Two much of a good thing?
CBS Sports has an interesting article that concludes that Michigan and Ohio State are far more valuable to the conference if they split, creating the Hayes and Schembechler Divisions. I must say this idea has grown on me, and I have gone from "absolutely not", to seeing the merit. I've listed some pro's and con's below, with the understanding that Michigan and Ohio State must play during the regular season every year regardless of Divisions.
Pro's
- I really think that having Michigan and Ohio State in the same division throws the power into one division too strongly and the only way to compensate is to have State level of competition as the other 4 teams, and that isn't good for any conference.
- The idea of having Michigan, State, Iowa and Nebraska in the same division is exciting, and creates a good competitive division while securing the inner division rivalries that you want to keep/create (UM/MSU & IA/NE). How great will it be to put little brother in their place year after year?
- It sets us up for the potential of two Michigan / Ohio State games many years. Say that again, 2 of "The Game." I don't know about you but on The Game Day, I'm up by 5am scouring online for any last minute morsels of info, waiting for ESPN Game Day to start. Once the game starts I'm sick to my stomach unable to keep anything down, yelling at the screen, pleading with the screen, cursing that the players don't care as much as I do with every missed tackle. In short, I'm loving every minute of it, and to be able to do that twice, well it just couldn't be better.
Con's
- Ohio State can catch up twice as quick. Assuming we return to 2006 glory, but find ourselves the 2nd best team in the conference, OSU would have a clear opportunity. The only thing I can brag about to Ohio State Fan who finds me in a crowded diner in AZ somehow weekly, is that in the end the Overall Record stands with Michigan leading, 57–43–6. As bad as it has been the last few years, overall we have still pounded those cellar dwellers, and I feel we will again shortly.
- We are going to have to move The Game Part I to earlier in the season. This is not uncommon for rivals to meet earlier in the season, and will give both parties the ability to bounce back from Part I in the standings. The good news is that if things go to plan we will still plan on meeting on the last game of the season and play for all the marbles.
While there are clearly some disadvantages I have come to the realization that they don't outweigh the positives and if you factor in just the monetarial benefits for the conference I think it again makes an overwhelming argument. Now all we have to work on is to get them to name the conferences after the true great ones.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:33 PM ^
Two much of a good thing, is always 2 good.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^
As long as it isn't three much.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
is why conferences can't be split along rivalries so that conference games are conducted in the weeks leading up to the final week. then the final games are made more for pride and final record with conference standings determined and the championship set-up. should it be necessary, players with possible lingering injuries can be removed in the late 3rd/4th should the result be in hand and teams going to the championship can, hopefully, go in full strength. as such, having OSU in another conference could not only keep an even keel while preserving The Game as a guaranteed yearly event.
also OSU needs to be in the same conference as MSU so they play yearly
August 9th, 2010 at 11:05 PM ^
You were doing a lot better before you made that fruity little dog your new avatar.
/Good natured ribbing
August 9th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
my dog is only into girl dogs
August 10th, 2010 at 6:29 AM ^
He gets all the bitches.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:39 AM ^
The bitches like it ruff.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:56 AM ^
Furr the Win!
August 10th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
Fur-ass'ity
August 10th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
up the wrong tree
August 9th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^
Move The Game to earlier in the season= no. Meet more than once= no.
Next question
August 9th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
I suppose you were okay with UM getting leapt over in the polls during our off-week in 2006. Why would anybody have wanted to see a UM-OSU national championship game after they already played at the end of November?*
*Yes, I'm conveniently forgetting how January 1, 2007 turned out.
August 10th, 2010 at 3:11 AM ^
August 10th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^
August 9th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^
I hope we don't return to our 2006 glory. We lost to Ohio State and USC. I want to return to our 1997 glory.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:47 PM ^
I too long for '97, but the point I was making was if we are just good enough to play twice, and keep losing that would be bad.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
point taken
August 10th, 2010 at 12:01 AM ^
I don't want to return to any glory period. That sounds too Irish, and it hasn't worked out very well for them.
August 10th, 2010 at 3:53 PM ^
I would argue it's worked out very well for the Irish. How many teams can claim they've been able to use the same slogan for over 20 years without having to change it?
August 9th, 2010 at 10:47 PM ^
good enough, let them meet in the Championship game. The "rivalry" will always be there without having to meet more than once a year. That way, if one of the teams is having a couple of bad years, they can work to get back to the stage of being fit for "The Game." You couldn't make reference to such if they met more than once a year.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^
And, to put a finer point on it, if MSU wins the division and plays for the championship, they've earned it. Not like in previous years when they played the league's basement dwellers and finished near the head of the class, or "tied" for a B10 championship.
August 9th, 2010 at 10:59 PM ^
The championship game for the division comes through Michigan, and teams like MSU are going to have to beat quality competitors to even reach the game; Michigan, IA, and Nebraska, and at a minimum 1 of the 3 WI/OSU/PS, once we go to a 9 game Big Ten schedule.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
Michigan, ... Iowa and Nebraska in the same division
Corn (maize) division.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:24 AM ^
opposing the other division (osu, maybe psu, maybe illinois) the industrial (smog) division?
don't forget MSU, which by specializing in growing plants, and only that, would be fitting for the corn division as well
sidenote: you can pretty much name any school in the Midwest, and its state will be corn-filled, but I get the point that it's mainly iowa/nebraska and then u-m due to our colors
August 9th, 2010 at 11:19 PM ^
no hang-ups with playing OSU earlier in the season. In fact, I wouldn't care if we kicked off every season against OSU and then played them again in a championship game, at the end of the year.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:07 AM ^
Opening Big 10 play against OSU would let u know where the team stands right out of the gates. I am still leaning toward them staying in the same division and keeping the game as the last game of the refular season, but if they are split up, then this is an interesting option IMO. There's just something about the possibility of them playing two weeks in a row that doesn't sit well with me.
August 9th, 2010 at 11:58 PM ^
I don't care what the divisions look like as long as the OSU game is at the end of the season where it belongs. The last week of the year is where your rivalry game goes - period.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^
Here's my problem with Dodd's thinking:
Continuing to play Ohio State-Michigan near or at the end of November makes it more likely that one of the rivals will be eliminated from the championship game.
Obviously he doesn't get The Game. The Game is supposed to eliminate the loser from Big Ten Title contention. (And yes, sometimes this opens an opportunity for someone else in the Big Ten to win the title.) That is why The Game is such a marquis event.
Ask Texas how winning the Red River Shootout early in the season worked out for them Big 12 Conference Championship-wise in 2008. Ask Nebraska how they feel about Oklahoma being in the Big 12 South and what that did to their rivarly.
Agreed, The Game needs to stay where it is.
August 10th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
Without question the Game will still be played. The idea that the Game is supposed to eliminate the loser from title contention is only half of what the Game was about. If all is right in the Big Ten world, then the game was also supposed to promote the winner to Big Ten Champion. The Game was supposed to be for all the marbles. With a championship format, Michigan and OSU would never meet in such a scenario unless they were in seperate divisions.
As far as being at the end of the year goes, again, it would not be the last game of the year unless they were in seperate divisions.
These arguments alone do not tilt my opinion toward seperating Michigan and OSU. But it makes things very even. It is only when I consider the balance of power throughout the whole conference that I concede the need to seperate them. After I was able to make peace with this potential outcome I was able to look at it positively and embrace the possibilities. There will always be the Game. In really good years the Game will be played twice. It would be awesome to play OSU in a Big Ten Championship game, for all the marbles.
August 10th, 2010 at 3:46 PM ^
Good counterpoint.
I figure the "west" schools would prefer OSU and Michigan in the same division. PSU clearly doesn't want to go "west" for competitive balance, and splitting us up would mean they could compete closer to home. State wants to continue to be a thorn in our side, and would prefer to avoid OSU. The rest of the "east" probably would prefer splitting us up.
If we count:
- five votes "west" for containing OSU and Michigan in the "east"
- four votes east for splitting us up (I'll put MSU and PSU down for the split)
- Nebraska doesn't get a vote
So it comes down to what do OSU and Michigan want. If one of us votes with the west, then same division. If we both vote split ....
August 10th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^
Nebraska has no say in the matter? It will be very interesting nonetheless.
I am certainly glad I do not have to be the one to make such tough decisions.
August 10th, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^
They were invited to Chicago to participate and give input. After all, they have been through this before, and were stung by it. I believe it has been reported that they do not get a vote however, until next year when they officially join the conference.
I don't think it will be that split anyway. I think whatever they choose, will make the most sense for the conference, and will protect The Game. We just might get a neutral site do-over every once in a while (which would have been awesome in 2006) ...
August 10th, 2010 at 12:00 AM ^
I couldn't stomach beating them and then losing to them in the Championship game, let alone, God forbid, getting beaten twice. But the idea of getting to beat them twice is quite tempting....
August 10th, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
The Big Ten AD's are going to listen very closely to what the Big Ten Network has to say. And here it is:
"The second game would be bigger," Big Ten Network president Mark Silverman said, just talking ratings. "As a TV person, it is one of the highest, if not the highest regular-season games out there. I don't think having a second one would impact the TV ratings."
I'll be happy with the outcome, whatever it is. Michigan is going to win its share of championships. But I don't understand those who are so dismissive of the possibility that a second Game might actually be something interesting and worth watching. It's probably only going to happen every 5-7 years anyway. Why not make it a possibility?
Further, a rematch is going to happen eventually. Would you rather see Ohio State play Nebraska a second time in the championship game, or see Ohio State v Michigan?
This sanctimony is akin to poking out your eye to spite your face.
August 10th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
If there are 9 conference games, there's going to be a championship rematch 60% of the time anyway. UM - OSU would be the best rematch to see. If we can't play OSU in the championship game then the 'big game' will cease to exist. It may be on the way to extinction anyway with a conference championship game if both teams don't find a way into it on a regular basis.
The conference has changed - it is no longer the Big2 Little8, there is much more parity and now there's 2 divisions. Anyone who thinks we shouldn't have the possibility of playing OSU in the championship game is clinging to the past.
No offense intended by that last statement, that's just the way I see it. It's not the 'big game' if it doesn't decide a championship.
All the folks who are decrying this move to separate divisions should prepare to deal with it, because it's probably going to happen.
August 10th, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
unless only divisional records were counted, wouldn't playing them in The Game eliminate one team from the Championship game? and isn't that a good thing? That means we don't have the problems that playing them twice could bring up.
And if both teams are so far ahead of the rest of the B10 that even losing The Game keeps them in the title game, maybe both teams deserve to play one another a second time. That would mean they both are good enough to be #1 and #2, which means they definitely need a rematch to see just who is the best. Either to win it back or to solidify the first The Game of that season.
Honestly, it would happen less frequently than we are making it out to be. We really need to get to this point, where it is a realistic possibility that we are #1/#2 in the B10 even if we lose a game at the end. If we return to that level, I'm okay with playing any team twice
August 10th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
What if we replaced ND with OSU on our OOC schedule? Would it then still count toward our Big Ten record?
August 10th, 2010 at 7:50 AM ^
There would be a problem if the divisions were split up as stated above. Would you really want UM to have to play Iowa, Nebraska, MSU in division, and OSU out of division each year? Who else would be in the Bo division? If it is Wisconsin and Minny to uphold some sort of geography and keep past and future rivalries in tact, (Wisky vs. Minny, Neb vs Minny, Wisky vs. Neb) we would have a much harder schedule each year than the other division. OSU would play PSU, IU, PU, ILL, NU, UM each year. I would think it is much easier playing this schedule over one with MSU, Iowa, and Nebraska. With Wisky and a protected game against OSU each year, UM would always have the hardest schedule in the Big Ten.
August 10th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^
Yeah, but OSU would come in soft ...
August 10th, 2010 at 9:03 AM ^
When I read our record vs OSU, a slight panic raced through me, at the HORROR of possibly further losing ground in the same manner it has gone the past decade. God Bless Rodriguez if he can put a stop to the recent slide, and keep a nice margin.