If UM is not better than MSU, Iowa, and Nebraska in the next 5 years, then the program and conference are in serious trouble. Then I guess you don't understand how rivalries work. It ALWAYS means something. The first meeting might mean a little less, but far from a joke.
Isn't it a little arrogant for UM fans to think the whole conference is in trouble if they don't start winning again? Also, you are forgetting OSU will have to win their division the SAME year as UM wins theirs. UM may win it in the next 5 years but will OSU win it the same year? Perhaps but I feel pretty good that it very well won't happen in the next 5 years considering where UM is right now. See I pondered that as well and I disagree. Reality will set in with those coaches and they will understand the REAL game will be the conference championship in that situation. They will never admit it but it is the reality. Do you think the coaches will want to show the opponent everything they have a couple of weeks before they play them again when it really matters? I doubt it. The teams that wins the conference championship will have the real bragging rights and it will be the one that everyone will be concentrating around.
I don't think its arrogant at all. I am not a fan of OSU, but I would say the samething about them. The conference counts on those two teams being the best. They are the biggest draw. When they have good teams, they have higher tv ratings, sell more merchandise, and fill more seats at bowl games than the other schools in the conference. Even if those other teams are playing well too.
If BOTH OSU and UM fell it would hurt the conference. However, I don't think the demise of one of them is going to hurt the conference as long as the other stays strong. UM has been struggling for a few years now and the Big Ten seems to be getting along fine. I would 100% agree with you before the scholarships were expanded to 85. These days however, there is more parity in college football then every before. Times have changed IMO.
Just curious but why are you Big 10 guys so up in arms about the division alignment? It has worked in the SEC for nearly 20 years now. Is it the fact there are divisions now or is it how they were divided up?
The 2006 OSU/UM game was the highest television rated non-bowl game in college football...ever. That rating of 13 was noticeably higher than 3 BCS games this past season. Those 3 were all under 8.5. In 2006, only two other games ranked higher, including the bowl season. What games where those? Glad you asked. OSU vs. Florida and UM vs. USC. Yup, that was way back in 2006. Just an example. When OSU and UM play, people watch. Television ratings = money. Despite a terrible season, UM still led the nation in attendance at over 108,000. Only three others topped 100,000. OSU, PSU, and Texas. Average attendance for FBS schools...46,000. People in seats = money.
I think everyone realized it had to be divided into divisions. Even when there were 11 teams, they didn't all play each other. It appears the main issue everyone is talking about today is where OSU and UM are. Some want them in the same division, some don't.
I have a problem how it divided up Phillip. I think they could of done a lot better. They probably could of done worse as well I suppose. I really like the idea of having a true champion instead of this co-champion stuff we have had for many years. Sometimes the co-champions didn't even play each other.
All those things may be true. Not arguing these facts. However, I don't buy the big ten is in trouble if UM stays down. They may do a little better if UM comes back, but to say the conference is in trouble based on if UM is winning games or not, is arrogant on their part. UM may be an integral part of the Big Ten but the conference does not revolve around it these days. The big ten has it's own network, it has TV deals up the ying yang, they now have a conference championship . Money is coming from other places other than the UM/OSU game. It's not 1985 anymore Vito.
You're right, its not 1985, but the only difference between now and then in the Big 10 (from a money making standpoint) is they have PSU and Nebraska. No other teams are relevant on the national stage. Iowa played in the lowest televsion rated BCS game, since its inception. Whether I am a UM fan or not, it doesn't change the fact that they are one of the two biggest draws in the conference. Maybe "trouble" was a bad word. But you can bet anyone involved in the money aspect for conference wants UM back near the top asap.
Just curious, what do people outside of Big Ten country think of all this? I'd love to hear what Phillip has to say. Are we better off worse off?
I never take debates/discussions, especially on the internet, personally. I would certainly BS over a beer. My wife may tell you that I become even more debative after a few, but what does she know. She wouldn't read this forum, would she? Doesn't matter either way, I run this house. Okay...just kidding, in case she does read this.
People often forget it's okay to "agree to disagree". There is a point where you say we just don't see it the same way.
Or, you could start making personal insults; ridiculing the "other guy's" hunting and questioning his sexual orientation. I've seen it go both ways (no pun intended).
I'm sorry, Gary. I was making light - not drama. I kinda felt like it had run its' course. "UM Sucks" has already been muttered; second-ed and a general consensus was achieved. But, I'll play along. What's everyone "feel-gooding" about? Mr. Healer's name hasn't been mentioned (until now) since the 1st 3 posts in this thread.
I think it's about time the Big 10 (12) got a championship game. It finally becomes a real conference. But say the following happens: Both OSU and Michigan are undefeated in conference play when the meet each other for their last regular season game. OSU wins. 2 weeks later, they meet again in the conference championship game, Michigan wins. How can you call Michigan the conference champion?
