OSU/UM if the conference gets bigger

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ OSU/UM if the conference gets bigger
B

Benito

Member

59 posts
Dec 19, 2009 10:44 AM
So what happens to the rivalry game if the conference goes to 2 divisions. I think it would be sweet for The Game to be in the conference championship, but then there would probably be plenty of years that they wouldn't even play. Thoughts?
Dec 19, 2009 10:44am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Dec 19, 2009 10:49 AM
Nothing would happen to jeopardize the greatest rivalry in all of sports. Whatever evolves out of conference re-allignment will preserve the rivalry gauranteed.
Dec 19, 2009 10:49am
A

Al Bundy

Senior Member

4,180 posts
Dec 19, 2009 10:49 AM
They would put OSU/Mich in the same division if they split into divisions.
Dec 19, 2009 10:49am
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Dec 19, 2009 10:52 AM
Benito wrote: So what happens to the rivalry game if the conference goes to 2 divisions. I think it would be sweet for The Game to be in the conference championship, but then there would probably be plenty of years that they wouldn't even play. Thoughts?
No way.

If the Big Ten expands to 20 teams, OSU-UM will continue to be the last game of the regular season.

Period.

That will not be changing. Nor should it.

If another team is added, say Missouri, then you simply put OSU and UM in differing divisions. If they happen to still meet up again in the title game a week after playing their rivalry -- so be it.

If you put them in the same division, you will weight the power of the conference to that division. They need to be in different ones.
Dec 19, 2009 10:52am
N

Nate

Formerly Known As Keebler

3,949 posts
Dec 19, 2009 11:16 AM
OSU vs. Michigan will never change.
Dec 19, 2009 11:16am
krambman's avatar

krambman

Senior Member

3,606 posts
Dec 19, 2009 11:26 AM
Writerbuckeye wrote:
Benito wrote: So what happens to the rivalry game if the conference goes to 2 divisions. I think it would be sweet for The Game to be in the conference championship, but then there would probably be plenty of years that they wouldn't even play. Thoughts?
No way.

If the Big Ten expands to 20 teams, OSU-UM will continue to be the last game of the regular season.

Period.

That will not be changing. Nor should it.

If another team is added, say Missouri, then you simply put OSU and UM in differing divisions. If they happen to still meet up again in the title game a week after playing their rivalry -- so be it.

If you put them in the same division, you will weight the power of the conference to that division. They need to be in different ones.
You simply could not put them in different divisions and still have them play in the final game of the season. Look at every other conference with divisions and a title game, everyone plays a team from their own division in their final game. You cannot have two teams potentially playing in back-to-back weeks. And what would happen if one team has clinched their division and the other hasn't? You may see one team resting players, or not fighting so hard because they know they are going to rematch the next week. If they are in separate divisions they would have to move The Game to be earlier in the season. The only way this would work would be to have them both in the same division.
Dec 19, 2009 11:26am
redfalcon's avatar

redfalcon

Senior Member

1,088 posts
Dec 19, 2009 11:49 AM
This will never happen. I don't think the big ten would risk going to divisions.
Dec 19, 2009 11:49am
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Dec 19, 2009 1:28 PM
Ohio State and Michigan would be in the same division.
Dec 19, 2009 1:28pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Dec 19, 2009 1:54 PM
Id put them in separate conferences and have them play the week before their last game.
Dec 19, 2009 1:54pm
N

NOL fan

Senior Member

376 posts
Dec 19, 2009 5:12 PM
Writerbuckeye wrote: If they happen to still meet up again in the title game a week after playing their rivalry -- so be it.
Dec 19, 2009 5:12pm
Classyposter58's avatar

Classyposter58

Senior Member

6,321 posts
Dec 19, 2009 7:27 PM
The SEC kept Georgia and Florida in the same division, The Big 12 South is basically a rivalry game every week and the Big 10 will follow suit if they expand and put OSU and UM in the same division. There is no way school presidents will allow both teams to play twice in a year
Dec 19, 2009 7:27pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Dec 19, 2009 7:34 PM
Classyposter58 wrote: The SEC kept Georgia and Florida in the same division, The Big 12 South is basically a rivalry game every week and the Big 10 will follow suit if they expand and put OSU and UM in the same division. There is no way school presidents will allow both teams to play twice in a year
Then you're going to have to have PSU, OSU and UM in the same division.

That will make the other division an absolute joke.

So let's not bother doing it.

Okay?

If people are worried about 11 teams and the name "ten" how about we drop a school? I vote for PSU (they do nothing but whine, anyway) or Northwestern?
Dec 19, 2009 7:34pm
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Dec 19, 2009 7:47 PM
OSU and UM will be in the same division. Period.

They wouldn't want the two to meet twice certainly but the other choice of not pitting them against each other at all trumps, and it's not even close.

The rest of the Big10 is going to take a back seat and accept it, it is what it is.
Dec 19, 2009 7:47pm
Laley23's avatar

Laley23

GOAT

29,506 posts
Dec 19, 2009 8:03 PM
The other thing to consider here is basketball. Sure football is the big money maker, but it isnt as if the "joke" of a division would be so in basketball.

Indiana, Michigan State, and Purdue, and Wisconsin are 3 great teams to have in the other division from a basketball standpoint. But that also means the football power division will blow in basketball.

You take what you can get. Adding a 12th team will make the conference more money and thats all that really matters.
Dec 19, 2009 8:03pm
G

georgemc80

Senior Member

983 posts
Dec 20, 2009 8:53 AM
Writerbuckeye wrote:

If you put them in the same division, you will weight the power of the conference to that division. They need to be in different ones.
Really, see the Big 12 South...OU and UT are in the same division. But historically, Nebraska and Colorado have been on top of the college football world. You put OSU UM and PSU in the same division...because it makes sense geographically...you have to consider the other 34 varsity sports at OSU or at least the ones that compete in the Big 10.

There will be a time when Nebraska and Colorado will be great again....Wisconsin and Iowa and say a Missouri have that potential as well.
Dec 20, 2009 8:53am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 20, 2009 12:11 PM
I don't see why you have to separate the divisions geographically, the ACC doesn't and people don't gripe much.
Dec 20, 2009 12:11pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
Dec 20, 2009 12:32 PM
Manhattan Buckeye wrote: I don't see why you have to separate the divisions geographically, the ACC doesn't and people don't gripe much.
You don't, and they won't if it ever happens.

The Big Ten is not that spread out geographically.
Dec 20, 2009 12:32pm
S

Sonofanump

Dec 20, 2009 12:55 PM
georgemc80 wrote:...you have to consider the other 34 varsity sports at OSU or at least the ones that compete in the Big 10.
Why not have different divisions for football then you do for volleyball or crew or gymnastics?

At this point OSU and PSU should be in separate divisions. I'd go:

OSU
UM
MSU or (Mizzo)
Iowa
Indy
Purdue

PSU
Pitt (or MSU)
Wisc
Minn
Illi
NW

MSU moves depending in the new school and plays either PSU or Iowa for their last game. All others would have decent rival to end the year.
Dec 20, 2009 12:55pm
N

NOL fan

Senior Member

376 posts
Dec 20, 2009 5:17 PM
wouldn't the divisions just be for football?

don't most of the other sports have a regular season championship based on record and then a tournament championship as well?
Dec 20, 2009 5:17pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 20, 2009 5:36 PM
The SEC still has divisions in basketball, you play each team in your division twice (home and home) and each team in the other division once (alternating home games every year). I'm pretty sure the ACC is the same way, but that is DEFINITELY the way the SEC does it.
Dec 20, 2009 5:36pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 20, 2009 5:40 PM
Just checked, the ACC doesn't do that now. The SEC does.
Dec 20, 2009 5:40pm
NNN's avatar

NNN

Senior Member

902 posts
Dec 20, 2009 11:35 PM
When the SEC split into divisions, there was thought that Alabama and Tennessee would remain in the same division to make sure that the rivalry game always took place. They split the two up anyway, but there was a clause that there could be a "permanent rivalry" game with a team of the opposing division.

So while most teams play their five division opponents and three cycling ones from the other division, both Alabama and Tennessee play the five in their own division, each other, and two cycling ones from the other side. The possibility does exist that they'll play each other in the SEC title game, but it hasn't happened yet.
Dec 20, 2009 11:35pm
dwccrew's avatar

dwccrew

Not Banned

7,817 posts
Dec 21, 2009 9:43 AM
georgemc80 wrote:
Writerbuckeye wrote:

If you put them in the same division, you will weight the power of the conference to that division. They need to be in different ones.
Really, see the Big 12 South...OU and UT are in the same division. But historically, Nebraska and Colorado have been on top of the college football world. You put OSU UM and PSU in the same division...because it makes sense geographically...you have to consider the other 34 varsity sports at OSU or at least the ones that compete in the Big 10.

There will be a time when Nebraska and Colorado will be great again....Wisconsin and Iowa and say a Missouri have that potential as well.
I wouldn't say Colorado is historically better than Oklahoma and Texas. Historically; Nebraska, Texas and Oklahoma are much better than Colorado.

Colorado has one claimed national title ever. (1990)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Buffaloes_football

Oklahoma, Texas and Nebraska have many more than Colorado.

Nebraska has five claimed titles.

http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=606981

Oklahoma has 7 claimed titles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_Sooners_football

Texas has 4 claimed titles and are in the hunt for a fifth this season.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Longhorns#Championship_history

Not sure how you could even compare Colorado to OU and UT.
Dec 21, 2009 9:43am
ohiotiger33's avatar

ohiotiger33

Senior Member

1,500 posts
Dec 21, 2009 10:49 AM
We play GT every year from the opposite division. It is a rivalry game for us.
Dec 21, 2009 10:49am
derek bomar's avatar

derek bomar

Senior Member

3,722 posts
Dec 21, 2009 2:13 PM
Writerbuckeye wrote:
Benito wrote: So what happens to the rivalry game if the conference goes to 2 divisions. I think it would be sweet for The Game to be in the conference championship, but then there would probably be plenty of years that they wouldn't even play. Thoughts?


If another team is added, say Missouri, then you simply put OSU and UM in differing divisions. If they happen to still meet up again in the title game a week after playing their rivalry -- so be it.

If you put them in the same division, you will weight the power of the conference to that division. They need to be in different ones.
Wow you are so wrong
Dec 21, 2009 2:13pm