PDA

View Full Version : Are they really that stupid?



Jacie
8/25/2010, 07:58 AM
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=dw-umosu082310

Big Ten selling out tradition

By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
Aug 23, 4:29 pm EDT

Michigan and Ohio State first played football in 1897. Never once has it taken place outside Columbus or Ann Arbor. Since 1935, it’s served as the final game of each team’s regular season.

It’s not just the culmination of a football campaign, but an unofficial, yet beloved, holiday in the Midwest. It represents a Saturday afternoon in late November, after the crops are in, touched by faint sunlight and a crisp wind that occasionally drives flakes of snow.

It’s meaning is everything. To this day the final segment of practice at Ohio State is called the “Maize and Blue Period” complete with the Michigan fight song, “The Victors,” blaring over the loudspeakers to infuriate, and motivate, the Buckeyes. Beating Michigan or beating Ohio State is what the teams work toward. It represents seeing the season through, either for their own glory or to ruin their rivals.

“They build their seasons up to it,” said Michael Rosenberg, Detroit Free Press sports columnist and author of “War As They Knew It,” a book about the 10 years of games between Woody Hayes and Bo Schembechler.

Through it all, going on 104 years, it’s become one of the greatest rivalries not only in college football, but also in all of American sports. While that’s a debatable title, there’s no question Michigan-Ohio State would be in the discussion.

It’s not just about who wins and who loses or what is won and what is lost. It’s a celebration of a culture, a day both look forward to and look back on, a feeling of time and place, of memories and roots that run deep in the Midwest soil. You watched with your grandfather. You’ll watch with your grandchildren. No matter when things are good or things are bad – and with both football and the economy, these two states have seen both – it is always there, always the same. To play in it is to play in something bigger than yourself, your team and even your school.

“A remarkable festival,” the announcer Keith Jackson described it on its 100th birthday.

It’s special. It just is.

And now the Big Ten wants to pretend it isn’t?

They are going to move the game to October and they are going to split Michigan and Ohio State up and put them in opposite divisions of the new 12-team Big Ten to allow for the possibility of a league title game rematch starting in 2011.

This hasn’t been announced. It’s all but certain though, the drumbeat of public relation leaks assuring it. Commissioner Jim Delany has talked about it. So too has Ohio State coach Jim Tressel and Michigan athletic director David Brandon.

They want the idea to float out there so it isn’t a shock to the system when it becomes official next month. It may not shock, but it should sadden.

Ohio State and Michigan should be placed in the same division and meet in the final game of the regular season. It works for Auburn-Alabama, Texas-Texas A&M and a host of other great rivalries that have survived the super conference era. It’s a nod to the concept that these are more than just games, that they aren’t just a product to package for television, that in college football, tradition should be honored, not reworked in the hope of a ratings bump.

“One of the best things that could happen, in my opinion in a given season, would be the opportunity to play Ohio State twice,” Brandon told Ann Arbor radio station WTKA.

No, it wouldn’t be the best thing that could happen. It might be fun the first time. It might be unique. It might be new. And then soon enough, it wouldn’t be.

Everything else about it diminishes an event built and maintained for five generations. When you control a 100-plus-year-old tradition, you don’t make decisions based on a four-year television contract. To do so is symbolic of the NCAA run by MBAs, where a projected spreadsheet means more than a history book. It is about selling out a century plus for an overnight rating and then trying to explain it away with specious and short-sited reasoning.

The game is the game because they don’t play twice a year. You get one crack and that’s it. It can make or break the season. Careers, both playing and coaching, are defined by it because the lack of a rematch raises the stakes. The single game increases the urgency of the present. Then the location on hallowed grounds – either the glorious Horseshoe or the brilliant Big House, not some corporate event at Lucas Oil Stadium – adds the perspective of the past. As such, the nature of the rivalry should be protected at all costs.

Instead, not only does the Big Ten want to split the teams up to assure a potential second game, but it also wants to move the annual clash to midseason in case both teams win their division. Otherwise there might be back-to-back meetings that could cost the title game broadcast casual viewers. This is the butchering of the regular season in an effort to protect the postseason.

There is no other reason to do it. It isn’t for competitive reasons, since it actually stacks the deck against Michigan and Ohio State – their cross-over opponent is a historic powerhouse.

The Big Ten title game is undoubtedly worth more if Ohio State and Michigan, two big brands with plenty of big television markets, can potentially meet. Nebraska may teem with history, but it doesn’t with people (just 1.7 million residents compared to the 10 million-plus of both Michigan and Ohio).

So what’s the mere possibility of a Buckeye-Wolverine Big Ten title clash actually worth? 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. The Buckeyes and Wolverines are going to sell their one-of-a-kind tradition for a buck fifty per?

That’s the going price of history?

The likelihood of a Michigan-Ohio State rematch isn’t strong anyway (which the TV execs will realize upon research) and not just because the Wolverines went 1-7 in the league last year. Doug Lesmerises of the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that had the two teams been split into opposite divisions over the past 17 years, they’d have met just three or four times in a title game. This isn’t the old days of the Big Two and Little Eight, and that’s before Nebraska makes it more competitive.

Lesmerises notes that only five times since 1988 have both teams been ranked in the top 15 on game day. While the 2006 game between No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Michigan springs to mind, the rivalry is mostly about one team trying to ruin the other’s big year.

It’s also a rivalry of swings. Bo and Woody may have gone back and forth – Michigan holding a 5-4-1 lead in that era – but prior to the Buckeyes winning eight of the last nine games, Michigan won 10 of 13.

That the game maintained – if not increased its appeal – during these runs of dominance is a testament about how its value is in the total package. It’s about the people. It’s about the stadiums. It’s about the circle of the calendar. It’s about the often gloomy weather that in its own Midwestern way is beautiful. It’s about all the intangibles that make this game and this sport so great, far greater than some financial metric can measure.

Once there is even the potential for more than one game, once it is moved to a midseason date, once it isn’t the final test, once it isn’t about clearing (or being) the last hurdle to a season, once it is staged in some faux-retro NFL stadium, it becomes a little more like just another game. This is what happened to the once-wonderful Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry that in just more than a decade went from special to likely extinct, one more bit of history sucked from the sport in the name of a small pot of possible revenue.
“It’s always been about the anticipation,” Rosenberg said of Michigan-Ohio State. “It was about working to that final game, about what’s at stake, winning a championship or screwing it up for the other guy. That’s what was always special about it.”

So special it came to define the league. Patience created a brand so strong it could command high broadcast fees and launch its own television network and draw in Nebraska and Penn State to the point where a title game is needed.

Now the suits are ready to think short-term and cash in on its appeal. Now it’s just another product to squeeze out $150,000 from.

soonerborn30
8/25/2010, 08:17 AM
Man, I don't say this often...but that was a really good article. I feel bad for the fans, that must be like a slap in the face.

yermom
8/25/2010, 08:24 AM
ugh.

NormanPride
8/25/2010, 08:40 AM
This does not surprise me in the slightest. I'd bet its the schools trying to save on travel expenses or some crap. There's more than 150k at stake here.

MichiganSooner
8/25/2010, 09:00 AM
When the Big 12 was formed and OU was placed in the south and Nebraska in the north, did either school think to continue the rivalry by playing each year?
In other words, three years in inter-divisional conference play and the next 3 years as one of the non-conference games?

KantoSooner
8/25/2010, 09:04 AM
MichiganSooner has it exactly right. It wouldn't have hurt SOS, either. You can save traditions if you really want to.

soonerboy_odanorth
8/25/2010, 09:08 AM
I guess I don't get it. It was pretty clear from the start that if Michigan and Ohio State ended up in oposite divisions that the Big 10 would go to a 9-game schedule with a permanent opposite division foe, ala the SEC. (That's why Bama-Tennessee still happens every year.)

But it makes no sense to me at all that they would move the game from Thanksgiving. So what if they might meet one week later in a Big 10 Championship game. Controversial? Certainly. But it also could be highly rewarding from entertainment, viewership, and revenue (esp. advertising) standpoints.

This will be like if OU-Texas were to move to Jerry World first week of December for a Slim 12 Championship. Ugh.

soonerboy_odanorth
8/25/2010, 09:15 AM
When the Big 12 was formed and OU was placed in the south and Nebraska in the north, did either school think to continue the rivalry by playing each year?
In other words, three years in inter-divisional conference play and the next 3 years as one of the non-conference games?

The question better rephrased might be why the Big 12 didn't follow the SEC model of one permanent opposite division opponent to keep it alive.

But I believe the answer is that we were partly to blame. When we were getting humiliated by Osbourne's machines as the Big XII was being formed, I do believe it was our leadership (or lack thereof), specifically Owens (God Bless 'im!) and Blake (Die, you fat bastage, die!), that indicated they could use a break from Nebraska to regroup... especially in recruiting.

At least that's my impression... somebody with better insider info might flesh that out...

goingoneight
8/25/2010, 10:43 AM
Just because Nebraska wasn't in our division doesn't mean that we couldn't have dropped an OOC date with East Popcorn State or even the mid-majors like TCU to make the rivalry a yearly thing. Truth is somebody in the higher ups looked into that possibility and farted in it's general direction. They either didn't want that possibility of a conference loss or really and truly believed that UT would never have a say in who wins the south and that Nebraska would own the North. It was all about arrogance and scheduling tactics. Now, we're stuck playing orange aggy on Thanksgiving weekend when we could be playing in one of the top rivalry games in the country to close out each season.

tfoolry
8/25/2010, 12:02 PM
I hope they're not stupid & schedule that the same day as OU/texass.

badger
8/25/2010, 12:10 PM
I wouldn't mind us still having an annual game with Nebbish, even if it's cross-conference. Mizzou has had an annual game with Illinois these past few years and it seems like a cool tradition that they started - two schools that will forever be stuck in the middle of their conferences despite how huge their alumni and recruiting bases are :D

1890MilesToNorman
8/25/2010, 12:23 PM
I think the Earth is starting to wobble and we ain't weebles.

stoopified
8/25/2010, 03:01 PM
The question better rephrased might be why the Big 12 didn't follow the SEC model of one permanent opposite division opponent to keep it alive.

But I believe the answer is that we were partly to blame. When we were getting humiliated by Osbourne's machines as the Big XII was being formed, I do believe it was our leadership (or lack thereof), specifically Owens (God Bless 'im!) and Blake (Die, you fat bastage, die!), that indicated they could use a break from Nebraska to regroup... especially in recruiting.

At least that's my impression... somebody with better insider info might flesh that out...That is my take on it too.Can you realyy blame them though?After 73-21 and 69-7 I know I didn't want to play the Children of the Corn anymore than we had to do so.

oudavid1
8/25/2010, 06:39 PM
i dont feel bad for any fans, because they are rooting for the wrong team. Boomer Sooner!

Crucifax Autumn
8/25/2010, 07:47 PM
To answer the original question, yes.

yermom
8/25/2010, 07:57 PM
the thing with the rivalry games in the formation of the Big 12 is that most of the South teams had no history with the North teams and you'd have to make some arbitrary rivals and have those teams more frequently than others. so you have to pick someone like Colorado to play Texas every year. or Iowa State has to play Tech every year. i can see why that might not go over well

i don't know that to be the case, but it really only made sense with us and Nebraska. OU and OSU are the only South teams that had real history with the North teams

soonerboy_odanorth
8/26/2010, 01:17 AM
the thing with the rivalry games in the formation of the Big 12 is that most of the South teams had no history with the North teams and you'd have to make some arbitrary rivals and have those teams more frequently than others. so you have to pick someone like Colorado to play Texas every year. or Iowa State has to play Tech every year. i can see why that might not go over well

i don't know that to be the case, but it really only made sense with us and Nebraska. OU and OSU are the only South teams that had real history with the North teams

Actually, I think that would have greatly strengthened the conference... Forcing rivalries? Maybe...maybe not. Some of them may have been quite natural. For instance... Your very mention of CU v. UT. They actually have a little history against each other, and at the formation of the Big XII, they were on relative footing.. and even were in a particular Big XII Championship of which Texas doesn't like to talk about (punt Texas, punt.)... To wit:

OU v. NU
UT v. CU
aTm v. KSU
TT v. KU
oSu v. Mizzou
BU v. ISU

I would argue that this alignment would have sported a good deal of equity regarding permanent division opponent. Granted, I'm using a little Big XII history to make that list, but you've got a mix of old rivalries, relative current/historical strengths, and either very similar cultures or a good clash of cultures.

It should have been done, and was very short-sighted at the onset.