Big Ten alignment

Go Coogs' · Post by **Go Coogs'** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:05 am

I know it won't happen in the near future, but its a real possibility when Michigan turns things around, we're could see back-to-backs with tOSU for multiple seasons in a row.

To me, that kind of diminishes the rivalry itself. Yes, I get that it is the most storied and hated rivalry in all of sport, but it seems silly see two schools play each other in consecutive weeks.

Move their game to the middle of the season and hope for the rematch in the first week of December. It won't seem watered down that way. just sayin'.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:58 am

Go Coogs' wrote: Yes, I get that it is the most storied and hated rivalry in all of sport

not sure everyone agrees about that.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:25 pm

King Crimson wrote:
Go Coogs' wrote: Yes, I get that it is the most storied and hated rivalry in all of sport
not sure everyone agrees about that.

Sorry. Your opinion doesn't matter on this issue.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 12:24 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I could roll with the alignment you posted, but I don't prefer it. I don't think OSU/PSU/Michigan should be in the same division.

And why not? The new alignment has tOSU and PSU in the same division. What does a shit Michigan team have to do with anything? The problem with the non-geographic alignment is that it makes it much more unlikely that fans will travel to follow their teams. Badgers have always had a decent representation at Iowa, Minnesota and Northwestern. I don’t see that happening with any members of their new division other than maybe Illinois.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:28 pm

Badger fan won't travel to Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois? Granted, traveling to PSU is a trip, but making a roadie to OSU every other year shouldn't be a big deal. I've been to a number of Big 10 venues (making my first trip to Ann Arbor this year) and hope to someday make the trip to PSU, MSU, and OSU.....and now Lincoln. I have no desire to make the Indiana trip for a football game (basketball, maybe), but I hope to hit every other stadium in the conference before the dirt nap.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:47 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
King Crimson wrote:
Go Coogs' wrote: Yes, I get that it is the most storied and hated rivalry in all of sport
not sure everyone agrees about that.
Sorry. Your opinion doesn't matter on this issue.

i think you could easily make a pretty decent argument that Oklahoma-Texas or Bama-Auburn is every bit the equal if not more heated, hated than OSU-UM.

and, as per national relevance....OU-Texas very much so this decade. Eddie George, on the sidelines of the Cotton Bowl, said OU-Texas was much more bitter, better.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:50 pm

Who gives a shit? Bama-Auburn isn't even relevant nationally more often than not. Eddie George isn't welcome in Columbus. OU-Texas only got big when OU got its shit together.

Please remind me which rivalry had #1-2 the last week of the season and had a prominent figure die the night before the contest. I'm sure it wasn't Barry Switzer or Darryl Royal.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:21 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:And why not? The new alignment has tOSU and PSU in the same division. What does a shit Michigan team have to do with anything?

Because you don't conceptualize competitive balance around Michigan's two years of irrelevancy. Two years is not a significant enough sample size to assume they're going to be down forever. I guess by this logic Minnesota trumps Michigan. Prior to the DickRod hire, Michigan was anywhere from an 8-11 win team on the regular. They will be back, there is no question about it, as much as it pains me to admit.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:34 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:And why not? The new alignment has tOSU and PSU in the same division. What does a shit Michigan team have to do with anything?
Because you don't conceptualize competitive balance around Michigan's two years of irrelevancy. Two years is not a significant enough sample size to assume they're going to be down forever. I guess by this logic Minnesota trumps Michigan. Prior to the DickRod hire, Michigan was anywhere from an 8-11 win team on the regular. They will be back, there is no question about it, as much as it pains me to admit.

So what. tOSU or PSU could easily be in a down cycle by then. Right now

UW, Iowa & Nebraska > tOSU, PSU & UM

Geography. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:35 pm

Nationally, OU-Texas would be the bigger game right now but big time rivalry games change over the years. OU-Nebraska used to be a huge rivalry because, more often than not, that game determined the Big 8 champion.....OU-Texas has now replaced that game in importance. Michigan-tOSU, same story but, since Michigan's program has fallen from grace, the game has taken a backseat nationally, although not in Ohio and Michigan. The Big Two-Little Eight is no longer the case in the Big 10 and, with the addition of Penn State and the rise of Wisconsin and Iowa, the conference race has become more interesting, but with Ohio State still being the team to beat/chase. The Big 10 is much more competitive now than in past decades and, while tOSU is still the best program in the conference, they're not hanging 50 points on everyone else during the season building up to the final showdown with Michigan, who used to do the same. Those days are over and, with it, some of the glamour is gone from the Buckeye-Wolverine season finale....at least imo.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:35 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:Who gives a shit? Bama-Auburn isn't even relevant nationally more often than not. Eddie George isn't welcome in Columbus. OU-Texas only got big when OU got its shit together.

Please remind me which rivalry had #1-2 the last week of the season and had a prominent figure die the night before the contest. I'm sure it wasn't Barry Switzer or Darryl Royal.

the last decade, it's not even close. death validates the rivalry, is that what you are saying. morbid and irrelevent.

OU and Texas have been superior teams the last decade.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 2:53 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:And why not? The new alignment has tOSU and PSU in the same division. What does a shit Michigan team have to do with anything?
Because you don't conceptualize competitive balance around Michigan's two years of irrelevancy. Two years is not a significant enough sample size to assume they're going to be down forever. I guess by this logic Minnesota trumps Michigan. Prior to the DickRod hire, Michigan was anywhere from an 8-11 win team on the regular. They will be back, there is no question about it, as much as it pains me to admit.
So what. tOSU or PSU could easily be in a down cycle by then. Right now

UW, Iowa & Nebraska > tOSU, PSU & UM

Geography. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Penn State, tOSU, and Michigan have far more resources than Iowa and Wisconsin and, should they enter a "down cycle" (as has Michigan) they won't be there very long. Iowa (and Wisconsin) can only hope to win the conference and make a Rose Bowl appearance every 4-6 years and, if they do that, will be highly successful. I think that this is Iowa' year to do that....or at least the table is set for them to do so with a favorable home schedule and the returning talent on the team. Not saying they will win the conference, but they definitely have the horses to compete for the title and, bottom line, that's all you can ask to get.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:01 pm

Mace wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote: Because you don't conceptualize competitive balance around Michigan's two years of irrelevancy. Two years is not a significant enough sample size to assume they're going to be down forever. I guess by this logic Minnesota trumps Michigan. Prior to the DickRod hire, Michigan was anywhere from an 8-11 win team on the regular. They will be back, there is no question about it, as much as it pains me to admit.
So what. tOSU or PSU could easily be in a down cycle by then. Right now

UW, Iowa & Nebraska > tOSU, PSU & UM

Geography. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
Penn State, tOSU, and Michigan have far more resources than Iowa and Wisconsin and, should they enter a "down cycle" (as has Michigan) they won't be there very long. Iowa (and Wisconsin) can only hope to win the conference and make a Rose Bowl appearance every 4-6 years and, if they do that, will be highly successful. I think that this is Iowa' year to do that....or at least the table is set for them to do so with a favorable home schedule and the returning talent on the team. Not saying they will win the conference, but they definitely have the horses to compete for the title and, bottom line, that's all you can ask to get.

Yes, and if Iowa and Wisconsin were flip-flopped you’d be screaming for a geographical alignment.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:14 pm

Goober McWhiner wrote:Yes, and if Iowa and Wisconsin were flip-flopped you’d be screaming for a geographical alignment.

No, I would just accept the fact that Iowa's chances of ever playing in a ccg were, like Wisconsin's, greatly reduced. Personally, I would like to have seen Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska in the same division but I, unlike you, understand the whole competitive balance thing that the Big 10 honks were striving to achieve. It sucks for you, but better that it's Wisconsin than Iowa. :)

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:23 pm

Mace wrote:
Goober McWhiner wrote:Yes, and if Iowa and Wisconsin were flip-flopped you’d be screaming for a geographical alignment.
No, I would just accept the fact that Iowa's chances of ever playing in a ccg were, like Wisconsin's, greatly reduced. Personally, I would like to have seen Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska in the same division but I, unlike you, understand the whole competitive balance thing that the Big 10 honks were striving to achieve. It sucks for you, but better that it's Wisconsin than Iowa. :)

You're right, Iowa’s chances would have been greatly reduced. Wisconsin, in your other hand, has been somewhat competitive against tOSU and PSU over the past 10 years. Once we get through the Big 10’s Meatgrinder division we should also blow past Nebraska in the CCG.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:31 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mace wrote:
Goober McWhiner wrote:Yes, and if Iowa and Wisconsin were flip-flopped you’d be screaming for a geographical alignment.
No, I would just accept the fact that Iowa's chances of ever playing in a ccg were, like Wisconsin's, greatly reduced. Personally, I would like to have seen Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska in the same division but I, unlike you, understand the whole competitive balance thing that the Big 10 honks were striving to achieve. It sucks for you, but better that it's Wisconsin than Iowa. :)

You're right, Iowa’s chances would have been greatly reduced. Wisconsin, in your other hand, has been somewhat competitive against tOSU and PSU over the past 10 years. Once we get through the Big 10’s Meatgrinder division we should also blow past Nebraska in the CCG.

Iowa's record against Penn State is far better than Wisconsin's during that time frame. Against tOSU...not so much. Don't fret over this alignment too much, Goobs, and just think of it in terms that your Badgers will finish 3rd or 4th in their division....no different than now, only there won't be as many teams beneath you in the standings.

Looking forward to seeing the Hawkeyes piss pound your clawless Badgers in Iowa City this year and seeing Norm Parker's defense face plant John Clay into the turf. At least you'll get the chance to see a good running back in Jewel Hampton that day.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:39 pm

You guys definitely caught a break in having only one team to beat in your division. I’ll break out my Nebraska gear for that game.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:47 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:You guys definitely caught a break in having only one team to beat in your division. I’ll break out my Nebraska gear for that game.

:)

That's okay, but you'd probably look thinner wearing black.

Btw, I already issued a sig bet for the Iowa-Wisconsin game but you've failed to respond. You got the balls to take me up on it?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:05 pm

Mace wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:You guys definitely caught a break in having only one team to beat in your division. I’ll break out my Nebraska gear for that game.
:)

That's okay, but you'd probably look thinner wearing black.

Btw, I already issued a sig bet for the Iowa-Wisconsin game but you've failed to respond. You got the balls to take me up on it?

I think sig bets are extremely lame. Hence, your fascination with them. I would prefer something along the lines of a cash donation. How about $25 to the opponent’s athletic department? Or a local food pantry?

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:23 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mace wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:You guys definitely caught a break in having only one team to beat in your division. I’ll break out my Nebraska gear for that game.
:)

That's okay, but you'd probably look thinner wearing black.

Btw, I already issued a sig bet for the Iowa-Wisconsin game but you've failed to respond. You got the balls to take me up on it?
I think sig bets are extremely lame. Hence, your fascination with them. I would prefer something along the lines of a cash donation. How about $25 to the opponent’s athletic department? Or a local food pantry?

We gave you your head coach and athletic director and now you want money?

I'll take that wager, Goobs, but only if it includes an avatar wager as well, so you can once again sport a tigerhawk helmet in here. The terms? Loser wears the others helmet until the winning team loses another game. You on for that?

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:35 pm

Mace wrote:We gave you your head coach and athletic director and now you want money?

I'll take that wager, Goobs, but only if it includes an avatar wager as well, so you can once again sport a tigerhawk helmet in here. The terms? Loser wears the others helmet until the winning team loses another game. You on for that?

Hell yes. Worst case scenario if Wisconsin were to actually find a way to lose to the Cockeyes, Iowa plays tOSU a few weeks later and that will be the end of that avatar. Wisconsin wins, and you could be sporting a motion W for at least a year.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:50 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mace wrote:We gave you your head coach and athletic director and now you want money?

I'll take that wager, Goobs, but only if it includes an avatar wager as well, so you can once again sport a tigerhawk helmet in here. The terms? Loser wears the others helmet until the winning team loses another game. You on for that?
Hell yes. Worst case scenario if Wisconsin were to actually find a way to lose to the Cockeyes, Iowa plays tOSU a few weeks later and that will be the end of that avatar. Wisconsin wins, and you could be sporting a motion W for at least a year.

Okay, Goobs, you're on....and keep dreamin'. Will this year be 3 wins in a row for Iowa...or is it four? It's become so routine that I've lost count. :)

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:11 pm

Mace wrote:Okay, Goobs, you're on....and keep dreamin'. Will this year be 3 wins in a row for Iowa...or is it four? I've become so senile that I've lost count. :)

FTFY. After this year you'll be back to zero. That should be easy enough to remember. It’s the same as the number of Rose Bowls you’ve won in the last 50 years.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:38 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mace wrote:Okay, Goobs, you're on....and keep dreamin'. Will this year be 3 wins in a row for Iowa...or is it four? I've become so senile that I've lost count. :)
FTFY. After this year you'll be back to zero. That should be easy enough to remember. It’s the same as the number of Rose Bowls you’ve won in the last 50 years.

Says the fan of the reigning Champs Bowl champions.

Hey, at least you won it last year.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 6:49 pm

Mace wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Mace wrote:Okay, Goobs, you're on....and keep dreamin'. Will this year be 3 wins in a row for Iowa...or is it four? I've become so senile that I've lost count. :)
FTFY. After this year you'll be back to zero. That should be easy enough to remember. It’s the same as the number of Rose Bowls you’ve won in the last 50 years.
Says the fan of the reigning Champs Bowl champions. Hey, at least you won it last year.

Seriously, were you even alive the last time Iowa won a Rose Bowl? Wisconsin has 3 Rose Bowl wins in like the last 17 years.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:07 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:Seriously, were you even alive the last time Iowa won a Rose Bowl? Wisconsin has 3 Rose Bowl wins in like the last 17 years.

Yeah, I've seen both of Iowa's Rose Bowl wins. When was Wisconsin's last win in the Rose Bowl? 2000? From the Rose Bowl to a couple of Champs Bowls, and a Music City Bowl, all in one decade. My, how the mighty have fallen.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:23 pm

Mace wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Seriously, were you even alive the last time Iowa won a Rose Bowl? Wisconsin has 3 Rose Bowl wins in like the last 17 years.
Yeah, I've seen both of Iowa's Rose Bowl wins. When was Wisconsin's last win in the Rose Bowl? 2000? From the Rose Bowl to a couple of Champs Bowls, and a Music City Bowl, all in one decade. My, how the mighty have fallen.

Been to bowl games 13 of the last 14 years. Something Iowa certainly can't say. A couple of times we went to two bowl games in the same year. :wink:

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:59 pm

Yeah, Iowa only has 22 bowl appearances in the last 29 years, including two BCS bowl appearances since your last Rose Bowl, while Wisky has only 18 bowl appearances during that time period. Two bowl appearances in one year? Yeah, Iowa has done that a couple of times too, but all it means is you followed up a January bowl with some shit bowl in the same year. BFD.

We can play this stats game all day, Goobs, but the fact would remain that Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty much mirror images of each other in football history/success.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:09 pm

Mace wrote:Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty much mirror images of each other in football history/success.

This is true, but it is more fun watching you two kick each other in the balls and asking for more.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:11 pm

IndyFrisco wrote:
Mace wrote:Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty much mirror images of each other in football history/success.
This is true, but it is more fun watching you two kick each other in the balls and asking for more.

This is an example of why the Big Ten should have matched up the two schools for an annual meeting.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:16 pm

Mace wrote:Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty much mirror images of each other .

Except we’re better looking and you’re much fatter. And we're better at Rose Bowling. Much better.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:32 pm

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mace wrote:Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty much mirror images of each other .
Except we’re better looking and you’re much fatter. And we're better at Rose Bowling. Much better.

We're fatter? I don't think so.

Yeah, that's right, Goobs. They're from Wisconsin.

http://www.scoopgods.com/life/2010/6/3/ ... ameri.html

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:58 pm

Correction. The guy is from Wisconsin. The gal has Iowa corn-fed hog written all over her.

FLW Buckeye · Post by **FLW Buckeye** » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:35 am

Shit, regardless where they are from, the only reason dude is all upon her is due to her gravitational pull.

Terry in Crapchester · Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:07 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Pairing Purdue with Iowa doesn't make any sense anyway, . . .

Something I learned recently: from Purdue's standpoint it does.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/di ... onents.php

Among Purdue's all-time opponents, Iowa ranks tied for 3rd all-time in games played vs. Purdue, with ND, behind only Indiana and Illinois. Since the Indiana and Illinois rivalries are already protected by the new conference alignment (as is Wisconsin, who ranks tied for 4th with Northwestern among Big Ten teams), it makes sense to give Purdue Iowa as a cross-over game, so that four of its top five, and all of its top three, most historically significant conference rivalries are protected in terms of continuing on an annual basis.

There's also a black-and-gold motif to that game, although Iowa's unis look more like the Steelers and Purdue's look more like the Saints.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:59 pm

Interesting bump.

The fact you had to research a stat nobody on this earth is aware of kinda plays to my point. Trust me when I say that nobody, including Iowa and Purdue fans, give three shits about an annual Iowa vs Purdue tilt.

Iowa fans aren't stopping in their tracks saying..."Hold on a minute. You mean we're ranked 3rd all-time on Purdue's most played list? FUCK YEAH! BRING ON THE BOILERMAKERS!"

Maybe some Purdue fans care since Iowa is actually good now. Purdue's already got its rival, Indiana, and I guess to some extent, Illinois. And somebody's gotta be ranked 3rd on their list of most games played. So it happens to be Iowa. Great. Still, nobody cares. Purdue-Iowa don't even play for a trophy. That's borderline impossible since there's about 37 of them.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:00 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:The fact you had to research a stat nobody on this earth is aware of kinda plays to my point.

Shit, Terry still thinks coaches will walk away from a Top 10 gig to coach at ND.

Mace · Post by **Mace** » Thu Nov 04, 2010 4:12 pm

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Interesting bump.

The fact you had to research a stat nobody on this earth is aware of kinda plays to my point. Trust me when I say that nobody, including Iowa and Purdue fans, give three shits about an annual Iowa vs Purdue tilt.

Iowa fans aren't stopping in their tracks saying..."Hold on a minute. You mean we're ranked 3rd all-time on Purdue's most played list? FUCK YEAH! BRING ON THE BOILERMAKERS!"

Maybe some Purdue fans care since Iowa is actually good now. Purdue's already got its rival, Indiana, and I guess to some extent, Illinois. And somebody's gotta be ranked 3rd on their list of most games played. So it happens to be Iowa. Great. Still, nobody cares. Purdue-Iowa don't even play for a trophy. That's borderline impossible since there's about 37 of them.

Spot on, MGO, nobody here gives two shits about Purdue and I suspect that they feel the same about Iowa....and I further suspect that they'd rather NOT play Iowa at this point in time, due to the current condition of both programs.

The only memorable Purdue game for me came in the early 80's, when Iowa had lost something like 19 straight games to the Boilers, and Hayden Fry came out in a shotgun formation (something new for Iowa AND the Big 10 at that point in time) and won the game to end the Purdue winning streak over Iowa. Fry was an innovator at Iowa and we saw lots of reverse passes, double reverses, statue of liberty, flea flickers, etc. to balance the imbalance in talent levels between Iowa and the rest of the conference at that time.....kinda like Boise State does at present....which gave them a chance to beat more talented teams.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:01 am

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Interesting bump.

The fact you had to research a stat nobody on this earth is aware of kinda plays to my point.

I didn't "research" it so much as I just kinda came across it while looking up something else. For some reason your comment had stuck in my cranium, so I posted this. Anyway, it makes a little sense why that particular crossover game was selected to continue on an annual basis. There were bound to be a few that would be something of a reach.

Like Goobs, I would've preferred a geographic alignment. Competitive balance has a way of changing over time. Look at the Big XII. Back when the divisions were announced, everyone thought the North was the tougher division. Now it's the opposite. Geography, OTOH, is immutable.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:06 am

There were bound to be a few that would be something of a reach.

I know. My point was if you're gonna roll with a nonsense annual match-up, might as well pair afterthoughts Purdue and Minny so the majority can get the game it wants: Wisky-Iowa. Though in reality there was no way the Big Ten was going to separate UW-Minnesota.