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
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.
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.
No.Like it or not, UM is co-champions and keep in mind that next year Michigan will be made up entirely of Harbaugh recruits. Hope the suckeyes are enjoying this while it lasts.
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 shit, different "title"
Hell, look at page 209 of the Football Media Guide and we claim Big 12 North Co-Championship in 2008 as well.
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.
Just because they are..
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.
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.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.
Refresh my memory on 1997... how could A&M possibly claim a ‘ship?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.
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.Refresh my memory on 1997... how could A&M possibly claim a ‘ship?
Thanks for the clarification… All I can say is, wow!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.Like it or not, UM is co-champions and keep in mind that next year Michigan will be made up entirely of Harbaugh recruits. Hope the suckeyes are enjoying this while it lasts.
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.
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.Remember when Tom Osborne gave up a national title and went for 2 points so he wouldn't have a tie on his record?
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.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.
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.
I will mock Michigan once we beat them on the field. And not before.
I have no problem with Osborne going for two, but winning that game just wasn’t meant to be.Remember when Tom Osborne gave up a national title and went for 2 points so he wouldn't have a tie on his record?
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 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.