Like a fiddle

We doubted Dave Brandon. We knew better and yet, we doubted him nevertheless. The storm clouds were gathering, we quaked with fear that all that we cherished, that all we held dear, was being rent asunder.

We said that they were wrong, that they would sell their souls and screw it up.

And it was a smoke screen. It was a head fake and we bought it hook, line, and sinker.

We must trust Dave Brandon. Trust, but verify.

It is wholly possible that Michigan is one of the biggest winners in the Big Ten divisional alignment. I see the downsides, but here's what I see as the upsides for Michigan: You now get a major annual game against Nebraska, a traditional power with over 800 wins and a built in animosity between the 1997 National Championship issue, and the 2005 Alamo Bowl. It will not be an instant rivalry, but it will hit the ground running. A bonus is that Michigan and Nebraska will face off in the game before The Game, at least for 2011.

Michigan State is a divisional rival, meaning that Michigan's two protected rivalries will be preserved. It means that the Michigan/Michigan State game means something beyond bragging rights and the Paul Bunyan Trophy. Also, Michigan State is not the last game of the season. I was genuinely dreading that possibility. They'll now close at Northwestern in 2011 and at Minnesota in 2012.

You now get the annual playing of the Little Brown Jug game against Minnesota, improving that situation from the old schedule where it occurred eight out of every 12 seasons. The Little Brown Jug's history is full and rich and is the essence of the Big Ten Trophy game. This is a very unexpected perk of this division.

An annual game against Iowa, which just feels right. 1939 Heisman winner Nile Kinnick vs. 1940 Heisman winner Tom Harmon. Forest Evashevski and Bump Elliot as Venn overlap!

An annual game against Northwestern, meaning every other year, Michigan plays in Chicago, where it has a ton of alums. Also, the battle of the two biggest university endowments in the Big Ten.

Michigan and Ohio State playing The Game on the last weekend, even if in opposite divisions, with the potential rematch in the championship game if someone [glares at someone] can ever get their act together.

The downsides:

The biggest loss is going from playing Penn State 10 years on, 2 years off to playing Penn State 2 years on, four years off. I hope that the nine conference game potential change in 2015 will help that. Jim Delany even acknowledged that Michigan and Michigan State both "gave up" playing Penn State every year, or almost every year as one of the losses in the new configuration.

No Indiana and Purdue annually, well...Michigan frequently didn't play Indiana every year during the ten team era of the Big Ten, so that's not that surprising (similarly, they were frequently off the schedule in the rotation in the Penn State era of scheduling.) I lament losing Purdue, as that is quickly becoming a heated rivalry, what with wizard hats and such, but they are on the schedule for 2011-12, so, there's that.

No Wisconsin or Illinois annually, well, Wisconsin was also frequently off the schedule in the old ten team era. Plus, we'll still, hopefully, play them in hockey every year with the Big Ten's effort to make the CCHA and WCHA Big Ten teams play one another.

As for Illinois, I am sure they are bummed as they consider Michigan one of their arch rivals, but again, each of the five teams Michigan does not face every year previously rotated off the schedule at some point.

So yes, there are down sides, but I think the upside is better for Michigan.

A couple of other notes. Jim Delany says that he "doesn't do trial balloons." I am pretty sure that he believes that, but consider, the last three weeks of the run up to college football, pretty much since after Michigan went to Seattle, have been discussions about the Big Ten's divisional alignment, and then about possibly moving "The Game". It has kept the Big Ten in the media spotlight for the last three weeks, and now tomorrow night Ohio State and Marshall play on the Big Ten Network. This is about building the brand. Similarly, Jim Delany targeted hopefully 90 days from now, or December 1, oh yeah, the week of the Conference Championship games for the Big XII, SEC, and ACC. Jim Delany keeps the Big Ten in the discussion for another week and reminds people that next year, the Big Ten will be playing one of these as well. This is brand management and it's pretty darn slick.

Is it the best of all possible worlds? No. But honestly, if you're a Michigan fan, there's a lot to like here. Now to work with Nebraska to create the "We call it Maize, you call it Corn" Trophy.

"Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong."

Yeah, so about that trial balloon. Consider that the optimist in me, and a naive one at best.

So, where does that leave us?

Brian has the roundup of everything you need to get caught up to speed on this matter (the Bucknuts piece is very much worth the read), but as I read, my mind wandered and I was struck by this (slightly modified) notion:

"We of the [Big Ten] administration who participated in the decisions on [divisional alignment] acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this [conference]. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why."

That is a modified version of the opening of former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's 1995 book In Retrospect where he examined the decision making that went on during the Vietnam War in the highest levels of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. What has always struck me about this (and McNamara's later comments in The Fog of War) is that rarely do people who are making decisions think "I am making a terrible decision, but I am going to continue to do so, because I love making terrible decisions." There are reasons, and people believe they are good reasons, and it is sometimes only when it is too late to see the folly.

I guess what makes me sad is that there's no good way to do this, when you think about it:

1). Michigan and Ohio State in the same division

Pro: They would still play at the end of the season. In 9 of the last 13 seasons, it is likely that the outcome of the Game would have decided the division winner.

Con: They would not still play for the right to go to the Rose Bowl/BCS/What have you.

2). Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions, play the last game of the regular season.

Pro: They would still play at the end of the season.

Con: The game might have little to no impact on who plays in the Championship game, and if it does, it sets up a potential rematch the next week, which diminishes the value of the product.

3). Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions, play at some other point in the season.

Pro: Makes a potential Big Ten championship game between Michigan and Ohio State more appealing to television. Con: Ends 75 years of tradition. Diminishes the meaning of "The Game".

So, they'll, of course, do #3, because they'll see the revenue projections and they'll say "We'd be stupid NOT to do this. Look at the money." Meanwhile, a little part of the soul of every Big Ten fan dies. They try to make it better by introducing new rivalries, or convincing you that it's better this way, but you're not stupid, you know better. You know that playing Michigan State on Thanksgiving weekend is not only wrong, but that it actually benefits Michigan State because they actually get their Michigan obsessed existence justified. Ohio State, meanwhile, is playing Penn State or Nebraska in the final game of the season, and it's a good game, and people are interested, but it's not the same. It's like Coca-Cola Classic. Because you no longer have the real thing, you now have to accept the imitation that's close to the original, but just doesn't taste the same.

In other places, there are people who don't get it, who don't understand why this matters, and why we're making such a big deal about it. The rest of college football has changed, the Big Ten should be no different. But please be understanding if some of us feel like something that matters to us is dying. And life will go on, and we'll get through, but we will miss it, and we will be sad when we look back on what once was and what went away because of decision makers who thought they were doing what was in the best interest of the conference. And perhaps down the line some say, Jim Delany, or someone of his ilk, will come back and say "We were wrong, terribly wrong" or something similar, and it won't make us feel better, because it won't bring back what we have lost.

There's still time, there's still a chance, there's still ways to make your voice heard. I encourage you to do what you need to do to make yourself feel like you have made a difference. Even if it doesn't end up making a difference in the end. You'll be like General Winfield Scott Hancock in Gods and Generals, reviewing General Burnside's plan for the assault on Mayre's Heights behind Fredricksburg in 1862 via pontoon boat.

"No, general, we'll meet them head on. And it will be a bloody mess. We'll march up to that hill there, and we'll eat their artillery fire all the way across this field. And when it's over, we'll be able to look at ourselves and say: "We're good soldiers. We did what we were told." If we're not successful, we can say it was a good plan, but there were contingencies. You can go back to your hometown and tell the families of your men they died doing their duty."