JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
CBS posted an item on Monday that got my attention. The Big Ten is discussing a nine or ten game conference schedule.
A few years back, the league had voted to expand to a nine-game conference schedule. This was right after it had accepted Nebraska into the league. But that was scrapped in favor of a scheduling alliance with the Pac 12. Then that fell through this last year and the league is back looking at expanding the conference schedule and you can wager confidently that it will move to at least nine games for the start of the 2014 season.
The question now, according to the CBS item, is will the league go to a ten game slate?
I have not been a fan of the nine-game slate. One year you get five home games and four road games with the next year having four home games and five road games. It's not balanced and in some years very unfair for certain teams. The Pac 12 has dealt in this world for years (nine game conference slate) and the opinions expressed are mixed.
I'd rather see ten games than nine. That way you have an even number of home and road games for each team each year, so there would be no home field advantage factoring into a championship appearance. With the league expanding to 14 teams, likely splitting two divisions into seven teams, that means you'd play the other six teams in your division each year and then four of the seven teams in the opposite division every year. The league has a chance to split these divisions up so that there would be little need for a protected rivalry series, too; you'd play every team in the opposite division at least two times in every four year span.
The ten game schedule does have a few drawbacks. Locally as it relates to Iowa, it would likely spell the end of the Iowa-ISU series. If you are a BCS conference school, you really need to schedule at least seven home games. 10 games in league means five home games, so you'd need to schedule two home games in the out of conference. Iowa State wouldn't play at Iowa every year and the notion would be silly to consider. It might also spell the end for high-profile match ups between Big Ten schools and teams from other major leagues, as they'd not likely play the home game at a Big Ten stadium without a return trip to theirs.
So the Big Ten would need to find a scheduling partner for those out of conference games, such as the MAC or CUSA or both. Leagues who are used to doing either two for ones or one-off paydays, because the Big Ten schools can't afford to not have that seventh home game and won't be able to offer up a return trip say to a Miami of Ohio, like Iowa did in 2002.
Ten home games also means a great deal more live football inventory for the Big Ten Network & ESPN/ABC to air, which means more money to the league in advertising and during their upcoming TV rights negotiations. Each school makes roughly $25 million per year from the BTN now and industry experts believe that figure could ballon past $40 million per year in 2017 when the rights are renegotiated.
If I had to wager on where the league settles, it would be they go with a nine-game slate as a test run for two to four years then reconsider their options beyond that. What do you prefer?
A few years back, the league had voted to expand to a nine-game conference schedule. This was right after it had accepted Nebraska into the league. But that was scrapped in favor of a scheduling alliance with the Pac 12. Then that fell through this last year and the league is back looking at expanding the conference schedule and you can wager confidently that it will move to at least nine games for the start of the 2014 season.
The question now, according to the CBS item, is will the league go to a ten game slate?
I have not been a fan of the nine-game slate. One year you get five home games and four road games with the next year having four home games and five road games. It's not balanced and in some years very unfair for certain teams. The Pac 12 has dealt in this world for years (nine game conference slate) and the opinions expressed are mixed.
I'd rather see ten games than nine. That way you have an even number of home and road games for each team each year, so there would be no home field advantage factoring into a championship appearance. With the league expanding to 14 teams, likely splitting two divisions into seven teams, that means you'd play the other six teams in your division each year and then four of the seven teams in the opposite division every year. The league has a chance to split these divisions up so that there would be little need for a protected rivalry series, too; you'd play every team in the opposite division at least two times in every four year span.
The ten game schedule does have a few drawbacks. Locally as it relates to Iowa, it would likely spell the end of the Iowa-ISU series. If you are a BCS conference school, you really need to schedule at least seven home games. 10 games in league means five home games, so you'd need to schedule two home games in the out of conference. Iowa State wouldn't play at Iowa every year and the notion would be silly to consider. It might also spell the end for high-profile match ups between Big Ten schools and teams from other major leagues, as they'd not likely play the home game at a Big Ten stadium without a return trip to theirs.
So the Big Ten would need to find a scheduling partner for those out of conference games, such as the MAC or CUSA or both. Leagues who are used to doing either two for ones or one-off paydays, because the Big Ten schools can't afford to not have that seventh home game and won't be able to offer up a return trip say to a Miami of Ohio, like Iowa did in 2002.
Ten home games also means a great deal more live football inventory for the Big Ten Network & ESPN/ABC to air, which means more money to the league in advertising and during their upcoming TV rights negotiations. Each school makes roughly $25 million per year from the BTN now and industry experts believe that figure could ballon past $40 million per year in 2017 when the rights are renegotiated.
If I had to wager on where the league settles, it would be they go with a nine-game slate as a test run for two to four years then reconsider their options beyond that. What do you prefer?
