Jack thinks so. Share and share alike!
https://971theticket.radio.com/arti...banner-michigans-big-ten-east-co-championship
https://971theticket.radio.com/arti...banner-michigans-big-ten-east-co-championship
Co-Champion banner for Michigan?
- Thread starter GeorgeFlippin
- Start date
They lost badly in the head to head, if it were a three way tie in the days before the conference title games this would be ok. Weak but acceptable. If Michigan did this they might as well join the ranks of programs like UCF who hang fake banners to compensate for any real history.
Michigan would declare themselves below their rivals Ohio State, truly pathetic.
Michigan would declare themselves below their rivals Ohio State, truly pathetic.
Remember when Tom Osborne gave up a national title and went for 2 points so he wouldn't have a tie on his record?
The problem I have with this, is that Ohio State did not lose a single game in the east division. I get that they each have the same conference record of 8-1, but Michigan lost head to head. So I am not really sure that Michigan can/should claim an east division championship.
Not sure what is worse, his lame idea or that podcast ?
Texas A&M thinks this ridiculous.
Very good point, things were different back in the day when they didn’t have divisions and I could see being 8-1 and sharing the conference title but when your loss is with in your division and the team you tied beat you and lost too someone in the other division then you shouldn’t claim a share..
Last edited:
No.
Guys was it Missouri or K-State who did this in our Big 12 days?
Is Michigan now Mizzou or K-State?
Two teams with identical records. One lost head to head. One is playing this weekend and one is not.
So where's the controversy?
So where's the controversy?
So of the 46 conference championships we claim, how many were won outright? How many are co-championships, where we lost head to head to the team that went on to represent the league, as champion, in the bowl game?
Same ****, different "title"
Hell, look at page 209 of the Football Media Guide and we claim Big 12 North Co-Championship in 2008 as well.
Same ****, different "title"
Hell, look at page 209 of the Football Media Guide and we claim Big 12 North Co-Championship in 2008 as well.
Last edited:
Eight Big Ten Championship games have been played, and Michigan has yet to even APPEAR in the game, let alone win it. I guess if you can't compete, then it's time to start posting co-champion banners for imagined accomplishments.
Co- Conference titles before divisions were different, as far as the North Co- Championships point taken but. Do we have banners?
Why are they different? It's the same principle. You are claiming something where you lost the tie breaker.
Very bad idea. They can claim whatever they want, but creating a banner would bring more ridicule than they've ever gotten from OSU fans.
Because..... really? That's the best you got?
Just say the real reason you think that......Because it is Nebraska.
It's the same reason you have an issue with Michigan creating a banner, yet don't have a problem with Nebraska claiming the same freaking thing in their press guide. Both are public acknowledgement of a "bogus" title. One is in the form of a banner, one is in the press guide. Typical double standard crap.
Ha ha ha look at Michigan claiming a co-division title.
Oh, we do that too? Well at least we don't have a banner, we just put it in the press guide.
OK, all hail and mighty..what about the fact that they both played every team... which isn’t the case now that we have 12 and 14 team conferences.
Further more everyone see’s a banner in your studuim everyone doesn’t buy a press guide sir.
Jim's silence indicates he thinks it's a dumb idea too. And it's dumb if Nebraska does it also. Any Michigan fan who says "I hope the suckeyes enjoy it while it lasts" sounds a lot like a Nebraska fan telling Iowa etc. the same thing. Win first, then talk. Or better yet, just win.
In the era before conference championship games, co-champions were recognized and acknowledged regularly. And I don’t have a problem with it. To claim co-division champ, seems a bit different. Every school that has accomplished it will put it in there media guide. It’s just a fact of life. But to put a banner up? No.
Why not just do this if you're Michigan (or other schools in this situation)?
Division Finish
2018: T-1
Then everybody's happy.
Kind of reminds me of Baylor-TCU in 2014 (?) when they both finished 8-1 in conference. Baylor beat TCU had to head, then Baylor lost at West Virginia the following week. The conference called them "co-champions" for playoff purposes, and neither got in. There was a sign at one of the Baylor games later in the season that read something like "USA and Germany: Co-WW2 Champs?"
Division Finish
2018: T-1
Then everybody's happy.
Kind of reminds me of Baylor-TCU in 2014 (?) when they both finished 8-1 in conference. Baylor beat TCU had to head, then Baylor lost at West Virginia the following week. The conference called them "co-champions" for playoff purposes, and neither got in. There was a sign at one of the Baylor games later in the season that read something like "USA and Germany: Co-WW2 Champs?"
What is hail and mighty?
It doesn't matter if every team played every other team. Two teams were tied, one team won the head to head tiebreaker.
Public acknowledgement is public acknowledgement. You don't have to buy a press guide, they are free and available online. sir.
I guess here's another question: Does the conference furnish a trophy to the co-division champion? I believe Nebraska got one in 2008 even though Missouri was the North representative on a head-to-head tiebreaker (with a blowout victory at NU).
If so, that's more on the conference than the team if they give out trophies for the non-representative co-champion.
I believe this was done in the old Big 8 days as well, even though there were tiebreakers in place to determine the conference representative in the Orange Bowl.
Now, Texas A&M claiming the 1997 Big 12 championship (eventually with an asterisk), that's messed up.
If so, that's more on the conference than the team if they give out trophies for the non-representative co-champion.
I believe this was done in the old Big 8 days as well, even though there were tiebreakers in place to determine the conference representative in the Orange Bowl.
Now, Texas A&M claiming the 1997 Big 12 championship (eventually with an asterisk), that's messed up.
They shouldn't. But they did. Then they later added smaller font indicating it was a division championship. Post 7 from @kaz36 has a photo of when the "conference championship" was added, then they "clarified" via photo in this article.
Ohio State just crushed Michigan with the vast majority of Harbaugh players, I don’t think the Buckeyes are too worried.
Since there free you can check out any other B1G team guide and they claim conference champions when the team lost head to head and other conference’s do the same too..
Last edited:
Yeah, I remember. I thought it was a dumb decision even before Gill’s pass fell incomplete and 35 years haven’t changed my mind. Of course, I’m sure about 99.9% of the alleged greatest fans in the world agreed with TO’s decision — even if that one decision jump started all of “The U” crap of the past 35 years.
I would say 99.9% of fans respected the decision to go for it, but I seriously doubt if 99.9% agreed with the call. I remember as a 12 year old saying we still have the best record even with a tie. I didn’t agree with the call to go for two then any more than I do now.
I respect the call, but didn’t agree with it.
I agree with you, they have no standing to make a claim. Even if Ohio State did lose an Eastern game there is no third team to take out Ohio State's head to head win. Michigan and Ohio State tied, Ohio State beat Michigan. Case closed, no fancy computer tie breakers.
No clue what the heck you mean bye this. Literally makes no sense what so ever. Good on you...I guess....
We have beat Michigan 2 times out of the last 3 games and we have 3 wins to there 2 wins in our last 5 meetings against them. So with you logic, bye all means...go right on ahead and mock them. Yes, we lost this year but we have played well against the Wolverines.
Huskers vs Michigan the past 5 games
2018 loss 10-56
2013 win 17-13
2012 win 23-9
2011 loss 17-45
2005 win 32-28
Last edited:
I have no problem with Osborne going for two, but winning that game just wasn’t meant to be.
I do t feel cross division games should count towards your conference record. Maybe have it count kn case of a tie breaker where common opponents but thats it.
I agree with you given the disparity in opponent strength. However, the big downside is the cross-division games essentially become exhibitions if their meaning is that little in general. it gets to the point that it's like you're not even in the same conference, just two pools of teams whose winners have arranged to play each other at the end. Almost like Notre Dame playing 5 ACC games each season, it means nothing in the standings but helps fill out the schedule.
I get that but like you said, the disparity is sickening. They need to do better in rotating the schedule. I can imagine its all bout the money. But when team A in the west plays team A in the East 6 tines and Team E in the East 2 tines it doesn't make sense.
Didn't know co-division champ was a thing.
What a stupid thing.
Go Blue!
What a stupid thing.
Go Blue!
Latest
-
01
Inside Nebraska
Teasley Rundown: Nebraska run game coordinator talks O-line
-
02
Inside Nebraska
Barthel Rundown: Husker RBs coach sees multiple starters in his room
-
03
Inside Nebraska
Three takeaways from Nebraska quarterbacks coach Glenn Thomas
-
04
Inside Nebraska
Playing with an edge: Anthony Jones Jr. ready to make an impact in final season
-
05
Rivals
QB Owen Herrick sets four visits, who are the contenders?