Yeah, You Told Us
by Kevin HD on May 7, 2009 7:26 AM EDT
in Big Ten Conference
107 comments
I'm generally okay with the shift in media from the musky newsrooms to, as they say, "the people, man". That's not to say I'm 100% happy about "the man" getting more attention, though. I'm talking about news and analysis from the very last place in the world you want it: the public relations department. Everything, by definition, is spin. And that means everything is probably a waste of time.
The problem is that not everyone is aware of what is going on here. The MLB probably gets the prize for most seamless transition; a large amount of beat reporting in baseball is now coming from writers who are paid by the league.
GoPSUSports is another example of the same concept, and along those lines we get hawkeyesports.com.
So H/T to the BHGP reader who found this chart and spin interesting:
CONSISTENCY IS KING
The following provides evidence of the importance of continuity at the top of the coaching staff for the football programs in the Big Ten Conference.
Athletic departments hate turnover, mostly because it's expensive. So it makes sense for them to spout out this propaganda that says getting rid of your coach is a bad idea, because, LOOK, getting rid of your coach means you will suck!
Never mind they have the correlation all wrong, you lose your coach because you lose football games, not the other way around, but why not get it all wrong in the name of agenda?
And of course we couldn't have a Big Ten list without this:
1. That it's still the Big Two and everybody else.
Anyone else tired of this? I don't mean to single TRE out, they are just piling on at this point, but does this have to be discusses in such broad stroke fashion ever time there is a list of Big Ten teams put together?
We get it already. Seriously.
And since we are essentially talking about this now:
Finally, and selfishly once again, adding a 12th team puts a huge damper on the meaning of The Game, ie. the first or second greatest rivalry in all of sports. I can’t imagine OSU v. Michigan not being the climax to the end of the conference season. I’ve heard all the different arguments - putting them in the same division, opposite divisions etc - I don’t want to hear it. The Game is the The Game. Please don’t mess with it. Ever.
And that, my friends, is exactly what Paterno is talking about when he says "it's a conference that's dominated by a couple of people." It's dominated by the people who think like 11W, who have this strange sense of entitlement and justify it by bringing up tradition and TV ratings.
What doesn't make any sense is this:
- Texas and Oklahoma have a heated rivalry and don't feel the need to punish the rest of their conference in order to maintain the thing.
- Auburn and Alabama have a heated rivalry and don't feel the need to punish the rest of their conference in order to maintain the thing.
- Florida and Florida State are able to maintain a heated rivalry and aren't even in the same conference.
Although why have progress and look at the greater good when you don't have to.
But go Big Ten or something.
0 recs |
107 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I couldn't agree more...
…plus how many Big Ten titles does scUM have in the last 5 years?
Honestly, if the Big Ten is going to get back to the top conference that it was in the late 90’s and early part of this century, it will be tOSU, PSU, and scUM that does it. Those are the three marquee programs that will bring the conference back. The problem is, all three have not been great at the same time since the late 90’s.
Right now, the big two are PSU and OSU and no one is even close to these programs. I am not doubting that scUM will be back in 2010 or 2011 (if they are not on probation), but right now, this conference is a two horse race and will be for this season and probably the next two.
WE ARE.......PENN STATE!
by Nick7 on May 7, 2009 7:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
Penn State has to do its part. We have to KEEP winning. 3 Big 11 championships in what, 16 years or so, hardly puts us in the same class as the big two. But if we keep winning……………………………………I think OSU will get to be a bigger and bigger rival and we’ll get more respect. Oh, and we have to keep beating THEM as well, or no respect will be given to us
by Ern777 on May 7, 2009 7:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well...
“3 Big 11 championships in what, 16 years or so, hardly puts us in the same class as the big two.”
With all due respect, it’s not even a Big Two anymore. It’s a Big One: Ohio State. Eight Big Ten championships in 16 seasons. That’s a championship every other damn season, which is twice as many as the bottom six teams (see below) could put together collectively.
Championships
8 Ohio State
5 Michigan
3 Penn State
3 Wisconsin
3 Northwestern
2 Iowa
1 Purdue
1 Illinois
0 Michigan State
0 Indiana
0 Minnesota
by BSM PSU 93 on May 7, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How many of them are shared?
Hate to bring up that stupid little rule, but…yeah.
I was out in the trenches, which enables me to paint such a powerful picture, like Apocalypse Now.-Cormega
by OMEGAMAN on May 7, 2009 9:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's see...
1993 Ohio State and Wisconsin
1994 Penn State
1995 Northwestern
1996 Northwestern and Ohio State
1997 Michigan
1998 Michigan, Ohio State and Wisconsin
1999 Wisconsin
2000 Michigan, Northwestern and Purdue
2001 Illinois
2002 Iowa and Ohio State
2003 Michigan
2004 Iowa and Michigan
2005 Ohio State and Penn State
2006 Ohio State
2007 Ohio State
2008 Ohio State and Penn State
by BSM PSU 93 on May 7, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well thats not surprising
Just curious, do you know how many of those are when they lost the head-to-head with the other co-champion?
by dawsonPSU10 on May 7, 2009 4:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be a real interesting stat to see
We know what happened in 2005 and 2008!
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on May 7, 2009 4:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For anyone who wants to dig
I wonder who actually won in 1998 and 2000, two of Michigan’s “titles” (or maybe they were, I don’t know).
And that sucks that ‘O’ comes before ‘P’ in the alphabet, makes us look bad.
by Kevin HD on May 7, 2009 5:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here goes...
1993 – Ohio State and Wisconsin tied on the field, too
1996 – Ohio State and Northwestern did not play
1998 – Ohio State beat Michigan, Michigan beat Wisconsin, Ohio State and Wisconsin did not play
2000 – Michigan lost to both Northwestern and Purdue, Purdue beat Northwestern (so Purdue would win by standard tiebreakers due to head-to-head sweep)
2002 – Iowa and Ohio State did not play
… and you guys know what happened with both OSU/Penn State ties.
by drothgery on May 7, 2009 5:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So 2000 doesn't count
and 1998 probably doesn’t either, although I still haven’t thought that all the way through.
by Kevin HD on May 7, 2009 6:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1998
If you look at the head-to-head matchups between those three teams and consider two teams not playing as a tie, then…
OSU: 1 win, 0 losses, 1 tie
Michigan: 1 win, 1 loss, 0 ties
Wisconsin: 0 wins, 1 loss, 1 tie
That gives OSU the title.
by BSM PSU 93 on May 8, 2009 9:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
hahaha...Northwestern
I love how they chime in with 3 titles.
No one thinks to ever consider them as part of the elitist mix…nor should they. Yet over the last 16 years there they sit with Penn State and Wisconsin, and have as many titles as the bottom 6 teams combined.
Fear the purple kitties.
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 9:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's that entitlement
that is annoying. Let’s not progress forward b/c the current system works for Team M and Team O. That’s BS.
But what happens if they aren’t in the same division?
There are ways you can keep the rivalry and acheive a championship game. People keep pointing to the Oklahoma/Nebraska rivalry falling by the wayside. So that’s a reason we shouldn’t expand? Learn from their mistakes (i.e. If you’re going to put rivals in different divisions, at least insure they’ll play every year, similar to the constant rivalry games the current Big10 schedule uses).
But if they’re in different divisions, they may have to play twice…
Yes, they may play again in the championship and instead of “THE GAME” you get “THE GAMES”, and a chance for double-the-hate. I highly doubt you’ll feel any less animosity for the other team.
But they may have to play back to back and it might lessen the rivalry…
It’s a great rivalry, but most people outside of two states can care less whether “THE GAME” is played in September or November…move it up earlier in the year. Neither team will be guaranteed their division at that point, so the game still has meaning in the standings. If that doesn’t work for you, then put them in the same division and you won’t have to worry about them playing twice, or back-to-back, and you can keep them on the last week of the regular season schedule.
by Screen Name 20 on May 7, 2009 8:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
but...but
your proposals cheapen “THE GAME”
Personally, I could care less if OSU & Michigan play at all. I get that it is supposedly the “biggest” rivalry in all of sports, but I’m pretty sure that Alabama/Auburn, Georgia/Florida, Oregon/Oregon State, Texas/Oklahoma (just to name college football, let alone Duke/UNC, Yankees/Sox, etc.) would disagree.
It is petty to disregard what 10 other schools (including the potential new member) want. I wonder, if put to a vote, how many schools in the Big 10 would turn down more $$ just to keep OSU/UofM’s “Game”
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I bet a secret ballot vs an open ballot would make a difference in the outcome.
Born and raised in the shadow of Mount Nittany
by Elihu on May 7, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Obama is going to take away the secret ballot!
by PaJoe on May 7, 2009 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not really his choice to
make. However, Arlen Spector may have something to do with it happening or not.
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
by rahpsu92 on May 8, 2009 1:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm going to skip my obligatory anti-Big Ten rant
But I’d still like to point out that this stuff isn’t going to change for a long time. That’s why it’s ND or bust for 12 teams. People like this guy are so wrapped up in their tradition, for good reason, and here we are less than 20 years in the conference trying to tell everyone what’s best.
I understand completely the resistance to the 12th team, and to our being included in the conference’s elite. If this were some eastern conference of which we’d been part of for a century — I’m sure we wouldn’t take kindly to some mid-western team coming in and trying to mix everything up seemingly for their own benefit.
That being said, we’re going to be held back with the rest of these dopes until something changes.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on May 7, 2009 8:30 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
For arguement's sake
Let’s assume that the big ten does expand and lets eitehr Cuse, Rutgers or MAryland in – what would the divisions be? I’d think they’d have to do an East/West
East
Cuse/Mary/Rutgers
PSU
OSU
Mich
Mich State
Indiana
West
Purdue
Iowa
Ill.
NW
Minn
Wisc
I mean the east would be such a domiannt league – it would be like the Big 12 where if you are not in the south you are screwed – I can’t see there being much hype for that championship game outside of the 2 schools and alumni of the schools.
As much as it hurts to say – the only way it would work is if ND became dominant again and joined – you could have them in the west and that would even out the leagues a little and keep interest in the championship game
by psupride on May 7, 2009 8:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Or you could decide to not base it off of geography.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
2 Divisions
You have to base it off of geography. And East/West would be the only way to go as you’ve outlined above.
It could become like the Big 12 North/South, which would be unfortunate, but reality may not be as bad as perception.
From the post above…over the last 16 years…16 titles in the east, 10 in the west. Although how many of those titles won by the west were split, I’m not sure. And who knows how many of those would have not turned into a title after a west lost to an east team in a conference championship game.
(*The split title is a joke, and I hate that even exists…we know that at least 2 of OSU’s 8 were “co-championships” even though PSU beat them. More power to the 12 team league with conference championship game)
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 9:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You don’t have to base it off of geography – look at the ACC’s “Atlantic” and “Coastal” divisions.
by Sevay on May 7, 2009 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well if they don’t base it off of geography I think they would have to base it off of old rivalries – (how the ACC put Duke/UNC in same division)
I think this would be horrible for Penn State – I mean they would have to keep OSU/Mich in same and I think they would want to break the 3 marque programs up. I think that would just be a lot more national talk of how PSU back doors its way into the championship game – they play no one yadda yadda yadda
by psupride on May 7, 2009 9:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the way the ACC's divided
It doesn’t make any sense. I can never remember which teams are in which division.
by Brett Brown on May 7, 2009 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree, I don't know why people INSIST on geographical concerns
like yes, it is more “logical” in a sense, that you don’t have to travel as far to the games, etc. But if they went to 12 teams, 2 divisionss, then you’d have 5 divisional games and 3 with the other division, so you’d not play 3 teams every year (or if they have you play 4 of the other division, you would not play 2 teams every year). So you are still playing a majority of teams in the conference, and travelling doesn’t matter quite as much.
I think that these conference splits woudl be fairly reasonable, trying to balance team/division strength, traditional rivalries, and geographical concerns
If ND were to join:
Division 1 = Minnesota, Northwestern, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Purdue, Penn State
Division 2 = Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State
If Missouri were to join:
Division 1 = Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan State, Purdue, Penn State
Division 2 = Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio State
If an “Eastern” team were added:
Division 1 = Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Penn State, “Eastern” team
Division 2 = Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State
Now these aren’t perfect (as I basically pretended I was “drafting” teams, but biasing a bit based on geography & traditions) and so there could be other combinations as well. I also decided to keep OSU & UofM in the same division, just to guarantee the yearly matchup. I’m sure they’d bitch that then “The Game” wouldn’t be the last game of the season anymore, but I’m not sure if they realize this: Bowl Games happen gasp after “The Game” and the world has yet (to my knowledge) ended.
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
Divisions do not need to be geographical.
Look at the NFL:
Dallas in the NFC east (keeps rivalries alive). Buffalo probably makes more sense than Baltimore in the AFC East.
Or the ACC:
Wake and NC State in different divisions that UNC and Duke. FSU and BC are in the same division while Miami is in another.
by Screen Name 20 on May 7, 2009 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why divisions would have a geographical component
THERE ARE MORE SPORTS THAN FOOTBALL!
Cost would be a critical element and for non-profit sports you want to reduce travel, and an east/west alignment does that the best.
It also is going to preserve the most rivals. Look at every team and each of their 2 “rivals” that they play each year. Almost all of those would be protected by a geographic layout.
You’ve ignored a lot of rivalries that would need to be protected…Indiana/Purdue, Michigan/Michigan State, Iowa/Wisconsin, Northwestern/Illinois.
I know as Penn State fans its hard to understand the significance of an annual rival, but its a big deal, and geographic alignment protects it. The rest of these proposals doesn’t.
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Incorrect
The only way to protect the rivalries as you suggest is to ignore geography. It can be done, I’ve done it. The divisions do not line up gepgraphically though.
A- Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Indiana & TBD
B- Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State & Northwestern
Protected games, each has one from the other side; the notable ones being PSU/OSU, Mich/Minn, & Purdue/Ind.
That covers all your rivalries. Seriously, look it up, I got them all except, technically PSU & MSU.
I like applying the top two teams that haven’t played model to this, rather than necessarily a “Championship Game”, let the Rose Bowl take the more deserving team at the conclusion of the game
"I honestly think the "Spread HD" is going to work pretty well, and we’ll be just fine this year". - 8-27-2008
by jesse. on May 7, 2009 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know what?
F it. We keeping winning Big 10 titles and beating the “big 2” and we don’t need to worry about anything.
by speedomike on May 7, 2009 8:53 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed - there is a way to make the GAME lose its luster
and that’s for Delaney and the trophy to always have to be in State College or East Lansing that day.
by PSU Mudder on May 7, 2009 8:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder how many more times we have to be the "real" champions of the Big 10
while OSU and/or UofM are, at best, “co”-champions before they start pushing for a Conference Championship (especially if it was a year we didn’t play Michigan)
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OMG THE GAME
It’s starting to lose its luster with Michigan’s struggles. If RR continues to run that program into the ground and OSU can run off a ten game winning streak THE GAME will be “just another game”. Maybe then we’ll get some change.
It’s fun to think that Pitt and Syracuse were once glorious programs along with Penn and Carlisle. Maybe Michigan is headed in that direction too. Maybe Indiana will be the team we all hate in 25 years.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on May 7, 2009 9:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe Indiana will be the team we all hate in 25 years.
Or Iowa.
Penn Staters belong at Penn State. The problem with a lot of kids is they just don’t know they are Penn Staters yet. -jesse. @ BSD
by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on May 7, 2009 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Corn sucking bastards
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's like a black hole in the middle of the state
but in this case it’s actually a corn hole
by dawsonPSU10 on May 7, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but why wouldn't Indianapolis publish their corn yields?
I suspect they’re trying to hide something…
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 5:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They don't want to
blow our minds. I hear corn grows extremely well in orange road construction barrels.
One man doing the work of 100's for the good of 1000's
by rahpsu92 on May 8, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you insinuating you dont hate Iowa already?
"Even though it was bouncing, I knew it was so soft that it was just going to stay in," Battle said. "Then I ran around like a lunatic."
by bconway6 on May 7, 2009 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe
Iowa is a team we all hate now already
by dawsonPSU10 on May 7, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Another thing....
It’s really more Michigan than Ohio State that is hell bent on keeping the old traditions of the Big Ten. From what I understand, Ohio State has long been the little brother in that relationship. Well, that;s clearly changed over the past decade or so. Add to that the fact that the Ohio State-Penn State rivalry is getting more intense, and Michigan is THE SUCK, then I think there is a chance some changes could take place sooner than we might think.
But, like I’ve said before, I don’t necessarily think the conference needs to expand. Just win more big games on a national stage.
by speedomike on May 7, 2009 9:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I see no need for a championship game
if/when they go to that system I’ll be so annoyed.
the politics of college football have become so tiresome – logic and equality have nothing to do with the current situation/leadership – it will be very difficult for anything good/fair to come out of it.
by PSUgirl on May 7, 2009 9:21 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Then just make sure...
You refer to the 2005 and 2008 teams as “Co-Big Ten Champions”…because we did share the title with Ohio State.
No way to settle that given the lack of conference championship game…sorry.
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
who cares?
do you really care about a big ten championship? sure it’s great to win – but what does it matter in the grand scheme of a national championship hunt?
championship games create conference champions that have no business being in bcs games (and perhaps, one day, maybe, a playoff), with teams that should be recognized heading out to “lesser” bowl games AND they ruin mnc runs for everyone else.
no need or reason for them – just more tv$.
Here are my goals for Penn State football, in order: play the very best that they can; beat um (wait, did that); win; mnc. big ten championship just doesn’t come into the mix.
by PSUgirl on May 7, 2009 9:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
I always want Penn State to win as many games as possible, go to the best bowl game their record allows and win that game too. If we win the Big10 along the way, that’s swell, but it’s not something I get too excited about. I think that other schools would agree on the fact that the conference championship is nice but not something to strive for. Especially since the bowl system is so wacky, conf championship doesn’t always equate to great bowl games. Or maybe it’s just that after 15+ years, Penn State still seems like the stepchild in the Big10.
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on May 7, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh I disagree
I think our goal should always be a Big Ten championship. If you win the B10 every year, winning is taking care of itself. And chances are you will end up in the MNC game once in a while.
Ultimately down the road the number of Big Ten championships you win is how Big Ten teams are judged against one another. It’s a stat that is often thrown around.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on May 7, 2009 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your disagreement, but...
I know that if you win all (or most) of your games, you should also be winning the Big10. That’s great. But I have a hard time picking sides in nonPSU Big10 games just so it will help us win the conference. I rarely even check the conference standings during the season. But every single week of the season, I look at the Top25 and pick the teams above us that I have to hope loses so we move up. I just don’t feel the same way about the conference. I’m not sure why. I guess I’m just apathetic about Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.
I guess, being 39, I miss the oldtime onesided rivalries with RU, Syracue, WVU, Maryland – even though I enjoy the Big10 as a whole for ALL sports.
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on May 7, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
Maybe, just maybe, it’s because when you were in your college-age years, we weren’t playing those teams.
by Bleed Blue 'n White on May 7, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're definitely right
But even after 15+ years in the Big10, I still don’t care about most of the other teams. It probably doesn’t help that I have few friends who graduated from other Big10 schools, so I don’t get that “fan rivalry” thing going like some of you other alum in the midwest.
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on May 7, 2009 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
competely agreed mike
It’s the only thing we can control
by queler on May 7, 2009 11:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't get it
a stat.
we’re told year after year that the big ten is dying, becoming irrelevant – how does another game change this?
what does “proving it on the field” accomplish? they still put the numbers up on the sky boxes – penn staters still fill the seats.
will a championship game improve recruiting? will it make our players more attractive to the NFL?
it’s just more money for the conference and promoters and more headaches for coaches.
by PSUgirl on May 7, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The National Championship?
Let me turn this around. Who cares about the MNC? The National Championship of college football is the most meaningless title in all of professional and college sports. There were at least 4 teams (Florida, USC, Texas, Utah) with a legitimate claim last season to being called college football’s national champion. All the bowl games are meaningless exhibition games designed to showcase a bunch of 22 year olds for future NFL careers. Until a playoff is instituted this will remain the same.
The Big Ten title is the only thing Penn State can achieve that is settled on the field. The only thing they can control with their play on the field is winning the B10 title. This is why I personally could care less if PSU ever contends for a MNC under the current system and all I care about is winning the B10 title.
by catesinator on May 7, 2009 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that the mnc is, well, mythical
but the entrenchment of championship games will also impair any future playoff, imho.
by PSUgirl on May 7, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you think?
I could see it actually help the cause, since they would become, in effect, a sort of “first round” for the tournament (sorta like basketball has the conference championships).
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so, in 2005
fsu and georgia get into a playoff and in 2003 Kansas State?
I love the idea of a playoff – but the possible/probable structure upsets me.
by PSUgirl on May 7, 2009 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well
let’s say there are ten 12-team conferences (or even twelve 10-team conferences)
For a playoff you could do a 16-team playoff, where the conference champs get in, and then the 4 (or 6) remaning slots are filled with “at large” teams (which of course would probably eliminate the importance of the conference championship game in the first place, since if there was any upset, the “better” team would still probably get an at-large spot)
I don’t really want to debate potential college football playoff setups, since it won’t really matter, just saying how it is possible, and how a conference championship game wouldn’t really interfere with it
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lost me when...
You started reciting what your goals are for the team.
“Play the very best that they can”…great. Will you be present between quarters to hand out orange slices as well?
Beat Michigan? Well, than I guess for the, what, 13 years? prior to 2008 Penn State failed to achieve your second goal. That must have been enjoyable for you.
Oh, and Beaver Stadium staff…go ahead and take down the large numbers on the stadium that represent the years Penn State won Big Ten Championships. Just put up the years in which we “played the very best we can”. Throw up the year(s) we beat Michigan. Hell, throw up the years we beat Minnesota too…since they are also “um” and as equally relevant as Michigan given no rivalry compenent exists between PSU and either school.
Who allowed girls to post on here?
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 2:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
whatever
I don’t actually get any return from PSU playing football than my personal opinion about the team and being able to brag on them at the proverbial water cooler.
And, those darn numbers shouldn’t even be up there at all
by PSUgirl on May 7, 2009 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just found this photo of Badger and his buddy!
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on May 7, 2009 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude
Attacking someone for their gender is uncalled for and will not be tolerated here. I don’t know many people here that are bigger PSU fans than PSUgirl.
Mike
Black Shoe Diaries
by BSD on May 7, 2009 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if only there were some other way to determine who was better
perhaps some on-field competition where we faced those 2 teams off in a head-to-head matchup…oh wait… :-P
Now, if we hadn’t played OSU, that’d be one thing, but we beat them both years. The Champion should be whoever wins the tiebreaker rules (which, by definition break the tie (not saying the tiebreaker rules are perfect, but they are at least something)
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is why I hate being in the Big Ten.
Hated it from the very beginning, hate it now.
It’s amazing how important Michigan and Ohio State fans think that game is outside of Michigan and Ohio. To 95% of the country, it has the cache of Oregon vs. Oregon State.
"Never. We would never shoot nuclear weapons at Decepticons." -- Gen. Jack Jacobs
by Run Up The Score on May 7, 2009 9:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What gets me is
that all of the them think that saving “The Game” is a legit reason for not having a twelfth game. Those toolbags should realize the world doesn’t revolve around them. I hope PSU rattles off three more B10 titles and passes UM for B10 titles since PSU joined.
Kath?
by psuphiman80 on May 7, 2009 10:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second your hate
As I’ve made known before, I hate this conference, I hate the teams we have to play, and I hate that our proud successful program is treated like a foreign exchange student. Deep down I know Joe feels the same way, he did this for the benefit of our entire athletic program, and I think the more he looks at it the more he resents how the conference treats us.
I really still hold out hope this conference crashes and burns in the next 20 years and we can jump ship back to where we belong. It sounds crazy now, but crazier things have happened — and Delany seems hellbent on keeping this conference in the dark-ages.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on May 7, 2009 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, though
Big East football wouldn’t get me all that excited. Cincy! South Florida! Yay?
Or maybe we’ll steal some choice teams from the Big East and the ACC, and finally form our Eastern All-Sports Conference.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
even the all eastern conference now wouldn’t be that great – would you really get excited to see a football schedule that was headlined with WVU, Pitt and Syracue?
by psupride on May 7, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is another of my points
Sure, we may not like it in the Big Ten, but Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio State are normally better than anything you get in the Big East.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
if something crazy happens I hope it’s an ultimate eastern conference:
FSU
Pitt
WVU
BC
Miami
Rutgers
VA Tech
Cuse
Maryland
UVA
NC
PSU
this conference would be rocking not only for football, but for basketball too. and why not shoot for the moon on this?
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on May 7, 2009 10:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and while we're at it
North Div
Pitt
Cuse
PSU
Rutgers
Maryland
BC
South Div
FSU
Miami
NC
VA Tech
WVU
UVA
Tell me that wouldn’t be a sweet conference. We’d have a cake-walk division most seasons, while the south would be a death-trap.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on May 7, 2009 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta have Dook in there
for the UNC rivalry.
by Screen Name 20 on May 7, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I say kick UVA out and replace them with Dook.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 10:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One thing
Morgantown is north of College Park.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
North Div
Pitt
Cuse
PSU
Rutgers
WVU
BC
South Div
FSU
Miami
NC
VA Tech
Maryland
UVA
I like that better anyway
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on May 7, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
kick unc out so they can keep their Dook games – add Florida
by psupride on May 7, 2009 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nah
Florida would be too scared to play us. Clemson, or maybe GT.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they would be scared
They would just try to have all the games in Gainsville or a neutral site aka Jacksonville
by psupride on May 7, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And we’ll write somewhere in the contract that if Rutgers starts sucking again we’ll replace them with UConn.
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 10:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Honestly
I think that would be the most boring conference in college football. In particular, PSUs division is filled with the most boring opponents imaginable outside of Pitt. Syracuse, Rutgers and Maryland aren’t relevant at all in college football. BC barely is.
About the only thing remotely intriguing about that conference is the opportunity to play FSU every year. But even that dies down after either Paterno or Bowden retire.
The Big 10 conference opponents appeal to me a hell of a lot more than the teams in that conference. But then, I’m 28 years old and have no memory of the 60-0 buttwhoopins PSU used to deliver to their former eastern opponents that people are so nostalgic about.
by catesinator on May 7, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well the thing is, you have to balance college football and basketball
some schools are good at both, some only one. NC is coming up in the football world, but they are a pillar in basketball.
The point of this conference was to retain old traditional matchups, local teams that our fans can easily travel to, and have 12 teams that are all either really good at one or good at both. I think almost all these teams fit the bill.
I also think Uconn would be a better fit than Rutgers at this point. Same with Duke instead of UVA.
"We hugged as grown men do. It was a great moment. Then, it was business as usual." -- LJ Sr.
by millzners on May 7, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Traditional Matchups
As has been debated several times the traditional matchups you yearn for are not coveted by much of the fanbase anymore. For anyone that went to PSU from the mid 90s until now, the traditional matchups are the other teams in the Big Ten. Not the eastern teams Penn State used to pound year after year to undefeated seasons that left them without national titles because of weak competition.
To someone like me, who is 28 years old, teams like Syracuse, Maryland, Virginia, Rutgers and Boston College are irrelevant football teams. I don’t care about them at all. I didn’t get to witness the annual 60-0 blowouts of Rutgers and Syracuse. Therefore I don’t crave that nostalgia. The teams I do care about playing are Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan State. These are the teams I grew up watching Penn State play. These are the teams that denied PSU undefeated seasons, bowl games and conference titles. Call it a generation gap if you like, but things are not going back to the way they used to be, that much I can guarantee.
And I don’t think having teams that fans can travel easily to is much of a concern. Penn State has one of the best traveling fan bases in the country. Even now with games in Iowa and Minnesota they get large contingents of alumni to go to games and it’s becase their alumni is already spread out all over the country. Look at the Rose Bowl. At least 1/3rd of that stadium was on Penn State’s side. I’ve been watching the Rose Bowl for a lot of years and this was the first time I can remember the Big Ten team’s fans actually making a dent into USC’s home base.
by catesinator on May 8, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree with cates
I don’t like that conference at all. Who I am suppose to get excited about with that schedule?
And if you want to retain old tradtional matchups, there’s an easy way to do that. Schedule one of those teams every year in the OOC schedule.
by speedomike on May 7, 2009 12:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For those who hate the Big Ten.....
What realistic alternative would you prefer? I don’t mean the creation of some super eastern conference, or going back to the days of independence. That’s not going to happen. Taking into consideration all the realities, what would you like? And I’m not asking to be confrontational, it’s a legitimate question. While I get some of the disdain towards the Big Ten, I ultimately like it and think its the best situation for us.
by speedomike on May 7, 2009 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
CONFERENCE USA
WOO BABY forget Pasadena, let’s treat ourselves to a drunken mess at the Sugar Bowl every year. Form some natural rivalries with ECU and Marshall, plus we probably have the clout to force a switch to a 12-game round robin schedule. In 5-10 yrs force Notre Dame to join and petition NCAA for 13th game. Rename conference “Ille Unus Cum Quartadecem Manus” (That One With Fourteen Teams).
Man, I am excited for NCAA 10 to come out.
by gumbercules on May 7, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't heard anything about that game
You can form your own conferences in NCAA 10?
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Memphis!
John Calaparri…is that you?!!!
Penn State Nittany Lions
2015 IUCQM Conference Champs
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who said there was a realistic alternative?
There isn’t one now, not without a metric assload of collusion from other schools in other conferences.
Can’t I just hate for the sake of hating?
"Never. We would never shoot nuclear weapons at Decepticons." -- Gen. Jack Jacobs
by Run Up The Score on May 7, 2009 2:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course
It just seems like a waste of energy and time.
Says the guy who spends a good portion of his day posting comments on message boards about a football team that I have not control over.
by speedomike on May 7, 2009 2:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is this the face of Penn State football??
"The sea was angry that day, my friends." G. Costanza
by NJ lion on May 7, 2009 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
would love to see mizzou here
then you can put Mizzou, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota in one division and all the good teams in the other.
"For every moment of triumph, for every instance of beauty, many souls must be trampled"- Hunter S. Thompson
by phishead_psu on May 7, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes To Expansion, No to Divisions
I agree with expanding the Big Ten to 12 teams, but also agree with Brian at MgoBlog that you do not need to have divisions.
One division, the top two teams that have not played play in the Championship game.
So for this past season it would have been Penn State versus Northwestern for the Big Ten championship.
2007 Ohio State versus 6-6 (4-4) Iowa.
2006 Ohio State versus 11-1 (7-1) Wisconsin
2005 Penn State versus 7-5 (5-3) Iowa.
2004 Michigan versus 9-2 (6-2) Wisconsin
I agree with JoePa that the Big Ten needs to upgrade, but I think when you are moving forward why not get onto the cutting edge? This would ensure that you do not have the debacle that is the Big XII. Or the SEC in the mid 90s when the winner of the Tennessee Florida game played in September was basically the Championship game.
This would also ensure that you do not have the same teams play back to back, ie No Michigan Ohio State rematches, no Penn State Michigan State rematches.
I think it would also help in the computer polls since you are not beating the same team twice.
by DrDetroit on May 7, 2009 1:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don't see why we need divisions
as long as you guarantee certain teams play each other every year. I’m not sure if I agree about only allowing teams that haven’t played to face-off. The idea of 08 NW or 07 Iowa having a shot at the title (and a BSC bid) is kind of ridiculous.
by Brett Brown on May 7, 2009 2:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sort of agree
but you also have to include the mysterious 12th team.
If the Big Ten did add a 12th team, that would generate 8 more wins in the conference.
Maybe for 08 the 12th team could have played Ohio State, NW, Minn, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois. So the 12th team could be 6-2 and you would not have NW in the championship game.
by DrDetroit on May 7, 2009 2:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes absolutely no sense
So while the other conferences are pairing the winners of each division, the Big Ten is going to match up the top team with the next best team it didn’t play? Which could be a team in like 6th place?
This is absurd.
You think Penn State would have gotten the claim to play Northwestern for the championship when Ohio State finished with just as many losses but destroyed Northwestern?
The game would have been a complete joke 3 of the last 4 years. And that percentage would hold, if not worsen.
Northwestern, .500 Iowa, and 7-5 Iowa? Nice Conference Championship you’ve got there.
I wish the NCAA would step letting its employees post on blogs.
by NittanyBadger on May 7, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Its the same in other divisions
2004 Big 12 7-4 (4-4) Colorado played in the Championship game. If the Big 12 had one division Colorado would have been 5th.
In 2005 Colorado would have finished 4th in a one division Big 12 and got to play in the Championship game against Texas.
And you have to account for the fact that the 12th team generates 8 more wins in the conference. Looking at the previous years standings does not account for that.
And your entire point is incredibly stupid because what if NW won one division and Penn State the other? The same goes for all the other years.
Are you bagging on the Big XII because their conference championship was a joke in 04, 05 and 08? Why that is 3 of the last 5 years!
Well thought out post you had.
by DrDetroit on May 7, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who cares if you play the same team twice?
Isn’t that what Michigan and Ohio State were dreaming about a few years ago, for the national championship? It’s not that different.
If Ohio State and Michigan finished 1-2 in the conference, the midwestern media would be slobbering all over themselves about a rematch OSU-UM Big Ten championship game. Unbearable for the rest of us, but good for the conference.
"Never. We would never shoot nuclear weapons at Decepticons." -- Gen. Jack Jacobs
by Run Up The Score on May 7, 2009 2:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
curious
in 2006, if there was a Big 10 championship game, and Michigan won it, do you think that the MNC game would have been a third matchup, or do you think both teams get bumped from it, or do you think one gets selected over the other (and which one would that be?)
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Michigan
if they win. I don’t think they’ll ever be a situation where they will actually let two teams from the same conference play for it. The writers voted OSU and UM 1-2 after that game, but they knew and so did everyone else that they could (and would) back off after the Big XII and SEC finished their seasons.
by Kevin HD on May 7, 2009 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but what do you do if the non-conference championship game
has OSU absolutely destroy Michigan, and then in the conference championship game Michigan barely ekes out a win due to some very questionable officiating?
by The JuggerNitt on May 7, 2009 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like the kind of officiating
where you can ask the ref to put 2 seconds on the clock, and instead of laughing in your face, he actually not only listens, but answers your request?
by dawsonPSU10 on May 7, 2009 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really care about the 2 seconds. We got 2 seconds put back on our last drive.
The 2 seconds are just a way to distract us from Hart’s fumble that wasn’t called for some reason, and the block in the back UM got away with on Breaston’s last drive.
asgdatgjw4srkj232ktfgsdgGGrrrrrr
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Breaston's last drive = return
Have a "great HD day!" - Jay Paterno
by ReadingRambler on May 7, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Black Shoe Diaries
Related FanShots on Black Shoe Diaries
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
