2008 and the Big XII South Not-Quite-Mexican Standoff isn’t a good example, because it’s justifiable by other means, such as a comparison of their head-to-head results. Oklahoma shit-stomped Tech, Texas beat Oklahoma semi-comfortably, Tech beat Texas at the last second. So to the extent that an order must be declared, that was probably the most logical order without considering timing of losses.

But on the whole, you’re right. Of course an early loss hurts more at the time, there are more teams who have similar records early. By the end of the season, though, you’ll be ahead of the teams that lost later.

clap , , clap , , clap , , clap

they will never understand.

Rec’d for the fundamental value being simply laid out in plain words for many of those reading this forum/story and refusing to see the other side of the coin. I completely agree, and is the reasoning why I believe that rivalries are what make college football, the greatest sport in gods greatest country.

I believe you when you say this matters to you. I don’t, however, think the entire Big Ten fanbase actually cares more about “integrity of the process” than the SEC’s entire fanbase…unless, of course, it’s because the Big Ten realizes that the national perception is that the SEC makes the Big Integer its bitch. To resolve their cognitive dissonance, Big Ten fans rationalize their bitch status by pointing to integrities of process and academics and other excuses.

I’m not arguing that this is a uniquely Big Ten characteristic. Indeed, if the Big 10 were dominant and the SEC were superior in integrity and academics, the SEC would be making the same arguments. Every team’s fans do this when their team suffers.

Point in case: I’m a Kentucky fan, and we have it bad. In conversation, our fans diminish the importance of our football team’s awful history because “we don’t cheat the way Tennessee and Florida do.” But when it comes to basketball, those same fans will ignore the incredible amount of cheating our basketball program has done and focus on how everyone else is our bitch.

MDWM

The Game had a chance to sell out for sponsorship a few years back and did not. It stands on its own. It happens ONCE a year. You get ONE shot at them. There are No rematches in conference. The Big Ten can stand on its own and create a championship game with meaning without having a rematch between hated rivals. It makes or breaks your season no matter the record. If UM should do the unthinkable and win this year, nobodyfew will remember they were 3-8 coming into the game.

If splitting up the greatest rivalry in sports is such a great idea, lets have Auburn and Alabama split up so they can maybe play 2x a year. I hate to disagree with you Spencer, but gerrymandering the conference to create a possibility is stupid. Just divide east – west and play. It worked for the SEC. While I am not a fan of the SEC, they have done the best of all the conferences of keeping things simple and preserving rivalries. Something the Big XII never figured out and the ACC wouldn’t know.

…the Redneck Rocker would agree?

Where is old Justin these days?

…..the “Big Game” may be huge for OSU and UM fans (and Brent Musberger), but for the other 98% of the country, it’s just another big game (like TX/OU, AL/AU, or UF/FSU).
It is absolutely NOT bigger than the overall competitive welfare of the conference. Period. End of story.

I deal with many, and winning is all that matters to them. You are the ONLY Michigan person I’ve EVER heard that said they didn’t care if they won another MNC or Big Ten title. In fact, I believe you, but just barely.
Seriously, every UM fan I’ve ever talked to has been all “win, win, win” and nothing else. If any other UM person was like you, I might actually respect the school (after a post like that you have my respect- – and I hear you).
Frankly, I’ve always been told that UM’s and OSU’s most important traditions WERE winning. Isn’t that what “those who stay will be champions” is all about?
Please, talk to some of your bretheren and get them to adopt your attitude. It’s very Big Ten.

“Protected rivalries” across divisions don’t matter nearly as much as rivalries within a division. Ask the Cowboys who their big rivals are, and it won’t be the Niners (who they played three years in a row in the NFC title game). It’ll be one of their divisional opponents.

I do not think the Big 10 will be as dominated by Michigan and Ohio State as they have been in the past. Recruits just don’t care about tradition like they used to, and the draining populations of Michigan and Ohio State over and above the rest of Big 10 country will continue to undercut it.

If you’re using the rationale that the Big 10 split should be done according to its effects on the Ohio State-Michigan game, consider what’ll happen when you neglect other factors and the Big 10 championship doesn’t include those exact two teams.

You are acting like the UM/tOSU game has meant ANYTHING or been worth a DAMN or even freaking CLOSE since RR arrived there! UM is down, and by down I mean really down. tOSU could roll their helmets out on the field, put Terrell Pryor in a leg cast, and still beat UM by 3 TD’s. So you have at least 4 more years to beat the hell outta Michigan before your argument means anything. Its like fretting over winning the lottery. The dynamic is fixing to change with Nebraska, and I am sure whatever division they are in will negate any worries of either UM or tOSU getting a “watered down rematch in a Big 10 Championship game that has no tradition”. Great, you have a rival. Play them. Beat them. But dont act like it matters a whole hell of alot RIGHT NOW in the grand scheme of things. Right now, I would enjoy kicking the crap out of your rival while they are down and in a state of “Flux”. If both UM and tOSU were top 10 teams the past 3 yrs with the it all on the line, I would see your point. But with evolution comes change.
And even with the traditional rivalry game intact, it really wont change the face of the Big 10. Except if tOSU is undefeated going into the BTCG and then getting beat its opponent, dashing the hopes of a BCS National championship appearance, which happens. Your commisioner wanted to get more competitive on a bigger scale, added more teams, and here you go.

Frankly, I can’t stand either Michigan or dOSU, but this is right on in my book.

As an Alabama fan, it doesn’t matter to me under what circumstances, place in the schedule, once/twice/eleven times a year we play Auburn. I hope we crush them into dust each and every time.

The whole season builds towards the OSU/UM game, where you have (or think you have, data be damned) the best opportunity to ruin the other team’s year. Spencer doesn’t care that moving the game would “weaken the magnetic bond of hatred between the two teams,” but who is he to deny us our elemental pleasures?

-1 for inability to count
(Point to be returned if you plead to moonshine ingestion during the composition of this list)

Over the past ten years, the records of Wisconsin and Iowa are nearly indistinguishable from Nebraska, PSU, and Michigan. So throwing two of them in with OSU is important if balance matters, but which two (for balance purposes) is unimportant.

But I think messing with the divisions at all for balance is a very, very dumb thing to do. That assumes we know who’s going to be good down the road. We don’t, and can’t. The balance of power will shift (a fact the ACC should have considered). No matter what divisions you pick, they’re going to be unbalanced about half the time; you may as well pick something that makes sense for other reasons.

Delany seems to think there’s a tradeoff between balance, geography, and rivalries. But why sacrifice one when you can have all three – perfect geographical split, 9 out of 11 permanent rivalries preserved in divisions (the maximum theoretically possible with any 6-6 split) and the two not preserved being the least important of them all, and reasonable balance in the short term (which is the best you can hope for when considering balance) – without giving up anything?

with splitting Ohio St., Michigan, and Penn St. because like Mr Pac Ten said, it results in a lack of competitive balance, more specifically a recruiting imbalance (both geographical advantage/historical traditional advantage for those three teams over the other Big 10 teams). ESPN 150 numbers for Big 10 adding verbals to date back to 06 class:

Ohio St.=32, Mich=22, Penn St.=17, Illin.=8, Wisc=6, Iowa=5, Mich St.=5, Minn=3, 0 for Ind., Purdue, and NU; soon to be added Nebraska had 5 during that time frame.

I do not have the numbers before this, but I’m sure if you go back another five, the numbers would look very much the same. Since 2000, either Ohio St., Michigan, or Penn St. has been Big Ten champ either winning outright or sharing with the one exception 2001 Illinois. More recently, Ohio St. has been champ from 05 through 09 (sharing the title with Penn St. in 05 and 09). Ohio St. is out in front in regard to recruiting for 2011 class for Big 10 schools by ESPN standards and are a favorite to win the Big 10 again and a lot of people think they have a good shot at NCG. The fertile recruiting ground for Big 10 territory is Chicago/Michigan/Ohio/Penn and with all those three teams obviously right there not to mention Nortre Dame is a stones throw from Chicago and in this area, the recruiting gap will continue to widen if you put those three in the same division IMO. Michigan may be down, but they will be back (traditionally recruits well nationally also)—sooner than latter and then you will get the Big 12 situation of one division becoming dominant on the field. As far as the ACC, the set-up is good, Miami, Fl. St. and Clemson are leaders in recruiting,

ESPN 150 numbers 2011 to 06 class for ACC: Mia=35, Fl. St.=32, Clem=28, NC=17, Maryland=7, Vir Tech=6, GT=3, Vir=3, NC St.=3, WF=1, BC=0, Duke=0

but not on the field—and it’s their fault. With the five CCG so far, these three have collectively been in two of them. As you can see Fl St. has much more talent than Wake Forest and should never lose to Wake Forest very often, but they have, including a 30-0 pounding in Tallahassee in 06. But, the ACC is only five years into it, and Miami is starting to come around and Fl St. is already stockpiling even more talent widening the already large recruiting gap and I think things will start to look more to form very soon. As far as the Big 12 is concerned, the South winner (Texas or Okl) has won 8 of the last 10 CCG with (Tex beating Col (70-3) in 05, and Okl beating Miss (63-21) in 08). The recruiting gap is beyond ridiculous between (Tex and OU) and the rest.

Tex=57, Okl.=33, A&M=10, Okl. St.= 8, Neb.=5, Col.=5, Miss.=3, Baylor=3, K St.=1, 0 for Tex Tech, Iowa St., and Kansas

Div A: Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, NU

Div B: Ohio St., Mich St., Penn St., Illinois, Indiana, Purdue

makes sense I think, you split the three up, keep it more east/west, and can preserve rivalries with geography in mind and permanent intra-divisonal games to help.

Six 20-team leagues divided into 10 and 10, bottom two in the top division and top two in the bottom trade places for the next year, six top-division champions play a full round-robin (random draw for sites: two at home, two on the road, wrap it up with three neutral-site pseudo-bowl games).

I know perfectly well that’s not going to happen, but it would be awesome.

I was vehemently opposed to it.