. . . should they play each other in the first game of the season? Yesterday on 97.1 The Fan in Columbus Bruce Hooley and Chris Spielman were talking about the possibility of moving the annual OSU/Michigan game to the opener if they are put in different divisions in the new Big Ten. They think it's a real possability that the Big Ten could choose to take the two anchor schools in the conference and separate them, and even separate all of the traditional rivals into separate divisions, which would allow the conference to showcase all of its rivalries in week one. Also, there's is a precedent for this. The past several years FSU and Miami have opened their season against each other on Labor Day, and other conferences have opened their seasons with conference games in the past as well.

Spielman apparently was a big fan of this idea for several reasons. He said that if you put it first then all summer long all you're talking about is playing Michigan. You're not talking about Texas, USC, or Miami coming to town. You think about your rival and prepare for your rival all summer long. This adds some excitement and anticipation to the game you can't really get when it's at the end of the season. He also thinks it would be good because whoever loses still has the chance win out, win their division, and get back in the National Championship hunt. Also, it's very possible that in many years these two schools would still win their divisions and end up playing in the final game at the Big Ten Championship anyway.

Personally, I'd rather just see them in the same division allowing The Game to be the final game of the regular season. One of the things that makes college football rivalries so special compared to other sports rivalries, is that like all great cultural traditions and celebrations, college football rivalries happen at the same time every year. College football rivalries, like holidays, mark the passage of time. Images of Ohio State vs. Michigan are so ingrained in our mind with overcast skies, chilly temperatures, and the sights and sounds of fall. It would certainly take some getting used to seeing them play in the bright sun and 90 degree heat of late summer.

So, what do you think, if OSU and Michigan are split into separate divisions would you like to see them play each other in the first game of the season, or would you rather see them play at some midpoint in the season, like the first conference game?

I agree with you. Keep them in the same division, and let them play the last week. At that point in the season, the loser of the game has no argument for being in the NC game anyway.

First mistake, listening to Hooley.

Same division..last game.

They won't be in different divisions.

Last game of the year as usual.

thedynasty1998;443592 wrote:First mistake, listening to Hooley.

Second mistake...listening to Speilman.

There are just some things that you don't mess with.....and OSU vs. UM on the last week of the season is one of them.

I agree with everyone who said they should be in the same division and play in the last game of the regular season.

There is no way in hell they won't still be the last game of the season.

There really aren't any rational division scenarios that would separate them. I still expect them to use geography and split East/West, with at least 1 permanent crossover.. it protects pretty much every rivalry.

What does everyone think about playing Michigan 2 times a year? Because this could very well happen if they are put in the different divisions....

I guess I'm in the minority. I like the first game idea. However, so much history is engrained in that last week rival, I think it would completely make it something different.

Dynasty... Nice add to the thread. Very valuable opinion.

Don't like the first game idea, love the buildup during the season of playing Michigan, especially if the game means something like in 2006.

The Game should stay the last one.

ts1227;443779 wrote:There really aren't any rational division scenarios that would separate them. I still expect them to use geography and split East/West, with at least 1 permanent crossover.. it protects pretty much every rivalry.

This makes the most sense. Could be OSU-Nebraska as the permanent crossover game.

Iowa-Nebraska
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Northwestern-Illinois
Indiana-Purdue
Michigan-Michigan State
Ohio State-Penn State

Then put OSU-UM on the last week of the season and be in the same division.

I detailed this thought before.

Put one of the two (first or last) in one division, put the other in the other division.

Penn State
Michigan State
Purdue
Northwestern
Wisconsin or Minnesota
Nebraska or Iowa

Ohio State
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin or Minnesota
Nebraska or Iowa

Keep Minnesota/Iowa in the same division, and put Wisconsin-Nebraska in the other (Wisconsin has a stated desire to play Nebraska annually).

This would keep:

Ohio State-Penn State
Michigan-Michigan State
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Minnesota-Iowa
Penn State-Michigan State
Ohio State-Illinois
Indiana-Illinois

It will evenly split up the league by non-geographic terms yet keep virtually all rivalry games. It keeps OSU-UM as the last game of the regular season without a chance of a replay a week later in the title game.

Sykotyk

Sykotyk;444156 wrote:Iowa-Nebraska
Minnesota-Wisconsin
Northwestern-Illinois
Indiana-Purdue
Michigan-Michigan State
Ohio State-Penn State

Then put OSU-UM on the last week of the season and be in the same division.

I detailed this thought before.

Put one of the two (first or last) in one division, put the other in the other division.

Penn State
Michigan State
Purdue
Northwestern
Wisconsin or Minnesota
Nebraska or Iowa

Ohio State
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin or Minnesota
Nebraska or Iowa

Keep Minnesota/Iowa in the same division, and put Wisconsin-Nebraska in the other (Wisconsin has a stated desire to play Nebraska annually).

This would keep:

Ohio State-Penn State
Michigan-Michigan State
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Minnesota-Iowa
Penn State-Michigan State
Ohio State-Illinois
Indiana-Illinois

It will evenly split up the league by non-geographic terms yet keep virtually all rivalry games. It keeps OSU-UM as the last game of the regular season without a chance of a replay a week later in the title game.

Sykotyk

why not just split it East and West? That keeps all the rivalry games in tact, and makes the most sense geography wise. It doesn't make sense having teams in the same state in different divisions.

Spielman is a dumbass.

This is an awful idea IMO.

put em in the same division and play the last game.

If you don't win you don't deserve to play for the national title

let them play the last game

Delaney better not mess this up. Same division, last game of year. This is how I would do the divisions (right down the Indiana Illinois boarder):

East
OSU
UM
PSU
Indiana
MSU
Purdue

West
Wisky
Illini
Minny
NW
Nebraska
Iowa

They would keep pretty much all of the major rivalries intact.

man..im watching a replay from the 07 rose bowl.. its a shame how far michigan has dropped off since

The reason for the split is Delaney has already mentioned that the division would probably be divided among non-geographic terms to keep them balanced (similar to how the ACC did when they added Miami, BC, and VT). You get one cross-divisional game every year as a 'rival' game, and play everyone in your division. Then you get two of the other teams in the other division on a rotating basis.

I'd prefer east/west, but it appears by what Delaney has said that we won't get a geographic split. If so, that's my proposal. I sure as hell don't want OSU-UM to have a rematch a week later. And if they were in different divisions, there would be a strong push to move OSU-UM, the same way FSU-UM was moved to the start of the season to avoid conflicting with either teams' title aspirations.

Sykotyk

The ACC split is beyond stupid, I really hope they don't go that direction.

Sykotyk;446737 wrote:The reason for the split is Delaney has already mentioned that the division would probably be divided among non-geographic terms to keep them balanced (similar to how the ACC did when they added Miami, BC, and VT). You get one cross-divisional game every year as a 'rival' game, and play everyone in your division. Then you get two of the other teams in the other division on a rotating basis.

I'd prefer east/west, but it appears by what Delaney has said that we won't get a geographic split. If so, that's my proposal. I sure as hell don't want OSU-UM to have a rematch a week later. And if they were in different divisions, there would be a strong push to move OSU-UM, the same way FSU-UM was moved to the start of the season to avoid conflicting with either teams' title aspirations.

Sykotyk

If you split it EAST and WEST that looks pretty balanced to me. It actually would look similar to the SEC. Top heavy in the East and pretty balanced in the West. You have 4 schools that history says are always going to be pretty good. Maybe he'd like to split Nebraska, OSU, Michigan and Penn St. and keep two in each division.

TheMightyGators;446767 wrote:If you split it EAST and WEST that looks pretty balanced to me. It actually would look similar to the SEC. Top heavy in the East and pretty balanced in the West. You have 4 schools that history says are always going to be pretty good. Maybe he'd like to split Nebraska, OSU, Michigan and Penn St. and keep two in each division.

Having one top heavy division isn't the problem. If you have OSU, Michigan, and Penn state in the same division then it's very possible that you will have the three best teams in the conference in the same division (read: Big XII South). Nebraska on the other hand, if they return to their former self as they appear to be doing, would win the West easily every year, even though they may not be as good as the top teams in the East.

Sykotyk;446737 wrote:The reason for the split is Delaney has already mentioned that the division would probably be divided among non-geographic terms to keep them balanced (similar to how the ACC did when they added Miami, BC, and VT). You get one cross-divisional game every year as a 'rival' game, and play everyone in your division. Then you get two of the other teams in the other division on a rotating basis.

I'd prefer east/west, but it appears by what Delaney has said that we won't get a geographic split. If so, that's my proposal. I sure as hell don't want OSU-UM to have a rematch a week later. And if they were in different divisions, there would be a strong push to move OSU-UM, the same way FSU-UM was moved to the start of the season to avoid conflicting with either teams' title aspirations.

Sykotyk

I agree with you and you're mostly correct. Delany has said that competitiveness is the top priority in aligning the divisions, and that geography is secondary. It also appears that the conference will be going to a nine game conference schedule, which means you would play the other five teams in your division, two permanent crossover games, and then the other four teams would be on a two-year-on, two-year-off rotating basis (Which means the schedule would be very similar to the way it is today, only with one more conference game).

Since competitiveness will the primary factor in division alignment it's likely that Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska will be split two and two in different divisions. They'll probably put Iowa and Wisconsin in different divisions. They you split Northwestern, Michigan State, Purdue, and Illinois evenly, and you split up Minnesota and Indiana. Looking at overall history and recent history, this would create the most balance.

While it's still likely that they will put OSU and Michigan in one division and Nebraska and Penn State in the other, it's still a possibility that OSU and Michigan could be split up and be one of each others permanent crossover games. The Pac-10 has said that they are considering splitting all rivalries into different divisions, so Wash/Wash St, Oregon/Oregon St, Cal/Stanford, USC/UCLA, etc would all be in different divisions, but would play each other on a permanent crossover basis. It's possible the Big Ten could look at doing the same thing.

The question here wasn't "Do you want to see OSU and Michigan in different divisions so they can play in the first game every year?" although that's the question almost all of you answered. The question was if, "On the off chance, OSU and Michigan end up in separate divisions, would you rather see them play week one or at some mid-point in the season since they wouldn't be able to play in the final game anymore?" I for one would prefer to see them play in the finale, but if they're in different divisions then I'd rather seem them play in week one than in week six.