Jump to content

Sport

Members
  • Posts

    27,108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    128

Everything posted by Sport

  1. A whole slew of Blue Jackets. During the lockout, some of the old veterans came to my side of town and rented ice in the rink in which my high school team played. Jody Shelley was the most frequent and he would let us play with him and his goalie after our practice was over. Great guy. I would like to hang out with him even if he weren't a professional athlete. also once saw George Brett in an Orlando restaurant. and this is the Ohio State heisman trophy section: - Howard "Hopalong" Cassidy was the grandfather of these two boys that I went to middle school with. I met him at one of their birthday parties. He just seemed like an old man to me at the time, but looking back that was a pretty big deal. - caddied for Eddie George in a celebrity pro-am. He is just as nice as they say he is. - and the mother of them all. Archie Griffin sat in our box for the final game of the Frozen Four when it was held in Columbus a few years back. My neighbor works in the athletic department office at Ohio State and so does Archie. He was great. A super nice guy.
  2. The biggest two issues are: 1. You wouldn't play everybody And more importantly: 2. How would you break ties? With a divisional format there's always head-to-head games for tiebreakers and you play the relatively same schedule. I'm not in favor of the system I just proposed, but I can answer your issues 1. The Big Ten championship is currently awarded without playing everybody. Adding a championship game to the current system and you eliminate sharing the conference title between two teams that didn't play each other. Come to think of it, I wish the NCAA would allow championship games to any conference under the 12 cap in the instance that two teams are tied for the conference title. 2. you break ties using the common opponents formula but I am in favor of a divisional format. I'm just having a hard time arranging the divisions so that they make sense but are also relatively even while maintaining traditional rivalries.
  3. What about rather than splitting the conference into divisions they would instead play the season as they do now and then at the end of the year the two best teams meet in Indianapolis or Chicago for the Championship game. Do you see that working out in any way?
  4. They killed it because they adopted a scheduling system that lacked protected cross division rivalries. My suggested alignment that I think touched this off was going to allow for one cross division protected rivalry. If having a championship game rematch immediately thereafter works for everyone, sure keep it at the last week of the season. The bigger issue here is we need to break up the Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State group of death somehow, and I'd like to see it done in a geographically rational way that is not like the ACC's cluster alignment that nobody really remembers and you could likely change annually without anyone noticing the difference. Yes, you'd have to go with a primary cross-over opponent. I think it's silly and I'm a little surprised the Big 12 doesn't have that I guess I could live with Michigan being in opposite divisions because a championship game rematch wouldn't be that often an occurrence, but they don't have to be opposite OSU and Penn State. This "group of death" doesn't exist right now, at least not with Michigan being included. They were 1-7 in the conference last year. Historically they've been good and so has Penn State, but Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State can and do have their down years. Just tell me, how would divide the conference so that OSU and Michigan aren't together, but that it still makes sense geographically. North/South? Just for kicks, here's how the divisions standings would've looked this season if you used the natural east-west lineups (I realize these teams did not play a divisional schedule) East Ohio State 7-1 Penn State 6-2 MSU 4-4 Purdue 4-4 Indiana 1-7 Michigan 1-7 West Iowa 6-2 Wisconsin 5-3 Northwestern 5-3 Minnesota 3-5 Illinois 2-6 *new team* Iowa would've had a rematch with Ohio State for the championship game.
  5. It's not that, it's that they've played it on the last day of the season for 70 years. People and players would still be able to get up for the game, but playing it in the middle of the season would cause it to lose some of its aura. Plus, you're tearing down 70 years of tradition for the low possibility of a championship game rematch. At this point, it would be a once in every ten years occurrence. I don't think that's worth breaking tradition.
  6. Well they're not going to not play the game so what's more important is when it's played and it's been played as the last game of the season since 1938. They're not going to change the schedule because there's too much tradition there. Changing the date of the game would do more damage to the rivalry IMO than reducing the importance of the game from Conference champion to division champion. Playing the game in late november is as big a part of the tradition as the winged helmets and buckeye leaf stickers. Somehow the SEC has been able to keep "3rd Saturday in October" working even when it is not played on the 3rd Saturday in October, and the Auburn-Georgia rivalry is still as heated as it was before divisions. I don't buy that date is important in this situation. The game is still being played annually. Even more importantly, it keeps open the possibility of a Michigan-Ohio State Conference Championship ratings bonanza. Then you don't know the Ohio State-Michigan game. The game will always be played annually, we know that and we aren't worried that it won't be played if they are in separate divisions. Moving the game to September or October will change the dynamics of the game. Using Auburn-Georgia isn't a good comparison because the OSU-Michigan rivalry is more like Auburn-Alabama. Those two play on the last day of the season, are in the same division and their rivalry is just as heated as it was before divisions. Ask Auburn or Alabama fans how they would feel if the Iron Bowl were moved to the middle of the season. The Big Ten may want to see an Ohio State-Michigan championship game rematch because of the $$$, but the fans won't if it means they have to play the first game in September. Allow me to explain it this way, OSU-Michigan's placement as the last game on the schedule holds significance in that fans look forward to it all season. If you move it to the middle of the big ten schedule then it might as well be just another big ten conference game. It's placement on the last day of the season still makes the game important even if either team is having a bad year or 6. So there are two options, put them into different divisions which would mean that you would have to move one of the most famous college football rivalries off of the last game so that in the instance where they meet in the champ game then they won't play in back to back weeks. Or, put them into the same division, continue to play on the last day of the regular season and battle it out for the division championship. Does it really matter when in the season a beat down of your arch rival happens, just so long as it happens? Yes, I've explained it. Being at the end of the season adds more to the rivalry. period. Put it in the beginning or the middle and it might as well be Ohio State-Minnesota or Michigan-Purdue. If Michigan and Ohio State were to play in opposite divisions, exactly why can't they keep their game at the end of the season? For one, if both teams have their respective divisions locked up prior to the final game then it basically becomes a meaningless exercise in redundancy (assuming there are no BCS title game implications). You might as well just forget the regular season game altogether and go straight to the Big Ten Championship game. Of course, this is all contigent on Michigan ever getting their act together and becoming competitive again, but I just don't think it's fair to ask a team to beat their biggest rival in back-to-back weeks to win a conference. I'm also against playing the game in the middle of the season. Hence, I'm in favor of putting the Buckeyes and Wolverines into the same division where they can battle for the division on the last day.
  7. Well they're not going to not play the game so what's more important is when it's played and it's been played as the last game of the season since 1938. They're not going to change the schedule because there's too much tradition there. Changing the date of the game would do more damage to the rivalry IMO than reducing the importance of the game from Conference champion to division champion. Playing the game in late november is as big a part of the tradition as the winged helmets and buckeye leaf stickers. Somehow the SEC has been able to keep "3rd Saturday in October" working even when it is not played on the 3rd Saturday in October, and the Auburn-Georgia rivalry is still as heated as it was before divisions. I don't buy that date is important in this situation. The game is still being played annually. Even more importantly, it keeps open the possibility of a Michigan-Ohio State Conference Championship ratings bonanza. Then you don't know the Ohio State-Michigan game. The game will always be played annually, we know that and we aren't worried that it won't be played if they are in separate divisions. Moving the game to September or October will change the dynamics of the game. Using Auburn-Georgia isn't a good comparison because the OSU-Michigan rivalry is more like Auburn-Alabama. Those two play on the last day of the season, are in the same division and their rivalry is just as heated as it was before divisions. Ask Auburn or Alabama fans how they would feel if the Iron Bowl were moved to the middle of the season. The Big Ten may want to see an Ohio State-Michigan championship game rematch because of the $$$, but the fans won't if it means they have to play the first game in September. Allow me to explain it this way, OSU-Michigan's placement as the last game on the schedule holds significance in that fans look forward to it all season. If you move it to the middle of the big ten schedule then it might as well be just another big ten conference game. It's placement on the last day of the season still makes the game important even if either team is having a bad year or 6. So there are two options, put them into different divisions which would mean that you would have to move one of the most famous college football rivalries off of the last game so that in the instance where they meet in the champ game then they won't play in back to back weeks. Or, put them into the same division, continue to play on the last day of the regular season and battle it out for the division championship.
  8. Well they're not going to not play the game so what's more important is when it's played and it's been played as the last game of the season since 1938. They're not going to change the schedule because there's too much tradition there. Changing the date of the game would do more damage to the rivalry IMO than reducing the importance of the game from Conference champion to division champion. Playing the game in late november is as big a part of the tradition as the winged helmets and buckeye leaf stickers.
  9. How easy would it be to get a team out of the Big East? I assume that the Big East sured up their borders after the last raid by the ACC. and if Pittsburgh left, who would replace them? East Carolina, UCF, maybe even Temple again?
  10. So then what are our main rivalries here? Ohio State-Michigan Michigan State-Michigan Indiana-Purdue Minnesota-Wisconsin Minnesota-Michigan? NorthWestern-Illinois so we'll go the ACC route and abandon geographical ties to the divisions (and name them after key founders of the conference) then we'd have Division #1 Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, Indiana Division #2 Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, *New Team* Ohio State-Illinois and Minnesota-Michigan are two games that both involve a trophy. These could be made the primary out of division opponents for all 4 teams. How about that?
  11. I can guarantee that a Big Ten Championship game in Lucas Oil Stadium would sell out. I've long wanted a 12th team for the Big ten because I'm envious of what the Big 12 and SEC have and it'd be more interesting to have division rivals rather than just big ten rivals. I'm very intrigued at how the different possible additions would affect the divisional lineups and I'm beginning to like the idea of Missouri making the jump. They just sound like a big ten team, but I could live with Pittsburgh being in the conference as well. They would make Penn State's inclusion in the conference more sensible. The Big Ten's teams are certainly close enough where the divisions don't have to fall on geographic ties, but let's see how it would work if they did first. If we go with Missouri/Iowa State/Notre Dame then the divisions would likely be, West: Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Miss/ISU/ND, Northwestern, Wisconsin East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue if Pitt (or another more eastern team such as West Virginia or Syracuse) joins then things become a bit more complicated. You'd put PIttsburgh into the east of course, but you don't want to split traditional rivalries into separate divisons. So either Purdue and Indiana are both in the east or they're both in the west. With Pitt in the east you could move Mich. St. to the west, but that would split up their rivalry with Michigan. My solution is this, West: Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin East: Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Pittsburgh Problem with this is that the Western division is unbelievably weak. The conference champion would come out of the east more often than not, so... we could try going with a North/South Model North: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Mich St. Michigan, Iowa, Northwestern South: Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Pittsburgh, Penn State, Illinois but that splits up Ohio State-Michigan. This means that they could meet twice in some season in the championship game. I don't know if that's a bad thing or if any other conferences have two big rivals split against each other. Personally, I like that OSU and Michigan meet only once per year. In any scenario, that western division looks awfully weak. The Big XII north looks strong compared to that. Perhaps the Big Ten doesn't even organize into divisons and instead pits the two best teams against one another in the championship game? Or they could go the ACC route and have the divisons make no sense whatsoever. Atlantic and Coastal? Aren't those the same things? I guess it doesn't matter if rivals are split up. The schedulers give the team 5 games every year against their divisional opponents, then a primary opponent in the other division that they play every year and then two other games against revolving teams from the other division. So even if your biggest rival is in the other division, you can still play them every season. I also want to see Michigan fall into the eastern division so that by singing the last line of their fight song their fans appear misinformed. this is now the longest post in my history on the CCSLC. Thank you.
  12. I'd want to see it played in a cold weather stadium like Lambeau, but they'd likely try to play it in the Colts' dome. It's pretty central and they've had the big ten tournament for basketball in indianapolis in years past.
  13. If Notre Dame were to ever join a conference in football, the Big Ten would make the most sense. West Virginia would be a good fit as well, but I don't see them in the AAU membership list. I never knew about that requirement until this thread. Another team would give the big ten 12 teams and a conference championship game. Here's how I can see the divisions shaking out if Notre Dame were to join: West Illinois Iowa Minnesota Northwestern Notre Dame Wisconsin East Indiana Michigan Michigan State Ohio State Penn State Purdue If Iowa State jumps from the Big 12 then just swap them out for Notre Dame and you have your division lineup. If Iowa State moves to the Big 10 then the big 12 would be short a team. Who would the Big 12 take? Maybe TCU perhaps?
  14. I know people that still don't like Trottier because of that. Some of them cheered against Pittsburgh when Trottier was a Penguin. What's the story behind this? Did he switch just because he wanted to or did he not make the Canadian team?
  15. because he's tricky speaking of that movie, when has Iceland ever been a hockey power? I thought it was because he's fancy.
  16. because he's tricky speaking of that movie, when has Iceland ever been a hockey power?
  17. Okay, I gotta say it. It was a dick move on Bombay's part to use a technicality to force Banks to switch teams mid-season. he was a defense attorney after all. But yeah, watching that movie later as an adult made me think the same thing.
  18. If Matt Holliday stays with St. Louis for a long time, this will become an odd sight.
  19. can every post not start with "he's not a legend, but..."? It's been 32 pages, we gave up posting legends on page 5.
  20. I actually remember Nolan Ryan best as a Texas Ranger. I had a poster of him that came in a box of cereal. As far as 5 year old McCarthy was concerned he only played for the Rangers.
  21. ...and that man is Boomer Esiason. Look it up, He has better career numbers. So does Kenny Anderson for that matter.
  22. the fact that the penguins switched to using that jersey full time astounds me. It looks awful
  23. I'm glad to see you're still on board. I thought you were kidding in the NHL uniforms thread. Hopefully they don't prove to be as frustrating as the islanders.
  24. Columbus Blue Jackets: I was 13 during their first season, I even went to the first 5 home games they ever had. Now I work at the arena. It's getting a little frustrating but I know their due for a change soon so I'm sticking with them for now. Cincinnati Bengals: From age 0 to age 4 my father was employed by the Bengals radio network so I became involved with them pretty early on. Cincinnati Reds: My most beloved team. I think baseball is the easiest sport to explain to a toddler because I can remember distincly cheering for the reds as a 2 and 3 year old.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.