(10-08-2021 12:34 PM)Win5002 Wrote: (10-08-2021 08:49 AM)BePcr07 Wrote: (10-08-2021 07:29 AM)GE and MTS Wrote: (10-08-2021 12:45 AM)ohio1317 Wrote: The source is definitely not one I hold in high regard. I also think the odds of the Big Ten expanding from the existing Big 12 teams is highly unlikely (outside of Kansas).
Also the whole idea of the Big Ten expanding would seem to go against idea of alliance to start with.
I agree on all accounts. Even Kansas isn't much of a catch for what the Big Ten needs, in my opinion.
I think the divisions are fine as is. Adding two is easier as either Purdue could move east, Indiana west, or everything the same if one is added to both divisions. These things are typically cyclical and it's just a matter of time before the west regroups.
Pods is messy because nobody will be happy with the three they are stuck with. I imagine Penn State will be with Maryland and Rutgers but the last slot could be Ohio State. If so, they will need to have a fixed opponent of Michigan. If it's Michigan State, they'll also need Michigan but would also like Indiana, which is unlikely because UM and UI will be in the same pod. Poor Iowa will likely be with Nebraska plus the hypothetical western additions, schools they'll likely have little history with (unless the Big Ten does the unthinkable by adding Iowa State).
I think we’ll see CCG rule change allowing non-division fixed opponents. At 14, you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 10 at 5/5. At 16 you pick your 3 annual opponents and rotate the other 12 at 6/6.
I don't know why more people don't realize this and see how this is the best for all leagues.
I think fixed opponents works well for most conferences but not the Big Ten, and maybe not the SEC. How many rivalries are being missed due to the current setup? Maybe Ohio State - Illinois, but is that pretty much it? If I were to guess, this is how I'd expect the three fixed opponents to be for each school (in order of preference):
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, Maryland
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, Rutgers
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Northwestern: Illinois, Purdue, Nebraska
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State:Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Rutgers: Penn State, Maryland, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
A couple thoughts/explanations:
- It is hard not to lump Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Wisconsin playing each other as a foursome. I tried to switch it up and break out Nebraska and Minnesota to give Nebraska a regular trip to Chicago for recruits and Minnesota a renewed rivalry with Michigan.
- I tried to think of each school's first choice and give it to them. That filled up most of Penn State's, Ohio State's, and Michigan's schedules as I feel Maryland and Rutgers would want PSU most, PSU would want OSU, Michigan would want OSU, and MSU would want Michigan. A lot of people like to peg Michigan State as a fixed opponent for Penn State but that "rivalry" only came around because neither had a top rival that reciprocated that feeling.
- I don't know the western schools and their preferences very well. I tried to go off random lists of rivalries and choose ones with the most games played.