CSNbbs

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...layoff/8791503/

The following is an excerpt from a story in USA today that i believe finally confirms what parity scheduling means.   With a nine game schedule, teams will have 3 cross division opponents, one that is the same and 2 that rotate, at least for a 6 year cycle.   

Q: Immediately after the Big Ten's East and West divisions were formed, people reacted saying there is a football imbalance – that the East is stacked, West is not. Did you anticipate that? How much of that is a concern?

 A: The last time (we split into divisions), we tried to do everything based on competitiveness. We were centralized enough that we could do it. I think when you go all the way out East, you have to make a decision. I think rivalries matter. Travel matters.

My own view is over time – when the SEC first started divisions 22 years ago, the East was dominant. Florida, Tennessee and Georgia. Arkansas, Alabama, LSU were down. The last 10 years, the West has been stronger than the East. I think that maybe the East is coming back. I think Tennessee will get better, and Florida. Georgia will get better. I think the same thing could happen with us.

I know Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State are the historic teams, but I also think Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa are very capable. Illinois. You can't advance without beating the best of the other (division) anyway. I think there's something to re-evaluate, we're pushing the envelope as conferences get larger. But as conferences get larger, they become more regional through divisions.

That's why the ninth game is important. You've got one across, two that rotate. You're going to be able to do that. If you didn't play nine, it would be harder. I wouldn't be shocked someday if we're playing 10 – as it becomes more and more difficult to schedule non-conference games.

Some additional info, this is actually backed up if you study the BigTen schedules.

For the 2016-2019 schedule it's already announced and probably will stay the same in 2020-2021 to complete a 6 year cycle where everybody plays everybody at least 2 times in 6 years. 

Each team's annual cross - division rival is:

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

Still really dislike this. We should do a full rotation with those 3 games (outside of locking Indiana-Purdue). No reasons any of those games should go on for 6 straight years at the expense of a more full rotation.

Shouldn't Michigan & Minnesota be annual opponents? I know Michigan dominates that series but the Little Brown Jug has to count for something.

I think his last sentence is important... I also see 10 conference games as inevitable as conferences grow to at least 16 each and the playoffs is likely expanded to 8 schools. Regular season game 11 will still be an open slot for OOC rivalries or kickoff games, and game 12 may remain open for a game against a regional opponent in the G5 level (Ole Miss vs. Southern Miss type games). Outside of that, I think conferences will become more and more isolated to competing with each other. There is no other option if playing conference foes on a regular basis is to occur.

(05-09-2014 08:39 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]Still really dislike this. We should do a full rotation with those 3 games (outside of locking Indiana-Purdue). No reasons any of those games should go on for 6 straight years at the expense of a more full rotation.

Looks like the reason for "parity scheduling" is to give the traditionally weaker FB programs a better chance at bowl eligibility by giving them an annual opponent who is closer to their level of competition. I suppose it also boosts the strength of schedule argument for the traditionally stronger programs.

And it looks like they set it up so that those locked "parity" opponents can be rotated for the next cycle, with only IU-PU staying the same, so the next cycle would be OSU/Wisc, Mich/Neb, PSU/NW, MSU/Iowa, Rut/Minn, Md/Ill.

(05-09-2014 08:50 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote: [ -> ]Shouldn't Michigan & Minnesota be annual opponents? I know Michigan dominates that series but the Little Brown Jug has to count for something.

You could ask the same question about the Illibuck, but only Indiana/Purdue is permanently locked in that system ... after six years the other six dosey doe, but it wouldn't be surprising if that was OSU/Whiskey, TSUN/Nebraska, MSU/Iowa, PSU/NW, MD/Illini, Rutgers/MN.

So when they decided to go with the geographic division alignment to put, among other clusters, the four western schools together (as they preferred), then those two old East vs West rivalries took a back seat.

(05-09-2014 10:39 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2014 08:39 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]Still really dislike this. We should do a full rotation with those 3 games (outside of locking Indiana-Purdue). No reasons any of those games should go on for 6 straight years at the expense of a more full rotation.

Looks like the reason for "parity scheduling" is to give the traditionally weaker FB programs a better chance at bowl eligibility by giving them an annual opponent who is closer to their level of competition. I suppose it also boosts the strength of schedule argument for the traditionally stronger programs.

And it looks like they set it up so that those locked "parity" opponents can be rotated for the next cycle, with only IU-PU staying the same, so the next cycle would be OSU/Wisc, Mich/Neb, PSU/NW, MSU/Iowa, Rut/Minn, Md/Ill.

It will look something like that, but I think they went with there bigger 6 from the original division discussion. That has Iowa and Wisconsin as the upper tier, but not Michigan State. No real reason to keep that but it worked out number wise with Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State playing Iowa/Nebraska/Wisconsin in the semi-locked game and Michigan State/Rutgers/Maryland playing Illinois/Northwestern/Minnesota. They also mentioned an 18 year cycle so expect all each group to play their corresponding group for 6 years each.

I too would prefer a full on rotation. It allows the more regional rivalries to be played more often such as Michigan-Minnesota or Illinois-Ohio State.

(05-09-2014 10:57 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: [ -> ]It will look something like that, but I think they went with there bigger 6 from the original division discussion. That has Iowa and Wisconsin as the upper tier, but not Michigan State. No real reason to keep that but it worked out number wise with Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State playing Iowa/Nebraska/Wisconsin in the semi-locked game and Michigan State/Rutgers/Maryland playing Illinois/Northwestern/Minnesota. They also mentioned an 18 year cycle so expect all each group to play their corresponding group for 6 years each.

Lord only knows what Delaney is thinking, he sometimes seems to say different things depending on the day of the week. But if we went the "parity scheduling" route on a 18-year-cycle, I think the most logical way to set up the schedule would be this:

OSU/Michigan/Penn State:

Play Iowa/Wisky/Nebraska 10 times each in 18 years.
Play Illinois/NU/Minnesota 6 times each in 18 years.
Play Purdue 6 times in 18 years.

-------------------------

MSU/Maryland/Rutgers:

Play Iowa/Wisky/Nebraska 6 times each in 18 years.
Play Illinois/NU/Minnesota 10 times each in 18 years.
Play Purdue 6 times in 18 years.

-------------------------

Indiana:

Play Iowa/Wisky/Nebraska 6 times each in 18 years.
Play Illinois/NU/Minnesota 6 times each in 18 years.
Play Purdue 18 times in 18 years.

(05-09-2014 01:27 PM)NittanyLion Wrote: [ -> ]Lord only knows what Delaney is thinking, he sometimes seems to say different things depending on the day of the week. But if we went the "parity scheduling" route on a 18-year-cycle, I think the most logical way to set up the schedule would be this: ...

Except first they decided to lock Indiana & Purdue permanently, then they decided to go with:

East Group 1 / West Group 1
East Group 2 / West Group 2
Indiana / Purdue

Each group locks with one of the matching group for six years over a cycle of 18 years, and then each school plays a 6 year cycle like:

@G1.1, G2.1
@G1.2, G2.2
@G1.3, G2.3
G1.1, @G2.1
G1.2, @G2.2
G1.3, @G2.3

... with the permanently locked cross-division school slotting in place of the school you are locked with for that six year cycle.

Then they allocated the schools to the groups.

So over any six year cycle, you play everyone 33% of the time except for your locked opponent, and over the 18 year cycle, supposing no additional realignment, it averages to 56% of the time for the three schools in the parallel group.

So the "parity" in the parity scheduling is deciding which schools should be in the top tier and which schools should be in the bottom tier.

And then you decide on the rotation of the six year locked games between the two parallel groups.

That second decision is as or more critical as the first one, since if there is realignment on a 6-10 year span, only the first six year cycle will have a chance to complete, and the cycling around the full opposing tier will never take place.

Is the Big Ten dumb? Would they not move to a single-division format if the ACC's proposed legislation goes through?

(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 but it depends on what passes. Until then, you need to have a plan if the rules don't change. And even if the rules change, it is no guarantee divisions will go away.

(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.

Everybody is saying it's going to pass.

(05-09-2014 09:49 PM)Marge Schott Wrote: [ -> ]Everybody is saying it's going to pass.

A lot of times that everybody says something will happen, it happens. Sometimes, though, it doesn't.

Even if it passes, the decision on whether or not to adopt that alternative of 5 fixed opponents and everyone else two years in four needs to have a status quo in place so people know what the alternative is. It would be a bunch of naive fools that proceeded on the basis of treating it as passed just because "everyone says its going to".

And the way the NCAA works, there's no way to be confident what the actual terms will be for whatever passes until the actual language has been voted on.

(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.

More regional through divisions...sounds very familiar to what I have been saying.

There will be more divisions if more expansion happens and they will be based upon regional geography.

(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?

The single division format isn't all that some folks would like to crack it up to be.

There is history behind the idea of divisions. Fans and viewers appreciate it and understand it. Especially if you can get down to having four divisions based upon tight geographical rivals instead of what we have now which are larger divisions with less intense rivalries across the board between all divisional members.

The NFL is showcase enough, they use more divisions with less teams in each and for the most part they have regional rivalries with them. The exception might be Dallas but that one has some serious historical rivalries with their fellow division members. The more obvious successful theory is that of smaller divisions of tight geographical rivals.

The idea of no divisions is born out of weakness, not strength.

(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.