Blogs > Best Seat In The House

Jason Carmel Davis is a copy editor/page designer with the Oakland Press and Heritage Newspapers. Davis has also written a number of offbeat sports columns for other publications, as he has an unhealthy obsession with all things athletics. It's so unhealthy that he has planned the births of his (future) children around Bowl Season, the Super Bowl, the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament and the NBA and NFL drafts.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Why MSU will play in the 2011 Rose Bowl, Part I

My boys and I every summer have a night where we decide to set the win totals of our favorite teams.

The best part about the whole process is it usually takes place about the time a White Castle tastes like a filet, which makes for some interesting predictions and discussion.

Last year, everybody was saying Michigan State, our alma mater, would win nine or 10 games. Everybody called me crazy for saying we'd top out at seven wins. State finished 6-7.

This year, I've hopped over to the other side of the fence. And this year, people are saying I'm as crazy as Kourtney Kardashian's baby daddy.

That's because I think MSU is going to be playing in Pasadena on New Year's Day 2011. Yes, I have my reasons. and, no, I haven't been hanging out with Paris Hilton.

Please, if you're gonna laugh, wait until the end.

Schedule plays into MSU’s hands
As a Spartan alum, I know MSU football handles prosperity as well as Lindsay Lohan, but the Spartans would have to quit at various points in the season to not win at least nine games. That or run awry of some frat boys.

Of the 12 games on MSU’s slate, seven are at Spartan Stadium against perennial powers such as Western Michigan (Sept. 4), Northern Colorado (Sept. 25) and Minnesota — a team many have picked to finish dead last in the Big Ten this season (Nov. 6).

The rest of the “home” slate includes Florida Atlantic Sept. 11 (I don’t care if the game is at Ford Field and is supposed to be a home game for FAU. It’s a home game for MSU, even if the Owls will recoup the gate), Notre Dame (Sept. 19), Wisconsin (Oct. 2), Illinois for Homecoming (Oct. 16), and Purdue (Nov. 20).

The only real toughie in the Spartans first eight games should come when the Badgers, ranked No. 12 in both the Associated Press and ESPN/USA Today coaches polls, travel to East Lansing. It’ll be Wisconsin’s first test after games at UNLV, and home against San Jose State, Arizona State and Austin Peay. Seriously. Who makes these non-conference schedules? Duncan Hines?

While the Badgers will be a top-20 team all season, the first game in a hostile environment could have Wisconsin rattled, enabling MSU to eek out a win.

On top of that, the Spartans don’t even leave the state of Michigan until Oct. 23 when they travel to Northwestern, where MSU has won two straight and lead the all-time series, 34-16.

The remainder of the Spartans’ road slate consists of on Oct. 9 going to Ann Arbor to face a Michigan team that may have quit on John L. Rodriguez by then, No. 9/10 Iowa on Devil’s Night and at a play MSU never wins — Nov. 27 in Happy Valley against No. 19/14 Penn State.

Rivalry games against Notre Dame and at The Out House will naturally provide tests for the Spartans, but Notre Dame implementing a new scheme that includes a no-huddle offense and the loss of several players slated to make an impact this season for Michigan in its secondary should prove too much for those squads to overcome. Both games will be shootouts, but I think the overall experience of MSU’s personnel will be the difference.

With a schedule as strong as Michelle Pfeiffer’s eggs in “Scarface,” MSU has a realistic shot at starting 8-0 going into November. Cold-weather home wins against the Gophers and Boilermakers should be a given at that point in the season — if the Spartans are for real. So going 1-2 against Wisconsin, the Hawkeyes and Nittany Lions would put MSU at 10-2, 6-2 in the Big Ten. It's not out of the realm of possibility that MSU could win two of those three games, since Wisconsin is at home and I don't think Penn State will be any good this season. And I say that knowing we win in Happy Valley as often as Charles Barkley refuses a second Krispy Kreme.

That 10-2 finish would give the Spartans their best record since they finished 10-2 following the 1999 season. It could also likely put them in some sort of tie with Iowa and/or Wisconsin for second place in the conference.

Winning that tiebreaker would be crucial for any of those three teams because that second-place finish would send them to Pasadena and the 2011 Rose Bowl (I’ll get to who’ll win the Big Ten later).

I think MSU has the best shot to win that tiebreaker for one huge reason other than its creampuff schedule.

Part II coming tomorrow

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Adding 12th team to Big Ten a good idea

The Big 12 was once the Big Eight.

Florida State, and a slew of other football programs, were independents.

Joe Paterno, up until a few years ago, could hold his bowels on the sideline.

Things change. It's time for the Big Ten to change and join the 21st century and add a 12th team, which would bring some much-needed interest to a conference that has been treated like Elin Nordegren the last few years. Reports have surfaced that this is now a real possibility and it's something that should happen soon.

No matter what team it is (it's been rumored to be Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse or Iowa State), the Big Ten would be able to establish a conference championship game, which would mean an additional $5-$7 million for the conference. That conference game would be played in early December - uncharted territory for the Big Ten. That would keep the conference's top teams at the top of the minds of pollsters and give them a chance to impress the computers, as well.

A downside of scheduling a conference title game is the gate. Most stadiums (Beaver Stadium, The Horseshoe, The Big House) are much larger than where the conference title game would be played. If the game is played in either Soldier Field, Lucas Oil Stadium or Ford Field, some teams would lose 30,000 seats. But tickets for the conference title game would be at a premium and cost more than a regular-season game in Ann Arbor or Columbus.

Adding an additional squad would also call for a schedule shake-up.

Oftentimes (not always), Michigan and Ohio State will be at the top of the conference and would meet in the league's championship game. No one outside of Columbus or Ann Arbor would want to see the teams play two straight weeks, meaning the annual rivalry game could be moved around on the schedule, a la Texas/Oklahoma, Notre Dame/USC. Playing that game, let's say, six weeks before the conference championship game would allow the fanbases to stew and give Big Ten fans something to hope for come early December.

Adding a twelfth team would call for divisions to be formed in the conference. Some have said there should be an East (Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and the new squad) and West (Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Purdue). The East would be stacked, as it has all the power teams, meaning there would be basically no intrigue leading into a conference title game, unless the team out of the West has a special year.

I would opt for a North/South split, with the conference shaking out like this:

North
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

South
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Ohio State
Penn State
(Pittsburgh/Rutgers/Syracuse/Iowa State)

I know it doesn't make a lot of sense geographically, but you keep the eight-game conference schedule, with the teams in each division playing every season, and rotating three teams in and out from the outside division. In order to keep rivalries in tact (I'll use Ohio State as an example), The Buckeyes would play their five division games - including a rivalry game with Penn State each season that would (most likely) have championship implications each year - Ohio State would still play Michigan every year (presumably in mid-October), while rotating two other teams from the North off their schedule every couple of years.

With the rotating games, teams that play for rivalry trophies would still be able to do so. Wisconsin would still have its game each year against Iowa, as the Badgers would have two teams in the South that would rotate off their schedule every couple of years, while the Hawkeyes would be a staple on Wisconsin's slate. Same goes for Northwestern (Illinois every season), Purdue (Indiana), Minnesota (Iowa), Penn State (Michigan), Michigan State (Penn State). Sure, some rivalry games would take place every couple of years (Penn State/Minnesota, MSU/Indiana), but the big ones would remain an annual happening.

A North/South split would balance out power in the conference. You have Michigan in the North, along with teams like (Wisconsin, Purdue and, sadly, not my alma mater in Green) that are capable of special seasons and winning a conference title. In the West, you have traditional powers in OSU and Penn State, along with Iowa, which has made runs recently, and the new squad. Putting the new squads in the same division with OSU and PSU, and having them play every season, would give the new squads a chance to legitimize themselves.

This move would be much more of a football one than basketball. There seem to be many more positives than negatives. The only major negative I see is if the new team flops and doesn't add anything to the Big Ten. So, if this does come to fruition, Commissioner Jim Delany and whomever else has a say better be careful which team they choose.

I only have one request, though: make it a squad State can beat. Please?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,