December 13th, 2012 at 5:40 PM ^

Nebraska doesn't play Wisconsin every year.  Their protected game is PSU.  If PSU craters because of the sanctions, then we're talking about a serious schedule imbalance within our own division.  It's better to just dispense with the protected games altogether.  

snarling wolverine

December 13th, 2012 at 8:44 PM ^

And what if we win the Game, only to lose the rematch?  Then the first game becomes meaningless.

The Game always has been, and always should be, a once-a-year thing.   The SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12 understand this.  They don't make Alabama-Auburn, Florida-Georgia, Texas-OU, USC-UCLA, et al. play each other twice.


December 13th, 2012 at 5:57 PM ^

Competitively Inner and Outer is best now, but it really doesn't work. Why? The travel distances for Maryland, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Rutgers fans would be ridiculous. While we may not care about them, you need their support for realignment. Thus, I voted East-West.


December 13th, 2012 at 6:43 PM ^

What about the travel distance now for Nebraska fans?  The travel to Michigan and Michigan St. are no picnic -- you're definitely flying.  And what about the distance between divisional opponents Penn St - Wisconsin.  Or Wisconsin - OSU.  Or Minnesota - Michigan. Or Minnesota - Michigan St.  These are all really long drives as it is.  I don't think knocking the inside-outside lineup due to geography holds much weight compared to what we already have now.


December 13th, 2012 at 6:46 PM ^

It's going to be far to get from Rutgers and Maryland to anywhere. So travel is whatever. Travel is beat for Michigan and anyone in Chicago with inner outer.


December 13th, 2012 at 7:16 PM ^

What is it with the idiots in the comments on the B1G site blabbering about divisional equality?  It isn't sustainable over the long term.  Hell it wasn't sustainable over the short term.  This subject gets me all pissed off and fired up.  As long as they can put Michign and Ohio in the same division and change the hokey names, I'll consider it a victory.

Champ Kind

December 13th, 2012 at 7:22 PM ^

After scanning some other Big Ten blogs, it doesn't seem like inner/outer is very popular anywhere else.  There are jokes about the layout and how "ridiculous" the idea is for inner/outer.  I scanned Iowa, OSU, and Nebrask sites, so this wasn't comprehensive by any means, but some of those sites prefer the +1 over inner/outer which seems ludicrous.  


December 13th, 2012 at 8:28 PM ^

Not true.   Many fanbases have a beef.  Wisconsin fans hate being separated from Minnesota and Iowa, and vice versa.  Illinois fans hate being separated from their "archrival" Michigan, not to mention Northwestern.  PSU fans want to be in the same division as Michigan (the scars from that nine-game winning streak run deep in that fanbase).  Nebraska is concerned about a future lack of exposure in Pennsylvania and Ohio, since they won't visit there often as it stands.  

Really, the only schools that are content with the current setup are the ones that don't really care about football - Indiana and Purdue. 



Mr. Rager

December 13th, 2012 at 8:27 PM ^

Two thoughts (because I'm an anal son of a bitch):

1)  Why are the font sizes for Option 2 and Option 3 different on the BTN voting site?  The maps are the same size.

2)  Do you really need to spell out the teams in each division?  Doesn't the logo along with the location on the map suffice here?  I didn't know there was a version of illiteracy for maps and logos.   


December 13th, 2012 at 8:28 PM ^

Michigan is in the North and Ohio in the South.

There is no way that Michigan and Ohio should ever be in the same division.


There are two traditions for Michigan and Ohio.

1) They play in the last game of the year every year in the biggest rivalry in college sports.

2)  They usually play for the B10 championship and Rose Bowl every year.

Michigan and Ohio must have a chance to play in the B1G championship game every year.  Keep their annual game but keep them is separate divisions.

Who really cares about having back to back games.  Everyone predicted that would happen every year but it hasn't yet and my not happen that often with all the new teams.  Even if it did, everybody would love to see the rematch just like we wanted to see it in 2007.

BUT If they are in the same division they will never again play for the B10 championship ...NEVER!  And that would be a tragedy.

If North and South isn't possible then vote for the Status Quo.

snarling wolverine

December 13th, 2012 at 8:43 PM ^

Michigan and Ohio have a tradition of playing once a year, on each other's home field.  They have never played on a neutral field.  They have never played a rematch in the same year.  If we play them in a domed stadium in Indianapolis, it won't be keeping with tradition at all.  I don't think some people can grasp just how weird that will be until it happens.   

Conference title games are a joke, a money grab played in mostly empty stadiums with no students present.  They feel like exhibition games.   The Game can only go down in prestige by being associated with Lucas Oil Stadium.  Keep it once a year.  Winner wins the division.


December 13th, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^

your glass is half empty.  In fact the biggest reason to not have a rematch I've read on this site is "what if we lose" and "I don't want to play those guys twice."  I doubt the players feel that way. Sure it's a tougher road. There is nothing wrong with that.


December 13th, 2012 at 10:56 PM ^

The biggest problems are it devalues the one game that makes it a one game season with a year's bragging rights; and that the road is unfair in not between Michigan and Ohio State, but between Michigan (and Ohio) and its division rivals. Nebraska playing PSU, MSU playing Indiana, and Iowa Purdue every yer, while we play each other.


December 13th, 2012 at 10:59 PM ^

It's not a what of we lose thing to me. It's a what if the first game...which is the game...ends up worthless. Rematch in the big ten title game and the other team wins to get a split. Who gets bragging rights? The team who won the second game? That's awful.


December 13th, 2012 at 11:12 PM ^

...all those years that were decided by the Big Ten ADs.  So would have Woody.  Decide it on the field.  Don't make Michigan vs Ohio a playoff game.

Everyone would have liked a rematch in 2006 on neutral turf.  

I agree that they should play home and home every year.  But they should also have the "chance" to play for the title on neutral turf as well.  

Imagine if you were on the team.

Your goals are:

1A)  Win the Big10

1B)  Beat Ohio

If it's 1971 or 2006 and both teams are undefeated going into their final game, does Bo, Lloyd or Hoke want to play in both games?   Should both teams play in both games (assuming no one else is undefeated)?  Absolutely.  

Here is a important point.  You always want the option to decide the championship on the field.  You don't want the championship taken out of your hands and decided by a committee or by poorly set up divisions (with the two best teams in the same division).  If the best two teams are Ohio and Michigan (which wont occur as often going forward) they can only decide it on the field if they are in different divisions.  For all those that don't want to face Ohio twice I guarantee you the team and coach would disagree. There is no question that the players would want to play the best team twice if they had to, the players would want to decide it on the field.  




December 14th, 2012 at 12:10 AM ^

They set the whole season up to be a one game season that was decided on the last fall game of the year. Not one that was played completely meaninglessly, only to be followed up by another one that meant something.

The years you mention are years Michigan would have liked a rematch. But not ones where Ohio State would have. Just like you ignored years like '97 where Michigan wouldn't have. The championship had already been decided on the field. You didn't need to play twice to decide it. If you split, how does that decide anything? Why is winning the second more important than a week earlier? Different divisions keeps them fom deciding it on the field, not the same. Unless you're suggesting best of three.

So stop talking about what players and coaches would want when you don't have a clue. In 2006 when there was a chance or a rematch you say that all those coaches would want, you know what Tressel did? He abstained from the vote. He didn't want to play Michigan again, but didn't want to look like he was scared.

You may want it, but to just state someone else would is just wrong.


December 14th, 2012 at 1:22 AM ^

Wouldn't losing the one and only game be deciding it on the field? Yes it sucks that we didn't win in those years, but osu won and they earned the bragging rights for those years. We won in 95 and 96 when the idiots overlooked us. Why would you want to play them again if you already beat them once the week before? What would be the point?


December 13th, 2012 at 9:03 PM ^

I don't understand this thinking.  How can you not see how the rivalry has already been compromised by the fact that we're in separate divisions?  When OSU played MSU and Nebraska, we were obligated to root for them to help us get an advantage in the division race.    When we played OSU, the game couldn't have resolved anything even if they hadn't been ineligible - they would have already clinched their division, and we would have already been eliminated from ours.  

This year the game that cost us the division title was Nebraska, not OSU.  As long as we are in separate divisions from OSU, it will no longer be the absolute must-win on the schedule, as  far as winning the conference goes.  Nebraska will be that game.  Even if it does happen that the OSU game will decide the division race, we still will really be competing against Nebraska.  OSU will just happen to be the final team we play, that we need to beat to get a leg up on the Huskers.  

As it stands, the Game (the on-campus version of it) will never be a winner-take-all type of thing again, because we'll be competing in rival divisions.  The only way we can get a winner-take-all matchup is if we play in the BTCG.  But that won't happen often, and even when it does, it won't be as satisfying when it's a replay of a game played one week earlier.  I predict that if/when we do meet in the title game, there will be a huge outcry as everyone will recognize how ridiculous it is to ask the two teams to play on back to back weeks.  


December 13th, 2012 at 8:44 PM ^

Well point 1 might not continue to happen if they are in different divisions and have a rematch the next week for the rose bowl.  If they are going to play eachother 2 weeks in a row and the last game of the season is essentially meaningless because both are a lock, why throw it all on the field the first game?  If this became the case, michigan-ohio would get moved to october so there is a point to the game rendering tradition bunk.


Point 2 is whoever wins The Game is going to play the other division for the Rose Bowl.  The Game still means everything.  Plus do you really want to have to beat Ohio twice to get to the rose bowl?.  Read earlier coments on how our guaranteed crossover against ohio gives both of us disadvantages.


December 13th, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^

is the the tail between the legs agruement. there are so many years we would have loved a rematch on neutral turf. who couldn't love two games in one year...unless you're worried about losing.

snarling wolverine

December 13th, 2012 at 9:30 PM ^

If rematches are so awesome, why aren't Alabama and Auburn in separate divisions?  Florida and Georgia?  Texas and Oklahoma?  USC and UCLA?  

The Game has been called a "one-game season."  The rarity enhances its appeal.  You have your one meeting for the year and that's it.  


December 14th, 2012 at 1:30 AM ^

This is what I've been saying!  Now that there are more teams in a division the championship game is basically worthless anyway. PLUS who wants to spend money to travel from whatever state they're from to Indianapolis one week plus tickets and then spend money for travel and tickets to Pasadena/playoff games? It makes no sense. It was full the first year for the sparty and wisconsin game, but this year the excitement wore off and even one of the best travelling fanbases in the country (nebraska) who figured they'd be going to pasadena at the time, said why the hell would we want to buy tickets for this game and pasadena?


December 13th, 2012 at 10:23 PM ^

are people even arguing for alignments on the basis of "competitive balance"?  That is so shortsighted and absurd. Minnesota was very competitive 15 years ago.  Now they suck.  The same could be said for several Big Ten teams.  No one knows for sure who will be competitive 4-5 years from now.  So why base realignment on something so fluctuating, uncertain, ans unpredictable??



December 13th, 2012 at 10:50 PM ^

But you have to ask...who are the 2 new teams if they go to 16? ND is the only me that works in the divisions because you could add thm in the inner or the west and then add your other east squad. Two east tens screws up inner-outer. You could add them to east and send Indy to the west, but that's an ugly east division. And it doesn't look like any west teams are on the radar.


December 13th, 2012 at 11:14 PM ^

It's crazy to force constant travel between Rutgers and Nebraska more than once every other year...but Rutgers to anywhere is far and will require a plane ride in most instances.  For football only, this makes sense.