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.
Sure they are factors... just ones that come after about 500000 other things. Honestly.. if it was such a big deal, you wouldn't have Boise St. in the Big East or Colorado in the Pac 12.
Like I said... in Iowa's case they fly to Champaign which costs over 50 grand, but they bus to Evanston which costs like 6 or 7 grand even though it's almost the same distance.
Do you know why they do it? One time there was a delay at the airport, so Ferentz didn't want to fly to NW anymore. It's not to save money.
Boise case is completely unrelated. Their two options were non aq or aq plus travel. This choice is do something sensible or do something that will cost more when there are much simpler, cheaper solutions to the problem.
Simpler? It's getting on a freaking airplane. Which these teams do for all but 2 or 3 away trips.
You may not like it, but come on now. You're acting like it's some crazy complicated and expensive travel plan.
It costs like 5-10 grand more to fly chartered to the east coast as opposed to somewhere like Ann Arbor. Columbus and vise-versa
So each school has to pay 20 grand extra. Fans who want to go to away games can only take road trips to the two or three schools close and have to fly to four games a year as opposed to being able to drive to almost every game in an east west or north south split. Trust me, inner outer won't happen unless they really only want the game to happen once a year.
Well, I know to Ohio St fans, the game against UM means a LOT more than any other conference game. So, no, I don't think it's exactly the same as say playing PSU in back to back weeks. The OSU/UM game has been rated as the best rivalry in CFB and to turn around and do it again in 7 days wouldn't be a good thing IMO. I believe that in our game, the rivalry is bigger than the talent on the field. We've both fielded teams that were much better than the other but lost the game, due to the atmosphere and what was on the line. Not too many other teams in the BIG bring that type of game out of either of us.
Great point. It's tough enough to win that game once. But giving the loser of the first game that extra incentive to exact some revenge the next week makes it that much more difficult for the first game's winner to repeat seven days later.
This only helps my point.
I would much rather that fans tune in to watch the Michigan/Ohio rivalry twice.
Do you honestly think that fans of the Red River Rivalry would complain about watching Texas and Oklahoma play a second time to decide the conference if both teams are top-10 (or better yet top-5)?
* * * N E O . R E T R O * * *
No it doesn't.. you inferred that the game has been diminished since the 10 Year War.
It's just not true.
Read BestoftheBig's post he explains it well. UM and OSU playing twice in 2 weeks isn't the same as a MSU/Wisconsin doing it.
You are correct. UM/OSU playing twice in two weeks is better.
Not it is not. I don't want to go watch the season finale in the Big House against them that means nothing, then go to Indianapolis and watch the game that's for all the marbles.
The Game was at its peak in the 1970s because both teams consistently had a shot at the Rose Bowl or a National Championship going into it.
After Woody was fired, that scenario only happened again in 1986, 1997 and in 2006. That's just 3 times in the last 30 years.
Hence, The Game hasn't meant as much as it did in the 1970s. To pretend otherwise is just to be homer.
Yes, Michigan spoiled Ohio's undefeated 95 and 96 seasons but Michigan didn't play in the Rose Bowl in either of those years. At least in 1969, Michigan was rewarded with a Rose Bowl for beating Woody's "greatest team" in a monumental upset.
And BestoftheBig's explanation is an emotional one - the type that Traditionalists rely on. And I am not a Traditionalist. I've made the clear.
We're in the 21st century. Join it. The college football landscape has changed. I'm not interested in preserving antiquated, mythic notions of what people *feel* The Game should be.
Under the new playoff system, it is beneficial for Michigan and Ohio to play twice (especially if one team sweeps the season series).
1995: Spoiled osu's season
1996: Spoiled osu's season
1997: Win and we go to the national championship
2001: Tressel comes in our own house and stuns us
2002: If osu wins they go to the national championship
2003: Whoever wins wins the outright big ten title
2004: osu spoiled our season
2005: Troy Smith leads osu on a game winning drive
2006: Game of the century
2007: Whoever wins wins the big ten title outright
2012: osu playing for a perfect season
You're high if you don't think the game hasn't meant as much recently. And the way things are going we're going to be playing osu in the title game A LOT since the leaders looks like crap right now.
Look at how I defined importance of The Game during the 1970s - a Rose Bowl or National Championship is at stake for BOTH teams.
I then said such a scenario existed only 3 times since Wood was fired. I was mistaken and forgot about 2007. So that's 4 times in 30+ years post-Woody.
This is a ridicuous argument. Nearly everyone on mgoblog argees that we should be in the same division. I ask you this:
Do you go the games? Would YOU want to go to the home finale in the big house against osu that meant nothing because it's a guaruntee they'd be playing again next week indoors in indianapolis? I sure as hell wouldn't. The game would completely lose it's meaning.
I don't think you understand what my argument even is.
Go ahead. Summarize it for me.
(Hint: I haven't mentioned it on this thread. I was merely arguing against Clark's point.)
FYI, I don't care what people on mgoblog think. I like to think for myself and form my own opinions.
I know exactly what your argument is...$$$$ and viewers. It's possible, though, that if we play two weeks in a row, the amount of viewers for the first game decreases substantially. It's also possible that the championship game doesn't sell out because it was already played the week before.
Why are you so intent on making a fool out of yourself?
Not only did you not correctly guess any of my arguments but you made faulty assumptions in the process.
My stubborn stance against putting Michigan and Ohio in the same division revolves around 3 fundamental arguments.
1. To maintain competitive balance in the B1G, it makes sense to put the two historically dominant programs of the conference in opposing divisions.
If Michigan and Ohio are in the same division, then the other division by its very nature will be weak. Wisconsin is not consistent enough. Nebraska will need to recruit at a much higher level to recapture old glory. Penn State will be adversely affected by sanctions.
If Michigan and Ohio are in the same division, then the loser of The Game can conceivably be more deserving of playing in the Conference Championship than anyone from the opposing division.
2. Contrary to popular belief, putting Michigan and Ohio in the same division actually devalues The Game.
The two most historically dominant programs of the Big Ten should have the opportunity to decide the B1G Championship on a neutral field.
By putting them in the same division, the winner of The Game merely clinches a spot in the Conference Championship Game. This devalues The Game because there is actually no guarantee that The Game (in that scenario) will be the de facto Conference Championship.
The belief that a regular season match-up of Michigan and Ohio (in the same division) will be the de facto Big Championship Game is based on the Ten Year War from the 1970s when the final regular season game decided the conference winner. This is the Traditionalist perspective which is outdated given that the final regular season has only decided the conference 4 times since Woody was fired.
3. The fans deserve to see the two best teams play especially in a rematch.
There's no reason to artificially limit the number of times a team can play one another in given season. That goes against notions of fairness and merit.
If Michigan and Ohio are the two best teams, then they should be allowed to play on a neutral field.
Consider 2006. I would've liked to have seen which of the two teams would've come out on top on a neutral field. IMO, the fans deserve that much.
Lastly, this isn't a reason but still something else to consider. Do you really think that Michigan and Ohio fans would not fill up Lucas Oil Stadium when the winner of the B1G Championship Game earns a Rose Bowl berth (or a guaranteed playoff spot)?
I find that notion preposterous. I might turn out to be wrong on this but I'll have to see it to believe it.
This post was edited by Frank C 19 months ago
The fact that they're the two best teams historically means they should be in the same division in the first place! Putting them in different divisions does nothing if the rest of the division historically sucks and looks like they will continue to suck. The only team that is going to even possibly give osu a challenge in the near future is Wisconsin since Penn State is screwed. The rest of the leaders is a joke. The legends has Michigan, Nebraska, and msu which will all compete. So the way it is now is essentially paving the way for osu to play in the title game every year. If the two teams were in the same division, the winner would most likely be the representative in the game. If it was east/west, they could put msu and nebraska in the west and michigan and osu in the east.
Use: when in an overwhelming feeling of "WTF is going on"
This post was edited by UMWolverines 19 months ago
There's no reason you should have to play the team again that you already beat. The loser has everything to gain and the winner has nothing to gain in the rematch. We've already seen this with the whole Alabama/LSU clusterf#$k.
No. Just no.
I can tell that I'm not going to change your mind. And you are not going to change my mind.
But I will end this exchange with you by typing this: I have no problem with Ohio getting to the B1G Championship game every year. However, I want Michigan to have the opportunity to beat Ohio on that stage.
If Michigan has to beat Ohio twice to be called B1G Champions, then so be it. I don't see that as a bad thing.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Frank C 19 months ago
Alright, whatever. I'm going to present my next argument though.
In my opinion, the championship game needs to just go. So far neither game has sold out and it never will sell out unless michigan and osu play in it every year and I can take off my maize and blue glasses and tell you that will not happen. They need to just go 9 conference games and get rid of the championship game. There are rarely upsets, and guess what, if there are upsets it's usually the team that already beat the other team once (wisconsin-nebraska). All it is is a money grab.
Also, why the hell would you want osu in the championship game every year? Do you really want them to catch up to us in championships? The way you want it it sure as hell would help them do just that.
edit: Also there's a reason most Michigan fans AND osu fans I talk to are 100% in favor of my argument.
I agree about the 9 game conference schedules. I would prefer that to the conference championship.
The Big Ten actually used a 9 game schedule for a while in the 1980s.
However, it seems that the B1G will go to a 9 game conference schedule and keep the conference championship. I'm interested to see how this will all shake out given that the B1G is expanding to 14 and will likely expand to 16 (which is why the current conference logo is designed as it is).
I think that's a very good point. To a certain extent, it punishes the winner of the first game.
I would absolutely love for that to happen, but I think that ship has sailed (getting rid of the CCG).
In a perfect world we would have all conferences with 10 teams or less, rivalry week like it used to be before everyone moved conferences, and a 10 team playoff. I can settle for being in the same division with osu though.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports