(05-21-2018 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

ESPN and Fox don't want more Penn St.-Eastern Michigan.

If they are willing to take less money, they can go back to 8.

(05-21-2018 10:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

ESPN and Fox don't want more Penn St.-Eastern Michigan.

If they are willing to take less money, they can go back to 8.

Or maybe they play #9 against another P conference team. That would be worth more. But either way going back to 8 certainly is not a move one would make if planning to expand.

The West sure as heck isn’t beating each other up. Michigan/Michigan St/Ohio St/Penn St are though.

The West needs games against those 4 for tickets, exposure, and respect.

(05-21-2018 10:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

ESPN and Fox don't want more Penn St.-Eastern Michigan.

If they are willing to take less money, they can go back to 8.

I suspect it is close to a wash because it adds games to inventory. Pretty safe to bet that 9 conference games ain't in the ESPN and Fox contracts. Most the turd games are BTN content so not a bad deal.

(05-21-2018 11:23 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  The West sure as heck isn’t beating each other up. Michigan/Michigan St/Ohio St/Penn St are though.

The West needs games against those 4 for tickets, exposure, and respect.

Balanced against the desire to get bowl eligible and create a better mood among the donor class.

TV does not pay for nonconf games, to far in advance & games get cancelled.
Pac got more money for 9 conf games, B-10 did the same
TV does not trust conf to beef up sch

(05-22-2018 03:56 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  TV does not pay for nonconf games, to far in advance & games get cancelled.
Pac got more money for 9 conf games, B-10 did the same
TV does not trust conf to beef up sch

ESPN was willing to give the ACC more money if it would mandate a certain number of P5 OOC games, IIRC. I'm sure they would offer the same to the B1G.

(05-21-2018 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

tri·al bal·loon
ˈtrī(ə)l bəˈlo͞on/

noun

a tentative measure taken or statement made to see how a new policy will be received.

Everything in Business is a Negotiation. Do you really think the tentative date for this happening just happens to be about the time new contract negotiations would begin?

Put it out there, see what happens.

(05-22-2018 07:28 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

tri·al bal·loon
ˈtrī(ə)l bəˈlo͞on/

noun

a tentative measure taken or statement made to see how a new policy will be received.

Everything in Business is a Negotiation. Do you really think the tentative date for this happening just happens to be about the time new contract negotiations would begin?

Put it out there, see what happens.

Like I said, they are just clearing the path for the 9th P game to be OOC. Frank had a good article this past week about Big 10 alumni demographics and the states they relocate to for employment.

The pay model is shifting to content. Why schedule another game where the Big 10 alumni aren't, in the Big 10 footprint? You have 8 games to attract those alums. Schedule the 9th for those in the diaspora! Games in key cities in California and along the Mid Atlantic will attract crowds to those games and become a selling point for future Big 10 expansion if there is any. If not, they are a quality opponent on the schedule without beating up on each other.

You guys have kicked the SEC for having 8 conference games. But the vast majority of SEC schools, especially the more competitive ones, play a 9th P game already against a quality opponent from another conference (usually the ACC or Big 12). It's just smart. We get paid well to play them. They aren't a guaranteed loss for one of our schools like a conference game is, and they help our strength of schedule.

(05-21-2018 11:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 09:47 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

ESPN and Fox don't want more Penn St.-Eastern Michigan.

If they are willing to take less money, they can go back to 8.

Or maybe they play #9 against another P conference team. That would be worth more. But either way going back to 8 certainly is not a move one would make if planning to expand.

Playing an extra non-con game against another P5 team... let's unpack that.

-- Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, and Penn St are already playing a P5 non-con opponent (almost) every year. Are they going to play 2 P5s every year if the Big Ten falls back to 8 conference games? Or are they going to play 1 P5 and 3 cupcakes instead of 1 P5 and 2 cupcakes?

-- What does it mean for the Big Ten to "require" its teams to play a P5 non-con opponent every season? Does it mean an actual P5 opponent, or does it mean allowing Big Ten teams to skate away from the requirement by calling one of their non-P5 opponents a "designated P5 opponent", as the Big Ten has already done for Indiana's schedule and others?

-- Even if the Big Ten has enough conference games and games vs. P5 opponents to fill all the games they would sell to Fox or ESPN, replacing Penn State-Nebraska with more Penn State-Kent State and Nebraska-Akron on BTN isn't going to help maintain high per-subscriber charges for BTN.

I don't want the Big Ten to reduce the number of conference games. I think it would hurt the cross-division match ups.

If they do go through with it, I would like Penn State to play two non-conference P5 opponents: one historical rival and one other.

(05-22-2018 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't want the Big Ten to reduce the number of conference games. I think it would hurt the cross-division match ups.

If they do go through with it, I would like Penn State to play two non-conference P5 opponents: one historical rival and one other.

So you would want Pitt as an annual game and one other?

(05-22-2018 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't want the Big Ten to reduce the number of conference games. I think it would hurt the cross-division match ups.

If they do go through with it, I would like Penn State to play two non-conference P5 opponents: one historical rival and one other.

So you would want Pitt as an annual game and one other?

I would like Pitt in a rotation with West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, and a couple others. Something like Pitt home and home, then Boston College, then Pitt, then West Virginia, then Pitt, then Syracuse, etc. I don't have to play Pitt annually but Penn State has played them more than anyone else and I would like less than 16 years in between each series. If PSU were to add a permanent OOC opponent, it should be Pitt.

(05-22-2018 01:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't want the Big Ten to reduce the number of conference games. I think it would hurt the cross-division match ups.

If they do go through with it, I would like Penn State to play two non-conference P5 opponents: one historical rival and one other.

So you would want Pitt as an annual game and one other?

I would like Pitt in a rotation with West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, and a couple others. Something like Pitt home and home, then Boston College, then Pitt, then West Virginia, then Pitt, then Syracuse, etc. I don't have to play Pitt annually but Penn State has played them more than anyone else and I would like less than 16 years in between each series. If PSU were to add a permanent OOC opponent, it should be Pitt.

I'm thinking the Big 10 is going to stick with 8 conference games moving forward but play 10 P games. I think they will also open up the last weekend of the season for some OOC rivalry games. That way the Big 10 can benefit from scheduling OOC schools in demographics which are rich with Big 10 alums. Your conference reaps the benefits of exposure in those markets which energizes their national brand appeal and raises ratings in those out of footprint markets.

Also by making the last weekend of the season available to scheduling these OOC games they open up the public to seeing the Big 10 head to head with other conferences right before the selection committee for the CFP meets. Penn State / Pitt, Nebraska / Oklahoma, Iowa / Iowa State, all potentially enhance a profile that is only being depleted with conferences losses right there at the end. School like Michigan who traditionally end with Ohio State can play that extra game mid season against Notre Dame.

And there is something else that would help the Big 10. When they look for #15 and #16 those schools will be less reticent to consider moving if they can keep their traditional rivals at the end of the season. This has always been an advantage for the SEC and ACC with regard to realignment.

Personally I think the PAC needs to do more of this. They do have USC / Notre Dame late, but a little more OOC exposure near the end of the season would benefit them as well.

what about new rivaliers
Mich St - Rutgers doesn't scream Thanksgiving wkend

(05-22-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 01:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 01:15 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-22-2018 12:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't want the Big Ten to reduce the number of conference games. I think it would hurt the cross-division match ups.

If they do go through with it, I would like Penn State to play two non-conference P5 opponents: one historical rival and one other.

So you would want Pitt as an annual game and one other?

I would like Pitt in a rotation with West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College, and a couple others. Something like Pitt home and home, then Boston College, then Pitt, then West Virginia, then Pitt, then Syracuse, etc. I don't have to play Pitt annually but Penn State has played them more than anyone else and I would like less than 16 years in between each series. If PSU were to add a permanent OOC opponent, it should be Pitt.

I'm thinking the Big 10 is going to stick with 8 conference games moving forward but play 10 P games. I think they will also open up the last weekend of the season for some OOC rivalry games. That way the Big 10 can benefit from scheduling OOC schools in demographics which are rich with Big 10 alums. Your conference reaps the benefits of exposure in those markets which energizes their national brand appeal and raises ratings in those out of footprint markets.

Also by making the last weekend of the season available to scheduling these OOC games they open up the public to seeing the Big 10 head to head with other conferences right before the selection committee for the CFP meets. Penn State / Pitt, Nebraska / Oklahoma, Iowa / Iowa State, all potentially enhance a profile that is only being depleted with conferences losses right there at the end. School like Michigan who traditionally end with Ohio State can play that extra game mid season against Notre Dame.

And there is something else that would help the Big 10. When they look for #15 and #16 those schools will be less reticent to consider moving if they can keep their traditional rivals at the end of the season. This has always been an advantage for the SEC and ACC with regard to realignment.

Personally I think the PAC needs to do more of this. They do have USC / Notre Dame late, but a little more OOC exposure near the end of the season would benefit them as well.

ND/Stanford ends the regular season every other year, but your point stands.

(05-22-2018 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And there is something else that would help the Big 10. When they look for #15 and #16 those schools will be less reticent to consider moving if they can keep their traditional rivals at the end of the season. This has always been an advantage for the SEC and ACC with regard to realignment.

Personally I think the PAC needs to do more of this. They do have USC / Notre Dame late, but a little more OOC exposure near the end of the season would benefit them as well.

Those late November ACC-SEC games are all in-state games between teams in P5 conferences. It's only done where it fits that criterion. In-state games like Alabama-Auburn or Ole Miss-Miss State are played to end the season where that makes more sense. For Pac-12 teams, those in-state rivalries to close the season make the most sense as well.

Maybe Utah should play BYU that weekend every year, in fact that would help the overall schedule because it would be a second Pac-12 team playing a non-con game that weekend in addition to USC or Stanford playing Notre Dame (thus leaving an even number of teams to play conference games that week).

Never understood the rationale behind any conference larger than 10 playing 9 conference games. All you are doing is assuring half of your conference is going to have an additional loss, and every other year you put your best programs at a disadvantage by having unbalanced home/away slates.

The 10 member conferences can at least point to everyone playing each other, but that's not the case with larger conferences.