Rosemont, Ill. - The Big Ten announced the conference schedules for the 2018 and 2019 football seasons today, featuring nine-game slates for every Big Ten program. The 2018 season gets underway on Sept. 1 in advance of the Big Ten Football Championship Game on Dec. 1. The 2019 season will open on Sept. 7 and conclude with the Big Ten Football Championship Game on Dec. 7. The full 2018 and 2019 conference schedules can be found at the PDFs at the top of the page.

Beginning with the 2016 season, the Big Ten will return to a nine-game conference schedule for all teams for the first time since the 1983 and 1984 seasons. Teams from the East Division will host five conference home games during even-numbered years, while teams from the West Division will host five conference home games during odd-numbered years. As a result of the nine-game conference schedule and the Big Ten's schedule rotation, every student-athlete will have the opportunity to play against every other team in the conference at least once during a four-year period.

Beginning in 2014, the Big Ten football division alignments will feature Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Rutgers in the East Division and Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue and Wisconsin in the West Division. Each school will play the other six schools in its division plus two teams from the other division in 2014 and 2015, which will serve as transitional years in which the schools will still be playing eight-game schedules. Beginning in 2016, each school will play three teams from the other division as part of its nine-game schedule. The cross-division games will include one protected matchup on an annual basis between Indiana and Purdue.

(05-15-2015 11:16 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Rosemont, Ill. - The Big Ten announced the conference schedules for the 2018 and 2019 football seasons today, featuring nine-game slates for every Big Ten program. The 2018 season gets underway on Sept. 1 in advance of the Big Ten Football Championship Game on Dec. 1. The 2019 season will open on Sept. 7 and conclude with the Big Ten Football Championship Game on Dec. 7. The full 2018 and 2019 conference schedules can be found at the PDFs at the top of the page.

Beginning with the 2016 season, the Big Ten will return to a nine-game conference schedule for all teams for the first time since the 1983 and 1984 seasons. Teams from the East Division will host five conference home games during even-numbered years, while teams from the West Division will host five conference home games during odd-numbered years. As a result of the nine-game conference schedule and the Big Ten's schedule rotation, every student-athlete will have the opportunity to play against every other team in the conference at least once during a four-year period.

Beginning in 2014, the Big Ten football division alignments will feature Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Rutgers in the East Division and Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue and Wisconsin in the West Division. Each school will play the other six schools in its division plus two teams from the other division in 2014 and 2015, which will serve as transitional years in which the schools will still be playing eight-game schedules. Beginning in 2016, each school will play three teams from the other division as part of its nine-game schedule. The cross-division games will include one protected matchup on an annual basis between Indiana and Purdue.

it's a perfect solution for the acc. although I would want UNC - NCSU to be an OOC game so they can still cycle through the rest of the teams faster. maybe give it a catchy tagline like "grudge match" since it wouldn't count in the standings.

(05-15-2015 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. It's not possible to divide the ACC teams into 2 divisions of 7 each and have all of the rivalries be intra-division. I've tried.

2. Skipping just one division opponent each year results in a 5 div/1 rival/2 rotate schedule, which also doesn't work IIRC (although I must admit I haven't tried EVERY possible combination)

3. Skipping two division opponents each year gets you to 4 div/1 rival/3 rotate (aka 3-5-5) which definitely works - you'd play every team once every 2 years.

I really think north-south does work the best. some games will be lost, but there are mitigating factors.

GT loses VT, but gains FSU.
GT loses Duke and UNC, but gains WF and NCSU - still a strong NC presence in schedule.
GT loses Pitt but gains Louisville - should be an exciting game.

VT keeps BC since they were already their crossover rival.
VT loses Miami, but it will take 3 or 4 years to play both Miami and FSU in the North-South alignment.
VT loses GT, but gains an old BE rival in Syracuse.

it's all fun to discuss, but I doubt anything changes.

(05-15-2015 12:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. It's not possible to divide the ACC teams into 2 divisions of 7 each and have all of the rivalries be intra-division. I've tried.

2. Skipping just one division opponent each year results in a 5 div/1 rival/2 rotate schedule, which also doesn't work IIRC (although I must admit I haven't tried EVERY possible combination)

3. Skipping two division opponents each year gets you to 4 div/1 rival/3 rotate (aka 3-5-5) which definitely works - you'd play every team once every 2 years.

I really think north-south does work the best. some games will be lost, but there are mitigating factors.

GT loses VT, but gains FSU.
GT loses Duke and UNC, but gains WF and NCSU - still a strong NC presence in schedule.
GT loses Pitt but gains Louisville - should be an exciting game.

VT keeps BC since they were already their crossover rival.
VT loses Miami, but it will take 3 or 4 years to play both Miami and FSU in the North-South alignment.
VT loses GT, but gains an old BE rival in Syracuse.

it's all fun to discuss, but I doubt anything changes.

It would be tough to get GT and Dook to agree to that unless they could/would schedule OOC. They have played every year since 1933.

If you are OK with stacking divisions, you might as well go all the way. This configuration solves most of the rivalry problems:

FSU
Clemson
Va Tech
Louisville
Ga Tech
Miami
Pitt

UNC
NC State
Syracuse
BC
Duke
Virginia
Wake

These are arranged in order of their average results over the past five years, from strongest to weakest. Give GT a permanent cross over with Duke, Va Tech with Virginia and Pitt with Syracuse. Are there any other rivalries that need to be accommodated by a permanent crossover?

The strong division is comparable in average strength to the PAC 12, and not far behind the SEC. The weak division is still better than the strongest G5 conferences. All four of the southernmost schools are together, as are all four NC schools.

(05-15-2015 12:30 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:18 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 09:39 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  1. It's not possible to divide the ACC teams into 2 divisions of 7 each and have all of the rivalries be intra-division. I've tried.

2. Skipping just one division opponent each year results in a 5 div/1 rival/2 rotate schedule, which also doesn't work IIRC (although I must admit I haven't tried EVERY possible combination)

3. Skipping two division opponents each year gets you to 4 div/1 rival/3 rotate (aka 3-5-5) which definitely works - you'd play every team once every 2 years.

I really think north-south does work the best. some games will be lost, but there are mitigating factors.

GT loses VT, but gains FSU.
GT loses Duke and UNC, but gains WF and NCSU - still a strong NC presence in schedule.
GT loses Pitt but gains Louisville - should be an exciting game.

VT keeps BC since they were already their crossover rival.
VT loses Miami, but it will take 3 or 4 years to play both Miami and FSU in the North-South alignment.
VT loses GT, but gains an old BE rival in Syracuse.

it's all fun to discuss, but I doubt anything changes.

It would be tough to get GT and Dook to agree to that unless they could/would schedule OOC. They have played every year since 1933.

OOC would be more of an issue for GT since they already have a permanent OOC with UGa. I didn't know that game was such a big deal, but the devil is in the details of all these scenarios.

(05-15-2015 12:04 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  it's a perfect solution for the acc.

It's a perfect solution within the conference, but it has a big effect on out-of-conference. Moving to nine conference games will cause Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Louisville to either lose their seventh home game, or else do away with home-and-home games with P5 schools other than South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky. In the case of Clemson, we already saw Oklahoma State and Ole Miss get dropped the last time the decision was made to go to nine conference games. I expect the same would happen again. Having that seventh home game is very important to some of these schools with large stadiums and good turnouts.

(05-15-2015 12:39 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:04 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  it's a perfect solution for the acc.

It's a perfect solution within the conference, but it has a big effect on out-of-conference. Moving to nine conference games will cause Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Louisville to either lose their seventh home game, or else do away with home-and-home games with P5 schools other than South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky. In the case of Clemson, we already saw Oklahoma State and Ole Miss get dropped the last time the decision was made to go to nine conference games. I expect the same would happen again. Having that seventh home game is very important to some of these schools with large stadiums and good turnouts.

I meant the geographical divisions with no permanent crossovers, not the 9 game schedule. agreed, 9 games is a non-starter for Clemson, FSU, GT and Louisville.

(05-15-2015 12:39 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:04 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  it's a perfect solution for the acc.

It's a perfect solution within the conference, but it has a big effect on out-of-conference. Moving to nine conference games will cause Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Louisville to either lose their seventh home game, or else do away with home-and-home games with P5 schools other than South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky. In the case of Clemson, we already saw Oklahoma State and Ole Miss get dropped the last time the decision was made to go to nine conference games. I expect the same would happen again. Having that seventh home game is very important to some of these schools with large stadiums and good turnouts.

Thank God for others that get it. Been telling them this for a long time now.

(05-15-2015 12:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you are OK with stacking divisions, you might as well go all the way. This configuration solves most of the rivalry problems:

FSU
Clemson
Va Tech
Louisville
Ga Tech
Miami
Pitt

UNC
NC State
Syracuse
BC
Duke
Virginia
Wake

These are arranged in order of their average results over the past five years, from strongest to weakest. Give GT a permanent cross over with Duke, Va Tech with Virginia and Pitt with Syracuse. Are there any other rivalries that need to be accommodated by a permanent crossover?

The strong division is comparable in average strength to the PAC 12, and not far behind the SEC. The weak division is still better than the strongest G5 conferences. All four of the southernmost schools are together, as are all four NC schools.

I like it and when ND and Cincinnati join it could look something like this:

ATLANTIC

FSU, Clemson, GT, NCST
UofL, VT, Miami, Cincy


COASTAL

ND, Cuse, BC, Pitt
UNC, Duke, WF, UVA


2 permanent pod cross overs and then 1 team from each pod. (3-2-3).

FSU would play the teams in their pod, the highlighted "rivals", then 1 other team from each pod they are not in.

(05-15-2015 12:45 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:39 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:04 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  it's a perfect solution for the acc.

It's a perfect solution within the conference, but it has a big effect on out-of-conference. Moving to nine conference games will cause Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Louisville to either lose their seventh home game, or else do away with home-and-home games with P5 schools other than South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky. In the case of Clemson, we already saw Oklahoma State and Ole Miss get dropped the last time the decision was made to go to nine conference games. I expect the same would happen again. Having that seventh home game is very important to some of these schools with large stadiums and good turnouts.

I meant the geographical divisions with no permanent crossovers, not the 9 game schedule. agreed, 9 games is a non-starter for Clemson, FSU, GT and Louisville.

If you change your rules for determining the division champion so you only consider the six intra-division games (a full round robin within the division), would it not be possible for some schools to play three cross division games while others play only two? That way, schools like FSU and Clemson that have big stadiums, an avid fan base, and more than one attractive OOC rival could play 8 league games, while others like the NC schools could play 9 to facilitate a full intrastate round robin or other traditional rivalry.

It seems to me the only reason to insist on everybody playing the same number of league games is because you currently count them all in determining the division champ. As long as you don't have a full round robin anyway, you are always going to have scheduling imbalance. Why not allow an imbalance in the number of games?

(05-15-2015 12:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you are OK with stacking divisions, you might as well go all the way. This configuration solves most of the rivalry problems:

FSU
Clemson
Va Tech
Louisville
Ga Tech
Miami
Pitt

UNC
NC State
Syracuse
BC
Duke
Virginia
Wake

These are arranged in order of their average results over the past five years, from strongest to weakest. Give GT a permanent cross over with Duke, Va Tech with Virginia and Pitt with Syracuse. Are there any other rivalries that need to be accommodated by a permanent crossover?

The strong division is comparable in average strength to the PAC 12, and not far behind the SEC. The weak division is still better than the strongest G5 conferences. All four of the southernmost schools are together, as are all four NC schools.

That is pretty damn intriguing. Sorry, GT and Duke could go away. But you've got an issue there with splitting VT and UVA.

(05-15-2015 01:44 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:45 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:39 PM)Schema Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:04 PM)ren.hoek Wrote:  it's a perfect solution for the acc.

It's a perfect solution within the conference, but it has a big effect on out-of-conference. Moving to nine conference games will cause Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Louisville to either lose their seventh home game, or else do away with home-and-home games with P5 schools other than South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, and Kentucky. In the case of Clemson, we already saw Oklahoma State and Ole Miss get dropped the last time the decision was made to go to nine conference games. I expect the same would happen again. Having that seventh home game is very important to some of these schools with large stadiums and good turnouts.

I meant the geographical divisions with no permanent crossovers, not the 9 game schedule. agreed, 9 games is a non-starter for Clemson, FSU, GT and Louisville.

If you change your rules for determining the division champion so you only consider the six intra-division games (a full round robin within the division), would it not be possible for some schools to play three cross division games while others play only two? That way, schools like FSU and Clemson that have big stadiums, an avid fan base, and more than one attractive OOC rival could play 8 league games, while others like the NC schools could play 9 to facilitate a full intrastate round robin or other traditional rivalry.

It seems to me the only reason to insist on everybody playing the same number of league games is because you currently count them all in determining the division champ. As long as you don't have a full round robin anyway, you are always going to have scheduling imbalance. Why not allow an imbalance in the number of games?

Weird, but interesting.

(05-15-2015 02:24 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-15-2015 12:35 PM)ken d Wrote:  If you are OK with stacking divisions, you might as well go all the way. This configuration solves most of the rivalry problems:

FSU
Clemson
Va Tech
Louisville
Ga Tech
Miami
Pitt

UNC
NC State
Syracuse
BC
Duke
Virginia
Wake

These are arranged in order of their average results over the past five years, from strongest to weakest. Give GT a permanent cross over with Duke, Va Tech with Virginia and Pitt with Syracuse. Are there any other rivalries that need to be accommodated by a permanent crossover?

The strong division is comparable in average strength to the PAC 12, and not far behind the SEC. The weak division is still better than the strongest G5 conferences. All four of the southernmost schools are together, as are all four NC schools.

That is pretty damn intriguing. Sorry, GT and Duke could go away. But you've got an issue there with splitting VT and UVA.

That's why I give them a permanent crossover game. NC State may want one with Clemson, but unless Clemson wanted to reciprocate, it shouldn't be forced. Same with GT and Duke. GT says they want to play Duke every year, but the proof of that would be if they are given that as a choice. If any two schools want a permanent crossover, I'd be OK with letting them do it, as long as they don't then complain they aren't playing the other schools often enough.

I guess my biggest point in all this, though, is that unless we are willing to consider non-traditional (and even what some would consider weird) solutions, we may be stuck where we are for a long time. Just trying to draw different lines on a map isn't going to give us a satisfactory solution IMO.

The B10 model but with 8 games?
Send it to Swofford.