B1G about to redo the 23-25 conference schedules
- Thread starter spliff45
- Start date
guffus
Well-Known Member
Yes it has been obvious for a while this change was coming. I predicted back in 2019 that divisions would be scrapped in 2022. Once the Big Ten came out with that ridiculous schedule where Iowa was supposed to play Rutgers for 6 years in a row from 2022-2027, it was clear to me that that rotation would not last.
Now the Big Ten can switch to a more sensible schedule. If they keep 9 conference games, they can set up a schedule with 5 fixed rivals teams play every year and then play the 8 other teams 50% of the time. Or if they switch back to 8 conference games, they can go with 3 fixed rivals and play the other 10 teams 50% of the time.
I much prefer the flexibility of the divisionless schedule. I want Iowa to be playing OSU, Mich, PSU and MSU at least 50% of the time and can even tolerate Iowa playing Rutgers as long as its no more than 50% of the time.
With 3 fixed rivals, Iowa can play Minn, Wisd, and NEB every year. If iowa gets 5 fixed rivals, you can throw in NW and ILL too.
Now the Big Ten can switch to a more sensible schedule. If they keep 9 conference games, they can set up a schedule with 5 fixed rivals teams play every year and then play the 8 other teams 50% of the time. Or if they switch back to 8 conference games, they can go with 3 fixed rivals and play the other 10 teams 50% of the time.
I much prefer the flexibility of the divisionless schedule. I want Iowa to be playing OSU, Mich, PSU and MSU at least 50% of the time and can even tolerate Iowa playing Rutgers as long as its no more than 50% of the time.
With 3 fixed rivals, Iowa can play Minn, Wisd, and NEB every year. If iowa gets 5 fixed rivals, you can throw in NW and ILL too.
Last edited:
Fryowa
Administrator
No way they keep 5 fixed rivals. At that point it’s really no different than having 2 divisions.
1 (maybe 2) protected games is all you need. The Big Ten is forced to do at least 1 for everyone because they have to keep OSU/Mich. After that 1 game for everyone, the term “rivalry” starts being used pretty loosely.
guffus
Well-Known Member
So if they went with 1 (or 2) fixed rivals, who does Iowa get? If they go with 1, I would assume wisc and Minn would pick each other so Iowa would get NEB.
Now if they went with 2, Iowa, Minn and Wisc could all pick each other and NEB would get shut out. That would not go over well. So Iowa would probably have to take NEB and Minn.
It just seems like it would be easier for everybody if they had at least 3 fixed rivals and actually picking 5 is the best way to make sure everybody gets to play everybody they want as a fixed rival.
For example Iowa does not need to play NW every year but NW may want to play Iowa every year. With 5 fixed rivals, NW would get a chance to do that.
RobHowe
Administrator
My podcast partner, Scott Dochterman from The Athletic, lays it out well, IMO. Too much hand-wringing. Don't overthink it.
theathletic.com
Without divisions, only top rivals should be required to meet annually
With divisions and round-robin scheduling no longer a conference title game prerequisite, there is a simple way to set future schedules.
theathletic.com
Fryowa
Administrator
Let's not kid ourselves that any rival games are going to be chosen by the amount of TV viewers. If it was one game, it'd be either Wisconsin or nebraska. I'd choose nebraska. If it was 2, it'd be Wisconsin and nebraska. Minnesota isn't going to get either of those games over Iowa, Just wouldn't happen.
5 rivalries? Christ, that's pretty much divisions again. Over half your regular season would be against the same teams every year and that's exactly what this thing is trying to avoid.
People are acting like there have always been divisions in the Big Ten and forgetting that it used to be a single league.
Conferences with more than 10 teams without Divisions are stupid.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
It won't be five. One or two tops.
It's never been a single league with 14 teams. 14 teams is a lot. I wouldn't have a problem going to TEN conference games. Why the heck do we play all these cupcakes every year? North Dakota State? Give me a break. Colorado State. Yuck. Northern Illinois. WTF.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
Why not play 10 conference games?
The end result of this change is a nice, juicy payback to all the East Division teams (especially Michigan & Penn St.) who've been forced to play Ohio St. and each other in recent years. Let's face it: the BTen wants Ohio St. & Michigan in the title game every year, and now that the conference is freed up to bring that goal to reality I expect to see schedules which reflect that goal.
Yeah feels like that's what's wanted... Let OSU & Michigan play every year in a protected way but BIG wants to find a way to not have Lowly Iowa, Northwestern or even Wisconsin playing against OSU in that title game every year. They'd rather have Michigan or PSU probably even MSU instead.
guffus
Well-Known Member
It's a matter of preference. Each scheduling option has some trade-offs.
With 1 fixed rival, you could play the other 12 teams 2 out of 3 years, which is not bad, especially if you like playing OSU, Mich and PSU a lot.
But that also means playing MD and Rut 2/3 years while only playing Minn and Wisc 2/3. Wouldn't you rather play Minn and Wisc every year and Rut and MD less?
With 1 fixed rival, you could play the other 12 teams 2 out of 3 years, which is not bad, especially if you like playing OSU, Mich and PSU a lot.
But that also means playing MD and Rut 2/3 years while only playing Minn and Wisc 2/3. Wouldn't you rather play Minn and Wisc every year and Rut and MD less?
Fryowa
Administrator
Yeah because watching an Iowa or Wisconsin or Northwestern (LOL) squad get boat raced by Michigan or Ohio State or Penn State is awesome.
It's not the East Division's fault the West sucks.
Fryowa
Administrator
It's the "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" effect.
We have to schedule those teams to pad our record because
1) We're not an upper level team like an OSU or Alabama or Georgia that can schedule bigger matchups and still know they're likely going to win.
2) Everyone else at our level does the same thing.
I would say for Iowa the Wisc, Minn, and Illinois series are very strong rivalries. Even when the teams vary in how good they are, the games are very anticipated, very well attended, and always tough, hard hitting games. Personally, as a long time fan, I would hate to see Iowa not play those 3 teams each year. There are a 100 years worth of history here, and I would include jNW and Purdue in that group. When it was legends and leaders and we didnt play Wisky during a year it was a very noticeable hole in the schedule to me. So I think there could easily be at least 3 to 5 protected rivals.
And I am dead set against the Big 10 going to an 8 game conference schedule and diluting the non-conf with more lackluster games. The only way an 8 game conf schedule would keep some interest is if at least 2 of the non-conf games were against current P5 teams. I stopped buying season tickets in 2020, fittingly, after having them since 1973 and there is nothing better than a Big 10 opponent or a top non-conf opponent coming into Kinnick. The hawks used to have one of the best non-conf schedules in the country for their home fans back in the day.
Nebby not so much for Iowa since they haven't been in the league that long but the teams have played a fair number of times over the last 40+ years. I think Nebby has played Iowa out of conference more than they played almost all the other Big 10 teams since 1970, not counting bowl games.
Good points. The fact that some people like FryIowa think Iowa only has one rivalry in the conference is ludicrous.
I agree, 14 teams in the Big 10 might actually be the crazy thing.
Fryowa
Administrator
You spelled my username wrong.
