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.
Sire you like it, Inner outer sounds like a Kama sutra position.
There's nothing wrong with that. I'd love to see them play twice every once in a while.
I'd hate to see what's been the best two teams for most of Big 10 history be in the same division.
East West doesn't make sense at all with OSU, PSU, Mich, and MSU all in one Division.
Innie Outie has got to be a joke. ADs would never agree.
I agree. There are plenty of championship game rematches. And Stanford just beat UCLA twice to go to the Rose Bowl. No one complained. The fans were excited to get to see a second game.
And since its about the money (which also means more fans are watching on TV so its good for fans too) then the ADs want the two biggest fan bases to have a chance at playing twice each year. So that means Ohio and Michigan are in different divisions.
The fan vote is just to engage the fans and have us tune in to the show.
I strongly disagree.
The B1G did the right thing by putting Michigan and Ohio in different divisions.
Under the current landscape of college football, it makes little sense to have the two most historically dominant programs of a conference in the same division.
Trying to preserve The Game's mythology is based on nostalgia of the 1970s. The Game hasn't been the same since the Ten Year War ended.
Even when Michigan spoiled Ohio's National Championship aspirations in the 1990s, Michigan still didn't win the Big Ten.
* * * N E O . R E T R O * * *
First get rid of protected rivals, I think it's stupid and with expanding conferences it means less and less games against teams in the other division. With the current format you would play a team twice every 12 years.
Second I prefer the inner outer the most. Pretty good competitive balance and has MSU and OSU in our division. East and west would be fine too, the most important thing is getting michigan and OSU in the same division.
Ok, let's say Michigan is 11-0 coming into "The Game", in Columbus. You win, going to 12-0 and tOSU finishes 10-2 or 9-3. Then in the CCG tOSU nips you and takes the Rose Bowl berth and ruining your shot at the BCS CG. Would you support the rematch then?
I wouldn't if the situation was the opposite. Too many times in our rivalry the better team hasn't won, or had it's undefeated season ended by the other that had 3 or more losses. If we make it through that rivalry game, that let's face it would be difficult to play at that high emotion two weeks in a row, we shouldn't have to turn around and do it again in 7 days. Either of us. The reward for winning that game should be a ticket to the CCG and beat the hell out of someone else...haha
I fail to understand how this is any different from if we have a rematch with any other opposite-division team that we play in the season. If we play and beat a 9-3 Wisconsin team, then lose to them in the CCG, isn't that exactly the same? MSU beat Wisconsin in the regular season last season, then lost to them in the CCG. Same thing with Nebraska and Wisconsin this year. The only way to avoid rematches is to eliminate cross-division games entirely.
I'll also remind everyone that even though everyone is acting like OSU and Michigan are going to be doing this rematch every year or something, it's really not that likely to happen that often. There are other good teams in the Big Ten that can and will compete with us and Ohio...the situation where we would be playing them either for our spot in and/or to deny their spot in is much much more likely than the situation where both teams go into the game assured of a spot either way.
Big 10 Red:
Big 10 White:
This looks fair to me
This post was edited by Moon 19 months ago
"Those Who Stay...Will be Champions"
Welcome to Wolverine247! We're glad you're here, so make yourself at home.
Great point about the protected cross-division rivals. It's a shame that college players can go their entire career without playing a particular conference foe. While I do understand the intent behind protecting some matchups, I think the B1G could meet in the middle so as to protect some traditional rivalries but also make sure each conference team is playing every other conference team at least once every four years.
I think his point is that it would happen in back-to-back weeks, as opposed to most other potential rematches. Also, I see his point about the higher level of emotion required to beat OSU (and vice-versa). In a sport where emotion is such a major factor in who wins a particular game, beating OSU two weeks in a row is probably more difficult for Michigan (or vice-versa) than it would be for any other team outside of the rivalry to beat an opponent two weeks in a row.
I get the idea behind the protected rival and its nice to try and keep tradition but college football is changing. With the league going to 14 and most likely 16 it will be impossible to keep all rivalries going every year. It's important to keep major ones like mich-OSU. I also believe that the conference will go to 9 game conference schedule soon which would cut down the years between playing certain teams.
With the super conferences shaping up... this whole vying for a spot in the playoff isn't going to be true. The first game would mean absolutely nothing and the winner of the Conference would get the spot.
I'm coming around to the inner-outer alignment. The geographical separation could be a problem, but it is split nicely into two kinda subdivisions.
I don't know what you're talking about. The '06 game was the most watched non championship game in CFB history.... and with Hoke and Meyer coming into the fold the profile has been brought back significantly.
Them being in separate divisions is just another money grab attempt by the conference. It's gotta stop somewhere.
The winner of the conference isn't getting a spot in the four team playoffs with 2+ losses, unless they change the format to "all 4 champions get in" but the SEC'll never allow that. And nor should they, btw. If Wisconsin got into a 4-team playoff this year for winning the B1G it would be the biggest joke of all time.
But anyway, the way the playoff is set up right now, there's a selection committee.to determine who gets in. They're not letting in a B1G champion with 2+ losses, so that's what makes the first game relevant...if the teams come in at 10-1, if they lose the first game they're not making it regardless of what happens in the second game
I agree with you that there has to be some middle ground. For example, there's no reason whatsoever to protect Iowa-Purdue. That's a joke.
And like you said, a nine-game conference schedule would help reduce the amount of time between playing certain teams. I hope the B1G makes that change as soon as possible.
The easiest thing is to keep the divisions, throw Illinois into whichever dumb name your division is and add Maryland and Rutgers to whatever dumb name our division is.
Inner/Outer is pretty stupid IMO. No way the outer groups agree to pay for the travel costs. Their East West is poorly done for competitive balance. PSU/UM/OSU shouldn't all be in one division. Move the Michigan schools to the west and the Illinois and Purdue to the East if you wanted to do that. The +1 would screw whatever team ended up in your division.
Granted all of this is contingent on expansion being finished, which looks questionable.
First thing's first, change the damn division names already.
LOL @ Travel Costs. That's not going to be a big factor.
PSU already goes to Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue... etc.
This would actually bring 2 teams in the division that are much closer (Maryland, Rutgers).
But Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin haven't been regularly travelling to the eastern seaboard.
It's 2 games a season... and with the amount of money those markets are going to bring, it won't be an issue whatsoever.
You had freaking Boise St. heading to what used to be the Big East... do you think this stuff matters in big time College Football?
It's huge travel cost for a bunch of schools. Not just a PSU thing. Inner/Outer is dumb all around IMO.
3 games a season for the west side of outer and 4 for the east side. Travel to PSU, Rutgers and Maryland, not sure which one you weren't counting. It adds up and would annoy a lot of schools to have to travel constantly vs. the inner schools that barely move. It doesn't make sense.
Yes.. Rutgers and Maryland are the new games. Penn St was already on the schedule.
You're acting like these schools bus to games often. Anything over a 4 hour drive and they are flying. Iowa for example flies to Illinois, even though it's only about 15 miles further away than Northwestern, which they bus to.
Like I said before.... these kinds of travel costs are peanuts for big time football.
You can keep saying it's nothing, but I guarantee travel, both time and money, are factors.
In partnership with