Why is Brian Griese in favor?

Submitted by dieseljr32 on August 28th, 2010 at 1:40 AM

So, why is Brian Griese in favor of moving the M/OSU game?  When he was talking about being pro-rivalry destruction, I kinda wanted to punch him through my TV screen.  I think he should be reading MGoBlog more often. 



August 28th, 2010 at 2:07 AM ^

... be the spokesperson for NAMBLA and he'd still be in my good graces.  The man qb'd our national championship team and being in the Rose Bowl when it all happened... yeah, you've earned yourself some slack...


August 28th, 2010 at 3:51 AM ^

I wonder if I'm starting to become a conspiracy theorist.  A Michigan alum saying it's ok to move The Game?  Then I swear I saw Desmond Howard wear the opposing teams colors at least 3 times on gameday.  ESPN hates Michigan!  I think I need to drink more... or less.



August 28th, 2010 at 9:33 AM ^

Can we preemptively agree to never bring up the Desmond tie-color thing at all this season? That was one of the biggest wastes of mgoboard space all last season. Griese suggesting the game be moved is a topic worthy of discussion here...not neckwear fashion.

Snidely Doo Rash

August 28th, 2010 at 4:21 AM ^

he and many on this board support the decision to separate us and the bucks.  If Brian Cook and 9 out of 10 UM-OSU fans see it differently than so be it.   It feels weird as a avid fan of the team and MGOblog when your fanhood is questioned repeatedly because you see things differently than the majority.

There was a time when UM-OSU transcended CFB that has long passed.  The league is trying to get it right for all members of the conference and propentents of the reactionary view need to chill out.  The point made by another poster that no one wants to be in a division without either UM or OSU is a valid one and Delaney is still on top of this and will not be swayed by sentiments about the spoiling "the game."

I have a hard time believing that any fan this passionate about keeping the game last in the season and ergo space pig UM-OSU in the same division will not want to beat OSU's ass everytime we play them in the future whatever the commish et al decide.  Glad to see that others want us to beat Nebraska's ass as payback as well.  

The new big ten is okay with me no matter how this shakes out.  What is important is that all members feel they are respected and treated equally (compare to the Big 12).   The high ground for UM and OSU is that we do not want any special favors regarding alignment due to our traditions and the game.  The low road is whining about "the game".   Just my opinion.




August 28th, 2010 at 9:02 AM ^

...owe them anything.  I makes no sense for us to be selfless and give up our traditions.  The other members of the conference, according to you, seem to be looking out for themselves.  They want to make sure the new alignment benefits their school as much as possible...but apparently we should not be so "selfish" or "whiny".  We should not seek our rightful place on top of the conference's pecking order.  That assertion is bonkers. 

Ultimately the conference alignment matters far less than the date of THE GAME. 

You have a right to your opinion.  I find your rationale to be very very flawed, but that is my opinion.  But, complaining that other people's opinions hurt your feelings then insult others for their opinions in the next breath doesn't make sense.


August 28th, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^

I'm sorry, but this notion that moving rivalry games to any time but the final week of the season is not progress.  To me, this isn't just about 'The Game' (though that is a part of it) it's about all of the rivalries in the Big Ten.  Their is a reason, as Michigan fans, that we care so much more about beating Ohio State then we do about ND, MSU, or Minnesota.  While part of that is the history of the game and the long standing quality of the opponent I believe that the timing on the schedule is at least equal.  In fact, I can make a convincing arguement that without U of M - OSU being played the last week of the season it would not be the rivalry it is today.  People on both sides talk about the times that the game decided more then who was headed to the Rose Bowl.  By having ALL Big Ten teams play there biggest rivals the last week I feel we would ensure several important things. 

1. Every game would be a gauntlet. There would be no laying down for this one.  Nothing would mean more to a mediocre team then ensuring their biggest rival wouldn't play for the championship.

2. You build toward the end.  No matter what the rest of the season looks like every fan base (and team) has their eyes focused on the last game.  It's hard to 'give up' on a season when you haven't played your rival.

3. You ensure a dramatic championship game.  How will teams respond after a close win/loss to there biggest rival? If (on the rare occasion) two rivals meet again how will things change? What will coaches do differently? 

I think in this scenario you set up the Big Ten to own college football for the two weeks of the season.  Whats better for branding then that?

931 S State

August 28th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^

The new big ten is okay with me no matter how this shakes out.  What is important is that all members feel they are respected and treated equally (compare to the Big 12).   The high ground for UM and OSU is that we do not want any special favors regarding alignment due to our traditions and the game.  The low road is whining about "the game".

I could not disagree with this more.  No matter how it shakes out, huh?  

DB needs to be fighting for M to have the best opportunity to win the conference and to preserve the traditions its fans hold dear.  That's it.  It's his job.  You better believe this is exactly Barry Alvarez and the AD's are fighting for.  They're not going to lay down so everyone can be treated "equally".  The equality will balance out naturally if each AD is looking out for his schools best interest.  It is of no importance that DB look out for other schools best interest...just Michigan.  


August 28th, 2010 at 8:01 AM ^

David Brandon has repeatedly said that it would be a shame if Michigan never played OSU again for the conference title and trip to the Rose Bowl. Brian Griese certainly has been there and done that, complete with Roses in the teeth, etc. That is the experience they are trying to preserve (but it won't be the same, because it won't happen in Michigan Stadium or the Shoe -- Soldier or Lambau Field maybe, Lucas Oil Stadium, Metrodome, or Ford Field not even close).

It occurs to me that a player's perspective on what is important about the game might be different than a fan's. Of course if you talk to Cooper year players, their perspective may be different than a '96 team player or a Bo / Woody era player.

As for me, I want the game in late November, but would be OK with the game being the Saturday before Thanksgiving, and a minor non-rivalry in-division game coming the week after (maybe while some of the other Big Ten rivalries are played).

My other thing is MSU IS NOT an acceptable replacement as a season ending game. You can't swap a rivalry game based on begrudging mutual respect, out for one based on jealousy and disrespect.

If they slot in a major game, Penn State or Nebraska would be my choice, but then my fear is those games take over the importance of the game over time.

As I've said before, the other matchup that might be interesting is Minnesota (if they are in our division) for the Little Brown Jug. With that matchup you could play the game the week before Thanksgiving, and still have a compelling, but historically less competitive made for TV matchup the week after.

Not a Blue Fan

August 28th, 2010 at 8:19 AM ^

That's an interesting point of view RE: the players. I would point out that all of the OSU players who I have seen interviewed have been adamantly against moving the game. I'd like to see more data; I highly doubt that it's a clean UM/OSU party lines split on the issue. However, right now it's DB/BG vs Herbie and Robert Smith (which is too small a sample to reach any conclusions).


August 28th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

Found a Columbus Dispatch article from today titled Past players plead: Leave game alone.

Writer interviewed Stan White Sr., Dan Dierdorf, Allen Wahl, Chris Spielman, Rob Lytle, Jim Lachey, and John Kolesar. All are against moving the game, as is Earl Bruce. The only contrarian: John Cooper.

Here's an excerpt:

Dan Dierdorf, a television football analyst, native Ohioan and 1970 All-America lineman for Michigan, said the timing is an integral part of the rivalry's appeal.

"I think that's one of the things that has captured the nation's attention," he said. "It's cold. It's gray. It's in the Midwest. It's November. It's Michigan-Ohio State. How do you just start chipping away and removing certain aspects of the game? You're taking away the underpinnings of what makes it what it is."


For those in the rivalry, the final game represents an entire phase of the season.

"I think how a generation of Ohio State fans was brought up is that you had the non-conference part of the season, the Big Ten season and then Michigan," said former Buckeye linebacker Chris Spielman.


And what does Lytle think Schembechler would say?

"He would have hated this," Lytle said. "I'm glad he and Woody don't have to go through it. They're probably sitting up there just shaking their heads or tearing down-markers and stomping on the field. They're probably marching around throwing tantrums right now."


August 28th, 2010 at 8:38 AM ^

(but it won't be the same, because it won't happen in Michigan Stadium or the Shoe -- Soldier or Lambau Field maybe, Lucas Oil Stadium, Metrodome, or Ford Field not even close).

Damn straight, +1

You can't swap a rivalry game based on begrudging mutual respect, out for one based on jealousy and disrespect.

Double Damn straight +1 your next 10 posts!

If this plays out the way it looks, at least let us finish with Nebraska.



August 28th, 2010 at 8:42 AM ^

Maybe it's because reasonable people, nay, even reasonable Michigan Men can disagree on something without one of them being evil? Brian Griese said what was important to him was playing for the Rose Bowl (as long as the reg. season game was in "early November" followe by a one or two big divisional games). Considering he's done about eleven million times more for Michigan Football than I, I have to respect that opinion even if I disagree with it. So it's kind of silly to want to punch him.

Wait, this is the internet? Sorry, carry on.

Clarence Beeks

August 28th, 2010 at 8:58 AM ^

Exactly.  The opinion that he stated was a very reasonable position from someone who has played in the situation and expressed what he, personally, views as important in the rivalry (i.e. playing for the Rose Bowl).  The people here who are disagreeing with him need to realize that the premise of his argument was that OSU and Michigan should be in separate divisions (something that I think most purists would agree with), which, as a consequences, essentially requires that the game be moved, so that they could have the possibility of playing for the right to go to the Rose Bowl (even if it wouldn't happen all that often), since if they were in the same division they would never play for the right to go to th Rose Bowl.


August 28th, 2010 at 9:14 AM ^

If everyone is compromising on how the Big Ten divisions are set and the schedules, then Michigan has to insist on ending the season with Nebraska and not Michigan State.  That's particularly true if Ohio State and Penn State are playing at the end of the season.  In fact, that would be a great back-to-back package of games on the last Saturday of the regular season.

This also makes sense in terms of basic symmetry and how the teams in the conference stack up competition wise.  If UM, UNL, OSU and PSU are acknowledged to be the top four teams in the confernce and the top two in their respective divisions, then they should play one another on the same date in late November.

Just to expand on things a bit further, I'd like to see all the teams within the division play one another in the last five games of the season--not just the last two.  Because inter-division games aren't (apparently) part of the tiebreaker, those games at season's end are going to be crucial in determining who gets to the Big Ten Conference Championship game.  For Michigan, the last five games of the season would probably be against Illinois, Iowa, Michigan State, Nebraska and Northwestern.

This divides up the season into five parts:  4 non-confernce games (to become 3 in 2015), 3 inter-division games (to become 4 in 2015), the  5 intra-division games, the Big Ten Championship and the bowl season (including the national championship game).

A hypothetical schedule for 2011 might be something like this (E=East Division; W=West Division):


Oct. 1 Bye Week
Oct. 8 at Indiana (E)
Oct. 15 OHIO STATE (E-Protected Game)
Oct. 22 at Purdue (E)
Oct. 29 IOWA (W)
Nov. 5 at Michigan State(W)
Nov. 12 ILLINOIS (W)
Nov. 26 at Nebraska (W)

While all the games would count towards the BCS standings and whether or not Michigan goes to the national championship game or some other BCS bowl as an at large, the last five are significant because they will determine if Michigan wins its division and plays in a Big Ten Conference Championship Game against one of the teams in the East Division (Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue or Wisconsin).

Like baseball's wild card, this keeps teams and their fans engaged longer in the season because all the final stakes aren't decided until the tail end.  If Michigan were to get to a slow start and lose a couple of those early season games, they're still in the Big Ten championship hunt because none of those games are within its division--this kind of setup recognizes that programs may start slow and finish strong without penallizing them completely (they still have a shot for a BCS bowl through winning the conference), yet it still means the really national championship calibre teams will be the ones who are undefeated or have one loss through the season.








August 29th, 2010 at 1:01 AM ^

Alverez/Wisconsin have already staked the claim to play Nebraska the last game of the season . . . properly looking out for the interests of their shchool, while our administration was busy selling us out (literally) and taking the "high road" to go along with the crowd.

What the fuck will be next?  Penn State taking our winged helmets?


August 28th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^

Sports radio discussion yesterday in which the hosts thought the only sensible solution was putting the teams in the same division and ending the regular season with The Game.  They claimed that the Big Ten was not only discussing putting U-M in the North and OSU in the South and moving the game to earlier in the season, but that non-divisional games would not count towards determining the division champion.  So, The Game would not just be relegated to a potentially meaningless contest, it would be GUARANTEED to be meaningless.  I wanted to throw up or punch a bear.

Elno Lewis

August 28th, 2010 at 9:40 AM ^

why hate people who do not agree with you on something?  Everyone has a right to their opinion no matter how contrarian, absurd or illogical it may seem to anyone else.  If you don't agree with something you protest responsibly. 


Or just break out the pitchforks and torches.


August 28th, 2010 at 9:53 AM ^

You want to insure OSU/Mich is for the Rose Bowl? The Rose Bowl hasn't been the "Rose Bowl" for a while now. Mich vs. Texas was a great game, but it didn't feel like a "Rose Bowl" used to. The BCS killed it. Just watch when we beat OSU in 2014 to go to the Rose Bowl and get to play.....TCU. Oh, the excitement.  I really don't care if they are in the same or different divisions, I just want the game to be where it is now. If we have to play back to back weeks, so what.

Enjoy Life

August 28th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^

Sorry to burst everyone's bubble but this is TV. In many cases the personalities are told what postion they will take on an issue. If they refuse, they don't appear on that segment and may end up without a job. This is done to create controversy because the viewers supposedly want it.

I guarantee that the segment was deliberately set up to get either a M or osu personality to be in favor of moving the game.

Perhaps Griese already felt that way but I do not know if this is really Griese's opinion or just what he was told to say.

Maize n Blue Balls

August 28th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^

If that's not his real opinion and he actually cares about the rivalry, then why would he agree to say it?  So, since he did say it he either believes it or he doesn't care, i.e., values his air time above the greatest rivalry in sports.

In the first case:  I respectfully disagree.  In the second case:  Dude, WTF?


August 28th, 2010 at 10:58 AM ^

I can certainly understand where all the "Don't Touch The Game" people are coming from, but I can also see where people would want to see UM and osu play for the Big10 Championship and not just a divisional game. Personally, I'll be fine either way, but I think a situation where The Game is played week 11, before Thanksgiving as it has been in the past, and a divisional rival, most likely Nebraska, for week 12, would be as close to ideal as you can get. This ensures that The Game still has a big impact on the Big10 landscape and is close enough to the end of the regular season to have a good bit of hype built up for The Game.


August 28th, 2010 at 10:59 AM ^

Sorry, but I was unable to find the video of Brian Griese's statement.  I just heard it on College Football Live. 

I don't think Brian Griese is evil as someone on here claimed I did.  I just really disagree with his opinion and was shocked to hear that he would actually be in favor of moving "The Game."  Causing me to want to punch him. Not that I actually would.  I wouldn't even punch him in the face, maybe the shoulder. Then apologize later.


August 28th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^

Clearly you didn't actually call him evil, so that was not directed explicitly at you. I was referring more to the general attitude pervading the board as of late that not only should The Game not be changed in any way but that anyone who disagrees cannot possibly be a "real" Michigan fan. I think in one thread it was actually suggested that anyone who legitamately believed that it would be okay to move The Game should be banhammered.

What are especially tiresome are the ridiculous statements to the effect of "David Brandon is an idiot who doesn't understand Michigan tradition and I know if Bo were here he would say..." This is of course ironic because David Brandon actually played for Bo - if anyone can lay a claim to what Bo Schembechler would have said (not that anyone can and it's silly to try), I'd take Brandon over some anonymous internet forum commenter.

I'm generally on the "keep UM-OSU together" side, but it's probably wise to move away from the overheated rhetoric to the next stage of coping / constructive protest. We're all on the same team, after all.


August 28th, 2010 at 4:05 PM ^

Because even though he played here, he's capable of being misinformed.  The thing is, no Michigan player or fan knows what it would be like to play OSU in October, as a cross-divisional game.  A small minority are guessing that it wouldn't be very different.  A large majority are guessing that it would be very different, and for the worse.