Rosenberg weighs in quickly on M/OSU separate divisions and gets it exactly right (wut?)

Submitted by wolverine1987 on September 1st, 2010 at 7:54 PM

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."…

Can someone provide the print version link thingy? I never paid attention in class.


Section 1

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 ^

That nobody, fans, coaches, tv, wanted them to play the last game and a championship game. He was wrong about at least one of them. I won't give him credit for something his every word said the opposite of because of a theory (common, you're not the only one) that he was using some master psychological ploy.


September 1st, 2010 at 8:51 PM ^

You know all too well that if OSU and UM were in the same divisions that Rosenberg would have just adjusted his column to bemoan the fact that OSU and UM would never play for the Big 10 title ever again.

He's just whining to whine. I didnt care about him before his practice story, I certainly dont care about his work now. He is one the most boring writers i've ever really read.

Section 1

September 1st, 2010 at 11:03 PM ^

This was the status quo at the time of the Economic Club luncheon:  Brandon and the whole league had been told in no uncertain terms that OSU and Michigan in one division was a non-starter.

Given that, the next question is what to do with The Game?  It probably wouldn't be the last game of the regular season anymore; you want to reserve that week for the big Divisional rivalries.  And besides, you wouldn't want to have two potential Conference Championship teams meeting the week before the Championship game.

That was all the Conventional Wisdom, just two weeks ago.  And Brandon was setting up the Faithful for that outcome.

Then came the outrage.  (And wouldn't it be fascinating; if Barry Alvarez leaking the story of likely alignments had the effect of galvanizing support for The Game in late November?)   And in the end, the outrage saved The Game's place on the schedule, a minor concession.  But it couldn't save the Michigan-OSU division, because that was a dealbreaker, for the majority of AD votes in the conference.


September 1st, 2010 at 8:35 PM ^

to figure out and write that back-to-back games would be awful (except when we beat pOSU twice).  It's what the majority of us were pretty much thinking anyway.


September 1st, 2010 at 8:37 PM ^

I agree to some degree.  However if we are playing them in the rematch for the championship game then it means we've had a really good season and are going to play in January.  I don't think anyone can argue against playing in January from where we've been the past 2 years.  Let the pieces fall where they may and hope for the best when the time comes.  GO BLUE


September 1st, 2010 at 8:52 PM ^

im not gonna say i like it, because i certainly would have preferred osu and um be in the same division. however, in 2006 after UM and OSU played, everyone on campus was campaigning for a rematch in the National Championship. just saying, i expect people to play dumb about there  current sentiments if this potential rematch ever works out in michigans favor.


September 1st, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^

in the title, so those offended can choose to skip it. As for me, despite the fact that I agree with every criticism Brian and others have made about him and The Freep, I read it every single day, because it has articles about our program, and I like to read about our program. You don't, that's fine with me too.


September 1st, 2010 at 9:37 PM ^

for instance, since we play tOSU last and it's out of division, then when we play the game, then we will probably already know who is going to the conference title game. EVEN if this is once a decade, it seems like it will be ridiculously wierd if tOSU and M show up to The Game both undefeated in their respective divisions so regardless of the outcome of the Game we'd meet a few weeks later.

Or am I missing something?

EDIT: apparently I missed how the tie-breaker works. Wouldn't there still potentially be room for this to occur though? Again, I know it would probably only happen once every 10-15 years

Dallas Wolverine

September 1st, 2010 at 9:48 PM ^

told by everyone here NOT to open up anything by the Freep almost a year ago! I will never open or read a post by that rag! My new flag will be flying on Saturday and my new neighbor (from ohio) can kiss my white ass!!! I think we all cant wait to see the new product that RR has to offer. I also think it will be much improved and I cant wait!!!!