The Big 10 - Pac 12 Failure

The other day it was announced that the Big Ten/Pac-12 pact was dissolved. After the agreement was reached, Michigan scheduled a home-and-home contest with Utah. Now, Michigan is still holding up to their side of the bargain, and MSU will still play Oregon, but the annual 12 games a season between the two is off. So let's examine some particulars:


1. Sources say 4 teams from the Pac-12 were unwilling to agree to the scheduling. I don't know which 4 teams they were, but from what I've heard, Lane Kiffin and USC were major proponents against it. USC has become the perennial powerhouse of the conference since Pete Carroll took over in the early 2000s. And if Kiffin and USC balk at it, others would have certainly joined in. I know it hasn't been said, but I also wouldn't be surprised if Arizona and RichRod were part of this as well. Rich couldn't beat Big Ten teams when he coached inside the conference and he probably knows he would have a lesser chance now. Not to mention being mocked every time he played against the Big Ten.

Seasons Of Change For College Football Coming Today

Today could be a monumental day in the history of college football. The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee will vote Tuesday in Washington, D.C., on a new four-team, three-game playoff that could be sold to television for as much as $5 billion over a 10-year deal. The 2011 BCS contract paid out $174 million, and the newly restructured postseason would nearly triple that number. The model is being presented by 11 BCS commissioners, and Notre Dame's president Jack Swarbrick.

I know one of the major debates is how the selection committee will be picked. Football is vastly different than basketball in that there are far fewer conferences and programs to choose from. Basketball has well over 300 schools, while football is set at 119. Logic suggests one member from each conference and one from ND will be used, yet I do have misgivings about that. One, not all 11 conferences all equal. That might seem prejudiced seeing as how Michigan is what it is, and being in the Big Ten, but we're not the MAC. We're not the WAC or Mountain West either. I'm not saying anything derogatory towards those schools, but it's true. Why should they have a say into what final four teams should be playing for the championship? Sounds mean, I know, but it's reality.

Hot Topics: Should There Be A BCS Playoff?

Photo Credit: Business of College Sports

Each week, our writers break down a "Hot Topic" among the Michigan fans and allow them to express their  opinions. Topics cover everything from rivalry games to team and fan apparel. Writers have their own opinion and readers are welcome to comment or contact them via Twitter with their thoughts.


--


Tyler Desy - Representing Those For A BCS Playoff

1) Ok I definitely want a playoff. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge Michigan fan and I love the "Rose Bowl Tradition." Big Ten vs Pac 12 is a great thing. But often every year teams that run the table are getting left out of the discussion. For example, 2005 USC vs Oklahoma where the Trojans just throttled the Sooners. On the outside looking in was Auburn who went undefeated. Now, both USC and Oklahoma were undefeated as well, but Auburn didn't deserve to be left out. If you run the table you should have a shot at your claim to be the best team in the country and therefore play for the National title.  Couple years ago Utah, same thing happened. Sure, they made it to the Fiesta Bowl, which they won, but why should they get denied a chance at the title game. Sure, they are in a smaller conference, obviously weaker schedule but they did beat what everyone thought was a better Georgia team.  Whether it's a 4 team, 8 team, 12 team system, I think a playoff is the best bet.  More often than not, teams that deserve to play for the title get left out.  Don't get me wrong the BCS was kind to Michigan this year in giving us a Sugar Bowl bid, but a lot of people questioned their worth to be there and I definitely think Virginia Tech didn't deserve a bid to the Sugar Bowl. With the playoff system, you take the top 4-8 teams (whatever the number) and say, alright you guys deserve a shot at the title, so you will play for it. No voters, no computers to screw it up.  I say leave it to the teams on the field, not voters and computers.

2) March Madness, I love it. The little guy has a shot at doing it big. Teams like Butler wouldn't have a chance in the BCS system. Even if they did run the table, no way they are getting looked at for a BCS bowl.  With the NCAA tournament everyone gets a shot, you get in the tournament field you got a shot at the title. Even with this tournament teams get left out but I believe it gives the teams in the field a fair shot. To me that's what the playoff system would do for college football. It's more fair. Teams like Utah, who run the table, would get their shot to play for a national championship. Sure, there are teams that run the table that would get left out of the 4 team playoff because they simply don't play a strong enough schedule, but if you are ranked in the top 4 of the country, win your games you should get a chance to play for the title. Why should a computer decide your fate if you get to compete to be the best team in the country? Year in and year out there's always a couple teams with 1 loss, and some that go undefeated. Last year, Oklahoma State thought they should've been in the title game against Alabama. They went a way in proving their argument because they whipped on a very good Stanford team. Of course, Alabama did end up being LSU and winning the title. So were the computers wrong? You could say all three of those teams deserved to be in the game, LSU for sure. So with a playoff you wouldn't have had to hear Oklahoma State feel left out because they have a shot at playing in the game. If you win, you're in and that's how it should be.

-----

Thomas Beindit - Representing Those Against A BCS Playoff

1)  What makes college football special?  Some may say the school pride, the amateur players, or the rivalries, but I'd say its history is what makes the sport special and unique from all others.  Does any other American sport, except maybe baseball, have even close to as much tradition as college football?  I'd say no.  The bowl system is part of that history and throwing it out for an unproven hybrid playoff system is not the right decision.  I completely agree that the current bowl and BCS system is not perfect, but it's something that's entrenched in the fabric of the sport.  Things like the "Idaho Potato" bowl may not be that special, but I don't think anybody would debate the heritage and importance of the Rose Bowl.  Everybody wants to compare the BCS to things like NFL playoffs, so let's do that for a second.  Sure, things like the Super Bowl are great, but don't forget about all the boring first round playoff games fans are forced to watch.  Granted, the current playoff proposals only select the top 4 teams, but does anybody really believe it will stay as 4 teams?  When has any sport's playoff not expanded?  Even football and baseball have expanded.  I have no idea how big a college football playoff could eventually get, but to me, there's little doubt that if a playoff is established, it will get bigger.  To me, destroying things as special as the Rose Bowl on New Year's Day for a hybrid system that is pretty likely to change in the future doesn't seem like a great option to me.  The BCS system isn't perfect, but it's preferable to something I'm not sure will even work out well.

2)  What is the major difference between the BCS and a traditional playoff system?  Only the very elite teams compete for the national championship.  Since we've brought in some other playoff systems, let's take a look at one of the NCAA's own, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, more commonly known as March Madness.  Everybody loves March Madness, right?  Well, consider this.  Does the best team become the champion and do the best teams compete for the championship?  Some years, certainly.  However, I'm not so sure you can say the best teams compete on a yearly basis.  Look at the 2011 tourney, UConn won the championship and was considered the best team of that season.  However, no #1 seeds made the tourney.  So of the four teams that did the best over the 5 month season, none were even in the final running for the championship.  Sure, you could say "well, only the end matters".  However, isn't that a questionable method to determine the "best" team?  Right now, in order to make the championship game, a college football team pretty much has to go undefeated, or lose one game at most, during the entire regular season.  That's a pretty challenging requirement for most teams and pretty accurately separates the best teams from the rest of the pack.  Even in the worst case scenario, two of the top four teams will be playing for the national championship.  I'd bet that 9 times out of 10 it's going to be the two best teams in the country, but as I said, worst case scenario that's what fans get to see.  However, in a playoff, I'm not sure you're going to see that every year, especially if it expands, which I'd be willing to bet that it will.  Along with this, it simply moves the debate down the line.  Instead of debating the two best teams, fans will end up debating who the #4, #8, or #16 should be in the playoffs.  If you don't think it will happen, take a look at college basketball.  Anybody hear of a team on the bubble trying to strength their resume?  It will happen in college football if there is a playoff.  I just see no reason a person could say they should be debating the #4, #8, or #16 team in a discussion about the national champions.  It just doesn't make sense.

-----

Final Points

Tyler - So to summarize, give me a playoff system. There are so many ridiculous bowls and matchups that virtually nobody cares for. Every year a team gets left out of the title game because they have the same record as the two teams picked, or even a better record. Same song different year. Give the teams a chance to earn their right to play in the game on the field. More often then not the computers get it wrong in my opinion. I would rather have a team be left out of the title game because they got beat in a playoff, not because the computers gave them a .1 less rating then the #2 team in the country. Pretty ridiculous. I think that a playoff is the best way to go. Sure teams will feel like they are left out of the playoff as well that goes without saying. But I think it gives more teams a chance, and its more of a legitimate shot at playing in the title game. You can't please everyone, but I think you will have more people that are happy, rather than sad or pissed off because they are left out of the game. I think the BCS is a joke and I hope the playoff system happens, because I for one am very interested in seeing it.

Thomas - Do some deserving teams get left out of the BCS title game?  There are always going to be flaws in the system.  However, in a playoff system you run the chance of not only excluding some deserving teams, but also or crowning an undeserving champion.  If you use the 4 team playoff model, there is still going to be a debate about who is deserving.  Look at this year, could you definitely pick the best 4 teams?  I'm not so sure.  LSU, Alabama, and Oklahoma St were obvious picks, but does teams like Oregon, Stanford, or Wisconsin get that last bid?  It's not as clear cut as many assume.  Along with this, if you put a team like Wisconsin in the playoff, you're looking at a team with two regular season losses and a relatively weak schedule (compared to teams like LSU or Alabama).  How can you possibly say they are better than a team like LSU who had 0 regular season losses and wins over Oregon, Alabama, West Virginia, Miss State, Auburn, Arkansas, and Georgia?  The obvious answer is you can't say Wisconsin was more deserving.  If you create a BCS playoff system, you would still leave the hated aspects (rankings, quality debates, and uncertainty) in the system while also allowing undeserving teams a chance at winning the championship.  Even if you set-up requirements to address some of the problems a playoff system may face such as the potential for future expansion, it's not going to be the fix-all that many assume it will be in the future.  In fact, I think it will only expand the problems and controversy surrounding the college football postseason.

-----

All writers are entitled to their own opinion and those may or may not represent the held beliefs of Hoke's Mad Magicians as an entity. Readers are welcome to comment below or contact the writers via Twitter with  their thoughts

Bleeding Maize And Blue

I'm sure every fan has that moment in their lives when they became a Michigan fan. You might've grown up with your family having a history of Blue Bloods, or chosen to attend UofM out of high school. When it comes down to it, everyone has their own tale. So, for this article I'm going to give you a little background on mine, and hopefully some of you will share your stories below or via Twitter.

I grew up in Nashville, Michigan. Go ahead--look it up on Google Earth, and you'll see it does exist. That little village is in the prime area of Sparty country. It's located about 45 minutes SW of Lansing. Growing up I wasn't into any college sports, or sports at all for that matter. I remember kids being fans of the Tar Heels and Seminoles and Spartans but I didn't put much effort into caring. I do, however, remember watching Chris Webber during the national title game in 1993. I remember not so much of the time-out, but just the colors themselves. Keep in mind I was 13 at the time!

Fast forward to 2001, which is when I met my wife. I moved out to Howell in 2002 and got a job in a fireplace warehouse, and I met one of the staunchest Michigan fans out there. To this day, he is still my friend and fellow fantasy football player, but it is because of him that my passion has grown to what it is today.

In 2003, he took me to my first Michigan football game against Purdue. Walking in through the gates, and down into our seats; I knew I was hooked. I had chills going up my spine before the game even started. If you remember, this was the last year Navarre played and we lost in the Rose Bowl at the end. I've been to a few games since: the 3OT thriller against MSU, and Henne's first game as a starter against Miami of Ohio. A few games during the RichRod era (whom I loathed) and went to see the blowouts against Purdue and Nebraska's first game at the Big House. Through the ups and downs of the program, I have always remained steadfast in my support of Big Blue.

Now as I stated earlier, I grew up in MSU country. Went to school with a lot of their fans, and most I still consider friends to this day. Right now, I despise anything green. I hardly have any in my wardrobe and my own 5-yr old says "Yuck, I don't like green" (Yes, we've trained him well). I also don't own much red either but I guess since I grew up where I did, I dislike green a shade more than scarlet red. Not to say I have any kind feelings towards Ohio.

This is my story and why I bleed maize and blue.  So, tell us your story about when you started bleeding maize and blue.  Even fan has a story, let's hear yours!


Photo Credit: AnnArbor.com

A Rose Bowl For All?

In a historic move for college football, the Pac 12 and Big Ten officially expanded their Rose Bowl partnership to the regular season.  Rumors about the announcement had circled for weeks regarding all sorts of things including the Michigan - Notre Dame rivalry, the move of Michigan v Ohio State, and about Penn State's Big Ten status.  Although none of these issues were officially recognized, there is no doubt things such as Michigan - Notre Dame will be impacted with these new games.

These new games have all sorts of implications, but first, let's break down the announcement itself.  While most conferences have been attempting to expand and add more teams, the Big Ten has avoided much of this controversy and has only added one team in more than a decade.  Unlike the Big Ten, the Pac 12 had a significant impact in the conference re-alignments by adding teams like Utah, but never had the massive changes like the ACC or Big East.  Although the Big Ten and Pac 12 haven't been the leaders in conference re-alignment, this new partnership was essentially a re-alignment in disguise.

This was a disguised re-alignment because neither conference wanted to alienate schools and fan bases by changing the regularly scheduled teams, but it still has the same goals and aims of a re-alignment.  This new partnership primarily revolves around 12 Big Ten v. Pac 12 football match-ups by the 2017 season, but does talk about other sports.  Granted, 2017 is pretty far ahead, but this still means that every team in the Big Ten will face a Pac 12 opponent every season and vice versa.  Only one game on each team's schedule will be changed as a result, but it will be the most inter-conference play of any two conferences in college football (assuming no other conferences steal this concept).

I think the concept is a big step forward for college football, but it's essentially a re-make of the Big Ten/ACC Challenge.  The change revolves around a full conference match-up to remove one "cupcake" from the schedule and equalize opponents based on performance.  I say this because the comments from Delaney and Scott (Big Ten and Pac 12 Commissioners) implied that teams with similar performance will be scheduled together.  For instance, Michigan (10-2) is likely to be scheduled against USC (10-2), while Purdue (6-6) will probably get somebody like UCLA (6-7).

Although the advantages are significant, especially for the conferences and college football, there are also some significant problems in this inter-conference partnership.  The loss of a "cupcake" opponent may seem unimportant, but it has significant impacts on both good and bad teams.  For instance, let's look at Purdue and Michigan.  Purdue finished 6-6 this season during regular season play, while Michigan finished 10-2.  At first glance, increasing the strength of schedule would appear to hurt Purdue more than Michigan, but after further analysis, this is quite debatable.

Instead of scheduling a team like Southeast Missouri State (3-8), Purdue would probably play a team like UCLA (6-7) or Washington (7-5).  Obviously, this is a significant increase in opponent quality.  As a result, Purdue 's 6-6 record would have been much tougher to achieve.  Along with this, Michigan would probably be forced to replace an opponent like Eastern Michigan (6-6) with a team like USC (10-2).  Removing a team like Eastern Michigan and replacing them with a quality opponent wouldn't have been that significant to Michigan's chances this season, but Michigan would be forced to play a very difficult opponent, not just a legitimate team.  This would be a very tough game and make seasons such as this year's at-large bid to the Sugar Bowl much less likely.

This is crucial to analyzing this new agreement between the Big Ten and Pac 12 because it's pretty easy to see how quickly it could impact the conferences.  If the new agreement had been instituted this season and Purdue and Michigan lost their match-ups against the Pac 12, the Big Ten would probably have one less bowl team and one less BCS team.  This is pretty unlikely to please Big Ten fans and schools, but the advantages should outweigh these problems.

I believe this because the Big Ten is very unlikely to lose all of the new games with the Pac 12.  In fact, I think the conference will fare pretty well in the long-term against the Pac 12.  Even looking at this season, which was a weak year for the Big Ten, the Big Ten would have had some great match-ups.  Sure, Oregon, Stanford, and USC would have been tough opponents, but I don't think there's anybody that believes Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Michigan would have lost all three of those games.  Along with that, the Big Ten has other teams such as Nebraska (9-4) that could run over teams like UCLA (6-7) or Washington (7-5).

In the long-term, the Big Ten and Pac 12 are probably going to have overall records that are slightly worse than years past, but the increased schedule strength should counter out the losses, especially for teams that win their inter-conference match-ups.  Keeping this in mind, I believe this is a very good change for both conferences and will work to equalize the schedules across conferences.  The only major fallout I anticipate is with the remaining non-conference scheduling.  As discussed in an earlier article, adding tough non-conference opponents in road or neutral environments is not something most schools are going to be excited about.

This concern is one of the major reasons why Notre Dame will be at risk for being dropped from schedules by teams like Michigan, Michigan State, USC, and Stanford.  With one legitimate non-conference opponent guaranteed through this Big Ten and Pac 12 agreement, there is no real reason to keep a team like Notre Dame on the schedule, other than preserving a "cherished" rivalry.  Will Michigan drop the Irish soon?  Nobody can be sure of that, but it at least seems safe for the next few seasons.  However, fans across the country can be excited for every Big Ten team's miniature Rose Bowl during the first few weeks of every season.  While there was typically only one or two match-ups between the Big Ten and Pac 12 every year, there's going to be a lot more from now on, which should make for some great football.

Photo Credit: Danny Moloshok

Michigan's Best: No. 47 Bennie Oosterbaan

For most players, earning All-American honors once is an honor, but for #47, it was just one of his many accomplishments that helped craft one of the greatest athletes in Michigan history.  When Bennie Oosterbaan graduated in 1928, he had set a bar that would never be topped throughout the school's history.  He did this by breaking records in all three of his sports (football, basketball, and baseball) and earning a total of nine varsity letters, something that would be baffling in today's world.  Certainly times have changed since the late 1920s, but this in no way diminishes the accomplishments of #47 at the University of Michigan.  He was one of the school's first "superstar" athletes and remains an icon today.

Football


While attending Michigan, Bennie played three sports, but he is probably known best for his football accomplishments.  He played as both a wide receiver and defensive end.  He was the first player in history to achieve three seasons as an All-American football player at Michigan and remains one of only two players in team history ever to accomplish this feat (the other is famed receiver Anthony Carter).

Bennie's impressive three All-American awards were impressive, but not unwarranted.  Bennie led the Big Ten during the 1925 with eight touchdowns and made numerous crucial plays that propelled the Wolverines to an impressive 20-4 record with two Big Ten championships under famed coach Fielding Yost (his second tenure as the school).  One of his bright moments occurred in the Michigan v. Minnesota battle for the Brown Jug, where Bennie returned a fumble 60 yards for a touchdown that ultimately decided the game.

At one point, Bennie was even voted as the team's MVP.  Part of this consensus was because of his performance in big games.  In one of the most historic games in school history, the dedication of the Big House against Ohio State in 1927, he ended up throwing three touchdown passes in a 21-0 victory over the Buckeyes.  This marked a historic period for Bennie and The Game as Michigan never lost to Ohio State while Bennie attended school (Bennie played three years on the varsity team).

Basketball & Baseball

Although most athletes, at least currently, limit themselves to one sport, Bennie was an award winning athlete in three different sports.  Not only was he a 3X All-American football player, but he also was a 2X All-American basketball player.  One of his major accomplishments during basketball play was when he led the Big Ten in scoring during his senior season.  He still remains the only athlete in Michigan history ever to achieve the distinct honor of being a basketball and football All-American.

One top of his amazing football and basketball accomplishments, he also was a good baseball player.  Aside from earning three varsity letters on the baseball team, he also earned the honor of being the Big Ten's Batting Champion in 1928.  This is an incredible feat by itself, but accompanied by his oustanding football and basketball success, it becomes even more impressive.  Baseball is technically the sport that Bennie was "worst" at while he was at Michigan, but he still ended up being an All-Big Ten player.  The only difference was his amazing success on the basketball court and football field.

Coaching


For most players, this would have been the end of the story, but not for #47.  Instead of taking his shot in the professional football or basketball leagues, he decided to return in an attempt to coach at the University of Michigan.  Most claim this decision revolved around Bennie's religious practices, which banned him from playing on Sundays.  Whatever the reason, he quickly became an assistant football and basketball coach for the years following his graduate.  He served in this capacity until he took over as head basketball coach at Michigan.

Bennie was certainly a talented basketball player, but he never seemed to be able to translate that talent as a basketball coach.  The best finish under Bennie's tenure was 5th in the Big Ten during his almost 8 year span. Following his tenure as basketball coach, he succeeded the famed Fritz Crisler as head football coach and led one of the most dominant periods in Michigan history.  His first three teams all won Big ten championships and he led the team that won the 1951 Rose Bowl.  The team faded in the later years of his tenure as they failed to win another Big Ten championship under #47.  After he resigned from the head coaching position, he moved to a staff position to handle alumni relations.

#47 Retired

Bennie's number was the first number to ever be retired in Michigan football history.  When his collegiate career ended in 1927, it only took until the 1928 season for his jersey number to be removed from team rotation.  It took until the 1938 season before the number's retirement was officially announced to the media, but in truth, the #47 has never been used for another player since Bennie walked off the field.  He had an enormous impact on both the football and basketball programs and is truly one of Michigan's "Leaders and Best."