(08-07-2022 06:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  It could be Michigan State, Purdue or Penn State or ?.

An annual Notre Dame-Penn State game would certainly move the needle for the folks at FOX

(08-04-2022 05:32 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  3+6 makes no sense for USC and UCLA, only a 1+8 does. Frankly for Ohio State only a 1+8 makes sense as well. But Michigan, Iowa and Minnesota probably require at least a 3+6.

Maybe 3-6 for everyone except the SoCal schools who go on a 1+8 format to grand tour the 14 schools, so that over 7 years they host each twice and visit each twice; that's four trips to LA every 7 years for the entire B1G. Of course if Notre Dame and Stanford come on board in '26 then a 3-6 works for the newbies (UCLA would add Stanford, as would USC and ND, plus you'd have ND and Stanford playing USC; UCLA and ND would have a random 3rd opponent).

I'll be curious how they do that.

Agree, 1-8 is the way to go w/the Calis. Better all 14 of the others visit CA 4 times every 7 years than for a majority to visit CA 4 times every 8.

If they do insist on 3-6 for all 16 (to satisfy some mass OCD hysteria or whatever), then they should consider rotating who gets to play a Cali all 4 years of each new cycle.

Revisit the whole thing down the road if either LALA ever naturally develops some rivalry.

If the 2 West Coast schools are only going to have 1 protected rivalry, should Rutgers and Maryland be the same way. They don’t have much history with the rest of the league and I doubt Penn St wants to be saddled with both of them each year when they could be playing Mich St, Ohio St, etc.

(08-08-2022 05:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the 2 West Coast schools are only going to have 1 protected rivalry, should Rutgers and Maryland be the same way. They don’t have much history with the rest of the league and I doubt Penn St wants to be saddled with both of them each year when they could be playing Mich St, Ohio St, etc.

Yeah, man, let's examine things afresh. There is no reason whatsoever why all members of a 16-team conference should follow 3-6 scheduling other than that all 4-yr players would visit every stadium...

But no oversized conference has ever cared about that **** before (don't get me started on the plentiful loopholes in the ridiculous old rule for postseason CCGs)

Folks will argue that a neat 3-6 "evens things out". Except it doesn't. Things would only "even out" if (a) Teams never changed in ability one year to another and (b) all games played over the course of 4 years counted in the standings, with each game between permanent opponents measuring 1/4 that of other games.

We, as a species, would be better off if we ignored our predelection for elementary maths in relation to flipping football scheduling and grew up! It ain't jacksquat if a different number of teams in the same conference have a different number of annual rivals. Whatevs!

If the B1G were to add 4 more west coast teams (presumably Stanford, Cal, Washington and Oregon), scheduling would actually be pretty straightforward. Schools would play 4 permanent rivals and rotate the 15 other schools home and home on a six year cycle, playing 5 each year.

The west coast schools would each have 4 permanent rivals on the west coast. The remaining schools would play 2 west coast schools every year, 1 home and 1 away, so that they would have only 1 west coast road game each year.

The west coast schools would each have a minimum of 2 west coast road games every year, with an additional west coast road game every 6 years against the west coast school that is not a permanent rival. The season in which each west coast school plays 3 west coast road games could be coordinated to match a season in which that school has 4 home games.

(08-08-2022 07:28 AM)chester Wrote:  

(08-08-2022 05:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the 2 West Coast schools are only going to have 1 protected rivalry, should Rutgers and Maryland be the same way. They don’t have much history with the rest of the league and I doubt Penn St wants to be saddled with both of them each year when they could be playing Mich St, Ohio St, etc.

Yeah, man, let's examine things afresh. There is no reason whatsoever why all members of a 16-team conference should follow 3-6 scheduling other than that all 4-yr players would visit every stadium...

Um, I think that's at least something. And that members of a conference should actually play each other, over a two year period. Maybe it doesn't matter that Alabama plays Georgia in the regular season I think twice every twelve years? But I think that's not ideal, actually.

Quote:But no oversized conference has ever cared about that **** before (don't get me started on the plentiful loopholes in the ridiculous old rule for postseason CCGs)

Well, the 14 team football conference is about 10 years old. Before that, you had 12 team leagues, play 5 in your division, 3 cross division. So you either rotate through everybody in two years (or four years if you do two-year home-and-homes) or if you protect one cross-division rival, rotate 5 teams through 2 games, average 2.5 years.

Quote:Folks will argue that a neat 3-6 "evens things out". Except it doesn't. Things would only "even out" if (a) Teams never changed in ability one year to another and (b) all games played over the course of 4 years counted in the standings, with each game between permanent opponents measuring 1/4 that of other games.

We, as a species, would be better off if we ignored our predelection for elementary maths in relation to flipping football scheduling and grew up! It ain't jacksquat if a different number of teams in the same conference have a different number of annual rivals. Whatevs!

I agree that it's not especially important to have the same number of rivals, but mathematically simplicity does make things, well, simpler. And I'm not sure there's a strong reason to break symmetry, when a 3-6-6 gives you three permanent rivals, you play everyone every other year and visit everyone every four years. So even your rivals who aren't your permanent rivals, those games still happen semi-regularly.

I think they're done.

ND will remain Ind until 2036 at least.

The Pac will stay at 10 (see Big 12) for the next 10-12 years

Don't sleep on the ACC... when GOR is up in 2036 we are assuming the B1G and SEC will eat the stronger schools - but if ND needs to be in a conference and they choose the ACC and ask the ACC to get to 16 and shore up - it would not surprise me if they survive.

Because... the B1G and SEC are going to find out, I believe, that rivalries and fan support are not being supported by their schemes, and they will discover that the promised viewership etc is not there. Likewise, TX, OK, UCLA and USC are going to find out fans don't care to attend and watch games when their teams are 7-5 year in and year out, especially when they are playing games across the country.

(08-08-2022 09:22 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I think they're done.

ND will remain Ind until 2036 at least.

The Pac will stay at 10 (see Big 12) for the next 10-12 years

Don't sleep on the ACC... when GOR is up in 2036 we are assuming the B1G and SEC will eat the stronger schools - but if ND needs to be in a conference and they choose the ACC and ask the ACC to get to 16 and shore up - it would not surprise me if they survive.

Because... the B1G and SEC are going to find out, I believe, that rivalries and fan support are not being supported by their schemes, and they will discover that the promised viewership etc is not there. Likewise, TX, OK, UCLA and USC are going to find out fans don't care to attend and watch games when their teams are 7-5 year in and year out, especially when they are playing games across the country.

Agree on ACC. But...only ONLY if the ACC embraces unequal revenue sharing, i.e. ND can have its own 3rd tier rights, ala Texas in the current/old Big 12. That might be the carrot that keeps Clemson/FSU/UNC happy as well.

(Honestly, don't be surprised if you hear more chatter about Ohio State or Alabama wanting unequal revenue sharing in upcoming years. It's awfully ludicrous in this age of big TV deals for Ohio State/Northwestern and Alabama/Mississippi State to be each getting the exact same amounts.)

(08-08-2022 09:22 AM)jgkojak Wrote:  I think they're done.

ND will remain Ind until 2036 at least.

The Pac will stay at 10 (see Big 12) for the next 10-12 years

Don't sleep on the ACC... when GOR is up in 2036 we are assuming the B1G and SEC will eat the stronger schools - but if ND needs to be in a conference and they choose the ACC and ask the ACC to get to 16 and shore up - it would not surprise me if they survive.

Because... the B1G and SEC are going to find out, I believe, that rivalries and fan support are not being supported by their schemes, and they will discover that the promised viewership etc is not there. Likewise, TX, OK, UCLA and USC are going to find out fans don't care to attend and watch games when their teams are 7-5 year in and year out, especially when they are playing games across the country.

I agree when it comes to the Big Ten and USC+UCLA. I don't think USC and UCLA remain in the Big Ten for 12+ years without other Pacific schools or a major shift, such as where football conferences exist separate from Olympic sports conferences.

SEC will be fine. The expansion is a perfect fit. They're adding Texas-Oklahoma as a major rivalry pair and hooking Texas back with A&M and aligning with nearby Missouri, Arkansas, and LSU.

Also, the effects of the 7-5 records are overstated. Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Nebraska still get 80-90K+ crowds despite a string of seasons not reaching their potential.

(08-08-2022 05:56 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  If the 2 West Coast schools are only going to have 1 protected rivalry, should Rutgers and Maryland be the same way. They don’t have much history with the rest of the league and I doubt Penn St wants to be saddled with both of them each year when they could be playing Mich St, Ohio St, etc.

Maryland would protect Penn State.
Rutgers you have to invent something. I'd suggest Indiana or Northwestern since recruiting on the Atlantic seaboard is very important to them
Minnesota has to downgrade two traditional rivalries.
Michigan has to downgrade one rivalry.

What's the better 4 for the B1G? The PAC 4 or UNC/FSU/GaTech/UVa? You could probably argue the latter 9/10 times. Those are great schools. But you also have to gamble that you'd beat out the SEC for those four. Those are the best options for the B1G (Duke can sub UVa or GaTech but it's a push given the market overlap). ND would tip the scales if subbing one school out of those quartets.

Frankly I don't see the rationale for not going to 24 with separate divisions. But if symmetry is not the objective and playing ND and USC as much as possible is, then I'd imagine they stop at 18. Once ND signs to maintain independence, there is no reason not to add the PAC4 and just lock that **** down. You can negotiate the price, but I don't see how you leave LA hanging long term. ND can come at any point with an ACC block.

3-4 protected is the only way to play it in the B1G. 1+8 is a non-starter.

(08-04-2022 12:44 AM)micahandme Wrote:  I was convinced that the Big Ten was supersizing with 20...but signs are pointing to staying at 16 for at least 6 more years (if not 10-11...until the ACC GOR ends).

I've heard mention of 3-6-6 scheduling for the league now...no divisions...three fixed rivals. Play everybody else in the league home-away every four years.

It's kind of easy to look around the current 14 teams and see 3 fixed rivals...but what will the league do with UCLA and USC?

Who would they want to match up with them on a yearly basis?
--Nebraska would LOVE to get a yearly game with UCLA...as they did once have a SoCal pipeline. And Nebraska is not a "traditional" Big Ten team.
--For the other UCLA opponent though? And for USC's other two?

Of course, TV would love USC/Ohio State every year...or UCLA/Michigan. But does that really match "tradition." There are plenty of teams who have played Ohio State every year for many, many decades...and now they see them only 2 of 4 years?

And how about "fairness" when it comes to divisionless league championship games? (Rutgers gets, let's say, Indiana and Maryland ever year...while OSU gets Michigan and USC ever year?)

Interested in everyone's thoughts...

Divide schools into four pools based on strength:

Pool 1: Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa
Pool 2: Michigan State, Penn State, Minnesota, Purdue
Pool 3: UCLA, Nebraska, USC, Maryland
Pool 4: Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern, Rutgers

Each school plays two schools from each pool except its own where it plays all three others. This will give them roughly equivalent SOS, so that the standings are more likely to determine the most worthy opponents for the CCG. The final standings can also be used for setting the pools for next season.

Schools may lock in two games (not a pure random draw). For example, Wisconsin and Minnesota could their game, so one of the Pool 2
opponents for Wisconsin will be Minnesota, and one of the Pool 1 opponents for Minnesota will be Wisconsin. There would be no requirement to lock in opponents, so contrived rivalries like Maryland-Rutgers won't have to be required.

In addition to the locked games, matchups that have not been played in several years, or in the case of the LA schools decades or never, will be scheduled.

Based on that rule USC would be scheduled against Rutgers(never), Indiana(1982), Michigan State(1990), Purdue(1998), Wisconsin(2015), Michigan (2006). UCLA would be scheduled against Rutgers(never), Indiana(never), Penn State(1968), Michigan State(1974), Iowa(1986), and Michigan(2000*).

*UCLA played Michigan in the regular 2000 season, and Wisconsin in the 2000 Sun Bowl. I picked Michigan since it was a few months earlier, but it would be pretty arbitrary.

Home and away would be chosen to be a reversal of the last game played between the two schools, particularly if they played in the previous season. Also teams that had five home games last season, will have four the next and vice versa. Having game reversal will be the ideal - but not an absolute requirement. And the games between pools will be opposite each other. That is, one of the games for Ohio State (pool 1) against a Pool 2 team will be at home, and the other on the road. This will provide better balance of SOS.