Conference Schedules and Divisions

[eyekwah]

What brought this topic to mind is Minnesota and their schedule this year. Much of what they have accomplished is a matter of weak schedule (75 according to Sagarin). Iowa is at 46 and Wisconsin at 44. Over the next 4 weeks Minnesota plays PSU, Iowa, Northwestern (1), and Wisconsin. Iowa drew Michigan, PSU, and Rutgers from the east, Wisconsin drew Michigan, Ohio State, and Michigan State. Minnesota drew PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland. It isn't Minnesota's fault for their schedule. Iowa was a beneficiary of a weak schedule in 2015 (12-0). They did not play OSU, MI, nor PSU. If your in the east division it can work similarly. Michigan drew Iowa and Wisconsin while OSU and PSU each drew just one of the two.

It is pretty obvious that the division alignments are out of whack. Whoever wins the west division would be no higher than 3rd or 4th in the east division. The conference decision to play 9 conference games is both good and bad. It is counter productive to making the playoffs, but it does allow members to play more conference opponents.

I don't know if there is any easy fix for the problems other than some realignment of the divisions and either adding 1 more conference game or subtracting 1. Or there is the possibility of adding Oklahoma and Texas to the west and moving Purdue and Illinois to the east as an idea.

 

[Fryowa]

What brought this topic to mind is Minnesota and their schedule this year. Much of what they have accomplished is a matter of weak schedule (75 according to Sagarin). Iowa is at 46 and Wisconsin at 44. Over the next 4 weeks Minnesota plays PSU, Iowa, Northwestern (1), and Wisconsin. Iowa drew Michigan, PSU, and Rutgers from the east, Wisconsin drew Michigan, Ohio State, and Michigan State. Minnesota drew PSU, Rutgers, and Maryland. It isn't Minnesota's fault for their schedule. Iowa was a beneficiary of a weak schedule in 2015 (12-0). They did not play OSU, MI, nor PSU. If your in the east division it can work similarly. Michigan drew Iowa and Wisconsin while OSU and PSU each drew just one of the two.

It is pretty obvious that the division alignments are out of whack. Whoever wins the west division would be no higher than 3rd or 4th in the east division. The conference decision to play 9 conference games is both good and bad. It is counter productive to making the playoffs, but it does allow members to play more conference opponents.

I don't know if there is any easy fix for the problems other than some realignment of the divisions and either adding 1 more conference game or subtracting 1. Or there is the possibility of adding Oklahoma and Texas to the west and moving Purdue and Illinois to the east as an idea.

Going to 16 teams would be ridiculous, and Oklahoma and Texas have it made where they’re at. If you don’t think every Big 12 team sees what’s happened to Nebraska you’re kidding yourself. Those teams aren’t going anywhere.

Maryland and Rutgers was a huge mistake and Nebraska was dumb too, but I like watching them fail. Honestly it would have been fine to keep the Big Ten to 12 teams and just do away with divisions.

Realigning them is a fools errand because everything is cyclical in college football, and at some point they’ll get unbalanced again. Ohio State is the only Big Ten team that’s always been good, and even they had a few down years under Cooper and Tressel.

 

[guffus]

The Big Ten has brought up the idea of getting rid of divisions and just have the top 2 teams make the CCG. This would require an NCAA rule change. The AAC already got a waiver to do this for the 2020 season.

I have a hunch NCAA will make this a permanent rule change starting for the 2022 season, and that's when the Big Ten will get rid of its divisions.

 

[guffus]

If the NCAA rule change goes through and the Big Ten gets rid of divisions, I could see the Big Ten switching to a schedule where everybody gets 5 permanent rivals they play every year, and 8 teams that they play every other year.

 

[DDThompson]

The Big10 has the divisions it has because OSU, Michigan, MSU, and PSU wanted.

protect their rivalries — especially the first 3.

And PSU didn’t want to be in the west division or a division that didn’t have OSU and Michigan.

So we have what the blue bloods wanted. That’s also why they wanted Notre Dame so badly — put them in the West to balance.

 

[DDThompson]

If the NCAA rule change goes through and the Big Ten gets rid of divisions, I could see the Big Ten switching to a schedule where everybody gets 5 permanent rivals they play every year, and 8 teams that they play every other year.

They’re going to go to 8 games again.

Probably 3 protected rivals and switch the other 10 teams for two year home-away intervals.

 

[guffus]

They’re going to go to 8 games again.

Probably 3 protected rivals and switch the other 10 teams for two year home-away intervals.

That will work too, but if one of the goals is to make all the schedule strength more equal, reducing the number of conference games could make the schedule strengths more unequal.

Although with 8 games everybody has an equal number of home and away games.

 

[PlatypusMessiah]

You can divide the teams into East, west, north, south, leaders, legends, or whatever. The side with Ohio St. is the tough side.

I got no problems with Minnesota playing in Indy if they beat Northwestern and 2 of their 3 games against Iowa, Penn St. and Wisconsin.

 

[uihawk82]

They’re going to go to 8 games again.

Probably 3 protected rivals and switch the other 10 teams for two year home-away intervals.

I certainly hope they dont go to 8 games as Big 10 games in Kinnick or whichever home stadium are much more exciting games, more important games as compared to MAC or Middle Tenn St type games.

And it doesnt really matter if you have 5 or 4 home games in the Big because if you have a really good team you can win on the road. If you have a poor team you lose about everywhere.

A 12 game schedule only needs 3 warmup Non Conf games. Not sure how much 10,000 less tickets purchased for a Non Conf home game means to Iowa's pocketbooks but it cant help and this is what you get when you play Eastern Mich at home.

I think the Big 10 would love to have Notre Dame in the West to replace Rutgers and put Purdue back in the East.

If they go without divisions that is fine also.

 

[okeefe4prez]

The SEC has a similar imbalance issue right now, but my guess is their imbalance is just temporary as Florida and Georgia have blue blood programs and UT is always trying to hang around the rim. The Big Ten's problem is Nebraska ain't ever coming back and the other programs are all decidedly tier 2 programs that, while they can punch above their weight in any given year, are never going to have sustained success to counterbalance the East. Programs like Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue and Iowa have all had some damned good teams in our lifetimes, but they never have programs that could legitimately hope to dethrone one of PSU/OSU/UM in a title game and then win back to back games against good southern or California teams in the playoffs. Both sides of the SEC have 3 programs (though UT needs some help) who have done it or come close to that in the past 20-ish years.

I'm not even sure in the modern landscape that PSU and UM are still tier 1 programs. When you watch the linemen that LSU, Bama, Clemson and Auburn have (or what Mississippi State had last year), it looks like the Big Ten is playing JV ball.

 

[Fryowa]

I think the Big 10 would love to have Notre Dame in the West to replace Rutgers and put Purdue back in the East.

And give Maryland's spot to Pitt.

 

[okeefe4prez]

And give Maryland's spot to Pitt.

Pitt didn't fit for the TV model, unfortunately. Saw AT&T lost over a million cable subs last quarter. That Rutgers move is going to look like the most colossal F up in the history of sports in 20 years.

 

[Fryowa]

Pitt didn't fit for the TV model, unfortunately. Saw AT&T lost over a million cable subs last quarter. That Rutgers move is going to look like the most colossal F up in the history of sports in 20 years.

It may not have at the time (which I still think is questionable), but it 100% fits now.

Now that they're back to the every year, alternating rivalry game with PSU you wouldn't have to even screw up any scheduling. They're always competitive, and in my opinion when the Hawks play Pitt it's the most exciting non-con we have.

As far as revenue, I guarantee you the Keystone Classic gets more East Coast TV market than all of Rutgers' games combined.

 

[hawkeyes87]

Now that they're back to the every year, alternating rivalry game with PSU you wouldn't have to even screw up any scheduling.

As far as revenue, I guarantee you the Keystone Classic gets more East Coast TV market than all of Rutgers' games combined.

Actually, their series has ended again. It was just a 4 year thing.

 

[Fryowa]

Actually, their series has ended again. It was just a 4 year thing.

I wasn't aware of that; I thought it was a permanent series starting in '16.

That said, if Pitt were in the B1G it would automatically keep that game going as an intradivisional match up. I still like the idea.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

In 2022 Iowa's yearly crossover game switches from Penn State to Rutgers. That's what we get for losing to Penn State every year.

 

[Ree4]

The SEC has a similar imbalance issue right now, but my guess is their imbalance is just temporary as Florida and Georgia have blue blood programs and UT is always trying to hang around the rim. The Big Ten's problem is Nebraska ain't ever coming back and the other programs are all decidedly tier 2 programs that, while they can punch above their weight in any given year, are never going to have sustained success to counterbalance the East. Programs like Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue and Iowa have all had some damned good teams in our lifetimes, but they never have programs that could legitimately hope to dethrone one of PSU/OSU/UM in a title game and then win back to back games against good southern or California teams in the playoffs. Both sides of the SEC have 3 programs (though UT needs some help) who have done it or come close to that in the past 20-ish years.

I'm not even sure in the modern landscape that PSU and UM are still tier 1 programs. When you watch the linemen that LSU, Bama, Clemson and Auburn have (or what Mississippi State had last year), it looks like the Big Ten is playing JV ball.

We get it, you like the SEC and Clemson.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

One thing about the schedules that could easily be changed to remedy the imbalance would be to go away from a designated crossover to a pair of home at homes. Iowa would get something like Michigan twice and Maryland twice. (Indiana & Purdue could keep their designated crossover. The other twelve teams get two and two. I think the numbers work out.)

 

[guffus]

One thing about the schedules that could easily be changed to remedy the imbalance would be to go away from a designated crossover to a pair of home at homes. Iowa would get something like Michigan twice and Maryland twice. (Indiana & Purdue could keep their designated crossover. The other twelve teams get two and two. I think the numbers work out.)

Right, in a 6 year cycle,
instead of playing 1 team 6 times and 6 teams 2 times,
you play 2 teams 4 times and 5 teams 2 times

 

[AreWeThereYet]

Right, in a 6 year cycle,
instead of playing 1 team 6 times and 6 teams 2 times,
you play 2 teams 4 times and 5 teams 2 times

Or make it less complicated and just go four year cycles. It would be preferred if all teams met each other every 6 to 8 years, but if it didn't happen no big deal. Play a little more loose with the long term scheduling. Let teams assess their needs and preferences. If certain matchups get left out there may be good reason.