If the Big Ten intends to continue playing 9 conference games per year, they might also consider a 5 annual + 4 rotating schedule. That would allow each team to play 5 of the current 6 teams in their own division (if desired), while still playing everyone twice in four years.

3 + 6 also works, and lets you play every team a little more often.

1 + 8 might be best if, as Frank says, there's really only 1 "uber rival" anyway. That way you can play 8 of the remaining 12 each year, which works out to 2 out of every 3 years (on average).

1+8 is a no-go for the Big Ten. Michigan has to play Ohio St and Michigan St every season.

(05-12-2022 05:08 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 09:12 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  The standings are less meaningful since teams are playing different opponents.

What is the solution?

Answer: Have few annual opponents. This means that you will play all conference-mates more regularly, and increase the commonality of playing all schools.

Number of annual opponents has 0 impact on the “commonality” of 2 schools’ schedules. Everyone will still skip 5 schools in a given year. You can probably jigger it so any 2 teams have 5 common opponents, like a traditional 12-team conference with divisions. No need to drop the number of annual opponents to 1.

If you play more opponents annually, you play the other opponents less frequently. This will increase the variation in the number of common opponents.

Consider an extreme example: Two seven-team divisions playing a full round robin in division along with three cross-over games.

Case I: A and B are in the same division. They play 5 common opponents plus a H-to-H. They will play between 0 and 3 common teams in cross-over games with a strong likelihood of 1 or 2.

Case II: A and B are in opposite divisions. Any cross-over opponent will be a common opponent. They will either play 1 H-to-H and 4 common opponents or no H-H plus 6 common opponents.

Look how difficult it is to find three common opponents that everyone agrees upon. But maybe nobody wants to play BC. You are forcing assignments. But maybe everyone wants to play UNC. They all can't so some will get assigned to BC.

With one permanent opponent, the others are scheduled 2 of 3 seasons, which permits one H and one A over the three years. If you really want to play a team, then schedule it as OOC.

(05-12-2022 12:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big Ten intends to continue playing 9 conference games per year, they might also consider a 5 annual + 4 rotating schedule. That would allow each team to play 5 of the current 6 teams in their own division (if desired), while still playing everyone twice in four years.

Desired by whom? For Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers, the attractiveness of a no-division format is *not* having to play Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State (or even 3 of them) every single year. They want significantly fewer games against the Big Four. Conversely, the west division teams probably want to be selling tickets to Michigan and Ohio State games more often.

(05-12-2022 03:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big Ten intends to continue playing 9 conference games per year, they might also consider a 5 annual + 4 rotating schedule. That would allow each team to play 5 of the current 6 teams in their own division (if desired), while still playing everyone twice in four years.

Desired by whom? For Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers, the attractiveness of a no-division format is *not* having to play Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State (or even 3 of them) every single year. They want significantly fewer games against the Big Four. Conversely, the west division teams probably want to be selling tickets to Michigan and Ohio State games more often.

That is the classic dilemma, sell tickets or win games? More games vs. the "Big Three" means more money in ticket sales/interest in the games but more losses while the opposite is true. Same in the SEC with Alabama and Georgia.

(05-12-2022 04:09 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 03:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big Ten intends to continue playing 9 conference games per year, they might also consider a 5 annual + 4 rotating schedule. That would allow each team to play 5 of the current 6 teams in their own division (if desired), while still playing everyone twice in four years.

Desired by whom? For Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers, the attractiveness of a no-division format is *not* having to play Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State (or even 3 of them) every single year. They want significantly fewer games against the Big Four. Conversely, the west division teams probably want to be selling tickets to Michigan and Ohio State games more often.

That is the classic dilemma, sell tickets or win games? More games vs. the "Big Three" means more money in ticket sales/interest in the games but more losses while the opposite is true. Same in the SEC with Alabama and Georgia.

That is a real chicken-or-the egg dilemma:

If Rutgers/Indiana/Maryland win more games, maybe then they sell more tickets.

I don’t think being fodder for the stronger B10 teams necessarily drives attendance or revenue. If I’m a Rutgers fan trying to decide which game I should attend, do I want to see the Scarlet Knights get thumped by Ohio St by 4 possessions or do I go to the Purdue game that should be an evenly matched game?

(05-12-2022 04:09 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 03:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:22 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If the Big Ten intends to continue playing 9 conference games per year, they might also consider a 5 annual + 4 rotating schedule. That would allow each team to play 5 of the current 6 teams in their own division (if desired), while still playing everyone twice in four years.

Desired by whom? For Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers, the attractiveness of a no-division format is *not* having to play Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Penn State (or even 3 of them) every single year. They want significantly fewer games against the Big Four. Conversely, the west division teams probably want to be selling tickets to Michigan and Ohio State games more often.

That is the classic dilemma, sell tickets or win games? More games vs. the "Big Three" means more money in ticket sales/interest in the games but more losses while the opposite is true. Same in the SEC with Alabama and Georgia.

The answer is in the middle, which is what would happen if the Big Ten evenly distributes games against the Big Four instead of concentrating them in the east: Everyone gets some home games at which to sell more tickets, without having so many of those games that their team is getting curbstomped 4 times every year.

(05-12-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

(05-12-2022 06:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:58 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

That is full membership and a contract never intended to be fulfilled by ND.

Its like an "if I break up with my wife, I will marry you" type promise made by someone with no intentions of doing either.

But, that is irrelevant.

We are talking about the fantasy of ND not joining in full, but engaging in a scheme to play 6 conference game and be eligible for the ACC Championship Game.

There is exactly zero evidence that ND wanted that at all or would participate in that at all.

Where is the noise from ND to 1) join the ACC in full, or more relevantly, 2) participate in this 6 game scheme ??

When does ND start playing that mythical sixth ACC game per year ? Let me know.

Provide one link from ND or ACC sources saying that ND was ever discussing or agreeing to a 6th ACC game.

Name one occasion wherein ND and/or the ACC were in discussions for ND to play in the ACC Championship game as a non-member or partial member.

That was all fantasy.

It has nothing at all to do with that other contract. Zero relevance.

Hey keep fighting the good fight, I’ve never said anything about a sixth game. If ND isn’t all in, then they ain’t playing in the CCG. Thanks.

The contract would definitely come into play if there was a situation with a P4 breakaway and the four winners of the conferences made up a four team playoff. That was a real life threat when Texahoma left the Big XII. So it would have been ND’s decision to participate at the highest level, or not. That’s why they put that in there. C’mon, you know this, stop playing coy.

The Big Ten could easily facilitate their rivals. Play three from your sub-group and cycle the rest accordingly. I made a regional version of this for the ACC on the vaunted ACC Board.

East - Maryland, Rutgers, Penn St., OSU, Michigan, MSU

Central - Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern

West - Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska

(05-12-2022 02:11 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:08 AM)Crayton Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 09:12 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  The standings are less meaningful since teams are playing different opponents.

What is the solution?

Answer: Have few annual opponents. This means that you will play all conference-mates more regularly, and increase the commonality of playing all schools.

Number of annual opponents has 0 impact on the “commonality” of 2 schools’ schedules. Everyone will still skip 5 schools in a given year. You can probably jigger it so any 2 teams have 5 common opponents, like a traditional 12-team conference with divisions. No need to drop the number of annual opponents to 1.

If you play more opponents annually, you play the other opponents less frequently. This will increase the variation in the number of common opponents.

Frequency of opponents has 0 impact on the "meaningfulness" of standings in a given year. Frequency instead will be determined simply by the team preferences.

Some teams have 2 "necessary" annual opponents, like FSU and Virginia, so the ACC won't go below 2. The most likely is 3 permanent opponents. I think seeing some teams 33% of the time is acceptable, so I would not be surprised if they went as high as 4.

Like others, I think 9 games ('maybe' including some ND games as "conference" games for the 14 football teams?) is on the table. But... I don't think the ACC has much leverage for getting more money from ESPN. If there was a clause saying the ACC could go to market if ESPN didn't want to pay for a 9th game, the ACC would have gone to 9 years ago.

(05-12-2022 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

(05-12-2022 06:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:58 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

That is full membership and a contract never intended to be fulfilled by ND.

Its like an "if I break up with my wife, I will marry you" type promise made by someone with no intentions of doing either.

But, that is irrelevant.

We are talking about the fantasy of ND not joining in full, but engaging in a scheme to play 6 conference game and be eligible for the ACC Championship Game.

There is exactly zero evidence that ND wanted that at all or would participate in that at all.

Where is the noise from ND to 1) join the ACC in full, or more relevantly, 2) participate in this 6 game scheme ??

When does ND start playing that mythical sixth ACC game per year ? Let me know.

Provide one link from ND or ACC sources saying that ND was ever discussing or agreeing to a 6th ACC game.

Name one occasion wherein ND and/or the ACC were in discussions for ND to play in the ACC Championship game as a non-member or partial member.

That was all fantasy.

It has nothing at all to do with that other contract. Zero relevance.

Hey keep fighting the good fight, I’ve never said anything about a sixth game. If ND isn’t all in, then they ain’t playing in the CCG. Thanks.

The contract would definitely come into play if there was a situation with a P4 breakaway and the four winners of the conferences made up a four team playoff. That was a real life threat when Texahoma left the Big XII. So it would have been ND’s decision to participate at the highest level, or not. That’s why they put that in there. C’mon, you know this, stop playing coy.

You responded to posts in this thread talking about ND playing a 6th ACC game to qualify for the ACC Championship game.

That was what I initially responded to as well. I called it a fantasy, which it is.

So, we are talking past each other in this thread.

I am not being coy. ND never intends to join the ACC in football.

You brought that contract up, I didn't. I was just responding to you.

(05-12-2022 06:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

(05-12-2022 06:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:58 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

That is full membership and a contract never intended to be fulfilled by ND.

Its like an "if I break up with my wife, I will marry you" type promise made by someone with no intentions of doing either.

But, that is irrelevant.

We are talking about the fantasy of ND not joining in full, but engaging in a scheme to play 6 conference game and be eligible for the ACC Championship Game.

There is exactly zero evidence that ND wanted that at all or would participate in that at all.

Where is the noise from ND to 1) join the ACC in full, or more relevantly, 2) participate in this 6 game scheme ??

When does ND start playing that mythical sixth ACC game per year ? Let me know.

Provide one link from ND or ACC sources saying that ND was ever discussing or agreeing to a 6th ACC game.

Name one occasion wherein ND and/or the ACC were in discussions for ND to play in the ACC Championship game as a non-member or partial member.

That was all fantasy.

It has nothing at all to do with that other contract. Zero relevance.

Hey keep fighting the good fight, I’ve never said anything about a sixth game. If ND isn’t all in, then they ain’t playing in the CCG. Thanks.

The contract would definitely come into play if there was a situation with a P4 breakaway and the four winners of the conferences made up a four team playoff. That was a real life threat when Texahoma left the Big XII. So it would have been ND’s decision to participate at the highest level, or not. That’s why they put that in there. C’mon, you know this, stop playing coy.

You responded to posts in this thread talking about ND playing a 6th ACC game to qualify for the ACC Championship game.

That was what I initially responded to as well. I called it a fantasy, which it is.

So, we are talking past each other in this thread.

I am not being coy. ND never intends to join the ACC in football.

You brought that contract up, I didn't. I was just responding to you.

Except they did in 2020.

This message board fantasy of Notre Dame playing in the ACC Championship game, while not being a full football member of the conference, continues to be lunacy. None of the football playing members of the ACC would ever agree to a plan that allows one team to make it into the championship game by playing fewer games than everyone else. Yes, even if that one team was Notre Dame. Sure, there could be some situation, such as a virus or sickness breakout, a hurricane, an earthquake, etc., that causes a team to not play their full conference schedule, but that would be an unplanned anomaly. Beyond that, anyone playing in the championship game is going to be a full football member of the conference and is going to play the exact same number of games as everyone else. The ACC and Notre Dame have a scheduling agreement for out-of-conference games and a bowl placement arrangement. That's it. The Irish do not factor into any decisions for keeping or removing divisions, how many conference games to play, who qualifies for the championship game, etc.

(05-12-2022 06:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  You all are forgetting the part where they integrate Notre Dame into the official rotation of conference games and Notre Dame becomes eligible for the CCG, but notre dame only has to play 6 conference games while everybody else has to play 8.

Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

(05-12-2022 06:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:58 AM)TerryD Wrote:  Lol, that "part" was always fantasy (ACC) or irrational concern (Big Ten).

It was never something that ND wanted or considered.

They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

That is full membership and a contract never intended to be fulfilled by ND.

Its like an "if I break up with my wife, I will marry you" type promise made by someone with no intentions of doing either.

But, that is irrelevant.

We are talking about the fantasy of ND not joining in full, but engaging in a scheme to play 6 conference game and be eligible for the ACC Championship Game.

There is exactly zero evidence that ND wanted that at all or would participate in that at all.

Where is the noise from ND to 1) join the ACC in full, or more relevantly, 2) participate in this 6 game scheme ??

When does ND start playing that mythical sixth ACC game per year ? Let me know.

Provide one link from ND or ACC sources saying that ND was ever discussing or agreeing to a 6th ACC game.

Name one occasion wherein ND and/or the ACC were in discussions for ND to play in the ACC Championship game as a non-member or partial member.

That was all fantasy.

It has nothing at all to do with that other contract. Zero relevance.

Hey keep fighting the good fight, I’ve never said anything about a sixth game. If ND isn’t all in, then they ain’t playing in the CCG. Thanks.

The contract would definitely come into play if there was a situation with a P4 breakaway and the four winners of the conferences made up a four team playoff. That was a real life threat when Texahoma left the Big XII. So it would have been ND’s decision to participate at the highest level, or not. That’s why they put that in there. C’mon, you know this, stop playing coy.

You responded to posts in this thread talking about ND playing a 6th ACC game to qualify for the ACC Championship game.

That was what I initially responded to as well. I called it a fantasy, which it is.

So, we are talking past each other in this thread.

I am not being coy. ND never intends to join the ACC in football.

You brought that contract up, I didn't. I was just responding to you.

My apologies. The sixth game is fantasy. Only way that happens is if the ACC invites Navy.

Hell, wouldn’t be a bad idea at this juncture because we’re being told the comet is headed our way.

(05-12-2022 12:34 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  1+8 is a no-go for the Big Ten. Michigan has to play Ohio St and Michigan St every season.

The more the league expands, the less protected rivalries make sense for TV. If the league ever adds USC, for instance, TV would want Michigan vs USC more than Michigan vs Michigan St.

(05-13-2022 12:25 AM)Eichorst Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 12:34 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  1+8 is a no-go for the Big Ten. Michigan has to play Ohio St and Michigan St every season.

The more the league expands, the less protected rivalries make sense for TV. If the league ever adds USC, for instance, TV would want Michigan vs USC more than Michigan vs Michigan St.

Michigan-Michigan St does pretty damn good ratings and is one of the highest rated Big Ten games. TV isn't going to dictate every little thing - it's not like Big Ten schools have no leverage.

Anyone thinking Michigan-Michigan St will no longer be a protected rivalry is operating in a universe of delusion and fantasy.

(05-12-2022 07:53 PM)random asian guy Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 06:59 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 05:33 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-12-2022 06:24 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-11-2022 07:47 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Good point about Notre Dame. The ACC Commissioner threw out the 3/5-5 setup so they didn’t consider the Irish either, apparently.

(05-12-2022 06:16 AM)esayem Wrote:  They obviously considered it to the point of if they join a football conference (for whatever reason) it would be the ACC. It’s in writing.

Nobody forced ND to agree to that. They did because the ACC is the best home for their Olympic sports.

That is full membership and a contract never intended to be fulfilled by ND.

Its like an "if I break up with my wife, I will marry you" type promise made by someone with no intentions of doing either.

But, that is irrelevant.

We are talking about the fantasy of ND not joining in full, but engaging in a scheme to play 6 conference game and be eligible for the ACC Championship Game.

There is exactly zero evidence that ND wanted that at all or would participate in that at all.

Where is the noise from ND to 1) join the ACC in full, or more relevantly, 2) participate in this 6 game scheme ??

When does ND start playing that mythical sixth ACC game per year ? Let me know.

Provide one link from ND or ACC sources saying that ND was ever discussing or agreeing to a 6th ACC game.

Name one occasion wherein ND and/or the ACC were in discussions for ND to play in the ACC Championship game as a non-member or partial member.

That was all fantasy.

It has nothing at all to do with that other contract. Zero relevance.

Hey keep fighting the good fight, I’ve never said anything about a sixth game. If ND isn’t all in, then they ain’t playing in the CCG. Thanks.

The contract would definitely come into play if there was a situation with a P4 breakaway and the four winners of the conferences made up a four team playoff. That was a real life threat when Texahoma left the Big XII. So it would have been ND’s decision to participate at the highest level, or not. That’s why they put that in there. C’mon, you know this, stop playing coy.

You responded to posts in this thread talking about ND playing a 6th ACC game to qualify for the ACC Championship game.

That was what I initially responded to as well. I called it a fantasy, which it is.

So, we are talking past each other in this thread.

I am not being coy. ND never intends to join the ACC in football.

You brought that contract up, I didn't. I was just responding to you.

Except they did in 2020.

A one year Safe Harbor in a global pandemic? Sure.

Permanently? No. Not happening. It would be a very dumb business decision.

ND fans disliked playing a 9 game ACC schedule during 2020 so much that support for football independence actually increased, not decreased, from the experience.

(05-12-2022 10:27 PM)Schema Wrote:  This message board fantasy of Notre Dame playing in the ACC Championship game, while not being a full football member of the conference, continues to be lunacy. None of the football playing members of the ACC would ever agree to a plan that allows one team to make it into the championship game by playing fewer games than everyone else. Yes, even if that one team was Notre Dame. Sure, there could be some situation, such as a virus or sickness breakout, a hurricane, an earthquake, etc., that causes a team to not play their full conference schedule, but that would be an unplanned anomaly. Beyond that, anyone playing in the championship game is going to be a full football member of the conference and is going to play the exact same number of games as everyone else. The ACC and Notre Dame have a scheduling agreement for out-of-conference games and a bowl placement arrangement. That's it. The Irish do not factor into any decisions for keeping or removing divisions, how many conference games to play, who qualifies for the championship game, etc.

Thank you. Co-signed, all of it.

(Note for the record that none of this lunacy comes from the ND side of the equation. It is an ACC message board fantasy).

(05-13-2022 01:40 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Michigan-Michigan St does pretty damn good ratings and is one of the highest rated Big Ten games. TV isn't going to dictate every little thing - it's not like Big Ten schools have no leverage.

I completely agree the schools have leverage, but we've seen a ton of annual rivalry games disrupted by realignment (i.e. basically every former Big XII school), don't be surprised if Michigan/Michigan St is someday not a guaranteed annual game.