Are you denying that OSU and Michigan get and have always gotten preferential treatment?
You are changing the discussion and beating up strawmen. I never said that tOSU and Michigan have NEVER gotten preferential treatment.
I'm arguing THIS instance. You implicitly alleged that the fact that tOSU, Michigan, and PSU get five home games is an example of preferential treatment. You ignored that while they do get five home (and four away) games in 2024, it alternates and they get four home (and five away) games in 2025. It then alternates from there.
@LittlePig pointed out that it is simply a carry forward from the E/W division where the B1G-E teams got five home games in even years and the B1G-W teams got five home games in odd years.
In order to balance the league, UCLA was tossed in with the B1G-E teams and USC was tossed in with the B1G-W teams such that, going forward:
- UCLA and the old B1G-E teams (RU, UMD, PSU, tOSU, IU, M, MSU) will have five home games in even years.
- USC and the old B1G-W teams (UNL, MN, UW, IA, NU, IL, PU) will have five home games in odd years.
Where is the preferential treatment?
The only plausible argument I can see, which you didn't even bother to make but
@FearlessF made it for you is that this *COULD* change in the future and *IF* this exists for an odd number of years, then PSU/tOSU/M (and five other teams) will have gotten five home games once more than they got four home games while your school and seven others will have gotten the opposite.
Helmets get preferential treatment.
Fans of helmet teams really should be able to admit this.
I'm not arguing that it has never and will never happen. I'm arguing that *THIS* allegation of it is ridiculously weak. It only ends up being preferential on the basis of a possible future contingency happening at a particular time.
Furthermore, note that the pattern established with the growth from 14 to 16 teams is to keep the existing members in their existing situations (existing B1G-E members keep playing 5 home games in even years) and split the additions to balance things out. Provided that precedent stands it doesn't even matter when and if new schools are added.
Where is the preferential treatment?
@847badgerfan alleged it but he has been unable to back it up and fearless' argument is conditional with the existing precedent disproving it.
If there is so much preferential treatment why don't you give an example where it ACTUALLY happened instead of alleging it where it does not exist.