silvanthalas
Well-Known Member
I have to wonder if that's the intent, and that this is nothing more than a feeler by the conference to get people talking.
Three times having back-to-back matchups is still three times too many.
Report that mich/osu game moved to October
- Thread starter WhitUp
- Start date
I have to wonder if that's the intent, and that this is nothing more than a feeler by the conference to get people talking.
Three times having back-to-back matchups is still three times too many.
BradBanks02
Well-Known Member
They are moving it up because they think they well always meet in the title game............which is pretty funny cause it won't happen much.
Sorry to burst your bubble guys, but I have lived in every time zone in the US and this is nothing but a regional rivalry. It is the same as Texas/OU, Miami/FSU, Bama/Auburn, UCLA/USC, and Cal/Stanford. The nation is not rearranging their schedule to watch this game.
It WAS a bigger deal when the Big Ten champ went to the Rose Bowl, because the West Coast teams wanted to see the team they were playing. But since the BCS pretty much messed that up, it just hasn't meant much outside the conference. This is particular true now that UM has fallen on hard times.
It WAS a bigger deal when the Big Ten champ went to the Rose Bowl, because the West Coast teams wanted to see the team they were playing. But since the BCS pretty much messed that up, it just hasn't meant much outside the conference. This is particular true now that UM has fallen on hard times.
This is just plain not good for the Big ten or the schools involved. they are assuming that Mich will regain it's old form, and return to the elite of college football. So that Mich and OSU can always fight it out for the title in the title game. That could happen, but it is it fair to the other ten teams to place for 2nd place in their respective divisions each year? NO. Put Um and OSU in one divsion, and let the other div fight for the right to play and beat the winnner of the Um/OSU div every year. At least it would be something different every season, and not the same ol same ol, every year. it gets boring watching the same two teams duke it out every year.
ripvdub
Banned
Traditions shouldnt be kept just for the sake of tradition. If someone can bring up a valid reason other than tradition, thats fine. But I think it makes sense for them to be in separate divisions. I think the Big Ten should use the SEC model and do the 6+1, one rival in the other conference you play every year.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
I just don't like the idea of rematches in the title game. Obviously, any "protected rivalry" could produce a rematch. But it seems much more likely to happen if OSU and Michigan are separated. Minnesota and Iowa aren't likely to meet up in Indy.
UNC / Duke has grown beyond regional interest. In football, USC and Notre Dame is national because of the history of each program and the fact that it is a long standing cross country rivalry. But again, on rivalry Saturday people are focused on the games in their region unless you are talking about a number 1 vs. 2 scenario. In that case it wouldn't matter if it was UM vs. OSU or any other Big Ten team.
People are just having a hard time grasping the conference championship deal. If the teams are in separate confernces and they will have a protected rivalry, you have to move the game up. There is just no way you can risk playing this game two weeks running. Each team has got to play a team in their own division the last few games of the year.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
That's why I would prefer to keep OSU and Michigan in the same division. I don't see the need split them when the top 6 teams are Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan (obviously not right now), Ohio State, and Penn State. Just split those teams up geographically, and sort out the rest. I don't see why it's so hard for them to maintain competitive balance and keep OSU/Michigan in the same division.
latrans
Well-Known Member
Jackpot.
The six teams deal is kind of a crock. When you look at it, there is a bigger split between Wisky and PSU than there is between PSU and Michigan. However, somehow PSU gets put in a second grouping with Wisky and Iowa?
It is really the top 4, then Iowa and Wisconsin, then the rest of the league. This group still has become the top half of the league, but saying they have separated does not mean they are all equal.
It is really the top 4, then Iowa and Wisconsin, then the rest of the league. This group still has become the top half of the league, but saying they have separated does not mean they are all equal.
Hawkeye101
Well-Known Member
What's really the big deal here? The only constant in life is that things change. Personally, I'm tired of seeing UM and OSU get special dispensation from the B10. It's time that the B10 shows a little more equity across all of the teams in the conference.
Who else has a guaranteed rivalry, always occuring on the last game of the year. Iowa? Not hardly. Often Minnesota, but not always. With the conference divisions, will everyone get to maintain the rivalries that are important to their team? Nope.
I think OSU-UM is a great, great rivalry and I don't want to see it go away, but it's time to stop thinking the game between those 2 teams is more important than everyone else in the B10. It's not the big 2 anymore, it's the Big 10.
Who else has a guaranteed rivalry, always occuring on the last game of the year. Iowa? Not hardly. Often Minnesota, but not always. With the conference divisions, will everyone get to maintain the rivalries that are important to their team? Nope.
I think OSU-UM is a great, great rivalry and I don't want to see it go away, but it's time to stop thinking the game between those 2 teams is more important than everyone else in the B10. It's not the big 2 anymore, it's the Big 10.
caarhawk, i understand what you are saying. I am in the group that wants to keep them both in the same division. There would be no chance of them meeting twice in the season, let alone 2 weeks in a row. I just look at neb/okie u and how that riviarly died when they split them up. It is good for TV, the fans, and the Big ten to keep that rivilary in tact. If Mich regains their old form, and i know they will, that game for the right to play in the title game will be huge, along with whatever game in the other div, for the div title. Thos e two games could be played back to back on natioanl Tv each thanksgiving week-end. What the heck move one of those games to friday.
Okay guys. Here is the deal. I was not raised in Big Ten country. I went to Cal for undergrad. The Game - Cal v. Stanford was a great experience. I come from a USC family. UCLA / USC is a great experience. So I might not get the whole OSU / UM thing.
It just seems like you all are so set on having this be the league's showcase game. I am just not sure why that is a good thing for Iowa or the rest of the Big Ten. The showcase game should be the championship game, plain and simple. Will it be great if there are good rivalry games leading up to the championship? Absolutely. But the focus should still be on the championship game.
The reason the like had to give special deference to the UM / OSU game is because there wasn't a championship game. Now there is one, so the deference should go away.
It just seems like you all are so set on having this be the league's showcase game. I am just not sure why that is a good thing for Iowa or the rest of the Big Ten. The showcase game should be the championship game, plain and simple. Will it be great if there are good rivalry games leading up to the championship? Absolutely. But the focus should still be on the championship game.
The reason the like had to give special deference to the UM / OSU game is because there wasn't a championship game. Now there is one, so the deference should go away.
whammer33024
Well-Known Member
the game would still be huge if they were in the same division and it was the last game on the schedule. it SHOULD decide who is going to represent the east division in the championship game.
you get the rivalry and it actually means something too. then, the winner has to go play iowa every year in the championship game and get smoked.
see what i did there?
you get the rivalry and it actually means something too. then, the winner has to go play iowa every year in the championship game and get smoked.
see what i did there?
hwkwyld
Well-Known Member
I hate tOSU with the fire of 1000 suns. That being said, I don't want the B10 to mess with this game or split UM/tOSU. Generally I agree with ripvdub's comment about "Tradition for the sake of tradition" however, this rivalry is one of the longest and most intense in all of sports. Breaking these teams up and moving the game cheapens the rivalry/meaning.
As far as I'm concerned breaking these two teams up is the equivalent of breaking up Giants/Dodgers, Yankees/Red Sox, Packers/Bears, Cubs/Cardinals. It SHOULD NOT be done! There should be some things in sports that are sacred and I believe this rivalry is one of them.
If it is the B10 floating an idea out there to see the reaction hopefully they've gotten the message that this is a bad idea.
If the reports are true and the decision has been made, lets acknowledge this for what it is... a blatant money grab by the B10*
*Not that expansion wasn't/isn't but this is publicly confirming you've sold your soul to the devil.
As far as I'm concerned breaking these two teams up is the equivalent of breaking up Giants/Dodgers, Yankees/Red Sox, Packers/Bears, Cubs/Cardinals. It SHOULD NOT be done! There should be some things in sports that are sacred and I believe this rivalry is one of them.
If it is the B10 floating an idea out there to see the reaction hopefully they've gotten the message that this is a bad idea.
If the reports are true and the decision has been made, lets acknowledge this for what it is... a blatant money grab by the B10*
*Not that expansion wasn't/isn't but this is publicly confirming you've sold your soul to the devil.
