The Link Well, should be interesting. Looks like that at least for the near future, Nebraska and Iowa are the teams to beat in their division... at least until Michigan gets back on its feet.
I am assuming that tOSU-Michigan will play each year. Delaney can't be that stupid to eliminate that rivalry.
I assume OSU and Michigan will still play every year, which the article seems to imply. If UM gets back on its feet, that likely means a lot of rematches in the Big 10 championship game in the future.
Yes, they'll definitely play every year, and if/when Michigan improves, potentially twice per season. Additionally, since the B10 won't want a rematch of a game played one week earlier, it is likely they will move the game earlier in the season rather than play it during its long-standing, traditional slot as the last game of the season. Most of the Michigan and Ohio State fans I've heard from are upset about this.
I'd be upset about it to. Moving that game from the last regular season date is almost as bad of an idea as playing OU-UT as a home-and-home.
I'm sorry Shark, but you lose me every time you refer to Michigan as scUM. It's unfortunate, because you generally are a fairly intelligent poster.
Very glad to hear it won't be moved from the final game of the regular season. And right now, I don't see much danger of the game being played twice in a season, and therefore being played back to back. But someday Michigan will fire RR and potentially stop sucking. And when that happens, it will be interesting to see the fan reaction to playing the game twice, and in consecutive weeks.
I can't wait till they play it twice in a row, and each win one. but only the second winner will matter. can you imagine the controversy? there won't be a safe couch in all of ohio.
Even when Mich gets rolling again, they're at a huge disadvantage since they are the only ones in the neb-Iowa division that plays tOhioSt every year. If neb had to play Texas every yr in a cross-over game they would have left the Big12 yrs ago...
The logic I don't understand is that the Big Ten wanted to preserve traditional rivalries. Isn't that exactly what OSU-UM was? I guess there is a difference between a longtime rival and a traditional rival. And OSU might not win their division. They should have just said this is the best way to balance the divisions (which they did a good job of based on current team performance). 12 team, 2 division conference structures are not conducive to anything but allowing a CCG and producing revenues. I personally dislike the 12 team conference setup but I am old school and apparently out of touch with current football operations. I like each team in a conference to play every other team in the conference. For those worried about UM cominng back to glory and possibly playing OSU twice in a season, don't forget that OSU may have a down cycle as all programs do sooner or later. And UM still has to play Iowa and Nebraska plus OSU plus 2 other teams from the other division (some of which may be tough) to merit that possible second OSU game. Just because they might beat OSU in regular season does not mean they will win their division and go to the dreaded but lucrative CCG.
OSU and UM are in separate divisions but, for at least the next two years, it will still be the last game of the regular season. Basketball is not split in to divisions, this is for football only.
I really don't think we're in danger of tOSU and Michigan playing on back to back weeks in too many years. I don't. Why do people naturally assume that we're going to return to the 1970s? It's not the Big 2 + Little 8 anymore (actually, I think that honor now goes to the Big 12...). Penn State can play football. Iowa can play football. Nebraska and Wisconsin can play football. Even if those teams aren't good enough to be dominant, they're good enough to beat the Buckeyes and Wolverines every so often. There have been Big T(welv)en champions not named Ohio State or Michigan in recent years. Hard to believe, I know, but I promise I'm not making it up. Gosh, a couple of Ohio State's 5 consecutive titles were actually "co-titles" shared with Penn State, who actually beat Ohio State in both of those seasons (2005 and 2008). Who knew? Ohio State isn't gonna stay on top forever, and even if Michigan "comes back," the Wolverines had a tendency to get upset once or twice most years anyway. (And the Buckeyes had John Cooper, Earle Bruce... Tressel ain't gonna be around forever). Anyway, the only thing consistent is change, as they say... I remember when OU and Nebraska played seemingly every year with the Big 8 on the line, but that's in the past, and the past ain't coming back...
What if going to the last game of the season that Ohio State is undefeated and BCS #1 and Michigan is undefeated and BCS #2 with the #3 team with 2 losses (unlikely, but could happen) and then Ohio State wins the last regular season game and Michigan remains #2 and they play again in the Big 10 championship game and Michigan wins. Then they end up BCS #1 and #2 and they play a third time for the National Championship? Would the BCS implode? Wasn't it just not too many years ago (2006) some folks trying to give them a rematch in the national title game after a close last game of the season when one was 1 and one was 2?
In each case of expansion, the raiding conference is forced to give up a special tradition for their acquisition. The SEC diminished Bama-Tennessee The Big 8 diminished and then lost OU-Nebraska The ACC somehow managed to screw up Miami-FSU The Pac 10 just lost annual games btwn all Cali schools Now, the Big Ten is tarnishing Michigan-Ohio State With the way the chips fell, the Red River War has a great chance to be the undisputed #1 college football rivalry of the 21st century.
I like how the only thing we've lost is the game to the piggies. We still have TX/OUsucks and the aTm game. I don't like the buckeyes but I'd hate to see that game go downhill. It would be like playing the OUsucks game at Jerryworld...it would be the suck
A Big Ten poster on another board put together this synopsis of what the last 5 years in the B10 would have looked like with the new divisions and a CCG, pretty interesting. The commentary is all theirs, not mine: ------------------------------- Here are the last 5 Big Ten Mythical CCGs, with all ties broken per B10 rules: 2009: Ohio State (7-1) vs. Iowa (6-2) 2008: Penn State (7-1) vs. Michigan State (6-2) 2007: Ohio State (7-1) vs. Michigan (6-2) 2006: Ohio State (8-0) vs. Michigan (7-1) 2005: Penn State (7-1) vs. Michigan (5-3) Also look at the last 5 years to see how this CCG is going to make the regular season worse... 2005 - Henne to Manningham on the final play of the game...who cares, they just meet again in a month. 2006 - #1 vs. #2...who cares, they just rematch a week later in a game for the conference title, and if UM wins, that game in Columbus is completely meaningless 2007 - OSU played UM in the final game to go to the Rose Bowl. UM rested Henne and Hart the week before and lost to Wisconsin since win or lose the OSU game determined their Rose Bowl fate. Here they rest them for 2 weeks, since they already have the division wrapped up 2008 - PSU beat MSU every which way in the final week of the season and proved they were the better team...who cares, they play again a week later 2009 - Remember that dramatic FG in OT? Yeah, it didn't actually determine the Big Ten title, just play again 2 weeks later ------------------------------------------- There are more than a few Big Ten fans who don't like the divisions and who don't like the CCG. I can't say I blame them. For a conference as tradition-bound as the B10, this is going to be an enormous change.
