enigmaax;462061 wrote: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.

enigmaax;462155 wrote: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?

FatHobbit;462278 wrote:The problem I have with your argument is that it's the customers feelings we are talking about. There are quite a few people that care a lot about this game. That's why it's worth so much to advertisers and everyone else. There are examples of other rivalries in other conferences that have been diminshed because of how they've been rearranged and we don't want that to happen to our rivalry. If the goal is to alienate all the main customers and ruin the rivalry then by all means the big 10 should proceed and do it however they wish. I hope they are smarter than that.

And I get your point about having to bring in outsiders, but if you alienate all the core fans and ruin the rivalry the outsiders won't give a shit either. It's the emotion and the feelings that make everyone want to tune in. (Which is why the media loves to come up with bs stories for all the big games. They want to try to get the viewers emotionally invested in the game.)

enigmaax;462287 wrote:Is moving the game really going to alienate OSU-Michigan fans? I would imagine the thought is that those fans are going to feel just as passionate about the rivalry regardless of when it is played. It isn't as though the fans watch because it is the last game of the season. It just happens to have been that way for a long time. Honestly, is anyone who is really invested going to say "well they changed the date so I'm not watching anymore"? So if the value is a constant for Game A, the next question becomes, how do we maximize the value of Game B?

FatHobbit;462315 wrote:How many times has the winner of the game decided the big 10 champion?

Manhattan Buckeye;462180 wrote:"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.

enigmaax;462336 wrote:I agree with most of what you say. Here's something to consider regarding the quoted statement though. And let's assume (as it seems the Big Ten is) that OSU and Michigan are regularly going to be in the same position of deciding the Big 10 title against each other.

If they are in separate divisions and play the last game of the season, the theme ends up being, "oh well, loser gets another shot next week"
If they are in separate divisions and play earlier in the season, you have another six weeks to build up the redemption, revenge, etc - both teams are still playing out a string of games to try and get another crack at their rival for the title. There's just more to sell there.

enigmaax;462336 wrote:If they are in the same division and play the last game of the season, it is "OSU vs. Michigan - Our biggest game....for the right to play someone else for the Big Ten title". It just goes back to, do you want to guarantee that your two top programs NEVER play each other for the actual Big Ten title anymore.

FatHobbit;462383 wrote:
I don't think that would be any different than having Texas in Oklahoma in the same division in the Big 12.

enigmaax;462455 wrote:But look at some of the things that have happened as a result:

Prior to last season, the five previous years' scores were 62-21, 38-17, 21-7, 70-3, and 42-3. Is that really what you want to see in your title game? I will say that the Texas-Oklahoma game has also been somewhat lopsided from year-to-year, but still, if you are trying to drum up viewers which is going to sell better - two rivals in a rematch or the number one team versus a barely .500 division champ that is a 30-point dog going in?

Remember the stink about the three way tie between Texas, Tech, and OU a couple years ago? Oklahoma ended up playing the fourth or fifth (Mizzou and Oklahoma State were both 5-3) best team in the conference for the championship. Again, is that what you want for your title game? In that case, even if the unthinkable had happened and Oklahoma had been beaten, it would've just been that much worse for the conference - Oklahoma would've been out of the title game and potentially a team from another conference would've been in. Had it been Oklahoma-Texas again for the conference title (or TT as one of those teams), at least you would've pretty much guaranteed that the winner would be playing in the national championship game.

I think those possibilities are what the Big Ten is trying to avoid. But, it does all go back to what purple rein said, "The problem is the assumption that it will happen regularly."

Fair enough, commish, but if you haven't noticed, Switzerland is closer to Pasadena right now than Michigan. Even when the Wolverines do get it going again, they're going to be in a division with at least two other regular contenders (perhaps Penn State and Wisconsin) that will likely prevent any one team from reaching the title game annually. In the years OSU and Michigan don't play for the Rose Bowl -- i.e., most of them -- shouldn't they at least play for something more than a run-of-the-mill conference win? The ACC tried this same thing with Miami and Florida State. Five years later, they've yet to meet in a title game.



Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/08/24/cfb.mailbag/index.html?eref=sihp#ixzz0xjMs2GQE

FatHobbit;462511 wrote: I'm curious, who would you put in each division?

enigmaax;462548 wrote:I wouldn't go to divisions to begin with. I would use the divisional scheduling theory (you have to do something), but I would not create divisions. Then, if we wanted a title game, I'd take the two best teams. The same risk of having back-to-back games between the same teams for the title is there, but I'd be willing to take that chance to ensure the two best teams play for the title.

If I had to make a divisional choice, I might take the original 1896 charter members on one side:

Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Indiana
Nebraska

Okay...not really.

Probably North/South (though I wouldn't call it North/South):

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Nebraska

enigmaax;462548 wrote:
Probably North/South (though I wouldn't call it North/South):

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern

Ohio State
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Nebraska

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

purple_rein;462964 wrote:It is just funny how they seem to be preserving every rivalry except The Game.

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.