Big Ten Conference Divisions

[OHSportsFan]

I don't want the, historically, hardest hitting game of the year to be in October.

 

[CalvinistBuck]

email the powers that be

As noted by another BP'er, I too, received a personal response from Gene Smith regarding my request to keep The Game as the last regular season contest.

If there is no public outcry, then inappropriate change can be further rationalized.

I don't care which division the Bucks are in...just preserve The Rivalry.

Let your voice be heard.

 

[SloopyHangOn]

I was asking what sort of qualifiers you could enumerate that would establish some sort of "greater good" for the conference as a whole. I was hoping you might have some tangibles. That way, we can establish IF the greater good is 1) actually "greater" and/or "good" as well as 2) to see if it's worth it. The way I see it... for tOSU to give up the beneficial qualities of THE GAME being at the end of the regular season; there ought to be some damn good things occurring for this hypothetical "greater good". Is the conference bringing tenfold (in your terms) the financial amount that it is now? Has our prestige as a conference risen by tenfold? Have the diplomas from the Big Ten increased in value tenfold? These questions are just the tip of the iceburg.

I agree 100%.

Like I've said, any discussion would be solely based on speculation and while the talk about changes to The Game is what brought about the conversation, I'm not solely talking about making sacrifices in regard to that alone. My reason for making that statement was that there's something wrong with the mentality that because of Ohio State's stature within the BigTen everyone should do what's best for Ohio State. If anything, Ohio State's stature should be grounds upon which sacrifices CAN be made with little to no longterm damage.

Your questions are my questions as well. Your proposed benchmarks are as good as any.

I can't accurately speculate what can or will happen if such changes take place as I'm neither qualified nor have the resources to decipher it, I'm merely suggesting that if there is reason to believe such outcomes can take place there should be no reason why the marquee programs in the conference shouldn't be willing to make some sort of sacrifice.

However, I can explain some of the ideas that gave me cause to believe that certain sacrifices could prove beneficial in the long run, but just to make sure we're on the same page, what are the things that you would describe as "the beneficial qualities of THE GAME being at the end of the regular season"?

I could name quite a few myself, but since we're talking about my reasoning behind speculating that positives might come from a change I'd like to relate my list of "pros" to your list of "pros".

I'd like to reiterate that the question of whether The Game is played in mid-October or late November is immediately tied to the question of whether Ohio State and Michigan are in separate divisions or not. So that plays into the equation a little bit as well.

 

[BB73]

Ohio State is already being a very good 'team' player in the Big Ten.

Ohio State has more BCS appearances (8) than any team in the entire country, and (after expenses) takes only the same revenue split from bowl games as every other team in the conference.

Ohio State is also the marquee name in television ratings, and once again, takes only an equal amount from the contracts with ESPN/ABC and from the BTN.

Ohio State is also being a good team player in welcoming Nebraska into the Big Ten, although the existence of the 12th team and the forthcoming Conference Championship Games in themselves will somewhat diminish the importance of The Game.

Ohio State's Athletic Department, while being one of the two largest in the nation along with Texas, has always acted as a good 'team player' within the Big Ten; rather than trying to throw their weight around regarding decisions and demanding a larger share of revenue, as the Longhorns have done throughout their tenure in the Big XII.

I've stated these things because I believe that any forthcoming discussion of concessions that Ohio State could or should be making for the good of the overall Big Ten should have the above facts acknowledged at its onset.

 

[BigJim]

When discussing whether tOSU and TSUN should be placed in different divisions and whether The Game should stay as the season-ender, what other comparisons am I supposed to make besides other rivalries that have been impacted by conference alignment and possible movement of a game's schedule?

Agreed, I have no problem with you making those comparisons. I thought it was interesting and good info.

Conference alignment hasn't occurred in the Big Ten before, so looking to other FBS conferences for the impact conference alignment had on rivalries is the best I could do.

Yep, I agree.

If you think my conclusions are too strong based on the examples I used, that's fine. But please don't compare it to something that would be BS in your line of work, when I used the best examples available - other intra-conference rivalries in FBS football. If you have better examples for comparison, please provide them.

The bold was my only point. I'm not completely understanding the anger over my choice of analogy, but I'm sorry if I offended. It was just the first thing that came to mind.

 

[Tlangs]

...you must not have read #3 then.

No I read #3. Splitting OSU and Mich with a possible rematch is not the ideal situation.

Suggesting getting rid of a regular season matchup with Michigan is cause for removal from the fan base.

 

[muffler dragon]

I agree 100%.

Like I've said, any discussion would be solely based on speculation and while the talk about changes to The Game is what brought about the conversation, I'm not solely talking about making sacrifices in regard to that alone. My reason for making that statement was that there's something wrong with the mentality that because of Ohio State's stature within the BigTen everyone should do what's best for Ohio State. If anything, Ohio State's stature should be grounds upon which sacrifices CAN be made with little to no longterm damage.

Your questions are my questions as well. Your proposed benchmarks are as good as any.

I can't accurately speculate what can or will happen if such changes take place as I'm neither qualified nor have the resources to decipher it, I'm merely suggesting that if there is reason to believe such outcomes can take place there should be no reason why the marquee programs in the conference shouldn't be willing to make some sort of sacrifice.

Just so you're aware, I wasn't playing the role of inquisitor. I sincerely wanted to know if you could qualify the "greater good" comment.

However, I can explain some of the ideas that gave me cause to believe that certain sacrifices could prove beneficial in the long run, but just to make sure we're on the same page, what are the things that you would describe as "the beneficial qualities of THE GAME being at the end of the regular season"?

My high points for THE GAME remaining at the end of the season:

1) Continues to carry on the present tradition to the best extent.
2) Having THE GAME at the end of the year essentially puts tOSU and Michigan in the same division within the conference, because the option to potentially play the same team twice in a matter of weeks would not be "optimal".
3) In conjunction with 2, I like having the teams in the same division; because it's a one game a year situation.

I could name quite a few myself, but since we're talking about my reasoning behind speculating that positives might come from a change I'd like to relate my list of "pros" to your list of "pros".

I'd like to reiterate that the question of whether The Game is played in mid-October or late November is immediately tied to the question of whether Ohio State and Michigan are in separate divisions or not. So that plays into the equation a little bit as well.

As for moving THE GAME, I will defer to Chris Spielman:

I?m waiting to hear a good argument for moving the game and I?ve yet to hear of one. It?s driving me crazy.

I'm in full agreement with this. Furthermore, BB73 has enumerated substantiation in a much better way than me. I concur with all that he has stated.

 

[DallasHusker]

Protect Purdue and Minnesota. Have them play every year, but they don't need to play at the end. You don't understand...ALL rivalries can be protected. But East/West fits PERFECT with having every end of season game being a intra-divison rivalry game.

MSU v. PSU
UM v. OSU
IU v. PUR

ILL v. NW
Min v. Iowa
Neb v. Wisky

You can flip flop the last two, cuz of new rivalries being built. BUT THE FACT REMAINS...if you keep the divisons East/West, then NO end of season rivalry is hurt. And with 9 conference games, you can protect any other rivalry you speak of. It's competitvely balanced. It makes the most sesne...it is AS LITTLE CHANGE as possible.

If you can't do this, then get rid of divisons, and just have the top 2 teams play each other at the end of the year.

Trouble with that is, you really don't want EVERY end-of-season game being an intra-divisional rivalry game. Why? Because hopefully they're all attractive to TV networks and will draw good viewership, but there aren't enough time slots in a single weekend to televise them all. You really want to spread them out through the season, to get maximum exposure for the conference.

Having said that, there's no doubt that OSU-UM is the largest of those rivalries, so leaving that one as the final game seems smart to me.

 

[jwinslow]

Having said that, there's no doubt that OSU-UM is the largest of those rivalries, so leaving that one as the final game seems smart to me.

And OSU-PSU draws very well earlier in the year (late sep, oct or even early nov). College Gameday came 3 straight years and it is often a nationally televised night game.

PSU-Nebraska would give them another big draw earlier in the year.

Michigan-ND will be one too once they finally get over themselves.

 

[BB73]

I think they should consider placing Nebraska's new season-ending rivalry game (probably Iowa, unless they want to have it be PSU or Wiscy) on the day after Thanksgiving for the most exposure. Many Nebraska-Oklahoma and Nebraska-Colorado games have been played on that date, so it's part of a tradition for the Huskers.

Texas-aTm has moved off that date to be on Thanksgiving night since 2008, and the day after still has the Iron Bowl, but it has room for another big college game - for the last decade Nebraska has played Colorado on that date, so I think their fanbase would welcome a Big Ten rivalry game on that date. It would be separate from TV coverage of the other Big Ten rivalry games, which is a good thing for revenue.

 

[DallasHusker]

Ohio State is already being a very good 'team' player in the Big Ten.

Ohio State has more BCS appearances (8) than any team in the entire country, and (after expenses) takes only the same revenue split from bowl games as every other team in the conference.

Ohio State is also the marquee name in television ratings, and once again, takes only an equal amount from the contracts with ESPN/ABC and from the BTN.

Ohio State is also being a good team player in welcoming Nebraska into the Big Ten, although the existence of the 12th team and the forthcoming Conference Championship Games in themselves will somewhat diminish the importance of The Game.

Ohio State's Athletic Department, while being one of the two largest in the nation along with Texas, has always acted as a good 'team player' within the Big Ten; rather than trying to throw their weight around regarding decisions and demanding a larger share of revenue, as the Longhorns have done throughout their tenure in the Big XII.

I've stated these things because I believe that any forthcoming discussion of concessions that Ohio State could or should be making for the good of the overall Big Ten should have the above facts acknowledged at its onset.

Yep, you're absolutely correct about all of that. I'm very happy to be trading Texas for OSU as we enter the Big Ten.

I think they should consider placing Nebraska's new season-ending rivalry game (probably Iowa, unless they want to have it be PSU or Wiscy) on the day after Thanksgiving for the most exposure. Many Nebraska-Oklahoma and Nebraska-Colorado games have been played on that date, so it's part of a tradition for the Huskers.

Texas-aTm has moved off that date to be on Thanksgiving night since 2008, and the day after still has the Iron Bowl, but it has room for another big college game - for the last decade Nebraska has played Colorado on that date, so I think their fanbase would welcome a Big Ten rivalry game on that date. It would be separate from TV coverage of the other Big Ten rivalry games, which is a good thing for revenue.

Great idea, I like it.

 

[CHU]

At least Bo Pelini spoke out on his true feeling of the Ohio State-Michigan rivalry on WBNS-FM today and didn't just follow the company (Big Ten) line.

I think he's the only Big Ten coach (or future Big Ten coach) thus far that has said it would change tradition and wanted the game to stay where it is (regardless of divisions).

 

[SloopyHangOn]

Just so you're aware, I wasn't playing the role of inquisitor. I sincerely wanted to know if you could qualify the "greater good" comment.

As I've said, my "greater good" comment was intentionally left vague. The benchmarks you provided are along the lines of what I would have used to qualify it.

I don't know what more you are looking for.

My high points for THE GAME remaining at the end of the season:

1) Continues to carry on the present tradition to the best extent.

While I agree that the present tradition is safe, predictable and ingrained into the minds of every single one of us that's been involved, one way or another, in the largest rivalry in college football, I feel that this isn't to say that it's intrinsically the BEST tradition. There's no way of telling, of course, whether a move to mid-season would actually be better or worse.

Possible Pros:

• A game with such pre-defined meaning could inherently draw both teams closer to the top of their game at an earlier point in the season.
• It's possible that with the added "mystery" of each teams' overall season fate, The Game has the opportunity to still be do or die for both teams more often than if it were at the end of the season when both teams' schedules have already played out.
• In the same vein as the previous point, having The Game earlier in the season gives both teams an opportunity to recouperate and make a run to a conference or national title. We've seen in previous years that an early season loss is easier to recover from than one later in the season.
• A re-match in the title game could prove to be larger in emotion, energy and passion than any version of The Game has ever been.

Possible Cons:

• Unless a bye week is a staple in the schedule after an early season match-up, having what is notoriously the hardest hitting game in football played at the apex of each teams' schedule could become a serious issue.
• In certain seasons, under certain scenarios, such as a scenario where one team is undefeated going into The Game and the other has 2 or 3 losses there's neither a drive to "end the season on a high note" for the underdog or "cap off the season with another big win" for the favorite, something that is always the "at least" factor when The Game is at the end of the regular season.

2) Having THE GAME at the end of the year essentially puts tOSU and Michigan in the same division within the conference, because the option to potentially play the same team twice in a matter of weeks would not be "optimal".

3) In conjunction with 2, I like having the teams in the same division; because it's a one game a year situation.

Both boil down to the fact that both teams stay in the same division. Just for the record, I'm not opposed to this outcome and I acknowledge that it is the safer option.

Furthermore, BB73 has enumerated substantiation in a much better way than me. I concur with all that he has stated.

Maybe I don't have as rotund of a vocabulary, but I don't understand what you mean by "BB73 has enumerated substantiation" better than you have. As far as I can tell, the points BB73 made in 318 and 341 are for the most part agreeable by the both of us. The only things I would contend with are that the conclusions made from the examples cited in 318 are not as strong as implied. On that matter I take a similar stance to BigJim. And in regard to the point made in 341, I've already mentioned that I am not qualified nor do I have the resources to accurately make such a prediction. I don't know if BB73 is or not (not trying to be a smartass, I just don't know what his qualifications are) but if he is not, his argument is based as much upon evidential speculation as mine is (after all, he did preface it by "I think"). FWIW, I agree with the idea that his predicted outcome is possible but I don't think that it would be inevitable.

 

[BB73]

A re-match in the title game could prove to be larger in emotion, energy and passion than any version of The Game has ever been.

I firmly believe there is absolutely no way that a rematch in any future CCG could mean more than The Game did in 2006, when it was between two undefeated teams, for the first time ever ranked #1 and #2 as they faced each other.

 

[DallasHusker]

I firmly believe there is absolutely no way that a rematch in any future CCG could mean more than The Game did in 2006, when it was between two undefeated teams, for the first time ever ranked #1 and #2 as they faced each other.

Well, of course not. But, as you point out, it was the FIRST time that had EVER happened, after 93 OSU-MU games. I think the game should be left where its at, but a once-in-a-century occurrence is hardly the best argument for doing so.