centralbucksfan;460865 wrote:Thats true. But the difference is, although Mich dominated during those years...OSU still had some very good teams. UM has flat out sucked lately. Its not necessarily a bad things when one time goes on streak...as long as both teams are good. But when one is not good...it certainly takes the luster out of the game.
As for tradition...as Speilman and Hoolie were saying today on the show....its definately not going to be the same as it has been. Its still going to be a big game...but probably no different then a big game against a quality team like Wisky or PSU. Times are changing.

"Bolded".. That's what it takes for OSU to go on a streak. UM went on a streak when OSU was pretty good. Just check the record for the last 1/4 century.

georgemc80;460929 wrote:
OSU/UM
Army/Navy
Auburn/Alabama
UT/ATM
Fla/Ga
USC/UCLA
Duke/UNC
Harvard/Yale
Pitt/WVU


just to name a few better rivalries in no particular order

that is a terrible list and no way are all of those better rivalries than OU-UT.

mattinctown;461082 wrote:I agree, this would suck. Third Saturday of every November is marked on the calendar no matter what the records are, I think changing it would make it just another big game.

I believe you are going to miss the game this year.

Because you know so much about the Texas landscape?


Its a football only rivalry...those rivalries that don't extend to other sports as well...fall behind the real rivalries

georgemc80;460929 wrote:Rivalry and intensity....Texas fans would rather beat A & M than OU...that is an indisputable fact. I am surrounded by UT fans all day long...they want to beat OU, but they look at the rivalry with ATM with much more intensity....

The Red River Shootout is a fun game..always being played at the Texas state fair....but it doesnt rank anywhere near the top of NCAA rivalries...maybe somewhere outside the top ten.



OSU/UM
Army/Navy
Auburn/Alabama
UT/ATM
Fla/Ga
USC/UCLA
Duke/UNC
Harvard/Yale
Pitt/WVU


just to name a few better rivalries in no particular order

To say something is indisputable, you have to be able to measure it. Which means you'd have to be in the heads of every single fan/player involved. You can have your opinion and its based on your experiences and that is fine. I can only speak to my experiences and based on mine, I disagree with some of your list. You are kind of mixing football and basketball, but being that we're here talking about football that's all I'm really interested in.

My family in Texas looks at A&M as kind of a stooge. They hate losing to A&M, but don't really expect to. Oklahoma is recognized as fairly equal and its the game they feel has to be won in order to stay in the national picture (where they feel they belong every year). Perhaps the hatred is different/less than OSU/Michigan (and some of the others), but the buildup and the big game feel is just as great.

I've lived with both sides of the WVU-Pitt thing. The hatred is probably as great (moreso from the WVU side) as any other rivalry, but the games rarely mean much.

Have spent a lot of time in southern California (lived there for awhile). Always got the same feeling as Texas/A&M - USC sees UCLA as a stooge who they hate to lose to but absolutely expect to destroy every year. Notre Dame, on the other hand, has that mix of big game feel and hatred.

Every one of my uncles, as well as my father and grandfather were Navy guys. The Army/Navy game is important and they really want to win. But they don't hate the Army. When your teams gather together at the end of the game, how much hate can there really be? And the game is generally played by two crappy teams (Navy has come on in the last few years). Though this one kind of transcends football in a different way because all of America can relate (if it wants to), I don't see it as anywhere near the blood feuds.

All in all, any rivalry can be intense to a certain group of people. And few of those mean a whole heck of a lot outside their particular region or fanbases. I'm not sure anyone can say, "ours is the greatest", but you may believe that on any single day depending on who you are with.

georgemc80;461254 wrote:Because you know so much about the Texas landscape?


Its a football only rivalry...those rivalries that don't extend to other sports as well...fall behind the real rivalries

So you are saying the rest of those rivalries you listed extend to other sports? Army/Navy, Auburn/Bama, UT/A&M, FLA/GA, Harvard/Yale are great rivalries in other sports? I'd even argue USC/UCLA and OSU/MICH aren't huge rivalries in basketball. I'm not saying Texas Oklahoma is huge in other sports either but we are talking about college football and it definitely is a bigger rivalry than half of the ones you listed.

If the Big Ten powers fuck this up (as it now looks like they will), things won't be the same where OSU-UM are concerned. And the conference will be lopping of its nose to spite its face. Putting them in separate divisions and downgrading the importance of The Game will not necessarily do anything to improve the conference's image or enhance the conference championship game like they are thinking it will.

By doing the common sense thing here and putting OSU-UM in the same division, the conference guarantees itself at least two huge TV audiences per year. Having OSU-UM play an inter-conference game in the middle of the season will not carry the same cache, and I am guessing it will lose viewership over time as the rivalry loses steam.

That an AD from one of these two schools (or both) doesn't get this is disturbing to me. I have to think Bo is rolling over in his grave after the Michigan AD's remarks.

karen lotz;461277 wrote:So you are saying the rest of those rivalries you listed extend to other sports? Army/Navy, ...

The Army Navy Rivalry exists in anything they compete in. They end class with "Beat Army" comments from professors when it's not even football season in Annapolis. There's an entire section of the Navy Sports website dedicated to the running competition for that year of all sports and a lifetime total.

It's even a line in their fight song.

Writerbuckeye;461370 wrote:If the Big Ten powers fuck this up (as it now looks like they will), things won't be the same where OSU-UM are concerned. And the conference will be lopping of its nose to spite its face. Putting them in separate divisions and downgrading the importance of The Game will not necessarily do anything to improve the conference's image or enhance the conference championship game like they are thinking it will.

By doing the common sense thing here and putting OSU-UM in the same division, the conference guarantees itself at least two huge TV audiences per year. Having OSU-UM play an inter-conference game in the middle of the season will not carry the same cache, and I am guessing it will lose viewership over time as the rivalry loses steam.

That an AD from one of these two schools (or both) doesn't get this is disturbing to me. I have to think Bo is rolling over in his grave after the Michigan AD's remarks.

I hope they aren't this clueless.

Ghmothwdwhso;461135 wrote:"Bolded".. That's what it takes for OSU to go on a streak. UM went on a streak when OSU was pretty good. Just check the record for the last 1/4 century.

If you want to keep believing that...so be it. But if I recall..UM was pretty good prior to the past few years. Of course I am sure you will have an excuse for that...just like Hart did. Remember those Henne / Hart teams?

Writerbuckeye;461370 wrote:If the Big Ten powers fuck this up (as it now looks like they will), things won't be the same where OSU-UM are concerned. And the conference will be lopping of its nose to spite its face. Putting them in separate divisions and downgrading the importance of The Game will not necessarily do anything to improve the conference's image or enhance the conference championship game like they are thinking it will.

By doing the common sense thing here and putting OSU-UM in the same division, the conference guarantees itself at least two huge TV audiences per year. Having OSU-UM play an inter-conference game in the middle of the season will not carry the same cache, and I am guessing it will lose viewership over time as the rivalry loses steam.

That an AD from one of these two schools (or both) doesn't get this is disturbing to me. I have to think Bo is rolling over in his grave after the Michigan AD's remarks.

I love how the AD's are able to look into the future and be able to tell who's going to be good and who's not and determine "competitive balance" for the two divisions. What if Michigan is terrible for another 10 years? What if Wisky/Iowa/Nebraska become powerhouses? Any other split besides geographical is arbitrary and subjective- you can't determine competitive balance in the future.

Scott Van Pelt just said on his radio show that OSU/UM should grow up and face change.....


100% disagree

Scott Van Pelt works for a network that could give a crap about the Big Ten. They're too busy pimping the SEC.

Fuck SVP

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/08/24/cfb.mailbag/index.html?eref=sihp

derek bomar;461634 wrote:Fuck SVP

+1

Writerbuckeye;461582 wrote:Scott Van Pelt works for a network that could give a crap about the Big Ten. They're too busy pimping the SEC.

You're thinking of CBS. At any rate he went to Maryland, that would be like a guy that graduated from Colorado commenting on the Duke/UNC basketball rivalry.

This would be a stupid move by the Big 10, Wetzel (in addition to Mandel) have explained why.

Also adding my opinion on UT-OU vis a vis UT-aTm - my best friend works at the biggest law firm in Texas, he's not an alum but tells me among the older crowd UT-aTm is bigger, but for the younger people (think 40 and under) UT-OU has eclipsed it. The game at the state fair is definitely a bigger spectacle, and it hurt the UT-aTm rivalry that they played the game over T'giving weekend for so many years.

I have no idea why Duke/UNC (wtf? in football?) or Harvard/Yale is on that list, or USC/UCLA (good schools but southern California doesn't get excited about anything, particularly football)

jhay78;461575 wrote:I love how the AD's are able to look into the future and be able to tell who's going to be good and who's not and determine "competitive balance" for the two divisions. What if Michigan is terrible for another 10 years? What if Wisky/Iowa/Nebraska become powerhouses? Any other split besides geographical is arbitrary and subjective- you can't determine competitive balance in the future.

Completely agree. It doesn't make any sense to try and split them to have competitive balance. Will they reshuffle the divisions in 5 years when one dominates the other?

enigmaax;460727 wrote:Agreed. I do "change management" for a living, so I'm used to the negative response. But one of the poorest business answers I hear on a daily basis is "...because we've always done it this way". In this particular case, there are certainly a lot of emotions involved for OSU and Michigan - I assume there's going to be a lot of hell raising over this. But what is best for OSU and Michigan isn't necessarily what is best for the Big Ten, difficult as that may be for some to understand. And eventually, that old guard will die off and no one will care.

What happens when the proposed change is not a better business model than the status quo? Do you over think things and go ahead with it anyways? As you probably know, good businessmen and leaders are usually make things simple.

purple_rein;461984 wrote:What happens when the proposed change is not a better business model than the status quo? Do you over think things and go ahead with it anyways? As you probably know, good businessmen and leaders are usually make things simple.

Sure that can happen. Change just for the sake of change is stupid, too. In this case (and to be clear I'm saying I agree or disagree) it seems like the decision is being made based on the belief that the move will be better overall for the entire conference. I asked about this a long time ago and was laughed at, but to me the thought process is pretty easy to understand. If your money game of the regular season is the last game, then it can detract from your championship game. You'd rather not have your two best teams play two weeks in a row and you'd rather have your two best teams in the title game. The Big Ten sees OSU and Michigan as the two best programs, so put those names in as the "two best teams". And which is more important, your marquee regular season game or your championship game?

The point that can be debated is, are these really the "two best teams". Recent history says no. The three or four decades before that say yes. Look how many times THE game either crowned the champion or knocked someone out of the championship.

The biggest argument OSU and Michigan fans have against doing this basically boils down to, "it hurts our mythical status as the greatest rivalry". Its all about "feelings". Maybe its sad, but nobody gives a shit how you feel about your routine. There's no way to tangibly quantify that meaning, so really, it is worthless.

Personally, I don't like the divisional setup for any conference. I'd rather play the schedule out and take the two best teams at the end if there's going to be a championship game.

Mark May just said that the OSU/MU fans should cool it and have the game mid OCT, because, as he puts it, Texas-OK have done it and there fine....


Hey Michigan, hurry up and fire your moron coach and hire a Michigan born SOB who gives a damn about this rivalry and will once again make it competitive...

It is hard to tangibly quantify feelings like you say but I believe that the strong feelings that people have about this game has led to its greatness and TV ratings. I also believe that playing The Game in October will cause a loss in the greatness and relevancy of the rivalry and therefore a loss in TV money in time. I do not feel that this loss will be made up by an OSU-UM Title Game once every 5 years which is estimated to only make an extra $2 million more than the average Big Ten Title Game.

I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why the teams cannot play 2 games in a row. In fact, if it is all about money, I would hypothesize that keeping it the last game in separate divisions would be the most fruitful in the long run.

purple_rein;462142 wrote: I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why the teams cannot play 2 games in a row. In fact, if it is all about money, I would hypothesize that keeping it the last game in separate divisions would be the most fruitful in the long run.

I don't know, I'm just throwing this out there. For starters, people go pretty hardcore for this one all week, all gameday, and then all night. For a lot of people, they're spent afterwards. Is is possible to keep that pace and create the same excitement for two weeks in a row? If one game is mid-season, will people put the same into it as they do now? And then, if they have six weeks to recover, would they be willing to do it all again when it is for a conference title? Or, which of those scenarios is more likely to maximize the interest (and thus, money).

The other thing is that TV ratings are going to mean something also. To maximize that, you need more than just OSU-Michigan fans. Are outsiders more likely to watch both games if they happen in back-to-back weeks or if they have six weeks between them and bring completely different dynamics?

"Mark May just said that the OSU/MU fans should cool it and have the game mid OCT, because, as he puts it, Texas-OK have done it and there fine...."

You have to be shitting me. Assuming this is correct, does dumbass May realize UT and OK were in DIFFERENT CONFERENCES prior to the merger? UT was in the old SWC, Okie was in the Big 8, it isn't relevant.

Got to thinking about something from the article. I see the point he's making if the game only pulls an extra $2 million. But the writer is also taking a big leap of his own by calling that number "best case". I'm pretty sure the SEC just split something like $14 million for its title game. I know its still debatable as to whether that is worth it or not, but I have to think a Big Ten championship game is going to be worth way more than the $150,000 per conference team that he tries to paint as a "best case".

One television executive estimates it at best fetches an additional $2 million on a game that the Big Ten is seeking $15-$20 million no matter who is in it. “And with the state of (the Michigan) program, I doubt it’s that,” said the TV executive who requested anonymity. “That’s absolute the high end, and I haven’t done any research. It might be half that.”

So best case, the league gets $2 million extra per year, which divided 13 ways (12 teams and the league office) is about $150,000 per share.