Here we go again. Penn State, 11-1, 7-1 in the conference. Ohio State, 10-2, 7-1 in the conference. Penn State beat Ohio State back on October 25th – call that PSU’s reasoning. However, PSU lost to Iowa two weeks later and both teams won out so both have the same conference record - call that OSU’s reasoning. Fanbases going back and forth, arguing like children then flaming like children. It was heated debate back in 2005 when this occured and now it’s heated again in 2008, maybe even more fueled. Same fanbases, same situation, same freakin’ story.
So what’s all the fuss about?
As noted before, PSU and OSU both finished 7-1 in the conference meaning them Co-Champions even though PSU defeated the Buckeyes in Columbus. Not cool.
Travis Johnson, a senior staff member at The Daily Collegian agrees with me that the boys in Ohio shouldn’t have a share of the Big Ten. He puts his own little spin on it suggesting that the Big Ten needs to add a 12th team so a conference championship game is enforced. Not so much. I don’t want see a rematch of two teams that already played because it’ll be pointless since they already played before. If team A beat team B, then why should they play again? Not only that but I don’t want to see an 12-0, 8-0 team get upset by an 8-4, 5-3 team in the championship game as well. I always hate when that happens just because you play one extra game.
But that’s another topic, here comes my real beef.
The Big Ten needs to adopt a tie-breaker. It’s so obvious. They’re can’t be “Co-Champions”, that just doesn’t sound right. There should be only one champion in all of sports. No co-champions, or even tri-champions, as that could’ve been a possibility had PSU gone undefeated and Michigan State beat them in the last week.
Not only that but if they’re co-champs and “equal champions”, then why does PSU get the automatic bid to the Rose Bowl?
Yeah, I know that answer and so do you which is “PSU beat OSU”. Well then…since PSU gets the auto-bid to the Rose Bowl by beating OSU, then why should OSU get a share of the title? It doesn’t add up, how can one equal get a better deal than the other equal? It simple does not make sense.
This is something that Jim Delaney needs to address and if he’s not smart enough to fix it (which he might not be), then this is a glaring mark on the Big Ten. A tie-breaker with “head-to-head” as the first criteria takes common sense to allow. It’s so simple yet for the Big Ten it’s so complicated to the point it’s irritating. Though the Big Ten isn’t the only conference that’s like this. The Big East and PAC 10 don’t have tie-breakers as well. Regardless of that, a tie-breaker needs to be enforced.
However, nevermind the tie-breaker talk. Let’s get down to who’s the real Big Ten champ. Call me a homer, call me biased, I don’t care but it’s a damn crime that OSU is selling “Big Ten Champions” t-shirts when they lost to PSU. Except for OSU fans, everyone is recognizing PSU as the real champs of the Big Ten. I’m in the boat that since PSU beat OSU, they are the Big Ten champs. I don’t care if PSU lost to Iowa and both teams finished with the same conference record. PSU beat OSU, that’s the bottom line. Trust me, if OSU beat PSU, then OSU proceeded to lose to Illinois while PSU won out, I’d be calling PSU fans jokes for actually thinking they’re Co-Big Ten champs when OSU beat them.
I hate rules like these. Team A can beat team B and both can finish with the same record yet they’re “Co-Champs” because both teams records are the same. I don’t know, it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
