There are a number of different approaches you could try for a 1 division setup.

For example

3 rivals - play every year
4 rivals - play 3 times in 4 years
6 rivals - play 2 times in 4 years

This could work well for Wisconsin

3 rivals every year - iowa, Minny, Neb
4 rivals (6/8) - ILL, NW, MSU, Mich
6 rivals (4/8) - Indy, Pur, OSU, PSU, MD, Rut

On the other hand, I think Iowa would prefer just 5 permanent rivals (Neb, Minny. Wisc, ILL, NW) and 50/50 for the rest.

Rutgers really only needs 2 permanent rivals (MD, PSU) and can rotate the rest.

So how about this idea. Teams can have up to 5 permanent rivals if they want, but they can also trade off if they want, reducing the number of permanent rivals in exchange for a better rotation.

Trying to figure out 5 permanent rivals for each team could be interesting

Neb- Iowa, Minny, Wisc, PSU, Rut
Iowa - Neb, Minny, Wisc, NW, ILL
Minny - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, MD
Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minny, NW, MSU
NW - ILL, Iowa, Wisc, Pur, Rut
ILL - NW, Indy, OSU, Iowa, Pur
MSU - Mich, Wisc, OSU, indy, PSU
Mich - OSU, MSU, Minny, Indy, Pur
Pur - Indy, ILL, NW, MD, Mich
Indy - Pur, ILL, Mich, MSU, Rut
OSU - Mich, PSU, MSU, MD, ILL
PSU - OSU, MD, Rut, Neb, MSU
MD - RUT, PSU, Minny, OSU, Pur
Rut - MD, PSU, Neb, NW, Indy

The more I think about it, probably the less permanent rivals, the better.

(05-09-2014 11:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:35 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I doubt they do it, but hope they do. That said, I see no reason to go with 5 fixed opponents. Go with 3 instead (so you play the other 10, 60% of the time). You miss one or two things you'd rather not miss then, but not huge deals and you play everyone else more.

Of course the western schools will all want to have each other as fixed rivals, plus others besides, or there's less reason for them to prefer the new system to the old, so its a minimum of four fixed.

The simplest system is a mix of fixed and two-on, two-off, which for nine games gives 5/4/4.

Of course, just as with the cross divisional scheduling, fixed for a scheduling cycle doesn't automatically mean locked ... it would be possible to have four locked and the other fixed game rotating over a four or eight year cycle. So Minnesota would have Nebraska, Wisconsin & Iowa and TSUN locked, and a fifth game fixed over a four or eight year cycle.

I just don't think the 4th game is completely necessary. The only game of the western ones that isn't locked is Minnesota/Nebraska which is sad, but not horrible. You also don't have Michigan State/Penn State which again I think works.

The fly in the anointment though with my approach might be if they decide they want Nebraska playing another football "king" or if they try to lock every team in with a king. That said, I think the 3 locked works a tad better and they'd still go with it if they take this approach (note: I sadly think they'll stick with divisions).

Expanding above 12 was dumb.

Giving up decades old rivalries to play Maryland and Rutgers?

I hope the money keeps everyone happy.

I agree with Delaney; eventually, if the conference stays at 14 or moves to 16 or 18, there will be 10 conference games. Really, it's only fair. 9 conference games brings about the same imbalance 7 conference games had. Some teams get 5 home conference games and some get 4. Eventually, ADs will complain, and eventually there will be a push for 10 conference games (forget about a return to 8, because then you'd play some of your conference mates even less). Then you'll have fewer teams qualifying for bowl games, but by then perhaps the playoff will be at 16 teams and bowls will be irrelevant anyway.

(05-10-2014 07:56 AM)goofus Wrote:  So how about this idea. Teams can have up to 5 permanent rivals if they want, but they can also trade off if they want, reducing the number of permanent rivals in exchange for a better rotation.

The scheduling for a given school can have fewer permanent rivals than the number of fixed games in a cycle, since you can swap out fixed games between cycles, but it can't have more.

So if you want to allow up to five permanent rivals, you need to have five fixed games in the cycle.

For example, the conference is going to want to have each of MD & Rutgers to have one of OSU and TSUN as fixed game, but it could elect to swap those between cycles.

The conference is going to want to have OSU and Penn State as permanent rivals, OSU is obviously going to insist on having TSUN as permanent rivals, Indiana is going to press the claim of the series (as badly as they have done in the series), Illinois is going to press the Illibuck and there will be some older hands in the Buckeye camp in favor of that, and there will be more horse trading down the track ...

... so it could end up with TSUN and PSU as the locked rivals, the Illini and Indiana trading off, Whiskey and Iowa trading off, and Rutgers and Maryland trading off:

OSU (1-4): TSUN, PSU, Illini, Nebraska, Rutgers
OSU (5-8): TSUN, PSU, Indiana, Whiskey, MD

... which then implies that the Illini, Whiskey, Rutgers, Indiana, Iowa and Maryland all have to have half locks in other series.

And actually that has the makings of a system ... sort out the locks for each, from two to four, sort out their preferences for more than 50% schedules, do some horsetrading between schools, and everyone has between 2:6 locks:half-locks to 4:2 locks:half-locks. So, for instance, if forced to choose between playing the western schools and the historical rivalry with TSUN, because lots of schools want to host TSUN, but Minnesota may pick the western schools, they might still horse trade to get a half-lock with TSUN:

TSUN (1-4): OSU, MSU, MN, ???, MD
TSUN (5-8): OSU, MSU, ???, ???, Rutgers

So then series will sort out between 100% locks, 75% half locks skipping two years in an eight year cycle, and 50% with everyone else, seeing them two years on, two years off.

(05-09-2014 10:35 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is the Big Ten dumb? Would they not move to a single-division format if the ACC's proposed legislation goes through?

Maybe, maybe not, depends on whether it passes, what passes and whether there is an alternative that works substantially better on a 9 conference game schedule.

5 fixed opponents plus home and away against four then home and away against the other four for a four year cycle is 9 games, so the question is whether someone can come up with a network of 5 fixed opponents for each school that makes a majority including OSU and TSUN substantially happier than the East/West division setup, including rules for picking the two for the CCG that all can agree to.

I doubt they do it, but hope they do. That said, I see no reason to go with 5 fixed opponents. Go with 3 instead (so you play the other 10, 60% of the time). You miss one or two things you'd rather not miss then, but not huge deals and you play everyone else more.

Possible schedule:
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Michigan State)
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, (Maryland)
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Indiana: Michigan State,Purdue, Northwestern
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)

The put in the ones I thought were necessary/made sense and was left with one game needed still for Michigan State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. Since Maryland and Rutgers were already matched, I had to match those two with Nebraska and Michigan State.

This pretty much works. The key things you want to keep together annually are almost all met with this plan: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Michigan State, Little Brown Jug, Illibuck, the Northeastern Trifecta, etc.

(05-10-2014 01:25 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:35 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is the Big Ten dumb? Would they not move to a single-division format if the ACC's proposed legislation goes through?

Maybe, maybe not, depends on whether it passes, what passes and whether there is an alternative that works substantially better on a 9 conference game schedule.

5 fixed opponents plus home and away against four then home and away against the other four for a four year cycle is 9 games, so the question is whether someone can come up with a network of 5 fixed opponents for each school that makes a majority including OSU and TSUN substantially happier than the East/West division setup, including rules for picking the two for the CCG that all can agree to.

I doubt they do it, but hope they do. That said, I see no reason to go with 5 fixed opponents. Go with 3 instead (so you play the other 10, 60% of the time). You miss one or two things you'd rather not miss then, but not huge deals and you play everyone else more.

Possible schedule:
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Michigan State)
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, (Maryland)
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Indiana: Michigan State,Purdue, Northwestern
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)

The put in the ones I thought were necessary/made sense and was left with one game needed still for Michigan State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. Since Maryland and Rutgers were already matched, I had to match those two with Nebraska and Michigan State.

This pretty much works. The key things you want to keep together annually are almost all met with this plan: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Michigan State, Little Brown Jug, Illibuck, the Northeastern Trifecta, etc.

You are new to the Big Ten so I will forgive you the mistake of thinking that the "Illibuck" is all important when it comes to protecting it. Ohio State wants to protect it so that they have a yearly "Rivalry" game that is an easy win. No one else in the Big Ten cares about protecting it because it is not a money game. The Nebraska vs Iowa game is brand new and it is already more important to the conference as a whole.

(05-10-2014 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  You are new to the Big Ten so I will forgive you the mistake of thinking that the "Illibuck" is all important when it comes to protecting it. Ohio State wants to protect it so that they have a yearly "Rivalry" game that is an easy win.

Yeah, I'm thinking you have to be my age or older to remember it as a real thing, and its still a case of "remember when".

More important to the conference is that both Rutgers and Maryland are playing at least one of OSU or TSUN in any given year.

(05-10-2014 05:59 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 01:25 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 10:35 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 09:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 04:59 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Is the Big Ten dumb? Would they not move to a single-division format if the ACC's proposed legislation goes through?

Maybe, maybe not, depends on whether it passes, what passes and whether there is an alternative that works substantially better on a 9 conference game schedule.

5 fixed opponents plus home and away against four then home and away against the other four for a four year cycle is 9 games, so the question is whether someone can come up with a network of 5 fixed opponents for each school that makes a majority including OSU and TSUN substantially happier than the East/West division setup, including rules for picking the two for the CCG that all can agree to.

I doubt they do it, but hope they do. That said, I see no reason to go with 5 fixed opponents. Go with 3 instead (so you play the other 10, 60% of the time). You miss one or two things you'd rather not miss then, but not huge deals and you play everyone else more.

Possible schedule:
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Michigan State)
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, (Maryland)
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
Indiana: Michigan State,Purdue, Northwestern
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)

The put in the ones I thought were necessary/made sense and was left with one game needed still for Michigan State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. Since Maryland and Rutgers were already matched, I had to match those two with Nebraska and Michigan State.

This pretty much works. The key things you want to keep together annually are almost all met with this plan: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Michigan State, Little Brown Jug, Illibuck, the Northeastern Trifecta, etc.

You are new to the Big Ten so I will forgive you the mistake of thinking that the "Illibuck" is all important when it comes to protecting it. Ohio State wants to protect it so that they have a yearly "Rivalry" game that is an easy win. No one else in the Big Ten cares about protecting it because it is not a money game. The Nebraska vs Iowa game is brand new and it is already more important to the conference as a whole.

It is our only trophy game and while not something a lot of fans care about, it's also something that a segment does to at least an extent (I personally care more about playing Illinois than Penn State or Wisconsin given the history, but I know that's a minority perspective).

Beyond that, Ohio State would almost certainly already be locked in every year with both Michigan and Penn State in any set-up so from any strength of schedule standpoint, their locked games will be harder than average (likely closest to the top). In my set-up, Ohio State was the only school locked in with 2 "kings." I agree it won't be of the highest priority still, but all else being equal they should try to preserve it and really there is no change I see that would make more sense to switch for.

I have no problem with seeing the Illibuck preserved. I only posted because of the limited number of rivalries he posted. I know from the eastern perspective, perhaps those are the more important ones but to the conference as a whole, he missed a few.

(05-10-2014 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I have no problem with seeing the Illibuck preserved. I only posted because of the limited number of rivalries he posted. I know from the eastern perspective, perhaps those are the more important ones but to the conference as a whole, he missed a few.

Fair enough for sure

(05-10-2014 06:13 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Beyond that, Ohio State would almost certainly already be locked in every year with both Michigan and Penn State in any set-up so from any strength of schedule standpoint, their locked games will be harder than average (likely closest to the top).

And there is the question of the other side ... how hard does Illinois push for the Illbuck?

I didn't catch why Indiana is slated against Northwestern, rather than the Spartans slated against Northwestern, unless it was because of not wanting Indiana slated against Maryland ...

Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, (Indiana)
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
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Michigan State
Indiana: Michigan State, Purdue, (Maryland)
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska
Iowa: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, (Rutgers)

... but in the end, with five repeated opponent over a four year cycle, three locked opponents leaves ample room for make ups for schools that feel they've been slighted in their three locked rivals.

You could well switch that. I put the Indiana/Illinois schools against each other unless there was another match-up, but you just as easily have Northwestern/Michigan State and Indiana/(Maryland/Rutgers). Purdue vs. Northwestern I definitely did want to preserve because I know Purdue fans at least get up for that one (or at least do on other boards I frequent).

(05-10-2014 11:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  You could well switch that. I put the Indiana/Illinois schools against each other unless there was another match-up, but you just as easily have Northwestern/Michigan State and Indiana/(Maryland/Rutgers).

Ah ... I think of NW and MSU having more history than NW and Indiana. After Illinois I'd think the strongest current rivalries for Northwestern are with Wisconsin & Iowa, but in the three locked rivals system those schools are full up.

If it was four, for the five western most schools, I'd say:

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State

Which would spill over (including established or historic rivalries & Penn St. versus the newbies):

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana
Purdue: Indiana,
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State

... after which point it starts to get a bit arbitrary.

Of course, arbitrary "rivalries" are themselves a recent tradition of the Big Ten, including the Land Grant trophy and the Our Most Hate Rival match up between Iowa and Purdue. Purdue's second strongest rivalry from Purdue's side (a number of the the opponent's fans will say how they scorn the series) is out of conference, leaving them a bit at loose ends. On geography you'd say Illinois and Michigan State, which rounds both of those out at four, and then with the Indiana schools at three, they could be slated against the newbies, North to North and South to South:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue,
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana

This leaves Michigan and Ohio State to do their duty to the conference bringing their brand names to the East Coast. Due to the number of Michigan grads in DC, I figure Michigan for Maryland and Ohio State for Rutgers:

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Maryland
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Rutgers
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Michigan

(05-10-2014 08:08 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I have no problem with seeing the Illibuck preserved. I only posted because of the limited number of rivalries he posted. I know from the eastern perspective, perhaps those are the more important ones but to the conference as a whole, he missed a few.

To be clear my list was not in anyway intended to be exhaustive. I just felt I listed enough rivalries without rambling.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(05-11-2014 12:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  You could well switch that. I put the Indiana/Illinois schools against each other unless there was another match-up, but you just as easily have Northwestern/Michigan State and Indiana/(Maryland/Rutgers).

Ah ... I think of NW and MSU having more history than NW and Indiana. After Illinois I'd think the strongest current rivalries for Northwestern are with Wisconsin & Iowa, but in the three locked rivals system those schools are full up.

If it was four, for the five western most schools, I'd say:

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State

Which would spill over (including established or historic rivalries & Penn St. versus the newbies):

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana
Purdue: Indiana,
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State

... after which point it starts to get a bit arbitrary.

Of course, arbitrary "rivalries" are themselves a recent tradition of the Big Ten, including the Land Grant trophy and the Our Most Hate Rival match up between Iowa and Purdue. Purdue's second strongest rivalry from Purdue's side (a number of the the opponent's fans will say how they scorn the series) is out of conference, leaving them a bit at loose ends. On geography you'd say Illinois and Michigan State, which rounds both of those out at four, and then with the Indiana schools at three, they could be slated against the newbies, North to North and South to South:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue,
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana

This leaves Michigan and Ohio State to do their duty to the conference bringing their brand names to the East Coast. Due to the number of Michigan grads in DC, I figure Michigan for Maryland and Ohio State for Rutgers:

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Maryland
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Rutgers
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Michigan

Not bad. That could definitely work.

For me, I'd still vote for 3 locked as I don't think any of the 4th have to be annual (Northwestern has had good series Wisconsin and Iowa, but was not locked with either in the 11 team era and not locked with Wisconsin in the 12 team era) and my philosophy at every stage of realignment has been maximizing the total number of games against everyone (within reason). That said, I'd take that in a heartbeat over the current set-up.

(05-11-2014 07:48 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(05-11-2014 12:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  [quote='ohio1317' pid='10740841' dateline='1399784299']

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Maryland
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Rutgers
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Michigan

Not bad. That could work

I agree. That's not bad. 4 may be the magic number.