Manhattan Buckeye;458398 wrote:Ohio St. - Illinois isn't a rivalry, they didn't play in '03 or '04. We survived. If it means an annual game with OSU to keep PSU happy, I'm fine with it. I'm guessing both schools want the rivalry.

Please don't say things like this and then campaign for the preservation of the OSU/Michigan game on the grounds of tradition because if you don't see the OSU/Illinois game as a rivalry then you clearly lack any concept of the tradition of Ohio State. OSU's has played Illinois more than anyone else other than Michigan and until 2007 OSU had played more consecutive games against Illinois than anyone else (they played 89 straight years until 2003, they have now played Michigan 91 straight years). It is also OSU's only trophy game and the second oldest trophy game in the Big Ten. Also, the fact that these two teams ended their streak of 89 consecutive years playing each other pissed off a lot of people on both sides, myself included. Please, don't say that it's not a rivalry since you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Manhattan Buckeye;458398 wrote:Ohio St. - Illinois isn't a rivalry, they didn't play in '03 or '04. We survived. If it means an annual game with OSU to keep PSU happy, I'm fine with it. I'm guessing both schools want the rivalry.

They have a "Rivalry Trophy" they play for. The winner gets to keep the Illibuck until they lose. Living in New York I'm not surprised you are unaware of THE ONLY Rivalry Trophy Ohio State plays for. Hell some Big Ten schools play for 3 or 4 of them.

GeneralsIcer89;458461 wrote:Here's mine, with protected cross-overs.

Illinois (Northwestern)
Indiana
Michigan (Minnesota)
Michigan State (Penn State)
Ohio State (Penn State)
Purdue

Iowa
Minnesota (Michigan)
Nebraska
Northwestern (Illinois)
Penn State (Michigan State, Ohio State)
Wisconsin

If you play everyone in your division, and 3 of the other division members, every trophy game is covered. Since it isn't a trophy game, OSU-PSU doesn't *have* to be protected. I just marked it as such, since it has become somewhat of a rivalry recently.

JoPa might leave the Big Ten if your opinion happens. Hell, he's NOT happy that a Syracuse, Rutgers or West Virginia didn't get in over Nebraska. He was lobbying VERY VERY hard for an eastern school near Penn State. Now you want to put Penn State THE Eastern most school in with the Western most schools. LOLOLOLOLO What's you phone number, JoPa would like to give you a piece of his mind.

Big Gain;458901 wrote:JoPa might leave the Big Ten if your opinion happens. Hell, he's NOT happy that a Syracuse, Rutgers or West Virginia didn't get in over Nebraska. He was lobbying VERY VERY hard for an eastern school near Penn State. Now you want to put Penn State THE Eastern most school in with the Western most schools. LOLOLOLOLO What's you phone number, JoPa would like to give you a piece of his mind.

True. Although JoPa's opinion may not be around much longer (right?) it is absurd to think Penn State will accept being placed in a western division being the most eastern Big Televen school. Logi$tic$ alone will or at least should negate that one.

And if the conference gurus would erroneously make that decision you can just about guarantee that Penn State will bow out of the conference as soon as they find a more suitable league affiliation...or rethink being independent.

believer;459229 wrote:True. Although JoPa's opinion may not be around much longer (right?) it is absurd to think Penn State will accept being placed in a western division being the most eastern Big Televen school. Logi$tic$ alone will or at least should negate that one.

And if the conference gurus would erroneously make that decision you can just about guarantee that Penn State will bow out of the conference as soon as they find a more suitable league affiliation...or rethink being independent.

Penn State won't leave the Big Ten. The Big Ten is far and away the most lucrative conference in the country and there's no way they could even make the same amount of money by leaving the conference. If the conference wants to evenly split the four traditional powers up two and two (OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State) then it's far more likely that OSU and Michigan get split up than it is that Penn State ill end up being aligned with a bunch of teams from the western half of the conference.

Big Gain;458893 wrote:They have a "Rivalry Trophy" they play for. The winner gets to keep the Illibuck until they lose. Living in New York I'm not surprised you are unaware of THE ONLY Rivalry Trophy Ohio State plays for. Hell some Big Ten schools play for 3 or 4 of them.

But it isn't important enough for them to play ever year - as they currentl don't.

Manhattan Buckeye;459513 wrote:But it isn't important enough for them to play ever year - as they currentl don't.

So using that logic Michigan State/Penn State is a more important rivalry than OSU/Illinois is because they play every year?

krambman;459536 wrote:So using that logic Michigan State/Penn State is a more important rivalry than OSU/Illinois is because they play every year?

No, that isn't a rivalry either - it is completely manufactured. I stated earlier (either on this thread or the other one) that these are the only games that HAVE to happen every year.

Michigan St. - Michigan (in-state publics)
Indiana - Purdue (ditto)
OSU - Michigan (obviously)
Wisconsin - Minnesota (historical rivals)
OSU - PSU (keep PSU happy, and has developed into a great rivalry)

Going forward I can see Nebraska-Iowa needing to play every year, but since they'll likely be in the same division its a non-issue.

Just because teams play for the Uncle Cletus' Spittoon trophy or whatever doesn't mean it is a rivalry that needs to be played every year....which is why many aren't. PSU couldn't give a lick about MSU, they'd rather play OSU every year. I don't even consider NW-Illinois a game that has to be played every year. There are too many of these "trophy" games to ensure they all happen every year. With a divisional format you can't play every team obviously, so the annual games should be reviewed judiciously

Manhattan Buckeye;459582 wrote:No, that isn't a rivalry either - it is completely manufactured. I stated earlier (either on this thread or the other one) that these are the only games that HAVE to happen every year.

Michigan St. - Michigan (in-state publics)
Indiana - Purdue (ditto)
OSU - Michigan (obviously)
Wisconsin - Minnesota (historical rivals)
OSU - PSU (keep PSU happy, and has developed into a great rivalry)

Going forward I can see Nebraska-Iowa needing to play every year, but since they'll likely be in the same division its a non-issue.

Just because teams play for the Uncle Cletus' Spittoon trophy or whatever doesn't mean it is a rivalry that needs to be played every year....which is why many aren't. PSU couldn't give a lick about MSU, they'd rather play OSU every year. I don't even consider NW-Illinois a game that has to be played every year. There are too many of these "trophy" games to ensure they all happen every year. With a divisional format you can't play every team obviously, so the annual games should be reviewed judiciously

Please stop speaking out of ignorance. As someone who lived in Illinois for 5 years, the Illinois-Nortwestern game has to happen every year. It may rarely have any bearing on the conference outcome, but it's a big deal to everyone. Also, with the new conference format, every rivalry game should be able to be preserved for annual play whether as a divisional game or a permanent crossover. As I've stated before, Delany has said that it's likely the Big Ten will go to a nine game conference schedule. That means everyone will play five divisional games and four cross-divisional games every season. This means that you'll be playing the five other teams in your division every year and you'll likely have too permanent crossover games that you'll play every year. That leaves four teams in the opposite division which will rotate (four years on, two off). This means that for Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State, the three schools they are historic rivals with, they will play every year. Heck, even if they only do an eight game conference schedule with only one permanent crossover, there's still no reason why all of these rivalry games can't happen every year.

Also, just because a game doesn't happen every single year doesn't mean that it's no longer a rivalry. Nebraska and Oklahoma didn't play every year in the old Big XII, but it was definitely still a rivalry. Your only criteria for a match-up being a rivalry seems to be that it's played every year. Under the current Big Ten system created when Penn State joined the conference decided that only two teams would be permanent fixtures on everyone's schedule and so some rivalries had to occasionally take two years off. Yes, they may not be nig rivalries in the eyes of the nation, but for those who are fans of those schools they are still rivalries and still important, and therefore they need to be considered when aligning divisions and developing future schedules. Please, stop saying that some rivalries aren't rivalries simply because they aren't as big as OSU-Michigan or Wisconsin-Minnesota, when you simply don't understand.

Using the rivaly logic the divsions should be

Ohio State
Penn State
Mich State
Michigan
Purdue
Indiana

Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Illinois
Iowa

Which I think is the best Divisions I have seen obviously the east will be top heavy in football but who cares I think it will work out.

krambman;459597 wrote:Please stop speaking out of ignorance. As someone who lived in Illinois for 5 years, the Illinois-Nortwestern game has to happen every year. It may rarely have any bearing on the conference outcome, but it's a big deal to everyone. Also, with the new conference format, every rivalry game should be able to be preserved for annual play whether as a divisional game or a permanent crossover. As I've stated before, Delany has said that it's likely the Big Ten will go to a nine game conference schedule. That means everyone will play five divisional games and four cross-divisional games every season. This means that you'll be playing the five other teams in your division every year and you'll likely have too permanent crossover games that you'll play every year. That leaves four teams in the opposite division which will rotate (four years on, two off). This means that for Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois, and Penn State, the three schools they are historic rivals with, they will play every year. Heck, even if they only do an eight game conference schedule with only one permanent crossover, there's still no reason why all of these rivalry games can't happen every year.

Also, just because a game doesn't happen every single year doesn't mean that it's no longer a rivalry. Nebraska and Oklahoma didn't play every year in the old Big XII, but it was definitely still a rivalry. Your only criteria for a match-up being a rivalry seems to be that it's played every year. Under the current Big Ten system created when Penn State joined the conference decided that only two teams would be permanent fixtures on everyone's schedule and so some rivalries had to occasionally take two years off. Yes, they may not be nig rivalries in the eyes of the nation, but for those who are fans of those schools they are still rivalries and still important, and therefore they need to be considered when aligning divisions and developing future sClhedules. Please, stop saying that some rivalries aren't rivalries simply because they aren't as big as OSU-Michigan or Wisconsin-Minnesota, when you simply don't understand.

Sweet Santa Clause shit. I'm not saying something is or isn't a rivalry, I'm saying some rivalries HAVE to be played every year. My buddy that graduated from Purdue considers OSU to be their biggest rival (even bigger than Indiana), but he understands that it isn't important enought that it must be played every year. When conferences expand long-term rivalries are going to take hits. Alabama-Florida is a HUGH rivalry, as was your Nebraska-OU example, but when their conferences expanded they had to make sacrifices.

I don't know what I'm saying is even the least bit controversial - if you think IL-NW is something that has to happen every year - fine (the IL people I know would probably rather play Michigan every year), but with conference expansion you aren't going to please everyone and maintain an annual game for particular "rivals" - particularly "rivalry games", like OSU - Illinois that aren't played annually NOW.

I'm talking about scheduling, the rivalry issue is an aside that apparently is drawing some sort of fixation.

OneBuckeye;459612 wrote:Using the rivaly logic the divsions should be

Ohio State
Penn State
Mich State
Michigan
Purdue
Indiana

Nebraska
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Northwestern
Illinois
Iowa

Which I think is the best Divisions I have seen obviously the east will be top heavy in football but who cares I think it will work out.

That looks pretty good to me. I think OSU/Michigan has to be the last regular season game of the season. If OSU can't get by Michigan, I don't think they deserve to be in the title game. (the same goes for Michigan I suppose.)

Will Nebraska and Oklahoma meet in an OOC game each year now?

sjmvsfscs08;459737 wrote:Will Nebraska and Oklahoma meet in an OOC game each year now?

Those two have not historically been the great rivals say OSU-UM have been, or any of the other biggies.

When they joined the Big 12, they gave up their year-end rivalry game from the Big 8 days, while Oklahoma has kept its Red River Shootout matchup with Texas every year.

My guess will be they don't keep the rivalry every year as part of their out of conference schedule.

sjmvsfscs08;459737 wrote:Will Nebraska and Oklahoma meet in an OOC game each year now?

At this point I think it'd be far more likely for Nebraska to continue their rivalry with Colorado on an annual basis than with Oklahoma.

Yes, I realize my proposal put the eastern most team with the West. Do you care to balance the divisions any other way? If you put Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State in the same division, it completely unbalances the conference (assuming Michigan recovers any time soon). My proposal was a method to keep Michigan and OSU together and get every other trophy game/rivalry. The only other balance is if Michigan and OSU split up. If OSU and Michigan go together, then PSU and Nebraska go together. End of story.

Manhattan Buckeye;459613 wrote:Sweet Santa Clause shit. I'm not saying something is or isn't a rivalry, I'm saying some rivalries HAVE to be played every year. My buddy that graduated from Purdue considers OSU to be their biggest rival (even bigger than Indiana), but he understands that it isn't important enought that it must be played every year. When conferences expand long-term rivalries are going to take hits. Alabama-Florida is a HUGH rivalry, as was your Nebraska-OU example, but when their conferences expanded they had to make sacrifices.

I don't know what I'm saying is even the least bit controversial - if you think IL-NW is something that has to happen every year - fine (the IL people I know would probably rather play Michigan every year), but with conference expansion you aren't going to please everyone and maintain an annual game for particular "rivals" - particularly "rivalry games", like OSU - Illinois that aren't played annually NOW.

I'm talking about scheduling, the rivalry issue is an aside that apparently is drawing some sort of fixation.

I understand what you are saying about OSU-Illinois and agree with you, but Florida-Alabama is WAY down on the rivalry list. It was big in the early-mid 90's because they met in the SEC championship game, and has been a big game the past couple of seasons. Again, I understand what you are saying, but Florida-Alabama is a poor example.

Iowa and Wisconsin will be in different divisions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5498692

krambman;459597 wrote:Please stop speaking out of ignorance. As someone who lived in Illinois for 5 years, the Illinois-Nortwestern game has to happen every year.

IMO, the only rivalries that should have any affect on the divisional layouts are the ones that are promoted on a national stage. Otherwise, every team would claim to have must-play rivalries. Let's be real, Illinois-Northwestern should not even be considered when laying out the divisions.

Writerbuckeye;459747 wrote:Those two have not historically been the great rivals say OSU-UM have been, or any of the other biggies.

When they joined the Big 12, they gave up their year-end rivalry game from the Big 8 days, while Oklahoma has kept its Red River Shootout matchup with Texas every year.

My guess will be they don't keep the rivalry every year as part of their out of conference schedule.

The rivalry was indeed hit when the B12 formed, but they didn't just give it up, as you say.

I'm also not sure how you can say it hasn't been a great rivalry, on par with any rivalry in NCAA history probably. These two teams won or shared 71 conference titles in football over the years, had many national titles, and many times the other teams only loss would be to the other.

Does Michigan consider Ohio State their biggest rivalry? It seems like one time I read that they care more about the UM-MSU game than they do Ohio State. It seems like overall, the national media loves OSU-UM and obviously being a buckeye fan that's the biggest game of the year for me, but is that the case in that shithole up north?

June18;468617 wrote:Does Michigan consider Ohio State their biggest rivalry? It seems like one time I read that they care more about the UM-MSU game than they do Ohio State. It seems like overall, the national media loves OSU-UM and obviously being a buckeye fan that's the biggest game of the year for me, but is that the case in that shithole up north?

In the late '90's some Michigan players said tongue-in-cheek that MSu was a bigger rival at the time since they were on such a great run against OSU. You'll also find a lot of Michigan fans in Michigan, especially those who live farther north, that consider MSU their biggest rival since they deal with MSU fans on a much more regular basis than OSU fans, so it gets discussed more. But no one involved with the Michigan program today and no real fan considers MSU to be a bigger rival than OSU.

^^ Correct. Michigan fans enjoy beating MSU for the in state reward but Michigan fans (and OSU fans) love beating one another more than anything. It is the most important game on the schedule but it needs to continue to be the last game of the year to maintain that.

Penn St/Nebraska is one of the protected games....hmmm