the second place bowl. With the divisions outlined as above, should the B10 get two BCS bowl bids in a year, the loser of the B10 championship still probably plays in a BCS bowl. Should that team be U-M, I don't think too many of us would be shedding any tears (except for the obvious fact that we lost, and probably don't play for the MNC).

Ed Shuttlesworth

September 1st, 2010 at 2:12 PM ^

It doesn't matter how the records are calculated.  If we beat OSU in The Last Game and lose to them in the B10CG, the regular season win doesn't mean squat.  Even in years where the B10 gets two BCS bids, there's no guarantee that the B10CG loser will be one of the bids.

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

Yep, that was the rationale for moving the game to fucking October, and it was pointed out then that this is likely to happen about every 30 fucking years or so. 

On top of that, this is a very glass-half-empty view.  The alternative would be to say that in a rematch of what would be excellent UM-OSU for the conference title, the team that lost The Game would have a chance at redemption - i.e. things would be nuts, because it would still be up in the air.  And it would still be decided by UM-OSU on the field.

joeyb

September 1st, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

So, you would have been upset if Michigan lost to OSU in the first game in 2006, then beat them on a neutral field 2 weeks later to go to the National Championship game against Florida?

Not to mention that the reversal of roles there could have led to Michigan beating Florida so that the Big10 didn't look so weak.

MGlobules

September 1st, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^

we don't have to beat PSU, OSU, or Wisconsin to make the B10 title game. We can LOSE to OSU and still get there. MSU will NOT be the final game, which I'd have hated as much as moving OSU. Our division is marginally tougher top to bottom, the other at the top. We'll have to field a strong team to win anything, but this is a good setup. Also, Nebraska will make a fun new rival; the TV audience will be huge, as for Neb-PSU. We lose nothing in the way of trad. rivalries except having the final regular-season game decide the conference. Every now and then. And that was a foregone conclusion. 

Buck up, Brian. 

w2olvesg

September 1st, 2010 at 2:17 PM ^

with the divisions as projected, what about a repeat of 2006?  we lose to osu in the game but then play them again in the title game the week after and eek out a win...with the votes the way they were, there would have been a solid chance that there would have been another rematch in the national title game

i have no problems with playing osu twice in a season but three times? that's just a little too much

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^

What about this?  What about if we were 7-4 going into a game against undefeated OSU, and we win, and then Nebraska, who was winning our division, disbands their football program so we play in the conference title game.  And then we win that game, but Subcommandante Wayne holds Myles Brand hostage, and then tOSU makes it to the MNC title game, and we play again.  And the MNC title game goes to 14 overtimes, until everyone is hurt  and there aren't enough players to form a full unit, and the game ends in a tie, and we have to play again, but this time using CFL rules?

I think people would be tired of UM-OSU at that point.

(But I do think Michigan would win the CFL rematch 32-5.)

Emarcy

September 1st, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^

are mathematically unfair, as has been pointed out by some.  I don't know why the conference would support them if their primary consideration is really competitive balance.  It is like the equalizing nature of mario kart where stragglers get a lightning and the leader gets a single banana.  If the conference goes to this system I would prefer a protected Indiana (triple red shell) instead of OSU (single green shell).  Or we could simply create divisions that maintained the best rivalries.

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2010 at 2:31 PM ^

But you're seriously a fucking pussy, and you're not really a Michigan football fan, if you'd trade a guaranteed matchup with OSU for one with  Indiana.  Go cheer for Wisconsin - maybe someday you and Alvarez can have a beer and talk about scheduling the most meaningless games imaginable in order to get your team a couple of extra Ws. 

I understand you're speaking in hypotheticals, and it's hard for me to get angry at someone who uses Mario Kart to illustrate his or her point.  But this is just a stupid thing to say.

Emarcy

September 1st, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^

to the NC game, I just want the most meaningful M-OSU game every year.  If we end up in separate divisions, a protected cross divisional rivalry goes a long way to prevent the conference championship game matchup (at least in those years where we wouldn't play them anyway.)  

to your other points, nuh unh.

Emarcy

September 1st, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

I would create divisions that maintained traditional rivalries.  Start with M-OSU, and preferably MSU in the same division.

If, being the big ten commissioner, I was for some reason forced to break up traditional rivalries, I would not add protected cross divisional games because this results in uneven scheduling from the start.  

If I were AD, I would insist on playing OSU every year and preferably the as the last game, even if it resulted in a more difficult schedule.

If I were me, I would take to a M message board and express the irrationality of splitting M and OSU, perhaps with hyperbole and a mario kart analogy.

If I were you, I would...

eh but I am me, so I'll leave it at that.  and go blue.

STW P. Brabbs

September 1st, 2010 at 5:16 PM ^

I think most people here agree that keeping UM and OSU in the same division would be the best-case scenario.

But you still maintain that, barring this, you would not want a protected rivalry game with OSU.  This tells me two things: 1) you are incorrectly using the term 'hyperbole,' and 2) you don't really care about the rivalry with OSU.  2) leads me to question your Michigan fanhood. That's all.

cjm

September 1st, 2010 at 2:28 PM ^

Saw this on the bigtennetwork website as they are promoting the special tonight at 6:00pm.  I thought this looked good.  Especially like the placement of the MSU helmet.  ALso like the front four and the powers they represent.

superstringer

September 1st, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^

I do wish UM/tOSU were in the same division cuz that would give the game some meaning, but, as long as we play them at the end of the season its prolly ok with me.

Howevah -- I can't figure out who the Big10(=12) intends to pair together as "protected" games.  Two are obvious:  UM/tOSU and Illinois/Northwestern.  Possibly there is also Wiscy/theotherUM. 

Possibly you create a Neb/Penn St. protected game for the TV ratings, at the small price of splitting up the pretend PSU/MSU rivalry game.  However, Alvarez has said he wanted Neb/Wiscy to be the end of season game (duh, he's a Cornhusker by degree), so does that mean no PSU/Neb and no Wiscy/theotherUM games?

And what about the rest -- how do you form rivalry games out of Iowa / MSU versus Indiana / Purdue.  There's no natural rivalries there.

Bogus.

meechiganroses

September 1st, 2010 at 2:32 PM ^

I love how everyone is flipping out.  We all wanted to expand--and we all want OUR school to have it perfect.  Let's face it people, it isn't going to work out purrrrrrrfectly (7 r's) for every school, and remember there are 15+ varsity sports that need scheduling too.  You want the Game at the end of the year, you have it.  IT'S COLLEGE FUCKING FOOTBALL, every game matters--all the pundits agree NCAAF has the most meaningful regular season.

Ed Shuttlesworth

September 1st, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^

There will always be a BCS berth available for the winner of the B10CG.  That is the only guaranteed BCS berth.  The only scenario you can possibly be talking about that gives the regular season game "meaning" is where you win the regular season and lose the B10CG - to Ohio State. 

The over/under on number of times in the next 30 years that scenario -- OSU and UM playing twice in the last two weeks of the season, splitting, and both going to the BCS -- is ... 0.  A late season loss will still be a killer that will get you edged out for the second berth, even by other Big Ten teams.

chitownblue2

September 1st, 2010 at 2:40 PM ^

The only scenario you can possibly be talking about that gives the regular season game "meaning" is where you win the regular season and lose the B10CG - to Ohio State. 

Given that this was the very scenario you complained stripped the game of meaning, I thought this was obvious.

The over/under on number of times in the next 30 years that scenario -- OSU and UM playing twice in the last two weeks of the season, splitting, and both going to the BCS -- is ... 0.  A late season loss will still be a killer that will get you edged out for the second berth, even by other Big Ten teams.

Well, you're looking at it from hindsight. Do the teams playing in the final week know they're going to split the next week? Obviously not - so they'll still try.

And I agree that these scenarios will be extremely rare. So why are we all pissed off about it again?

erik_t

September 1st, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^

As a Minnesota fan, I'm actually quite thrilled with this, especially if the imagined protected rivalries are all moved to the last weekend of the season. Coming of age in the Pac-10, it's always bugged the piss out of me that we don't play Wiscy the last week of the season.

The whole point is to BUILD THE HATE for as long as possible, isn't it?

Six Zero

September 1st, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^

Different divisions isn't the issue.  Not playing them at the end of the year was.  As long as it stays in place, we should cut our losses and move on.  It's not like there's anything else to be thinking about for the next, say, 72 hours...

It's on.  It is SO on.

Njia

September 1st, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^

FWIW (not much):

Since Rivalry Week is the last regular season game, wouldn't both teams already know who will play for the B10CG? What if those teams are U-M and OSU? Doesn't that imply that they know they'll face each other again, the following week? Or is there some formula where the final game of the season (out-of-division) somehow has B10CG  implications?

How would that change the game plan for both teams? Do you hold anything back the first week, knowing you're going to have to do it again for all the marbles?

This is such a monumentally bad idea, it defies logic.

SAvoodoo

September 1st, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^

If they do it like the SEC does then it's overall conference record first, not in division record.  Therefore, the last week games, even if they are all cross-divisional, still matter to the championship game decision. The exception to this is if the two teams playing are already locked into the top of their division based on conference schedule, even with a loss (2006 would have been this way).

Space Coyote

September 1st, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^

If we have the same conference and division record but Nebraska loses to us then we go.  Head-to-head matters.  But if you put head-to-head above division then technically a 3-2 team would go before a 4-1 team that they beat.  He has the tie-breakers in the right order.

Needs

September 1st, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^

It's not just the SEC that does it this way, it's every conference with divisions. If you just go by division records, you don't have a conference, you have two mini-conferences who have agreed to play a championship game and hold a series of non-conference games.

jamiemac

September 1st, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

Seriously, quit fucking bitching

Jeebus, you whined all last week about our precious The Game that no other rivalry can possibly compare to being moved up on the schedule. It's staying in the same spot. Last game of the season. Isnt that what you wanted?

Brian, I am pulling out the Stones on you: You cant always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.