Link to the whole article http://frankthetank.me I missed this a few weeks ago and wondered if y'all had seen it and what you thought.

The important piece for us deals with removing divisions and letting the conference decide how to choose who goes to the conference championship game. His idea is to set up 3 permanent (annual) rivals and rotate the others through. You'd end up playing everyone in conference 6 out of every 10 years.

Here is what he has for the rivals set up.

SCHOOL RIVAL #1 RIVAL #2 RIVAL #3
Illinois Northwestern Indiana Purdue
Indiana Purdue Illinois Northwestern
Iowa Nebraska Wisconsin Minnesota
Maryland Michigan State Rutgers Penn State
Michigan Ohio State Michigan State Rutgers
Michigan State Maryland Michigan Ohio State
Minnesota Wisconsin Nebraska Iowa
Nebraska Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin
Northwestern Illinois Purdue Indiana
Ohio State Michigan Penn State Michigan State
Penn State Rutgers Ohio State Maryland
Purdue Indiana Northwestern Illinois
Rutgers Penn State Maryland Michigan
Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa Nebraska

First thought…I love this for Maryland. Pretty sure Rutgers fans would love it also.

Rutgers would routinely have a difficult schedule with that setup. I like it though. As long as Penn State and Maryland are on the schedule every year I'm pretty much game for anything.

Get Michigan State off our list. Couldn't care less.

Penn State, Rutgers make perfect sense.

(02-18-2014 03:43 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Get Michigan State off our list. Couldn't care less.

Penn State, Rutgers make perfect sense.

I think Sparty would show up in significant numbers for the game, to visit DC, etc. And with their brand image rising, I think they make for a worthy #3 lock.

As for the whole concept I'm still letting it sink in. My first reaction is that I would rather have divisions. I don't like the idea that conferences could possibly tailor their scheduling with the idea of getting a team to the playoffs. Then again, I have to consider that the Big 12 has openly stated that they're all about doing just that.

(02-18-2014 06:32 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 03:43 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Get Michigan State off our list. Couldn't care less.

Penn State, Rutgers make perfect sense.

I think Sparty would show up in significant numbers for the game, to visit DC, etc. And with their brand image rising, I think they make for a worthy #3 lock.

As for the whole concept I'm still letting it sink in. My first reaction is that I would rather have divisions. I don't like the idea that conferences could possibly tailor their scheduling with the idea of getting a team to the playoffs. Then again, I have to consider that the Big 12 has openly stated that they're all about doing just that.

If we're going to have an assigned rival in the state of Michigan, I'd rather not get the second fiddle.

(02-18-2014 03:43 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Get Michigan State off our list. Couldn't care less.

Penn State, Rutgers make perfect sense.

Two blue chips and the team that just won a very meaningful Rose Bowl is not a bad hand. Could be much worse.

(02-18-2014 03:43 PM)Hitch Wrote:  Get Michigan State off our list. Couldn't care less.

Penn State, Rutgers make perfect sense.

I am biased toward MSU. I like it. Had a friend of a friend who played QB there. So I certainly have positive feelings for the football team. I think that a pretty good series (not gonna call it a rivalry) could develop with them for both football and basketball. Plus, gotta agree with SeaBlue about how they are certainly on the rise after the Rose Bowl. I know you said you don't want the second fiddle of Michigan but not every one can have UM or OSU. Who else do you want? Purdue? Indiana?

If second fiddle means dominating Michigan, winning 2 Big Ten Football championships with an appearance in the inaugural game, and having one of the largest undergraduate student bodies every year then I'll take second fiddle.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I love the idea of no divisions and think it could work fine. I would definitely make changes to the pairing though.

Random Notes:
1. With a 9 game schedule, you'd have 3 locked team and play the other 10 60% of the time.
2. You could have a rotation set-up so that it would be impossible to ever have 3 undefeated teams (no 3 individual teams would all miss each other).
3. While I'm 100% for dropping divisions and playing everyone more (it feels much more like a conference again), there are issues with no-division leagues. For starters, the tie-breakers wouldn't be as clear cut without round robin play and only having 6/7 teams competing for each spot. The season ending games might not all be fixed either (unless every set has an acceptable season ender in their list).

Here's how I'd divide up the locked games (also posted on Frank's blog; I'm just Eric over there):Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Purdue)
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, (Nebraska)
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, (Northwestern)
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, (Northwestern)
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, (Maryland)
Illinois: Ohio State, Northwestern, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, (Michigan State), (Indiana)
Minnesota: Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
Wisconsin: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Wisconsin, Iowa, (Maryland)

The ones that are not in parenthesis are the ones I feel either should be locked for sure or that I feel would be insisted on being locked. I think if you are going to go to the trouble of dividing teams up like this The Little Brown Jug (Minnesota-Michigan) and Illibuck (Ohio State-Illinios) should be preserved (not that a whole lot of Buckeyes care about the Illibuck anymore). I'd personally rather lock Penn State-Michigan State than Ohio State-Penn State (makes season easier), but I think the conference would insist on Ohio State-Penn State continuing.

For the the rest in parethesis, it basically came down this:

1. Nebraska is the only king with an open spot and you want to get them in one of the large markets. Chicago would work, but you already have a lot more influence there thanks to so many programs/alumni closer by. I choose Nebraska vs. Rutgers because if you are ever going to hit the New York market, you need big names there often.

2. Michigan State is the next biggest of the programs you have left, but they aren’t at king level. I think their name is probably a lot more valuable in Chicago than in Washington D.C.

3. That leaves one spot each for Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and Maryland. Indiana and Purdue are already locked so one has to play Northwestern and the other Maryland. Pretty much picked this part at random.

def an interesting concept ... personally like rotation scheduling so we can play as many schools as often as possible

http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

you might be interested in this then ^^^^

(02-18-2014 07:10 PM)Hitch Wrote:  If we're going to have an assigned rival in the state of Michigan, I'd rather not get the second fiddle.

That's pretty funny. The second fiddle(s) around here are Maryland and Rutgers.

(02-23-2014 03:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

you might be interested in this then ^^^^

Holy crap…kudos to the author (Mike Davis) for working all that out. That is impressive and must have taken a while. It is quite complex. I like working through all the teams in a timely manner. I think the only thing that I wouldn't be overly thrilled about are the fixed rivals, Northwestern being the issue. Maryland MUST play PSU and RU. NwU seems arbitrary. I would prefer MSU to them but I'd deal with it. I guess it would be a DC vs Chicago thing?

Here is another article on scheduling (basketball this time). Link : http://thegazette.com/2014/02/19/no-prot...b1g-hoops/

A few interesting points, "It will be a true rotation without protected rivals or preference to geography."

Also, "there was no push to protect instate rivalries, such as Purdue-Indiana or Michigan-Michigan State, to play twice annually.

And, "there was no real interest for an unbalanced schedule where regional rivalries like Iowa-Wisconsin or Michigan-Ohio State would play more often than other series."

That surprises me. I would have expected the league to give preference to in-state/regional rivalries. I also would expect a little animosity from the schools even though playing less frequently is simply a result of expansion.

One last thing that caught my eye, "...the league will continue scheduling 18 games, but the format shifts to five double-plays and eight single-plays each year."

(02-25-2014 08:42 AM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  Here is another article on scheduling (basketball this time). Link : http://thegazette.com/2014/02/19/no-prot...b1g-hoops/

A few interesting points, "It will be a true rotation without protected rivals or preference to geography."

Also, "there was no push to protect instate rivalries, such as Purdue-Indiana or Michigan-Michigan State, to play twice annually.

And, "there was no real interest for an unbalanced schedule where regional rivalries like Iowa-Wisconsin or Michigan-Ohio State would play more often than other series."

That surprises me. I would have expected the league to give preference to in-state/regional rivalries. I also would expect a little animosity from the schools even though playing less frequently is simply a result of expansion.

One last thing that caught my eye, "...the league will continue scheduling 18 games, but the format shifts to five double-plays and eight single-plays each year."

Sparty doesn't want to lose twice to Michigan :)

Must be the AD's feel that once a year is enough most years, and having Purdue-IU or MSU-UM locked in twice a year often times results in home-home splits. It's all about scheduling now... I hate it.

(02-25-2014 09:01 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  Sparty doesn't want to lose twice to Michigan :)

Must be the AD's feel that once a year is enough and having Purdue-IU or MSU-UM locked in twice year often times results in home wins.

I think Izzo would have something to say about that but hey, gotta love the smack talk.

Gotta agree about the home team often winning but I prefer true rivals have that opportunity. I think that having a chance to show what you have at home vs away the same year makes a difference. Playing the next year or even skipping a year just isn't something I'd like. You get revenge on your court but YOU have a different team not to mention your opponent. So, to me it is still a revenge game but not true revenge since it isn't the same team.

(02-25-2014 08:16 AM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

you might be interested in this then ^^^^

Holy crap…kudos to the author (Mike Davis) for working all that out. That is impressive and must have taken a while. It is quite complex. I like working through all the teams in a timely manner. I think the only thing that I wouldn't be overly thrilled about are the fixed rivals, Northwestern being the issue. Maryland MUST play PSU and RU. NwU seems arbitrary. I would prefer MSU to them but I'd deal with it. I guess it would be a DC vs Chicago thing?

why MSU?

(02-28-2014 09:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 08:16 AM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

you might be interested in this then ^^^^

Holy crap…kudos to the author (Mike Davis) for working all that out. That is impressive and must have taken a while. It is quite complex. I like working through all the teams in a timely manner. I think the only thing that I wouldn't be overly thrilled about are the fixed rivals, Northwestern being the issue. Maryland MUST play PSU and RU. NwU seems arbitrary. I would prefer MSU to them but I'd deal with it. I guess it would be a DC vs Chicago thing?

why MSU?

Never pick state (any of 'em)

(02-28-2014 12:03 PM)Hitch Wrote:  

(02-28-2014 09:41 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 08:16 AM)Terps_N_Phoenix Wrote:  

(02-23-2014 03:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  http://sportspolitico.com/2014/02/15/no-divisions/

you might be interested in this then ^^^^

Holy crap…kudos to the author (Mike Davis) for working all that out. That is impressive and must have taken a while. It is quite complex. I like working through all the teams in a timely manner. I think the only thing that I wouldn't be overly thrilled about are the fixed rivals, Northwestern being the issue. Maryland MUST play PSU and RU. NwU seems arbitrary. I would prefer MSU to them but I'd deal with it. I guess it would be a DC vs Chicago thing?

why MSU?

Never pick state (any of 'em)

Why MSU? Answered that earlier in the thread. But here it is. I am biased toward MSU. I like it. Had a friend of a friend who played QB there. So I certainly have positive feelings for the football team. I think that a pretty good series (not gonna call it a rivalry) could develop with them for both football and basketball. Plus, gotta agree with SeaBlue about how they are certainly on the rise after the Rose Bowl. I know you said you don't want the second fiddle of Michigan but not every one can have UM or OSU. Who else do you want? Purdue? Indiana?

And Hitch…I'm not picking State to WIN. I agree, never pick State but they would make a good partner. Never pick State could continue in the B1G.

MSU-UMD is intriguing and there is a lot of similarities between the two programs.

no offense to UMD but at this point in time MSU seems to be in a better tier of programs. I think MSU needs to be playing the likes of Wisconsin, PSU, Nebraska, or Iowa for an end of the year game not UMD.