In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Will the Big 10 still screw it up?
Is it supposed to be ironic? Inner-Outer? That still isn't as bad as expanding Leaders and Legends.
How do you think the voting will go? Do you think the B1G will listen to the voters anyways?
Not sure what to vote for.
I like the inner outer one, personally.
But no. The Big Ten will not listen
Oh man. I think its gotta be East/West. The Inner/Outer really screws half the league on travel time.
Doesn't screw us
They both suck.
I guess East/West, though wouldn't football wise moving MSU to the West rather than Purdue make it slightly more even? I mean, the divisions are messed up no matter what, but still.
East/West is awful. Bad enough putting Michigan and Ohio State in the same division, throw Penn State in the same division and that's three of your four traditional powerhouses in one division, it's just horrifically unbalanced.
I agree balance is a problem, but having Michigan and Ohio in separate conferences and still playing the Game is a big problem too, in my opinion.
The existing divisions +1 is the only that successfully maintains a semblance of competitive balance. I prefer that one.
* * * N E O . R E T R O * * *
as for The Game and other cross-division protected rivalries, I think my preferred solution is to have the division winners determined by in-division record, not overall in-conference record. Six division games, record in the other 3 conference games as the first tie-breaker. Solves (or mitigates) the problem of certain teams having perpetually tougher or easier conference schedules by virtue of their protected rivalries, and eliminates the scheduling luck of Team A having an out-of-division schedule of Michigan Nebraska and MSU while Team B gets to play Purdue, Illinois and Rutgers.
I suppose that doesn't get at the "problem" that UM and OSU could face each other in consecutive weeks, but I guess I don't really see that as much of a problem.
The inner/outer option is easily the best IMO.
1. Michigan and ohio need to be in the same division. Every major college rivalry is set up this way. It needs to happen and I'm betting that it will.
2. Competitive balance is good. Inner has UM, Ohio, and MSU. Outer has Penn St., Nebraska, and Wisconsin.
3. The travel time is nothing. Penn St. has been making trips to Minnesota, Iowa and the like for a long time. Rutgers and Maryland and Rutgers had to go to Miami, FSU, USF in their previous conferences. No issue whatsoever.
Option two would be East/West because of more talent in the DMV area than middle of no where Iowa/Nebraska.
This post was edited by Michmania 19 months ago
A lot of talent in the DMV area and you could tell those kid's parents that they could easily see a game or two in person each year.
I agree with all of this.
To me, the biggest criteria should be putting Michigan and Ohio State in one division, and Penn State and Nebraska in the other. That maintains competitive balance in the long run, and ensures that The Game isn't played twice in a season. The only option given here that meets both of my preferences is the Inner/Outer approach.
That being said, I'd also be in favor of the Existing +1 idea as long as Michigan and Penn State swap divisions. That may be the simplest solution.
You don't think the outer divisions will have a recruiting advantage in the DMV area's. That area besides Ohio has the most talent.
I don't really get why trying to avoid having The Game played twice is such a big deal to so many. As long as there are cross-division games, there's the chance that the B1G championship game will be a rematch...and in fact, both of the B1G championship games to date have been rematches. What is so bad about that? Last year, the first Wisconsin-Sparty game was a thriller and everyone was excited to see what would happen in the rematch. Just a few years ago, all of us were rooting for the BCS to set up a national championship game rematch of The Game, and several people on this board remain upset to this day that Florida jumped us in the final standings to deny that rematch. So, what's so bad?
As far as I'm concerned, I like the potential to play Ohio twice. In the years we play in the Big House, I want to spank them twice and send them home crying to their mamas. I want to do the same thing in the years we play them in the Shoe, but when they beat us at home, I want to take them to a neutral field and show them who's boss. And if they happen to beat us twice, or knock us out of the Rose Bowl after we won the first game, oh well, nice year, congrats to them and see you next year.
Is anyone really going to care less about The Game if on gameday its clear that there'll be a rematch the following week? Really? Come kickoff, I'm not going to care...if I see Maize and Blue vs Scarlet and Gray on my TV I'm gonna get amped no matter what. You think the players aren't going to get up for it? Does that sound like something that Hoke/Meyer - or any set of opposing coaches in this rivalry - would allow to happen? If things are going to plan, both Michigan and Ohio State should be coming into The Game with national championship aspirations...no one's going to just punt the first game and jeopardize their shot with the playoff selection committee.
I agree with you on this. I do not want Michigan and Ohio State in the same division. Should not happen.
I agree with you that, in the eyes of the players, coaches and diehard fans, The Game wouldn't lose any significance. But being the greatest rivalry in college football, I think it deserves as much attention and publicity as it can get. And if a rematch is likely the next week, I think the national buzz around the regular season matchup will drop significantly.
Also, the key here is that the two games would take place one week apart from each other. Even in 2006, at least there would have been around 50-60 days between the two games. I just think it's a very foreseeable problem, and it's very simple to solve it, especially since the B1G intentionally didn't give the division names any geographic significance so they could maintain flexibility.
Texas/Oklahoma (When they had 12)
Texas/ Texas A&M (Before A&M moved)
Ole Miss/Miss St.
The B1G made a mistake when they put Michigan and Ohio in different divisions. Time to correct it.
I want to play them in the CCG. I mean if we have to have a CCG I want it to be Michigan vs Ohio State.
The Game will still decide who plays for the conference championship more often than not. You don't need to play it twice.
Should be the 2 best teams in the CCG and in my opinion that is going to be Michigan and Ohio State quite a bit going foward.
I am perfectly ok and would love to see the game played 2 times. I see no downside to it.
It diminishes The Game. You can say it doesn't, but it's just not true. It's the reason that football is better than other sports.. you're playing 12-13 games instead of 30+. The value is in the rarity.
Let's say both teams were already locked into the CCG before the week of The Game. That would be an awful scenario. Playing 1 game that means essentially nothing, then 1 that is winner take all.
But it wouldn't mean nothing. If we're "locked into the CCG" heading into The Game, odds are we're somewhere between 11-0 and 9-2. With that kind of record, we're fighting for inclusion in the playoffs: if it's the 11-0 or 10-1 situation, we're probably trying to cement our place; if it's the 9-2 situation, we're probably trying to look as convincing as possible so we can get in as the potentially 11-2 B1G champion. If both teams are in that boat, then we're probably competing in a zero sum game with Ohio for an invite to the playoffs. In those scenarios, The Game will still mean a whole heck of a lot. And even if both squads come in 9-2 and everyone agrees that neither has any chance of making it into the playoffs, there's still at-large bids to the big non-playoff bowls at stake. And even if there were somehow nothing formally at stake beyond the B1G championship, it would still be The Game.
The major difference between Michigan-Ohio State and all the rest of these rivalries is that none of the rest of these games features far and away the two most successful programs in a conference. Texas/Oklahoma is the only one that comes close in that regard.
And by the way, when the B1G was looking at how to set up the conferences, it probably considered Texas/Oklahoma. It probably looked back at all those years when the Big 12 championship game was just a formality because the Big 12 South was so much better than the North that it wasn't a remotely fair fight. They probably saw how the Red River Shootout pretty much decided the conference and how in the years Nebraska wasn't good, the Big 12 North had essentially no one to carry the banner. And that's probably a big reason why they decided to break from what all the other conferences had done with their biggest rivalries.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports