"Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said he believes the league is 'closer to the end than the beginning on that.'"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-divisions

AD Radakovich was talking about the ridiculous ACC scheduling format there, but I think his quote actually applies quite well to the ACC in its entirety.

(05-13-2022 12:37 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  "Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said he believes the league is 'closer to the end than the beginning on that.'"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-divisions

AD Radakovich was talking about the ridiculous ACC scheduling format there, but I think his quote actually applies quite well to the ACC in its entirety.

Tick, tick, tick ...

(05-13-2022 12:37 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  "Miami athletic director Dan Radakovich said he believes the league is 'closer to the end than the beginning on that.'"

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-divisions

AD Radakovich was talking about the ridiculous ACC scheduling format there, but I think his quote actually applies quite well to the ACC in its entirety.

He’s saying they’re close to finalizing the 3-5-5 format. That’s good news for upcoming seasons to see better games and opponents more frequently.

The funny thing is both Dabo and whoever the FSU jabroni coach is like divisions. Can’t make this stuff up!

(05-13-2022 01:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  The funny thing is both Dabo and whoever the FSU jabroni coach is like divisions. Can’t make this stuff up!

Rule No. 1: Don't ever let coaches make decisions AD's are paid to make

And yes, FSU's corch is very much a jabroni

(05-12-2022 06:20 PM)Crayton Wrote:  

(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.

You can have one annual opponent and play every other team 2 out of three seasons. If UVA wants to play VT every year, schedule an OOC game every 3rd season.

If you actually want to have a table to determine the best conference teams then more balance is better.

Otherwise simply let teams schedule whomever, and require some number of games between 7 and 11, and count a Notre Dame game in the standings. Let Clemson buy more home games. Perhaps there could be a rule that you must play every team at least one out of 5 seasons. Or do away with the standings entirely and let a committee decide who plays in the CCG or match the Top 2 in the AP ratings.

(05-13-2022 01:23 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  Otherwise simply let teams schedule whomever, and require some number of games between 7 and 11, and count a Notre Dame game in the standings. Let Clemson buy more home games. Perhaps there could be a rule that you must play every team at least one out of 5 seasons. Or do away with the standings entirely and let a committee decide who plays in the CCG or match the Top 2 in the AP ratings.

Tiebreakers determined by rock, scissors, paper live on the ACC Network!

Worrying about tiebreakers is like expecting FSU to face Miami in the CCG.

(05-13-2022 01:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  Worrying about tiebreakers is like expecting FSU to face Miami in the CCG.

Heard Jim Phillips is moving the game to Greensboro this year to save money.

(05-13-2022 01:48 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 01:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  Worrying about tiebreakers is like expecting FSU to face Miami in the CCG.

Heard Jim Phillips is moving the game to Greensboro this year to save money.

Aw man! Wake is going to have the advantage when they play us for the title!!!

(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.

With 1+8 you can have a 3-season schedule, where you play the other 12 teams two out of three seasons.

H-A
-HA
HA-
A-H
-AH
AH-

If a team wants to schedule a team during the fallow season, do it as OOC.

Or let them eliminate one of the other opponents, but only infrequently, over multiple cycles.

Let's say Michigan and Ohio State are regular opponents. Michigan wants to play MSU. So they play their option.

They look at the other 8 teams on their schedule (this will be 8 of 11, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland). Michigan cancels one - but they can only cancel any one only once over say 12 seasons. So they would play every other team at least 7 out of 12 seasons.

This could even be played retroactively. Assume that Iowa is Nebraska's permanent opponent.

After the 2022 season they will have played in the 11 season from 2012-2022:

Iowa 11 times

They play Iowa every season.

Maryland 2 times
Indiana 3 times
Penn State 4 times
Rutgers 5 times
Michigan 5 times
Michigan State 6

They should play these teams to catch up to the 7/12 minimum.

Ohio State 7 times

This would bring them up to 8/12 and be the 8th game.

Wisconsin 8 times

This would be 9/12 the smallest excess and the 9th game.

Purdue 10 times
Illinois 10 times
Minnesota 11 times
Northwestern 11 times

They should skip these teams until they drop to 8/12 maximum. In a sense they have become too familiar.

(05-13-2022 02:14 PM)jimrtex 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.

With 1+8 you can have a 3-season schedule, where you play the other 12 teams two out of three seasons.

H-A
-HA
HA-
A-H
-AH
AH-

If a team wants to schedule a team during the fallow season, do it as OOC.

Or let them eliminate one of the other opponents, but only infrequently, over multiple cycles.

Let's say Michigan and Ohio State are regular opponents. Michigan wants to play MSU. So they play their option.

They look at the other 8 teams on their schedule (this will be 8 of 11, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland). Michigan cancels one - but they can only cancel any one only once over say 12 seasons. So they would play every other team at least 7 out of 12 seasons.

This could even be played retroactively. Assume that Iowa is Nebraska's permanent opponent.

After the 2022 season they will have played in the 11 season from 2012-2022:

Iowa 11 times

They play Iowa every season.

Maryland 2 times
Indiana 3 times
Penn State 4 times
Rutgers 5 times
Michigan 5 times
Michigan State 6

They should play these teams to catch up to the 7/12 minimum.

Ohio State 7 times

This would bring them up to 8/12 and be the 8th game.

Wisconsin 8 times

This would be 9/12 the smallest excess and the 9th game.

Purdue 10 times
Illinois 10 times
Minnesota 11 times
Northwestern 11 times

They should skip these teams until they drop to 8/12 maximum. In a sense they have become too familiar.

There's no use discussing this: 1+8 would be a non-starter in the Big Ten. There are way too many schools with at least 2 key annual rivals. Anyone suggesting that a game like Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State or Iowa-Minnesota could actually be played less than annually or would need to be shifted to the non-conference schedule to be fit in doesn't understand the Big Ten.

K.I.S.S. Everyone should have the same number of annual rivals (whether it's 2 or 3 or some other number) and everyone plays everyone else with the same frequency. Trying to apply some type of retroactive catch-up measure is simply too unwieldy. Get a permanent system that the conferences wants and then stick to it (or else we'll have another Legends/Leaders fiasco where it looked like the matchups were thrown against the wall like testing spaghetti).

(05-13-2022 02:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 02:14 PM)jimrtex 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.

With 1+8 you can have a 3-season schedule, where you play the other 12 teams two out of three seasons.

H-A
-HA
HA-
A-H
-AH
AH-

If a team wants to schedule a team during the fallow season, do it as OOC.

Or let them eliminate one of the other opponents, but only infrequently, over multiple cycles.

Let's say Michigan and Ohio State are regular opponents. Michigan wants to play MSU. So they play their option.

They look at the other 8 teams on their schedule (this will be 8 of 11, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland). Michigan cancels one - but they can only cancel any one only once over say 12 seasons. So they would play every other team at least 7 out of 12 seasons.

This could even be played retroactively. Assume that Iowa is Nebraska's permanent opponent.

After the 2022 season they will have played in the 11 season from 2012-2022:

Iowa 11 times

They play Iowa every season.

Maryland 2 times
Indiana 3 times
Penn State 4 times
Rutgers 5 times
Michigan 5 times
Michigan State 6

They should play these teams to catch up to the 7/12 minimum.

Ohio State 7 times

This would bring them up to 8/12 and be the 8th game.

Wisconsin 8 times

This would be 9/12 the smallest excess and the 9th game.

Purdue 10 times
Illinois 10 times
Minnesota 11 times
Northwestern 11 times

They should skip these teams until they drop to 8/12 maximum. In a sense they have become too familiar.

There's no use discussing this: 1+8 would be a non-starter in the Big Ten. There are way too many schools with at least 2 key annual rivals. Anyone suggesting that a game like Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State or Iowa-Minnesota could actually be played less than annually or would need to be shifted to the non-conference schedule to be fit in doesn't understand the Big Ten.

K.I.S.S. Everyone should have the same number of annual rivals (whether it's 2 or 3 or some other number) and everyone plays everyone else with the same frequency. Trying to apply some type of retroactive catch-up measure is simply too unwieldy. Get a permanent system that the conferences wants and then stick to it (or else we'll have another Legends/Leaders fiasco where it looked like the matchups were thrown against the wall like testing spaghetti).

No kidding. “Doesn’t understand the Big Ten” describes that post to a T.

(05-13-2022 02:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 02:14 PM)jimrtex 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.

With 1+8 you can have a 3-season schedule, where you play the other 12 teams two out of three seasons.

H-A
-HA
HA-
A-H
-AH
AH-

If a team wants to schedule a team during the fallow season, do it as OOC.

Or let them eliminate one of the other opponents, but only infrequently, over multiple cycles.

Let's say Michigan and Ohio State are regular opponents. Michigan wants to play MSU. So they play their option.

They look at the other 8 teams on their schedule (this will be 8 of 11, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland). Michigan cancels one - but they can only cancel any one only once over say 12 seasons. So they would play every other team at least 7 out of 12 seasons.

This could even be played retroactively. Assume that Iowa is Nebraska's permanent opponent.

After the 2022 season they will have played in the 11 season from 2012-2022:

Iowa 11 times

They play Iowa every season.

Maryland 2 times
Indiana 3 times
Penn State 4 times
Rutgers 5 times
Michigan 5 times
Michigan State 6

They should play these teams to catch up to the 7/12 minimum.

Ohio State 7 times

This would bring them up to 8/12 and be the 8th game.

Wisconsin 8 times

This would be 9/12 the smallest excess and the 9th game.

Purdue 10 times
Illinois 10 times
Minnesota 11 times
Northwestern 11 times

They should skip these teams until they drop to 8/12 maximum. In a sense they have become too familiar.

There's no use discussing this: 1+8 would be a non-starter in the Big Ten. There are way too many schools with at least 2 key annual rivals. Anyone suggesting that a game like Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State or Iowa-Minnesota could actually be played less than annually or would need to be shifted to the non-conference schedule to be fit in doesn't understand the Big Ten.

K.I.S.S. Everyone should have the same number of annual rivals (whether it's 2 or 3 or some other number) and everyone plays everyone else with the same frequency. Trying to apply some type of retroactive catch-up measure is simply too unwieldy. Get a permanent system that the conferences wants and then stick to it (or else we'll have another Legends/Leaders fiasco where it looked like the matchups were thrown against the wall like testing spaghetti).

Ohio State-Penn State has only been played 37 times.

Only 5 schools have been together from the beginning, but they have somehow managed to integrate the newbies Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers.

Iowa and Minnesota have not played annually since Iowa joined the conference.

I'm certainly not suggesting a recreation of the Lemurs/Lizards fiasco. That is a strawman argument.

The base proposal is 1 annual opponent and everyone else 2 out of 3 seasons. Iowa-Minnesota would be a big game even if it didn't count in the standings.

But I provided an option where if the four years where they were non-scheduled they could cancel one of their other conference games. Instead of playing everyone 8 of 12 seasons (4 home, 4 away), they would play 7 of 12. Presumably Iowa wants to play Minnesota, and not that they want to don't want to play Michigan State or Ohio State or Rutgers.

Each season Iowa would play two games against an eastern trio of Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers (one home and one away); two games against a near-eastern trio (Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan); two against a near-western trio (Indiana, Purdue, Illinois); two games against a western trio (Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota)

Let's say that 2023 was the season that Iowa was not scheduled to play Minnesota (though we could even push that out to 2025), Penn State, Michigan, and Purdue.

Minnesota could choose from among: Wisconsin (12/12), Northwestern (12), Illinois (10), MSU(6), Indiana(6), Maryland(5), Rutgers(4), and Ohio State(4).

But we would restrict them to Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. By the time they had to make a decision in 2025, MSU and Indiana would have built up.

I've got no dog in this hunt, but I think the counter to all of that is that almost nobody is interested in that approach.
I think there may be some differing priorities here, where most Big Ten fans don't want what you want.

Just make the divisions Old ACC and Old Big East/Indys, already. Most of the protected rivalries are exactly that.

(05-13-2022 10:24 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  Ohio State-Penn State has only been played 37 times.

So? You can invest that with significance, but that doesn't mean the average Buckeye or Nittany Lion fan has to agree with you. Nor the average media executive.

Quote:The base proposal is 1 annual opponent and everyone else 2 out of 3 seasons.

And as Frank already noted, that base is not going to fly. Penn State, Ohio State, Rutgers, Maryland, Michigan State and That School Up North are all no votes in the current Eastern division. Maybe more -- I'm not 100% sure about Indiana. I expect the tally in the West would be similar.

Since the base proposal is DOA, elaborations are not needed.

(05-14-2022 09:13 AM)inutech Wrote:  I've got no dog in this hunt, but I think the counter to all of that is that almost nobody is interested in that approach.
I think there may be some differing priorities here, where most Big Ten fans don't want what you want.

Do Illinois fans really want to play Rutgers every season, but Indiana only every third?

Do Iowa fans want to play Purdue much more frequently than Indiana?

Do Indiana and Purdue belong in different divisions, but should play every year?

Maybe the current system is perfect. Winner of Michigan-OSU plays some random team from out west in the championship.

(05-13-2022 10:24 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 02:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 02:14 PM)jimrtex 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.

With 1+8 you can have a 3-season schedule, where you play the other 12 teams two out of three seasons.

H-A
-HA
HA-
A-H
-AH
AH-

If a team wants to schedule a team during the fallow season, do it as OOC.

Or let them eliminate one of the other opponents, but only infrequently, over multiple cycles.

Let's say Michigan and Ohio State are regular opponents. Michigan wants to play MSU. So they play their option.

They look at the other 8 teams on their schedule (this will be 8 of 11, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland). Michigan cancels one - but they can only cancel any one only once over say 12 seasons. So they would play every other team at least 7 out of 12 seasons.

This could even be played retroactively. Assume that Iowa is Nebraska's permanent opponent.

After the 2022 season they will have played in the 11 season from 2012-2022:

Iowa 11 times

They play Iowa every season.

Maryland 2 times
Indiana 3 times
Penn State 4 times
Rutgers 5 times
Michigan 5 times
Michigan State 6

They should play these teams to catch up to the 7/12 minimum.

Ohio State 7 times

This would bring them up to 8/12 and be the 8th game.

Wisconsin 8 times

This would be 9/12 the smallest excess and the 9th game.

Purdue 10 times
Illinois 10 times
Minnesota 11 times
Northwestern 11 times

They should skip these teams until they drop to 8/12 maximum. In a sense they have become too familiar.

There's no use discussing this: 1+8 would be a non-starter in the Big Ten. There are way too many schools with at least 2 key annual rivals. Anyone suggesting that a game like Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State or Iowa-Minnesota could actually be played less than annually or would need to be shifted to the non-conference schedule to be fit in doesn't understand the Big Ten.

K.I.S.S. Everyone should have the same number of annual rivals (whether it's 2 or 3 or some other number) and everyone plays everyone else with the same frequency. Trying to apply some type of retroactive catch-up measure is simply too unwieldy. Get a permanent system that the conferences wants and then stick to it (or else we'll have another Legends/Leaders fiasco where it looked like the matchups were thrown against the wall like testing spaghetti).

Ohio State-Penn State has only been played 37 times.

Only 5 schools have been together from the beginning, but they have somehow managed to integrate the newbies Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers.

Iowa and Minnesota have not played annually since Iowa joined the conference.

I'm certainly not suggesting a recreation of the Lemurs/Lizards fiasco. That is a strawman argument.

The base proposal is 1 annual opponent and everyone else 2 out of 3 seasons. Iowa-Minnesota would be a big game even if it didn't count in the standings.

But I provided an option where if the four years where they were non-scheduled they could cancel one of their other conference games. Instead of playing everyone 8 of 12 seasons (4 home, 4 away), they would play 7 of 12. Presumably Iowa wants to play Minnesota, and not that they want to don't want to play Michigan State or Ohio State or Rutgers.

Each season Iowa would play two games against an eastern trio of Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers (one home and one away); two games against a near-eastern trio (Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan); two against a near-western trio (Indiana, Purdue, Illinois); two games against a western trio (Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota)

Let's say that 2023 was the season that Iowa was not scheduled to play Minnesota (though we could even push that out to 2025), Penn State, Michigan, and Purdue.

Minnesota could choose from among: Wisconsin (12/12), Northwestern (12), Illinois (10), MSU(6), Indiana(6), Maryland(5), Rutgers(4), and Ohio State(4).

But we would restrict them to Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. By the time they had to make a decision in 2025, MSU and Indiana would have built up.

You're right. Iowa has not played Minnesota every year. They didn't play them in 1930. They also didn't play them in 1917 or 1913. Or 1910 or 1906-1908. In other words there is probably not an Iowa or Minnesota fan who is old enough to remember the last time they didn't play.

(05-14-2022 07:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  You're right. Iowa has not played Minnesota every year. They didn't play them in 1930. They also didn't play them in 1917 or 1913. Or 1910 or 1906-1908. In other words there is probably not an Iowa or Minnesota fan who is old enough to remember the last time they didn't play.

There is a similar question how many Big Ten fans are old enough to remember Ohio State as a newbie.

(05-14-2022 07:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 10:24 PM)jimrtex Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 02:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-13-2022 02:14 PM)jimrtex 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.

With 1+8 you can have a 3-season schedule, where you play the other 12 teams two out of three seasons.

H-A
-HA
HA-
A-H
-AH
AH-

If a team wants to schedule a team during the fallow season, do it as OOC.

Or let them eliminate one of the other opponents, but only infrequently, over multiple cycles.

Let's say Michigan and Ohio State are regular opponents. Michigan wants to play MSU. So they play their option.

They look at the other 8 teams on their schedule (this will be 8 of 11, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland). Michigan cancels one - but they can only cancel any one only once over say 12 seasons. So they would play every other team at least 7 out of 12 seasons.

This could even be played retroactively. Assume that Iowa is Nebraska's permanent opponent.

After the 2022 season they will have played in the 11 season from 2012-2022:

Iowa 11 times

They play Iowa every season.

Maryland 2 times
Indiana 3 times
Penn State 4 times
Rutgers 5 times
Michigan 5 times
Michigan State 6

They should play these teams to catch up to the 7/12 minimum.

Ohio State 7 times

This would bring them up to 8/12 and be the 8th game.

Wisconsin 8 times

This would be 9/12 the smallest excess and the 9th game.

Purdue 10 times
Illinois 10 times
Minnesota 11 times
Northwestern 11 times

They should skip these teams until they drop to 8/12 maximum. In a sense they have become too familiar.

There's no use discussing this: 1+8 would be a non-starter in the Big Ten. There are way too many schools with at least 2 key annual rivals. Anyone suggesting that a game like Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Penn State or Iowa-Minnesota could actually be played less than annually or would need to be shifted to the non-conference schedule to be fit in doesn't understand the Big Ten.

K.I.S.S. Everyone should have the same number of annual rivals (whether it's 2 or 3 or some other number) and everyone plays everyone else with the same frequency. Trying to apply some type of retroactive catch-up measure is simply too unwieldy. Get a permanent system that the conferences wants and then stick to it (or else we'll have another Legends/Leaders fiasco where it looked like the matchups were thrown against the wall like testing spaghetti).

Ohio State-Penn State has only been played 37 times.

Only 5 schools have been together from the beginning, but they have somehow managed to integrate the newbies Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers.

Iowa and Minnesota have not played annually since Iowa joined the conference.

I'm certainly not suggesting a recreation of the Lemurs/Lizards fiasco. That is a strawman argument.

The base proposal is 1 annual opponent and everyone else 2 out of 3 seasons. Iowa-Minnesota would be a big game even if it didn't count in the standings.

But I provided an option where if the four years where they were non-scheduled they could cancel one of their other conference games. Instead of playing everyone 8 of 12 seasons (4 home, 4 away), they would play 7 of 12. Presumably Iowa wants to play Minnesota, and not that they want to don't want to play Michigan State or Ohio State or Rutgers.

Each season Iowa would play two games against an eastern trio of Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers (one home and one away); two games against a near-eastern trio (Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan); two against a near-western trio (Indiana, Purdue, Illinois); two games against a western trio (Northwestern, Wisconsin, Minnesota)

Let's say that 2023 was the season that Iowa was not scheduled to play Minnesota (though we could even push that out to 2025), Penn State, Michigan, and Purdue.

Minnesota could choose from among: Wisconsin (12/12), Northwestern (12), Illinois (10), MSU(6), Indiana(6), Maryland(5), Rutgers(4), and Ohio State(4).

But we would restrict them to Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois. By the time they had to make a decision in 2025, MSU and Indiana would have built up.

You're right. Iowa has not played Minnesota every year. They didn't play them in 1930. They also didn't play them in 1917 or 1913. Or 1910 or 1906-1908. In other words there is probably not an Iowa or Minnesota fan who is old enough to remember the last time they didn't play.

Indiana had not played Maryland since 1935, and then started playing them annually in 2014. They had never played Rutgers and now they started playing them regularly. On the other hand, Indiana had played Illinois quite regularly (88% of years from 1965-2013). Then all of the sudden they stopped. Illinois and Indiana are adjacent states. The University of Illinois is located in the eastern part of the state, it is literally closer to Indianapolis than to Chicago.

Here are the problems with r1g1d th1nk1ng: Because they split into geographic divisions, they had to divide Indiana and Purdue. So they patched that up by making Indiana and Purdue cross-over rivals.

But then they felt that they had to give every school a cross-over rival.

Put there is little apparent affinity for the others.

Iowa-Penn State located in rural areas.
Nebraska-Ohio State located in state capitals.
Wisconsin-Michigan State located in state capitals (practically) - share Lake Michigan.I know this is not true.
Northwestern-Michigan near big cities (Chicago and Detroit)
Minnesota-Maryland both start with "M"
Illinois-Rutgers (some distance from big cities - Chicago and NYC)

A basic principle: Indiana should play Illinois, Rutgers, and Nebraska with about the same regularity.

There is a fairly natural pairing of schools:

Minnesota-Wisconsin
Illinois-Northwestern
Indiana-Purdue

Iowa-Nebraska (they played fairly regularly even though in different conferences. Interestingly, the first ten matchups were played in Omaha or Council Bluffs on the river between the two states).
Michigan-Ohio State (for historical reasons, though Michigan State would prefer Michigan-Michigan State).

Michigan State-Penn State (they have to be paired with somebody)
Maryland-Rutgers (they have to be paired with somebody)

Maybe you switch to:

Michigan State-Michigan and Penn State-Ohio State, which would likely be the preference of Michigan State and Penn State supporters.