Division Announcement Tonight
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.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
The Game is not still The Game if it doesn't mean anything.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
In which scenario does the game not mean anything? And by scenario, season records and such going into the game.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:04 PM ^
The game doesn't mean anything in a number of scenarios, most importantly where both teams have already clinched their divisions and know they will be playing in the B10CG. Like 2006.
More generically, the game will never really be as big as the B10CG in the years we make it, which hopefully will be many. The mere fact of the B10CG inevitably changes the significance of UM/OSU regular season, a fact that is obviously sinking in very slowly with huge swaths of the fanbases, a primary cause of the idiocy that apparently will be announced tonight.
In the years we don't make the B10CG, but beat OSU, yes, that will be a nice win. You're talking there about merely being a spoiler, though, and I'm hoping the program gets back to well above the place where we're merely spoilers.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
You're wrong. If one team had gotten swept in the two games, it wouldn't have made the BCS. That' is something that means something.
How many times will both teams have actually clinched? What about the much more likely scenario that one of the two teams actually needs a win to clinch their division? Is it meaningless then?
I'm completely baffled how a true Michigan Man can call the Michigan/OSU game, under any circumstance, "meaningless".
September 1st, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
2006 was the only time since the end of the Big 2, Little 8 Era--which i designate as 1981, the year Iowa broke the OSU/UM monopoly--that both UM and OSU entered the game unbeaten in Big 10 play.
So, it stands to reason that The Game will mean a whole lot more in the respective divisional races a lot more often than the times like 2006.
There will be plenty of times where both will need to win to advance, but the loser will end up ceding their spot to Nebraska/PSU/Whomever
I do think a 2006 situation does make The Game irrelevant, but come on, that's an exception to the rule.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
I actually went back and looked at final standings since 1990 and Michigan Ohio state would have rematched 6 times in 20 years, with that depending on one team winning their way in. If people are really assuming this is shit becuase of 6 times in 20 years it would be a rematch and the one time in the same time frame where neither team had to win their way in then fuck it.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:52 PM ^
And adding Nebraska into the mix probably would have made that 6 out of 20 even more rare.
This argument is so silly. This blog was on fire last week at the thought of moving the game on the slate. Game is not moved. Place still generally on fire
Come on, people. Only Babbies get their way everytime
September 1st, 2010 at 4:38 PM ^
One cannot wreck a season if there exists a chance for redemption (e.g. the Big Ten championship game). Hast thou forgotten the 90's so quickly?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
What's it begging to differ on?
I dont see how this has anything to do with my post you're responding to?
Also: Michigan wrecked OSU's 1996 season, but the Bucks still won the league and Rose Bowl.
Despite that, UM has the upper hand that year because they won. Are you saying that if MIchigan would win The Game in, say, 2017, but still finish #2 in their division while OSU is #1 in theirs and they still play and win the B10CG that somehow our win is meaningless.
Well, 1982 and 2004 OSU would disagree with you. As would 1996 Michigan.
I dont see how those victories are diminshed despite Rose Bowl appearances by the vanquished. I doubt they will be diminished in the future, too
September 1st, 2010 at 3:09 PM ^
We played spoiler for much of the 90s and it was awesome. Not "national champs" awesome, but "man, that game was fun, look at those guys over there crying" awesome.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:10 PM ^
So, the game wouldn't mean anything when both teams are playing for a perfect season?
If both teams have their divisions locked up, it likely means they are 7-0 in conference and probably undefeated.
If both teams have exactly one loss going into the game, there is a good chance that at least one of them does not have the division locked up because there is likely another one-loss team that only lost to either Michigan or OSU. A loss would put that one-loss team ahead of Michigan or OSU in the division, which means that one of the teams is playing for a spot in the championship game. It only gets harder to lock up your division as you get more losses.
There is only one scenario where The Game has no bearing on the season whatsoever, and that is when it has no bearing on the season whatsoever, i.e. both teams are already precluded from bowl contention. When is that likely to happen?
September 1st, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
I am utterly baffled that a true Michigan fan cas say that Michigan/OSU wouldn't mean anything.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:12 PM ^
...with the gentleman's remark. The Game is inherently meaningful. It is The Game. The Game's meaning is derived from its importance to the rival fanbases and the rival teams.
Even if The Game is a preview of The Game, Part Deux (AKA, The Big Ten Championship Game (TBTCG)), there's no way the regular season is dismissed as unimportant. The hype for such a game would be out of this world huge.
The worst case scenario is a game between one team (let's call that team OSU for shits and grins) that is out of the running for a berth in TBTCG and another team (let's call that team Michigan just for fun) that has already wrapped up said berth, The Game still has significance because in this example, OSU could put the kibosh on Michigan's BCS championship game hopes by winning.
The Game will always be meaningful. Unless you as members of the fanbase deem it unimportant. Anyone who argued that to be the case would be an ignoramus, IME.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:23 PM ^
For starters, the idea of any potential rematch at a neutral site is soul-crushing. Playing Ohio State twice in a season makes the first game meaningless. I, for one, am not willing to substitute a neutral site shibboleth for the game. The suits are wrong on this one and so are you if you don't get that.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^
There have been plenty of years when it did not decide the title, and it meant just as much as any other year. It is The Game itself that matters. Everything else is secondary.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
I'm pulling out Forest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does".
September 1st, 2010 at 2:49 PM ^
Pretty simple: We're all pissed off because we may win The Last Game, and have to play the knuckledraggers again the next game and lose, rendering The Last Game meaningless where it would otherwise not be.
Same division, last game: Makes sense.
Different divisions, move game up a month to prevent back to back games: Makes sense.
Different divisions, last game: Makes no sense.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^
There is no evidence that this would even be a regular occurence.
Not to mention, the wussiness in whining about playing the Bucks in consecutive weeks is pretty telling.
The Game is different, but maintains arguably the same level of import now since it will pretty much every year impact the final turns of both divisions. Sounds pretty fucking intense to me. I'll still watch. I'll still live and die with it. And, we have to beat the Bucks twice, then so fucking be it.
You're arguing against it because of the once-in-30-year situation where both teams are unbeaten in Big 10 coming into The Game combined with this Straw Man argument that every year will be filled with back to back games despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
To me, this isnt anything to get worked up about. Hardly a pitchfork moment.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
What about this situation:
-Ohio State is undefeated going into the real game.
-The next closest team in the clusterfuck division is 5-2 in the big ten.
-Michigan is 5-2 in the asinine division, and 7-4 overall having lost to ND and a PAC-10 school out of conference.
- However, all of the other teams in the asinine division have 3 losses.
-Michigan beats Ohio State.
-OSU/UM play for the championship, ruins a perfectly wondrous season wrecker by UM and results in a game that will end in an almost certain Michigan loss which will in turn nullify the result of the real game.
OR
-Michigan is 6-1 going into the real game.
-Nebraska and Michigan State end up 6-2 in the asinine division.
-Michigan has beaten both Nebraska and Michigan State head to head.
-Ohio State is 7-0 Big ten clusterfuck division.
-Ohio State beats Michigan
-OSU/UM rematch in the Title game.
If you think those scenarios are something you would like to see happen, well, then there's no use even arguing. The game happens once, IMO that's non-negotiable. (And for the record, I was not one of the fans who lobbied for a "rematch" in 2006. I'd rather see someone else get a shot at OSU if we fail to beat them the first time).
September 1st, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
Maybe I'm missing something but in scenerio 1 why is the championship game an "almost certain Michigan loss"? We beat them the week before in your scenerio, why couldn't we do it again? Not to mention even if they win the champioship we've ruined a garunteed shot at the national title. And, we get the chance to beat them in the championship which means a 9-4 Michigan team goes to the Rose Bowl over a 11-2 (both losses to Michigan) Ohio state team. You can't tell me that scenerio isn't sweet.
In scenerio B you're arguing for a team that's not the best in their division to be playing in the conference championship. Not to mention, once again, it gives us a chance to ruin Ohio State's season in the championship, sending a 3 loss Michigan team to the Rose bowl over a 1 loss Ohio State team. Once again, that would be awesome.
Then you go on to say you'd rather see someone else get a shot at OSU if we fail to beat them the first time, which is fine for your second scenerio, but why would we not get to play them again if we beat them (as in your first scenerio)? We beat them and don't get a shot at the championship?
This is ignoring the fact that the scenerios listed (Michigan/OSU rematch) would only happen 3/10 times (6 times in the last 20 years, only once with the final regular season game not mattering)
September 1st, 2010 at 5:03 PM ^
In your first scenario, Michigan ruined a perfect season and likely a trip to the NC game. Beating an 8-4 team isn't going to repair that.
In your second scenario, I'm assuming Michigan and OSU are 10-1 or something like that. Splitting, likely leads to the loser of the second game getting into a BCS bowl as an at-large. One of the teams ending 10-3 means they end up in the Citrus Bowl. It's not perfect, but it's not meaningless either.
Go look through the last 20 years and see how often both teams would have locked up their divisions going into the game. I believe the answer is once, when both teams were undefeated, and you can't say that beating OSU in the rematch to steal the NCG berth wouldn't have been fantastic that year.
September 1st, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
Is situation 1 even mathematically possible?
Even if it is, nice work, you've created a rare set of circumstance thats doubtful to come around. Who is winning all those games if everybody has all those losses?
September 1st, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
HEY! Don't bring all your maths up in here. This is a hypothetical! How else can we answer the situations that will never come up, never have come up and are still technically possible (if we ignore relavent information). What happens if Devin Gardner transfers to Northwestern and suddenly they become good and our division becomes too tough so we transfer to the Mountain West but still decide to play Ohio State to end the season which will then become meaningless when have a rematch against them in a BCS game? Then what? WHAT WILL HAPPEN?!?!!?!?!
September 1st, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^
Let's talk about something that doesn't suck quite as much as this. What do you think they will name the divisions? Doesn't look like it follows any geographical alignment.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
I still think that splitting Michigan/OSU is an attempt by the rest of the Big 10 to get someone other than M/OSU into the 1/2 spot for bowl games. And I think it's really a terrible idea as far as BCS games go. We'll wind up with a similar situation as Florida/Alabama last year, but instead of facing them once in the Conference championship, we'll potentially have to play twice, increasing the odds of a 1-1 split and putting one or both teams into potential tie-breakers and sending MSU/Iowa/Wisconsin to the 2nd place bowl.
Playing a huge national powerhouse twice in one season is a great way to bust a good season. I wonder if there can be a tie-breaker provision in the Big Ten Championship game that eliminates the teams if they have already played once (making the Championship a 2 v 3 game)? I won't hold my breath.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^
has to be the most upset if this is the division breakdown. Their two big rivals are Iowa and Minnesota - both in the opposite division. So they'll only be guaranteed to probably one every year. On top of it Alvarez was talking up a Wisky-Nebraska rivalry and as proposed they'll be in separate divisions.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^
as brought to you by Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:57 PM ^
PSU will now go after Ohio State as their de facto rival, being in the same division and fighting for the top spot year-in year-out. They'll probably still be trying to manufacture some sort of rivalry belief until JoePa finally bows out/checks out/lights out, after which I'd expect the Athletic Department to finally start scheduling some games against Pitt again.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:07 PM ^
Protect the MSU - PSU "rivalry" game as the last one of the year. That will drive Penn State fans absolutely crazy.
Er, crazier.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
game, that would drive me and UM fans crazier-er.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
I really really dislike Nebraska, and the though of having to play them every year is giving me gas -- my Inlaws are Nebraska Fanatics and i'm not sure i could handle a loss in that game.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
I don't share a work area with you.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:55 PM ^
like folks around here are asking for their cake and want to eat it too. There's no perfect solution, aside from kicking out Nebraska and Penn State and then going back to the Big Two and little Eight. Ohio State and Michigan play the end of the season. We wanted that. Right? We don't play MSU at the end of the season. We wanted that. Right? We get Nebraska every year, which should be a nice rivalry. Right? We might play OSU twice in a row every five years or so. That's not terrible. Right?
September 1st, 2010 at 4:15 PM ^
Why the hell not just switch Michigan and Penn State? Its not like this damn thing is geographic anyway. And god knows I don't care if our bullshit "crossdivisional" rivalry is Michigan State (fuck them).
September 1st, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
I know Valenti is a hated person around here with good reason but I tuned in today to hear his take on the alignment and he has not disappointed so far. He is acting like a huge baby and whining something fierce because MSU will never make a Rose Bowl because they suck against NW/Minnesota in addition to the other good teams in the division.
Hearing him whine and complain so much is my kind of schadenfreude especially after he called UM and OSU 'whiners' in regards to when The Game gets played.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:08 PM ^
Really? He's complaining that MSU will have it tough? That guy is unreal...MSU who plays Montana State and Florida International instead of Ohio State...they have it tough? That guy is the worst, but at least my blood pressure is down because I avoid listening to him lately.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:58 PM ^
as long as the Game is still the last game of our reg season
September 1st, 2010 at 3:00 PM ^
If you have never been to Lincoln, it is a neat city. Got stuck there a couple of summers ago, or so I thought, for an overnight. Town was nice, the stadium is terrific and I was very impressed with the U of Nebraska - my son (a Michigan student) and I really thought the University of Nebraska was a very attractive school. From a football perspective, and from that of the town, we could do lots worse. For what it is worth, the people I ran into were terrific.
Another thought about divisions. I suspect we have no clue what is going on behind the scenes. Delany's timetable was 12-18 months. There may yet be additions to the Big Ten in the works and these divisions may have been done with something else in mind. If you read the article someone posted yesterday on Nebraska's admission to the Big Ten, that event was a real surprise.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:02 PM ^
Playing at Nebraska and Iowa every other year will be a little more challenging than at Wisconsin & Penn State. Penn St. & Nebraska are equal, but I think Iowa is a better program than a post-Alvarez Wisconsin. Plus, Michigan has owned Wisconsin and Penn State over the years. Winning in Lincoln & Iowa City will be no picnic.
The lower tier of MSU, Nortwestern, and Minnesota is much better than Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue.
Bottom line, Michigan & Ohio St. should be in the same division and play the last game of the year.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:20 PM ^
Are you joking? Camp Randall is known to be one of the toughest places to play around the country. And I don't think anyone can rationally say that playing at Nebraska would be tougher than Happy Valley (or vice versa).
September 1st, 2010 at 3:24 PM ^
Playing at Penn State is in my opinion a tougher go then it is at Iowa. With the team we had last season we should have won (had we not turned the rock over 5 times). And I'd rather play at Nebraska then at camp randall any day. But really we shouldn't worry about any of this. We are Michigan and should not be scared to be in one division or another. Sure Ohio State made out like bandits, that's because everyone sucks them off and i'm sure some money was part of the deal on their behalf (jk). But now that we can do nothing about it we just suck it up and start dominating and let the pieces fall where they may. GO BLUE
September 1st, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
Nebraska and MSU will be a HUGE rivalry over who is the best at growing stuff on a farm!!
September 1st, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^
I guess they're pretty balanced, but they just seem random to me? Wisconsin won't even been in the same division as Minnesota, Iowa, or Nebraska? Wow. What are they going to name these divisions?
September 1st, 2010 at 3:15 PM ^
The divisions will be named after Bo Schembechler and Woody Hayes. With this total random scattershot deal I don't know what else they could do.
Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes...
September 1st, 2010 at 5:27 PM ^
I am okay with this, as long as the Michigan-Nebraska-Iowa-Minnesota-Northwestern-Michigan State division is the "Woody Hayes" division and the Ohio State-Wisconsin-Penn State-Purdue-Illinois-Indiana division is the "Bo Schembechler" division.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^
I noticed that too. I think the plan is Iowa-Wisconsin will play every year. My guess would be that, Wisconsin will get to play Nebraska the next two years, then Minnesota the two years after that. The 5th year would be the year they don't play either of those teams, and that is when it is rumored we will go to 9 games, which would allow for them to play Nebraska again.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:13 PM ^
Michigan looks like it landed in a much tougher division.
I cannot believe that Illinois, Indiana and Purdue are in the same division.
Man, way to go preserving the "Old Oaken Bucket game. Some Big Ten rivalry games are so critical, you have to preserve them at all costs.
September 1st, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
I think the divisions are fairly well balanced (except that we'll have to play OSU each year and MSU might end up with a toughie like Illinois). Anyway....ESPN has a national poll and it looks like most folks think the OSU division is the tougher one: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=frontpage&pollId=96580
September 1st, 2010 at 4:43 PM ^
I think people are voting for the OSU division being tougher because it contains OSU. But with Indiana, Illinois and Purdue it's not a very deep division.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:44 PM ^
Yeah, it's tougher because Ohio State's in it. From OSU's perspective, it's easier than our division from our perspective.
Comments