Big Ten Divisions: The mistake the Big Ten shouldn't make

Back in June, great excitement surrounded Nebraska’s agreement to join the Big Ten Conference. The Big Ten got one of the “blue bloods” in college football, within the Big Ten’s traditional Midwestern footprint, with one of the best, most knowledgeable fan bases in the country. It was consistent with the Big Ten’s “we do things different here” mentality: while much of the country expected the Big Ten to poach Texas or possibly add Rutgers. Chasing after Texan population growth or Rutgers as an entrée into the New York media market (and Big Ten Network carriage fees) was considered a given. The Big Ten’s decision to take Nebraska instead was seemingly consistent with a league that holds out for only academically elite schools and has staunchly opposed a college football playoff, preferring instead the Rose Bowl and the relationship with the Pacific-10 Conference.

One of the givens when Nebraska joined was that, with 12 members, the Big Ten would hold a conference championship game. The NCAA generally requires that member schools schedule no more than 12 Football contests per season. However, there are series of so-called “exempt” games, which don’t count against the 12-game limit. The most famous, of course, is a bowl game, but for our purposes we’re more interested in the “Conference Championship Game.” The rule allows leagues consisting of at least 12 members to split into 2 divisions of at least 6 members each, and play “round robin” competition within each division (although leagues usually also schedule a few games across the divisions). If a league complies with these rules, then the 2 Division Champions may play in a Conference Championship Game that does not count against the 12-game limit. Ever since Roy Kramer discovered this rule in the early 90s and his Southeastern Conference’s title game became a smash hit, it has been an on-again, off-again (but mostly on-again) trend in college football for leagues to get to 12 members and hold a nationally televised title game.

Almost from the day that Nebraska announced that they had joined, there was speculation about how the divisions would be drawn up. Some factions have said from the beginning that the easiest and most logical arrangement for the Big Ten would be a simple East/West split, with the following divisions:

East: Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue

West: Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Immediately after Nebraska joined, Commissioner Jim Delany said that the league would have 3 “priorities,” in the following order: (a) “competitive fairness” (b) “maintenance of rivalries” and (c) “geography.” The emphasis on competitive fairness was thought by many to be a reference to splitting the so-called “Big Four” of Ohio State, Nebraska, Michigan, and Penn State evenly into the 2 divisions (2 and 2) – obviously a deviation from a simple East/West geographic model. This sense was generally thought to have been confirmed when Wisconsin Athletic Director Barry Alvarez was quoted as making statements along these same lines (although the careful reader will note some ambiguity). Although Alvarez was later quoted as reframing the analysis from splitting a “Big 4” to splitting a “Big 6” (including Wisconsin and Iowa), Commissioner Delany later poured further cold water on the possibility of a geographic alignment.

In recent days, further specifics have come out that make it clearer and clearer that the Big Ten has lost its way in drawing up the divisions. Most proposals for divisions have placed Michigan and Ohio State in the same division, on the theory that the best way for their traditional season-ending game to be emulated in the new era of a divisional league format is for them to be placed in the same division, with (assuming Michigan’s program rebounds) the division title and an appearance in the Conference Championship Game on the line in many seasons. However, news recently broke that OSU Athletic Director Gene Smith had suggested that they might actually be split; shortly thereafter, Michigan AD Dave Brandon stated much more specifically that it was likely to happen, and as of this writing it is considered all but a certainty.

Why does this matter to Michigan State? My position is that, whatever our feelings about Michigan, the tradition of the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry is a treasure that belongs to the entire Big Ten. What differentiates the Big Ten from much of the rest of the country is the way our league cherishes traditions – particularly traditions that matter. If we stand idly by and watch the Big Ten sell its soul in a misguided pursuit of a few extra TV nickels, it might be something that affects Michigan State next time. Besides that, there is every reason to believe that this effort will fail: an enormous part of the Big Ten’s brand identity is tied up in the notion that we aren’t the kind of place where we kowtow to TV demands. The Big Ten sat on 11 members for nearly 20 years, when going to 12 would have produced a lucrative championship game. The league has staunchly opposed a playoff, which would be more profitable than the bowl system, because it prefers the tradition of the relationship with the Rose Bowl and Pac-10. (Note: I prefer a playoff, but not because it would be more profitable, and I respect the Big Ten’s willingness to elevate tradition above money.) The Big Ten has refused to play on weeknights and places fairly strict limits on playing Saturday night games in the cold weeks of late Fall, even though making concessions on either point would likely be profitable and certainly would provide for more nationally televised games and greater exposure. The league currently utilizes an “unbalanced” schedule which protects traditional rivalry games over balance; thus Ohio State never loses two of the very good teams (Michigan and Penn State), Penn State never misses one very good team and one middle class team (Ohio State and Michigan State), but Wisconsin never misses only a pretty good team and a crummy team (Iowa and Minnesota). And that’s a good thing, I say: better to preserve those traditions and tolerate a little scheduling imbalance than eviscerate what makes college football special. Thus I am all the more shocked and saddened by the Big Ten’s apparent direction here.

It is worthwhile to take an aside here and address the point that was raised by President Graham Spanier of Penn State. He seems to feel that, so long as 2 rivals play annually, that is enough. But what makes a rivalry sizzle in most cases is jockeying for position in the standings against each other. The only way to do that is if the teams are both in the same division. That way, only one can finish in 1^st place, and there’s more on the line when the game is played than mere bragging rights. I find it absurd and baffling that so many of the powers that be seem to think that, just because two teams play annually, that’s an adequate compromise. Unless they’re both in the same division, playing for the same title, and jockeying for position in the same standings, I fail to see what makes the rivalry really sizzle. I would argue that the Michigan/Ohio State rivalry became what it did because of the “Big 2, Little 8” Bo & Woody era, when so often their season-ending game had the league title on the line. Is there any doubt that it would not have become the same phenomenon if that hadn’t been such a routine situation?

What the Big Ten should do is use the geographic divisions. There are many reasons why. Some believe that geography per se is a sufficient reason to group the teams – a position I sympathize with. Ultimately, I think the Big Ten should use geographic divisions, although for non-geographic reasons (but referring to the alignment as the “geographic model” is a convenient shorthand). I reach that outcome by applying the following 4 rules:

1. Ohio State and Nebraska should not be in the same division. They’re the two most successful programs in the league (now that Nebraska is joining).

2. Ohio State and Michigan must be in the same division, for the reasons stated above.

3. Michigan and Michigan State must be in the same division, again for the reasons stated above.

4. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota must be in a division together. The Big Ten has always been a league that depends on collegiality and treating the membership as fundamentally equal, even if this is not the practical reality; I consider it an important test of the Big Ten’s commitment to this principle that Minnesota’s traditional rivalries with Iowa and Wisconsin be honored, even if Minnesota’s program has not enjoyed the success of the league’s elites.

This produces two pairs of 3 teams each:

A: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State

B: Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

Because of the first rule, there are only two options for what to do with Nebraska. The first is to combine these two groups of 3 teams, and then have the other 6 teams form a division. Thus:

A′: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

B′: Nebraska, Penn State, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue

I consider this alignment laughably unbalanced; even if we cannot measure balance precisely, we can ask that it at least pass a smell test. As a result, we have to take the only other option for Nebraska, which is to put it with the triad of Plains States teams to form a quartet. Thus:

A: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State

B: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

The next central question is what to do with Penn State. It’s been suggested that putting Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan in the same division would be “unbalanced” or “stacked.” So let’s assume that we separate Penn State from those other 2.

A′′: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, [Purdue], [Illinois], [Northwestern]

B′′: Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, [Indiana]

The teams in brackets can be moved around interchangeably within these rules. I selected Indiana because it is pretty clearly the weakest team in the Big Ten. Yet even with Indiana in the B′′ group, it seems (once again) not to pass the balance smell test. Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all in the same group seems like an unfair slugfest to me – particularly given the clouds surrounding Michigan’s program. At least in the near-term, this alignment might as well be a bye for Ohio State into the championship game. As a result, it strikes me that the only logical thing to do is to put Penn State with Michigan State et al. Thus:

A: Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State

B: Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin

Once you have arrived at this alignment, all of the controversial decisions have been made. At this point, we’re left with 4 teams: Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue. These 4 teams logically can (and should) be split into 2 pairs of in-state rivals. Although the Illinois pair could be put with the “East” teams and the Indiana pair with the “West” teams consistent with these rules, what would be the point? Does anybody seriously believe that this would substantially affect the league’s competitive “balance”? I doubt it, and at this point (given the results of the process outlined here for making the controversial decisions) the only reason to deviate from assigning these 2 pairs east/west geographically would be to somehow assert our independence from geography (or as I like to say, change for change’s sake).

But we can talk about this all day. I, for one, intend to do what little I can about this situation, which I consider an unmitigated disaster for the Big Ten. We should be writing to the powers that be in the Big Ten. Consider dropping a letter or e-mail to some of the following individuals if you agree with me and want to express your displeasure:

Mr. James E. Delany


Commissioner, Big Ten Conference


1500 Higgins Road


Park Ridge, IL 60068-6300

jdelany@bigten.org

Dr. Michael A. McRobbie, Chair

Council of Presidents/Chancellors, Big Ten Conference

200 Bryan Hall

107 S. Indiana Avenue

Bloomington, IN 47405-7000

iupres@indiana.edu

Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon

President, Michigan State University

450 Administration Building

East Lansing, MI 48824-1046

presmail@msu.edu

Mr. Mark J. Hollis, Director

Department of Intercollegiate Athletics, Michigan State University

218 Jenison Fieldhouse

East Lansing, MI 48824-1025

hollis@ath.msu.edu

Mr. Joel I. Ferguson, Chair

Board of Trustees, Michigan State University

1223 Turner Street, Ste. 300

Lansing, MI 48906-4363

lucyjif@aol.com

Ms. Julia D. Darlow, Chair

Board of Regents, University of Michigan

P.O. Box 130047

Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0047

jdarlow@umich.edu

As near as I can tell, these are the people who answer to us, as Spartan students, alumni, and fans, who are in a position to do something about this mess. (Although Ms. Darlow is the Chair of the Michigan Regents, she’s elected, so if you’re a Michigan resident, she actually answers to you whether or not you’re associated with the University.) If we speak out, who knows – they might even listen to us. What’s more, they might actually do something about it.

Dantonio on Nebraska

Mark Dantonio's statement on Nebraska joining the Big Ten, per the ESPN Big Ten blog:

During my four years as an assistant at Kansas and my first two years as an assistant at Michigan State, I had an opportunity to compete against Tom Osborne-coached Nebraska teams.

Coach Osborne had a Hall of Fame career, winning three national championships. Now, Bo Pelini is doing great things at Nebraska. His teams have won 19 games over the last two seasons.

As you know, I have great appreciation for the tradition of the college game and I admire the coaching connection between Nebraska and Michigan State. Legendary Nebraska head coach Bob Devaney got his start as an assistant under former Spartan head coaches ‘Biggie’ Munn and Duffy Daugherty in the 1950s. All three of those coaches are members of the College Football Hall of Fame.”

Nebraska to leave Big 12, join the Big Ten

Depending on how much you believe Fox Sports Ohio and Rivals.com...

Multiple reports now say Nebraska will leave the Big 12 and seek to join the Big Ten, with a formal announcement coming Thursday or Friday.

The Big 12 gave both Nebraska and Missouri, the two biggest targets in that conference, until Friday to decide if they're in or out. The Cornhuskers are apparently out.

The difficulty for these schools is that they've got to make up their mind to leave the Big 12 before any Big Ten invite formally comes. However, in reality land, there's no way in the world they'd possibly head out of a BCS conference without a golden ticket in hand.

Will the Big Ten give that assurance to Mizzou? We'll have to wait and see.

At this point though, you'd have to think three things:

1. The Big Ten still wants Notre Dame.
2. They won't want to become a 13-team league, so Mizzou would have to be paired with someone.
3. Who's the backup to ND?

Notre Dame AD says school may be interested in a conference

Notre Dame's storied independence might not be as rock-solid as previously thought, if comments today by ND AD Jack Swarbick are any indication.

"You can each come up with a scenario that would force our hand," Swarbick told a group of reporters in New York, including one from the Associated Press.

Such a scenario would result from a "seismic" realignment push like, say, getting Texas to join the Big Ten, along with, say, Missouri, Pitt and Syracuse. Tell ND that it would be team number 16 in that conference, with all the money that comes with it, and it's a game-changer.

Once the Big Ten is done, the Pac 10 is expected to expand up to 12. Colorado, BYU and Utah are among the schools always mentioned. And if the Big 12 does get its schools pillaged, they'll have to add a few teams as well - TCU, SMU, maybe grab Arkansas from the Big 12.

It would all be a massive shakeup, and Notre Dame doesn't necessarily want to get left out of that.

Oh, who am I kidding. This is all about TV revenue for the Irish, given that Notre Dame ignored its faculty who wanted to join the Big Ten back in 1999 in order to keep their NBC gig. The reason that's so significant is because ESPN's Adam Rittenberg estimated that the TV deal the Irish would get in the Big Ten could be twice as much money as they'd get by staying independent.

Money talks, and Notre Dame may walk... right into the Big Ten's arms.

Texas To The Big Ten?

Now I know what you're thinking when you read that headline... "Whhhhhhaaaaaaa?"

My first thought was "That's crazy! And it makes NO sense." But then I started reading and it turns out it makes a lot of sense. And the Big Ten thinks so too.

The best breakdown for the argument for Texas I've read is here, on an Illini sports blog. I'll give a quick synopsis, but really, take ten minutes and read that. My figures and such are all from there.

Basically the argument goes like this: Money and Academics. The people who make actual decisions in the Big Ten are university presidents, and that is what matters to them. Sure, sports rivalries are great, the Big Ten is a Midwest league, there is a certain character blah blah blah. As Tom Cruise said, "Show me the money!"

Money: Texas made $12 million off the Big 12 TV contract last season, the average school in the Big 12 made $6. Every school in the Big Ten made $22. A large portion of that money comes from the Big Ten Network, which gets money from cable companies on a "per TV" basis. Adding a school like Iowa St. does NOTHING in increase Big Ten Network revenue, because everyone in Iowa already gets the channel. So to dramatically increase revenue for MSU, the Big Ten has to look at a school outside of its current viewing area. Texas is one of the biggest TV markets in America, and would dramatically increase the number of TVs getting the Big Ten Network. That increase in money along with money from a Championship game would increase the amount above $22 million, even when dividing it by 12 schools instead of 11. Texas would like it because it sets the floor of money they are getting every year much higher than it currently is.

Academics: All Big Ten schools are part of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), along with the University of Chicago (a former Big Ten member). This is the academic alliance of the Big Ten, and allows for educational and research cooperation among the universities. The Big Ten is made up of research institutions, while the Big 12 is not. Texas, being a research institution, is not a good educational fit in the Big 12 but would be in the Big Ten, where this addition would benefit both sides.

OK, that's all well and good, but it's still just a dream, right? Well consider this. The Big Ten wants to expand. They have to take someone. People keep mentioning OTHER Big 12 schools. Think about what happens to the Big 12 if a different school leaves. They quickly need to find a 12th team to keep their championship game (and the money it brings in.) If Missouri leaves, then 2 of the top 6 TV markets in the Big 12 come with it (so less money for the remaining members based on the Big 12 TV contract.) Other schools might look at leaving too, example Colorado to the Pac 10 (and if Colorado left, thats another big TV market gone). FYI, besides Colorado and Missouri, Texas has the other big markets. And Texas's markets are the biggest overall.

If Missouri and Colorado left the Big 12, Texas stands to lose a lot of money. At that point they would either have to look for a new conference, or try and bring in new teams to the Big 12. There are not many teams that would bring in the TV markets like Missouri and Colorado, so even if they bring in Boise St or Utah or TCU, they are not getting that money back.

So, Texas has to consider its options now. If they were offered a chance to improve their academics while also being given an extra $20 million a year, and they turned it down and their conference collapsed, they would probably be kicking themselves pretty hard. The Big Ten could offer Missouri or someone else, but really, is there anyone other than Notre Dame that would be a better school to add than Texas? Texas is good academically. It would bring in a ton of money. It would be good for the overall sports competition. It would make the Big Ten an even bigger deal than it already is nationally. And it would balance the conference.

Balance the conference? Exactly. When the Big Ten expands to 12 teams, they could divide into divisions of 6 and 6 in football. Currently, you have three major teams in football, with Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State. How would you split them up? Not a great balance there. Does Missouri or Iowa State help? No. Does Texas? Yes. That makes each side have two power teams.

But Texas has no rivalries in the Big Ten! Not really true. Ohio State and Texas played some amazing football games in the last few years, wouldn't that be great to have happen more? You're telling me that fans on either side aren't upset at all about how that series went, and wouldn't love another shot? How about MSU in basketball? We've played Texas the last four years and play them next season too.

So how does this affect MSU? MSU's first choice is still going to be Notre Dame. Tradition here still is going to win, and there are so many positives to that addition to the Big Ten that everyone would be happy. But if Notre Dame isn't interested, there is no better school for MSU than Texas. MSU's athletic revenue increases. MSU's academics are helped by collaboration with another great school. MSU gets it's recruiting door opened in Texas. And MSU gets another rival in sports like basketball and volleyball.

Texas to the Big Ten has my vote.

Big Ten Could Expand to 14 or 16

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Big Ten officials are discussing expanding to 14 or even 16 teams - and that the one-team deal we've all been assuming may be too small for a conference with these grand ambitions.

That would be a huge deal - no major football conference plays with more than 12 teams (SEC, Big 12 are at that number). The Big East plays with 16 teams in basketball, and they have trouble with that system.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I like 14. It's not unwieldy, but it would allow the Big Ten to add three high-quality schools that would improve the conference's standing nationwide. The general assumption, by the way, is that Notre Dame is still not interested.

So who's a good fit? TOSSS has long advocated adding Pittsburgh, and we stick by that. Others in the mix seem to be Missouri, Iowa State, Rutgers and Syracuse - adding all five gets the Big Ten to 16 teams.

The question then turns to conference alignment - and at bigger numbers it gets easier. Consider these Big Ten East and West alignments:

• East: MSU, Michigan, Pittsburgh, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse, Indiana, Purdue
  
• West: Ohio State, Missouri, Iowa, Iowa State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern

I'm putting Ohio State in the West because otherwise the B-10E is too stacked, especially in the minor sports where Michigan, Penn State and OSU are often three of the strongest. They've got a huge athletics budget, and frankly could handle the increased commuting costs.

If we go to 14 schools, just drop Syracuse and Iowa State, and the alignments still work great. And if it's 12, then just keep Pitt as the only newbie and the numbers still work fine. But looking at these potential alignments, one can see how 14 or 16 might be a better number than 12.

A New Argument for Notre Dame to Join the Big Ten

After yet another season of mediocrity, a Chicago Sun Times columnist has taken an interesting tack to the question of whether or not Notre Dame ought to swallow their pride and join the Big Ten.

The argument in many ways makes sense, and it's what you've heard before. It's better for the non-football sports - especially men's and women's basketball. It's better for academics.

But as veteran writer Herb Gould points out, the best incentive for joining the Big Ten is that it would reduce the pressure on Notre Dame. "At Notre Dame, having no conference pretty much puts the Irish on a jittery tightrope from the opening kickoff every season. The Subway Alumni need to realize the days of Rockne and Leahy and Ara -- and even Holtz -- are over. Everybody's on TV. Everybody can recruit and play a national schedule."

Gould said the money issue with NBC could be worked out, and there's a really sensible way to do that. Give NBC the option on taking the #1 Big Ten game every week that Notre Dame is at home, and first choice of Big Ten games that don't involve the Irish when they're on the road. NBC would pay more and, in return, get the occasional Michigan-Ohio State, Penn State-MSU or Iowa-Wisconsin, big games that drive national ratings.

That said, Gould also calls for ND to fire Charlie Weis and hire Cincy's Brian Kelly (the guy MSU would have hired had it not been for one M. Dantonio). And that would make sense - so don't worry about that happening. Still, we can dream can't we?

Would Publicly Accountable Refs Clean Up Bad Calls?

The Lansing State Journal published an unsigned editorial today calling for Big Ten football officials to attend post-game press conferences as one of a two steps it said could help clean up officiating mistakes in the conference. The other move the Journal is key on is hiring full-time referees to lead the otherwise part-time crews (currently all refs are part timers).

The idea of media (and therefore public) accountability is one that has been traditionally shunned by most sports leagues. No major U.S. sports league has referees make public statements after games. And some European sports leagues - the English Premier League for example - gives stiff fines to any player or manager who dares to harshly criticize the referees who worked their match.

That attitude may be changing, however, and it has started with a league not known for being on the leading edge of progress - Major League Baseball. It started with a terrible call in game four of the American League Championship Series by third base umpire Tim McClelland, when two Yankees were standing off third base, both were tagged out yet only one was called out. McClelland, who has a fairly good reputation among MLB officials, decided to sit down with the media afterwards, take his medicine and explain how he botched the thing.

The Southeastern Conference has begun exposing referees to scrutiny as well, publicly reprimanding and suspending the officials who worked the Arkansas-Florida game this year and missed calls that wound up helping Florida on its winning drive. Such public reprimands are anathema to the Big Ten, which by its internal policy doesn't comment on officiating.

Could such scrutiny help clean up officiating? Perhaps. But it certainly won't help MSU after the fact when it gets hammered by a non-existent personal foul call and a non-review of a clear fumble. No one is going to go back and change the result and Sparty doesn't get a do-over of the whole Iowa game.

I'd love to see penalties be reviewable under the current replay system, particularly if they are large, drive-sustaining ones late in the game. Subjecting officials to post-game press conferences does nothing to change egregious errors on the field.

Pizza Pizza

Well, it's official! The Motor City Bowl is now the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl. And unfortunately, they spurned all suggestions from TOSSS, removing all references to the Motor City and killing the brand identity that had been established for over ten years.

Funny thing is, this happened even though Ford remained a sponsor of the game! Tells us something about the power of the auto industry, huh?

It's possible however this is exactly what they wanted to do. While those of us with Michigan connections often look fondly on the Motor City Bowl, (I have been to almost every Motor City Bowl ever played) it was viewed as a much lower prestige game nationally, despite its Big Ten tie in. There could be many reasons for this, including that the Big Ten often doesn't actually send a team to this game, that Big Ten football has a lower national appeal recently, that the bowl payout isn't huge, and that it takes place in the City of Detroit, not exactly a "glamorous" city in the eyes of most Americans.

Will dumping all Motor City references help this? Well, probably not. But it may confuse people long enough that they buy their game tickets before they start their travel research...

Image courtesy of the Detroit Free Press.

MSU vs. Montana State Coverage Map

The Big Ten Network has released its coverage map for this weekends games, and as one might expect, it's simply a mess. Several months ago, as the first weekend's slate of games had their start times announced, it was obvious that the Big Ten Network was not going to be able to please everyone. There were simply too many crappy games that were not going to be picked up by other channels, and therefore, Big Ten Network was going to have to carry them all.

As an MSU fan, my hope is that if MSU will be shown on the Big Ten Network, that we will have the channel to ourselves in our time slot. That way, MSU gets total national coverage. Every time there is another game on, the coverage is split up and we lose our national billing. And when there are five games on at the same time, and one of them involves Penn State, the show is over.

But, on the positive side, MSU is the only team besides Penn State to have their game shown as the primary game outside of the Big Ten area (and neighboring states). Granted it's only showing in Montana, but hey, better than nothing.

Don't fear though: While your cable provider may only carry one Big Ten Network, DirectTV and Dish Network, as well as some of the newer cable providers will show all of the Big Ten games. From the Big Ten:

Coverage map applies to cable systems only and indicates which game will be the primary game on the main Big Ten Network channel. Satellite providers DIRECTV and DISH Network will offer the primary game nationally and all other games on "extra football game" channels. In addition, subscribers to telco providers AT&T U-Verse and Verizon Fios should click on the map to see channel assignments.

Direct TV users can find the MSU game on channel 609. It does not appear that the game will be offered in HD.

Dish Network users can find the MSU game on channel 5440 or in HD on channel 9501.

AT&T U-Verse users can find the MSU game on channel 1691. It does not appear that the game will be offered in HD.

To check your specific zip code and cable provider, click here. Clicking on the actual map below won't work.




Image courtesy of bigtennetwork.com

Final Four Friday: Neutral Site Games

It’s almost game time for MSU football, which means it’s time to return to a TOSSS tradition of Final Four Friday! Today, we’re looking at the option for MSU to play in an NFL stadium for a “neutral site game”.

Penn State and Indiana have set an example for the rest of the Big Ten, as Indiana moved its 2010 home tie with the Nittany Lions to FedEx Field in Landover, Md., a suburb of Washington, D.C. There are benefits aplenty for both schools – Penn State getting essentially an extra home game while Indiana hauls in $2 million more in gate receipts – so why can’t Michigan State have a part of that action?

We already know the university would consider it. The MSU-Western game this year was supposed to be held in Detroit at Ford Field, and the Florida Atlantic return game will either be at Ford Field, Chicago’s Soldier Field or Miami’s Land Shark Stadium.

Not counting FAU, here is our Final Four of possible destinations that make sense for both MSU and the opponent.

Soldier Field, Chicago – Illinois

While the Illini may have the occasional good year – and under Ron Zook they’ll get more and more of them – it’s no secret that they can’t sell out their own stadium. Memorial Stadium only seats about 62,000, and at 61,500, Soldier Field is about the same size.

But this time, it would sell out.

MSU’s largest alumni base outside of Michigan is in Chicago, about 20,000 strong. Illinois’ largest alumni base full top is in Chicago. You’d better believe they’d pack every seat in that stadium for what would be the most raucous “home” game the Illini would have all year.

Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis – Indiana

Indiana’s already going to D.C., may as well make the shorter trip to Indy, right? MSU has a great tradition in Indianapolis, including the men’s basketball 2000 national championship and the 2005 women’s team’s run to the Final Four – including the program’s biggest-ever win in the semifinals over Tennessee.

This wouldn’t be as much of a home game for MSU as facing the Illini in Chicago, but the game would definitely sell out. That’s a win-win in my book.

Ford Field, Detroit – Eastern Michigan

The Eagles don’t host MSU until either 2018 or 2020, and you can mark down my prediction right now that this game won’t be played in Rynearson Stadium. Go ahead, mark it down.

For one, that stadium only holds 30,200 fans. For two, well, that stadium only holds 30,200 fans.

There are two other stadiums Eastern could move that game to with no difficulty and guarantee a sellout. One is the Big House in Ann Arbor. The other is Ford Field in Detroit. And I doubt very much that the good folks at Michigan will want an MSU home game in their building.

Ford Field makes sense for the Eagles. A 60,000+ crowd at home would triple – yes, triple – their average attendance. The tickets would be pricier. There are luxury boxes galore that would sell out fast. Do the math and it’s not hard to envision Eastern getting more money out of this one game than the rest of their games combined.

Cowboys Stadium, Dallas – Baylor

OK, so this one might seem like a reach given that we don’t play Baylor, but hear me out.

That is a football team on the rise, a little like Cal and Rutgers were earlier this decade. What they need are marquee opponents willing to do home-and-home deals to really establish themselves in what is a hotbed of football. Enter MSU, a team that historically loves to play that sort of role.

Baylor’s Floyd Casey Stadium seats 50,000. Cowboys Stadium seats 80,000. Waco to Dallas is an hour and a half drive. A big-time opponent like MSU in the Bears’ biggest in-state home base outside Waco is a match made in heaven. Plus, MSU gets a chance to head down to the fertile Texas recruiting base to meet and greet a few 16 and 17-year-old future phenoms. It’d be great.

And the winner is – Soldier Field.

It has been the dream of MSU's long-suffering Chicago alums for far too long. It's time to make it happen.

MSU Revenues Even Despite Recession

The biggest news to come out of the Big Ten meetings might have surrounded the developments regarding a ninth league game (no movement) or 12th team (even less movement), but for me those two issues pale in comparison to the most important one.

Money.

Compared to the other BCS conferences, the Big Ten is absolutely swimming in cash. The Big Ten pulled in $154 million last year for revenue sharing among its 11 schools. The ACC and SEC came second and third, respectively, with a little over $135 million each, while the Big 12 pulled in $103 million.

It's a particularly great result considering the Big Ten's footprint is in some of the most recessed parts of our recession-hit country - especially in Michigan.

Michigan State, specifically, had a remarkable financial year. Athletic Director Mark Hollis told the Lansing State Journal that MSU will break even for the 2008/09 year. However, it's a bit too early to celebrate State's holding off the recession as football, basketball and hockey season tickets were mostly ordered before the September/October stock market crash.

The big question mark comes this football season, as the sport that bankrolls the entire athletic department has to convince spectators with 401Ks worth about half what they were a year ago to reinvest in fall football Saturdays.

Based on last year's results, if anyone can pull this off, Hollis can.

Farm Lane May Not Be Ready For Football

Get ready for another season of parking and traffic headaches, MSU football fans. Or at least be ready for issues the first few games. The Farm Lane project, which closed the road all of last football season to create two underpasses at the railroad crossings, is behind schedule and may not be open in time for the start of the 2009 football season. Thousands of season ticket holders generally park in the MSU commuter lot each game, and ride buses or walk to Spartan Stadium. With Farm Lane closed last season, the bus ride became longer, and walking was almost impossible.

At this month's Construction Junction on April 9th, an update was given on the status of the project, where it was announced that the project was behind schedule because of "challenges this winter."

"It appears the Farm Lane project may not open now to traffic until late summer/early fall which would put it after fall semester begins," said Karen Zelt, of the MSU Physical Plant. "We are still hoping that the roads will reopen before school begins in August, but the project currently is slightly behind schedule."

Fall semester is scheduled to begin on Wednesday, September 2nd. The first MSU football game is that following Saturday, September 5th against Montana St. The Spartans play again the next Saturday, September 12th, against Central Michigan.

MSU's football schedule may actually end up looking pretty lucky with regards to parking and traffic. Playing the first two home games against smaller schools means that there should not be the enormous crowds coming to campus that some Big Ten games generate. And after those two opening games, officials will have a little more time to open the road. MSU is away for two weeks until they return October 3rd against Michigan.

Photo courtesy of MSU

What a Game at McLane!

What a way to open a new stadium!

In the opening game at the new McLane Baseball Stadium last Saturday, Spartans Pitcher Nolan Moody threw a no-hitter to defeat Northwestern 2-0. He had a perfect game going into the 8th inning, when he gave up a walk. Mr. Moody was honored as Pitcher of the Week by the Big Ten for his efforts. It was MSU's first no-hitter since 1993.

The Spartans held their home opener at Oldsmobile Park earlier in the spring. So far, the Spartans are undefeated in their new stadium, with a 3-0 record. The Spartans play this weekend at Ohio State, with their next game back on campus Wednesday, April 15th vs. Western Michigan at 3:05 p.m.