gdp's Comments

GazetteOnline.com : Divisional equity crucial to Big Ten realignment efforts

Sun, 8 Aug 2010 13:52:54 +0000

Has Delaney commented on the possibility of non-permanent divisions? Re-evaluating them every 6-8-12 years seems to obviously go hand in hand with "competive balance" criteria

GazetteOnline.com : If you're in Minneapolis on Sept. 2 and want to watch a college football game on big-screen TV ...

Sun, 8 Aug 2010 13:43:10 +0000

what a waste of electricity

GazetteOnline.com : Readjusting 2011 Big Ten football schedule won't create many problems

Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:49:03 +0000

I hope we don't do it like the SEC. I want to play OSU and Michigan more than 40% of the time. I guess if we make CCG we'll play one of them every year :-) But I still think I want the Buckeyes in IC more than two times every 10 years

GazetteOnline.com : Weighing in on Big Ten dividing of divisions

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:25:56 +0000

Also, I know you have to have 12 teams per NCAA rule to have a championship game, but are divisions also required? Or could you just play a random unbalanced schedule and then have the two teams with best records play in the CCG? Probably a bad idea since, but technically per NCAA rules would that be allowed?

GazetteOnline.com : Weighing in on Big Ten dividing of divisions

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:24:17 +0000

Or I wouldn't be surprised if the B10 didn't set permanent divisions but rather rotated them every 4-8 years. If it stays at 12 then rotating every 4 years works well on a 12-year cycle. If teams want to keep some rivals on their schedule every year, the 12 teams could be broken into four 3-team groups of rivals. Years 1-4 would be as follows: Group A and Group B in 1 division and play 5 games against each other (like current B12 schedule) Group C and Group D in 1 division and play 5 games against each other Group A also plays Group C in years 1-2, while B plays D Group A then plays Group D in years 3-4, while B plays C Years 5-8 would be similar: Group A and Group C are a division Group B and Group D are a division Years 9-12 would be: Group A and Group D are a division Group B and Group C are a division So over 12 years a team in Group A would have played the following: Fellow Group A teams - 12 times All other teams - 8 times

GazetteOnline.com : Weighing in on Big Ten dividing of divisions

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:23:55 +0000

Achieve balance by realligning divisions every 4 or 8 years. The way the B12 does it now it takes four years to complete a schedule rotation and play every team from the other division twice. maybe every 8 years they are realligned based on conf record over the past 12 years. To set future schedules they'd have to do the realligning before the end of the current rotation. For example they could set initial 8-year divisions based on overall record the last 12 years, then in 4 years reassess based on the last 12 years at that point and set the new divisions to begin four years from then in year 8, etc.

GazetteOnline.com : Big Ten divisional plans still undecided

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:22:14 +0000

GazetteOnline.com : Big Ten divisional plans still undecided

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:21:57 +0000

GazetteOnline.com : Dividing up the 12 in the Big Ten

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:20:28 +0000

GazetteOnline.com : Dividing up the 12 in the Big Ten

Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:19:54 +0000

GazetteOnline.com : Hlas column: Iowa's actual winning goes beyond 10-2

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:16:01 +0000

I noticed the illegal hit on Sandeman vs MSU was on the highlight video. There were obviously a lot of big hits in the video. I haven't had time to check every one, and whether they were helmet-to-helmet and whether they resulted in penalties or fines, but I personally feel that illegal hits like that should not be celebrated on a video like this. It's one thing to show hard, legal hits, and I'm not implying the MSU player was dirty (I don't think he meant to do helmet-tohelmet, but he did), but I find it borderline offensive to promote illegal hits that injured a player in video such as this. What are your thoughts? I'm sure they had plenty of legal highlights to show in its place. To view it check the BTN football podcasts website (its in HD and standard format)

GazetteOnline.com : Hlas column: Iowa's actual winning goes beyond 10-2

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:15:42 +0000

Mike, this doesn't really have anything to do with this particular blog column, but I'm not sure where to post general questions... I downloaded the HD podcast of the BTN season highlight video (the one they showed last night on TV). I found it strange that they had our MSU play as the last thing on the video instead of OSU FG, since they did win B10 afterall, but I'll take it. Anyway here's my main issue (in my next replay below):

GazetteOnline.com : Monday Hawkeyes Reading Room - Could a 10-2 Iowa go to a BCS bowl?

Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:56:11 +0000

I was wrong- I forgot about the "no repeat" rule that used to apply to Rose Bowl berths. Iowa wasn't ever eligible to go to Rose Bowl after the 1957 season. So it appears the actual last "game for the Rose Bowl" the Hawks played in was the year before. In the game Kevin mentioned on the air. Going into our game with OSU on 11/17/56 OSU was 4-0, Iowa was 4-1, MSU was 4-1, Mich was 3-2, and Minny was 3-1-1. MSU had gone to Pasadena the year before, so throw them out. If OSU won the worst they could finish was 5-1 and the best Michigan could be was 5-2, and the best Minny could be was 5-1-1 (and Iowa would finish 4-2) If Iowa won they would finish 5-1, and the best OSU could finish was 5-1 but would lose tie-breaker. As above Michigan and Minny couldn't best a 5-1 record. As you all know this tale had a happier ending. Iowa beat OSU 6-0 and went to their first Rose Bowl. So the actual last time Iowa played a "winner-take-all" game for a Rose Bowl berth they beat the Buckeyes to do it. I'd be thrilled with a 6-0 repeat on Saturday!!!!

GazetteOnline.com : Monday Hawkeyes Reading Room - Could a 10-2 Iowa go to a BCS bowl?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:55:52 +0000

To answer my own question posted yesterday... "The last time Iowa entered a game where the winner of that game would clinch the Rose Bowl was Nov 16, 1957. Going into the game OSU was 5-0 in conference, Iowa was 4-0-1, and MSU was 4-1. If Iowa won the game they'd finish 5-0-1 and the best OSU could finish would be 6-1 and best MSU could finish would be 5-1. If OSU won the worst they could finish would have been 6-1, Iowa would finish 4-1-1, and the best MSU could finish would be 5-1. I don't know details of the game, but OSU won in Columbus 17-13 (then beat Michigan in a game that "didn't matter") then beat Oregon in the Rose Bowl. Whoa, spooky. So like I said, let's reverse history and have Iowa beat the Ducks this year!"

GazetteOnline.com : Monday Hawkeyes Reading Room - Could a 10-2 Iowa go to a BCS bowl?

Mon, 9 Nov 2009 22:48:16 +0000

Forget this 10-2 talk :-) Mike, do you know if Iowa has ever played in a winner-takes-all game for the Rose Bowl like this? Playing Minnesota last usually precludes this from happening. We need to all enjoy the next six days while we build-up to and watch our Hawks play in Saturday’s Big Ten Championship Game. Because its not something that comes around very often for Iowa. In fact I have no idea when Iowa last played in a game where the stakes were “the winner WILL go to the Rose Bowl.” Not in 1981, not in 1985, not in 1990, not in 2002, etc. It’s been since 1985 that Iowa even played in a game where “if Iowa won they were guaranteed the Rose Bowl.” Even in 1990 we never had the scenario ? winning our second to last game didn’t lock-up the Rose Bowl, but we had already secured before stepping on the Metrodome field.

GazetteOnline.com : Vote for a new Big Ten bowl lineup

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:01:58 +0000

I guess I hope the real clause is like the first link I saw months ago that the non-BCS team must be eligible the first time Rose loses a team for them to qualify. If that's not the case, oh well. Personally, I don't know that seeing an 12-0 "mid major" is worse than seeing a runner-up B10 team in Pasadena. Seeing Illinois in the Rose Bowl didn't really sit well with me. 2002 was different, because we were undefeated co-champs, but basically I'm cool with "If you want to go to the Rose Bowl then WIN the Big Ten". If the 2002 season had occured during the 1980's rules we're all so nostalgic for Iowa still wouldn't have gone to the Rose Bowl-- OSU would have.

GazetteOnline.com : Vote for a new Big Ten bowl lineup

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:09:13 +0000

There's a big difference between the two: ESPN says that the first time between 2010 and 2013 that the Rose Bowl loses B10 or P10 champ and a non-BCS team is eligible, then Rose takes them. That means if Rose Bowl loses champ in 2010, but there's no non-BCS conf team, then 2010 doesn't complete the agreement. Non-BCS conf champs would get a chance again in 2011, etc. Based on my link the non-BCS leagues only get a guarantee THE FIRST TIME the Rose loses either B10 or P10, and if there's no qualifying non-BCS team available that year the clause expires with no guarantee for following years. Is the actual clause in the contract available to the public?

GazetteOnline.com : Vote for a new Big Ten bowl lineup

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:09:04 +0000

But this week I’ve read it as follows on ESPN.com: “Starting with the 2010 season and running through the 2013 season, the first time the Rose Bowl loses one of its conference champions and a team from one of the non-automatic qualifying leagues earns a BCS bid, the Rose Bowl must take that team.” Which is it? The ESPN link is WAY different. If it's the way the ESPN link has it then there almost certainly will be a non-BCS team in the Rose Bowl in the next 4 years. If my link is correct, then there MIGHT be, but it’s doubtful.

GazetteOnline.com : Vote for a new Big Ten bowl lineup

Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:08:12 +0000

Speaking of bowls, do you know which version of the new Rose Bowl BCS clause is correct?... I’ve seen the new Rose Bowl selection process written two very different ways. Do you know which is correct, because there’s a big difference between the two? Several months ago I read it like this: "The first time in the deal that the Rose loses one of its champions to the BCS title game, that opening will be automatically filled by a Coalition (non-BCS conference) team if one has qualified." Like in this link: http://voices.idahostatesman.com/2009/05/29/bmurp...