There was a post on the NU Rivals site saying that the B10 officials were still considering NOT having a playoff even if it expanded to 16 teams. Rather it would try to preserve the rivalry weekend. I think the focus on rivalry games is a dead end. There are some schools that have it and some that don't. And trying to manufacture rivalries where there isn't any is just plain silly. I'm all for protected games, but I don't think that we necessarily have to call them rivalries.

I like to think that NU has a growing rivalry with Iowa, but I'm humble enough to admit that we have to wait behind Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa State, and Illinois. Michigan State certainly thinks its Michigan's rival, but I think a school in Columbus might have something to say about that. Perhaps the solution is to have an application process for a "protected game" and that does not change unless one of the two schools challenge it and it passes a vote of the B10 A.D.'s. Just a thought.

What is the difference between a rivalry game and a protected game?

I always imagined that the last game of the season would always be the same with one of your protected games with the title game for the next week with the champions of each division.

I guess I'm confused what one has to do with the other unless Delany is going to push for all teams to play 13 games every year if they don't do a title game.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Here is the messageboard post:

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=142885732&mid=142885732&sid=901&style=2

The relevant part for this discussion is, "First, contrary to my understanding of the benefits of expansion, the Big Ten is NOT pursuing a playoff system in football. Instead of a playoff, the football teams would all be required to add an additional one or two out of conference game, which would push the regular season back one week or two. The Big Ten wants to maintain the end of season rivalry games at the end of the football season as opposed to adding a playoff."

And to address your other question, there technically is no difference between a protected game and a rivalry game. All I'm saying is that the Big 10 doesn't have to have a fancy name for it like "Rivalry Week" if there aren't logical rivalries. Like I was saying before, I think the folks at NU view Iowa as one of our top "rivals," but if you ask HV or any other Iowa fan, I don't think NU would be in their top 5 list of rivalries.

And the reason why people think it might be true is this:

http://spartannation.com/?p=12002

"On a message board called the Wildcat Report on May 8, 2010, a poster put a message up. He claimed to have been with someone from the Big Ten office who gave him information on the expansion efforts.

Not a big deal, people go on message boards all the time and say things. What made this a big deal was the reaction of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany. According to my source that works at the Big Ten who spoke to Spartan Nation on the condition of anonymity because of Delany’s comments in this meeting, “The Commissioner was livid. He called a staff meeting for the office and that isn’t normal at all. In fact, it is a rare thing. He likes to meet in small groups if he meets at all. He cited this post and said if he found out who it was he would fire the person for talking or anyone else for speaking. All of us walked out and wanted to read the post because as angry as he was it had to hit home. One of my coworkers even said to me 15 seconds after we left the room, I can’t wait to read it.” The source went on to add, “There has been so much S***(fecal matter) thrown around about expansion and he didn’t really get to fired up until this. This one hit home. Clearly, Notre Dame and Texas are in play.” I have hence heard about the Delany meeting from three other sources with knowledge of it, and all of their accounts match the above."

Per BCS and NCAA regs, I'm not sure the Big 10 can offer what the author of the original post was claiming they were offering in Point #2.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

And, if I'm reading it correctly, they definitely can't offer what they are offering in point #1 without changing NCAA regs or entirely leaving the NCAA. Smells like BS.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

I agree... but that's not the point of this post. My point was that I think preserving the rivalries at the expense of a playoff is a bad idea.

Fair enough. I don't think it will be impossible to do both, but then again, I don't think we're going to see some unstable 16-team bohemoth either. Time will tell.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery