Looks like Michigan found their coach............

[Spence]

Brady Hoke. He is from Dayton, so he is a traitor. All great Michigan coaches are traitors. He understands and embraces all their rivalries, even going so far as to draw from Woody Hayes refusal to say the word Michigan, by refusing to say Ohio and State together. He sounds to me like he completely "gets" it when it comes to Michigan football tradition. Most of all - I can really see me coming to hate this guy.

[donovan]

Looks like Al Borges is coming with him. Borges is a great offensive coordinator and brings real change to a staid program. It is OK Spence, keep working yourself up.

[RazorHawk]

Yeah, but does he realize that with the new Big Ten conference alignment, the rivalry is meaningless?

[Spence]

Yeah, but does he realize that with the new Big Ten conference alignment, the rivalry is meaningless?

Probably not, but he will find out.

[Eric]

....Most of all - I can really see me coming to hate this guy.

RazorHawk is right; why should you hate Brady Hoke? He's just another interdivisional opponent

[Spence]

....Most of all - I can really see me coming to hate this guy.

RazorHawk is right; why should you hate Brady Hoke? He's just another interdivisional opponent

It is still a interdivisional rivalry. One between the two schools with lots of history. It doesn't mean even close to what it did before. It will never decide the conference again and it will never decide the conference In that sense it doesn't mean anything, but that doesn't mean that the game itself doesn't mean anything when it comes to bragging rights in the conference. What I said before, and what I still mean, is it used to be a top rivalry nationally and that has ended. It isn't different than Michigan Notre Dame or Ohio State-Illinois.

Penn State has always whined and cried about it's game with Ohio State not being put up on a pedestal by Ohio State and Ohio State never looked at it that way. Delany has forced the issue to keep Penn State happy and also to be able to prop up the Michigan-Notre Dame rivalry should they ever join - and Delany expects it to happen.

The B-10 already has the logo that will represent 16 teams ----- B1G - Ten -- and the conference will expand to 16 when Delany thinks he can force ND into joining. Too bad Jim Delany doesn't have a team named for him, that would be the rivalry I would want Ohio State involved in, only Gene Smith and Gordan Gee would probably force us to take a knee on every offensive possession.



Still I'm glad Michigan finally have a coach who understands what they are all about because Rich Rodriguez still doesn't know.

[Spence]

I am an Ohio State fan and it has been 2609 days since Michigan beat Ohio State, and some things are just born into you. Not even Jim Delany can ever erase that.

[donovan]

I think Spence is right. Tradition is born out of experience, it is formed and molded as the years go on. When you make these radical changes, the natural evolution over the years is destroyed. In all of these changes, seems to me the school that made the wisest decision, and I did not think so at first, is Brigham Young. They took themselves out of the fray, not going to be tossed to and fro by the chaos of the moment. They can sit back and decide on a timely basis where to go. One of the statements that has been made, and apparently there has been talk is the rivalry between BYU and Utah. It is going to continue, Utah is committed to schedule the Y and at least that will go on. I can not imagine Oregon and Oregon State being in a situation like Ohio State and Michigan.

[RazorHawk]

I hated to see the Texas / Arkansas game go away, when the Razorbacks wisely left the troubled Southwest Conference. However, years later it has worked out very well. I laugh when people keep bringing up Arkansas joining the Big 12, like there would be any interest in that.

All putting Michigan in the opposite division does is to allow a possibility of two big games against your most hated rival. I don't really see the downside.

In Iowa's case, one of their biggest rival was with Wisconsin and now they will only play them on a rotating basis. I hate for that, but I think being able to play Nebraska every year will make up for this. Purdue is the game designated as the rival, and no Iowa or Purdue fans feel that is appropriate, but not the end of the world, or the end of football.

[Spence]

I would hate rotating the Wisconsin game if I were an Iowa fan. Arkansas got out of a bad situation and lost a rival because of it. Ohio State and Michigan are in the same conference still. I don't want to beat them twice in a year. I don't want to split - which would be worse that losing two in a row. I want to beat them and not let them go to the championship game. That is what Ohio State does to Michigan and what Michigan does to Ohio State. Ohio State could lose to Michigan, win their conference championship, and could still go to the national championship game It would be a long shot, but it could happen and that is wrong. If they were in the same division Ohio State beats Michigan and they are done nationally. Thay is how it has always been and that is how it should always be.

It is also stupid because if one has to beat the other twice in a row, they are likely to knock each other out of contention nationally and that makes no sense for the B-10 either. It was just a terrible stupid decision by a man who's soul desire to get Notre Dame into the B-10 drives his every decision. I am tired of him and would like to see him go away.

[RazorHawk]

Spence, I guess what I am saying is that as much as I hated to see the Ark/Texas rivalry end and also Iowa not playing Wisky every year, that is what it is and no sense in dwelling on it. I was pissed for a short time, but since the people involved really did not care about my feelings or opinions the decision was made.

I now focus on what is, and not what I wish was. I moved on.

I personally like the addition of Nebraska and the idea of a conference championship.

I also hated it when the Big Ten only sent one team to a bowl, while other conferences were sending multiple teams bowling. I also hated that the Big Ten did not allow red shirting, when all the other conferences did. The Big Ten has always resisted following the leader and finally are moving to the 21st century. Of course there are things that get lost in the shuffle, but in the long run, I think the going to 12 teams and maybe eventually 16 is good. I am sure if the Big Ten feels that there will be 16 teams in the future, they do not wish to be the last to adjust.

[Spence]

Spence, I guess what I am saying is that as much as I hated to see the Ark/Texas rivalry end and also Iowa not playing Wisky every year, that is what it is and no sense in dwelling on it. I was pissed for a short time, but since the people involved really did not care about my feelings or opinions the decision was made.

I now focus on what is, and not what I wish was. I moved on.

I personally like the addition of Nebraska and the idea of a conference championship.

I also hated it when the Big Ten only sent one team to a bowl, while other conferences were sending multiple teams bowling. I also hated that the Big Ten did not allow red shirting, when all the other conferences did. The Big Ten has always resisted following the leader and finally are moving to the 21st century. Of course there are things that get lost in the shuffle, but in the long run, I think the going to 12 teams and maybe eventually 16 is good. I am sure if the Big Ten feels that there will be 16 teams in the future, they do not wish to be the last to adjust.

I know you are right. It is just going to take me a decade or two to get over it

[Eric]

Adding a conference title game probably diminishes the chances that you will get two teams in the BCS. The Big 10 has been getting 2 in the BCS precisely because of the fact that they didn't play a title game. If 10-2 Wisconsin plays 10-2 Nebraska, both aren't going to be BCS bowling, so the hope would have to be that Ohio State or Iowa picks up the slack. I don't think the Big 10, unlike the SEC, has enough starpower, at least under the current circumstances, to withstand one of their top two teams losing in the title game and still remain a favorite to fill in a BCS bowl.

At any rate, even though the Big 12 has 9 conference games, I would expect the Big 12 to get two teams in this year (I would guess Oklahoma State and Oklahoma). The Pac-10, in most cases, wouldn't get two teams in with their divisional alignment, but with Stanford and Oregon being in the same division, I think that it's likely in 2011. The Pac-10 is keeping their 9-game conference schedule in addition to a conference title game. Which is nuts if you want to get two schools into the BCS.

Basically it's a given that the SEC will get one at-large and a non-AQ team will get one at-large. Notre Dame will, maybe beginning in 2012, become a prime candidate to qualify for a BCS slot. So with the way college football is going, I think the championship game hurts the Big 10's chances at getting two BCS teams.

That was kind of a tangent, but it was kind of relevant

[RazorHawk]

Adding a conference title game probably diminishes the chances that you will get two teams in the BCS. The Big 10 has been getting 2 in the BCS precisely because of the fact that they didn't play a title game. If 10-2 Wisconsin plays 10-2 Nebraska, both aren't going to be BCS bowling, so the hope would have to be that Ohio State or Iowa picks up the slack. I don't think the Big 10, unlike the SEC, has enough starpower, at least under the current circumstances, to withstand one of their top two teams losing in the title game and still remain a favorite to fill in a BCS bowl.

At any rate, even though the Big 12 has 9 conference games, I would expect the Big 12 to get two teams in this year (I would guess Oklahoma State and Oklahoma). The Pac-10, in most cases, wouldn't get two teams in with their divisional alignment, but with Stanford and Oregon being in the same division, I think that it's likely in 2011. The Pac-10 is keeping their 9-game conference schedule in addition to a conference title game. Which is nuts if you want to get two schools into the BCS.

Basically it's a given that the SEC will get one at-large and a non-AQ team will get one at-large. Notre Dame will, maybe beginning in 2012, become a prime candidate to qualify for a BCS slot. So with the way college football is going, I think the championship game hurts the Big 10's chances at getting two BCS teams.

That was kind of a tangent, but it was kind of relevant

I think the 9 game conference schedule will hinder getting two teams in the BCS bowls, more than a conference championship. SEC has not had much problem getting two BCS spots almost every year.

I remember when the SEC went to a conference championship game and everyone said this would make it very difficult to win a National Championship. The very first year Alabama won the Conference and the National Championship. And of course, all are aware of the last 5 years in the BCS championship game, with 4 different SEC teams claiming a National Championship and 5 in a row.

I think the Big 10 will do just fine, but I think the 9 game conference schedule is a mistake.

[Spence]

The nine game conference schedule is about Delany having more games for his B-10 network. I agree that it is going to hurt some schools financially because they will either have to lose a home game or give up playing a good OOC game every year. I like having that "premier" OOC game every year. I like playing USC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, and who ever else is on the slate. I don't want to lose that.