Co Division Champs - To raise a banner or not?

Submitted by SpaghettiPolicy on December 2nd, 2018 at 2:34 PM

Curious what your opinions are regarding raising a banner per Jack Harbaugh's recent comments. 


I am generally not someone who would even consider this but I was doing some research and the concept of being co-champions was much more common than I thought or could ever remember.


26 of our 42 claimed Conference championships are technically co-championship claims. 8 of Bo Schembechler's 13 are co-championship claims.

16 of Ohio State's 37 Big Ten championships are technically co-championship claims.


What do you all think of this?


PS- Another interesting piece of data I came across was the number of ties that have happened in Football. It is way more common in history than people realize. I remember when the whole Donovan McNabb situation went down and that felt like the first Tie I could remember in Football and now it happens "much more often", or so I thought. Older generations like to take their shots at Millenials regarding the ties with the whole everyone gets a trophy comments but I'm finding in my quick research that way more people were making claims and getting trophies back in the day than they do now. Just an observation of mine, take it as what you will.





December 2nd, 2018 at 2:42 PM ^

It's a misplaced question, though, right? Because "banner hanging" at Michigan Stadium isn't even a thing. We bolt numerals to brick tto represent the years of conference and national championships, but that's it. I doubt even future CCG appearances will produce a banner (or such bolted numerals).

Having said that, I think this accomplishment is meat (albeit lean) for the fans. It at least kills the stupidest hot take of the last few years**.

**(since tying for first defeats "not finishing higher than third in the division," which was always a meaningless metric since 2016 when one literal inch kept Michigan from a Big Ten championship and CFP appearance and dropped Michigan all the way down to a "lowly" #5 nationally).


December 2nd, 2018 at 2:37 PM ^

Maybe it’s just me, but I wouldn’t want to “raise the banner” for just winning the B1G East, co-champ or outright. Either you win your conference or you don’t. 


December 2nd, 2018 at 2:38 PM ^

Whatever they technically won the division along with OSU, obviously weren’t the representative due to tie breakers.

May as well raise the banner but hopefully it makes the team hungrier for better things.


December 2nd, 2018 at 2:42 PM ^

No thanks. All that banner would do is remind people of the outcome on the field in Columbus on November 24, 2018. Unless you're an Ohio State fan, why the fuck would you want to remember that?

B1G or Bust

December 2nd, 2018 at 2:44 PM ^

You’re arguing co-conference championships verse co-divisional championships.

”You tied for 1st in your half of the conference, even though the team you ‘tied’ with rolled you in the head-to-head and went on to win the actual conference championship.”


December 2nd, 2018 at 2:46 PM ^

I didn't think it really needed to be said BUT some people can't seem to get past a literal reading of "Raise a Banner". 

The physical act of raising a banner is not the point. "Raising the Banner" is meant to say, do we claim it or not? Do we choose to celebrate or not?


December 2nd, 2018 at 2:47 PM ^

The NFL overtime system was instituted in 1974.  The college overtime system began in 1996.  The NFL rules still allow for ties during the regular season; the college rules do not.  That's the main reason for the discrepancy.

In 1992, Michigan went undefeated -- 9-0-3.  They tied @Notre Dame, vs. Illinois, and @OSU, and won the Big Ten and the Rose Bowl.  Ties were great, because in most cases, both teams dropped in the polls after a tie, so if Michigan went into the Rose Bowl at #5, you could hope for the right combination of losses and ties by teams ahead of them to win a national championship.  The introduction of overtime was the first death knell for the bowl system.

Anyway, I do think few people realize how many co-championships Michigan claims in the Big Ten. Future coaches are always going to be measured against a nigh-impossible standard due to the elimination of co-champions.

That said, I have no interest in counting division titles at all, and certainly not a co-division title.  This is the bed Michigan and the rest of the Big Ten made, and now they have to lie in it.

Bill in Birmingham

December 2nd, 2018 at 2:48 PM ^

In the days of co-champions there was not a clear path to distinguish a single champ (i.e., the winner of the championship game). It made sense then when two teams tied with the best record to consider them co-champs. That is no longer the case. And a Division championship, to me, is just not that meaningful.

Cold War

December 2nd, 2018 at 2:53 PM ^

Of course we will and we should. Anyone snubbing their nose at this needs to realize the days of the Big Two are long gone and these won't be easy to come by.


December 2nd, 2018 at 2:59 PM ^

It is a non-issue. There is no such thing as Divisional Co-Champions. OSU won the tie breaker and are, therefore, the East Division Champion. If we had won the tie breaker, we would have claimed the east championship.


December 2nd, 2018 at 3:04 PM ^

No. If you think we should you are a loser and you should feel bad about your self. We lost. We didn’t go to Indy. Let’s not be the Lions. 


December 2nd, 2018 at 3:05 PM ^

To those who say no, is it because it’s a two way tie and Michigan lost to the other co-champ? Would you feel differently if it was a three way tie with PSU where we go 1-1 with the other co-champs but lost the tie breaker? 

Michigan was co- division champions and I’m okay with celebrating it or at least acknowledging it. I wouldn’t buy a hat or t-shirt though, but I will next year if it says back to back divisional champs.


December 2nd, 2018 at 3:07 PM ^

Anyone who is in favor of this is also willing to recognize his ex gfs wedding anniversary if she married his next door neighbor.

in other words.

A pathetic loser.