Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

the non-divisional teams are in a different conference like back in the 80's so I don't care if it's very sporadically

and I could see possibly not playing some teams from the other "conference" division at all.  Why would Nebraska and Iowa want to play Maryland and Rutgers?

yes, 7 is better than 6.   Not a big deal, but I'd rather

this is my dream of getting back to 8 team conferences that pair with another 8-team conference for TV negotiation.

it might never happen, but it's more likely than going back to the 80s

(4) 16-team conferences would get to 64 teams with a path to a 4 team playoff

To further illustrate this point, assume we added UVA and UNC and went to permanent E-W divisions.  The new B1G-E would be:

• UVA - new
• UNC - new
• Rutgers - started playing B1G football in 2014
• Maryland - started playing B1G football in 2014
• Penn State - started playing B1G football in 1993
• Michigan State - started playing B1G football in 1953
• Michigan - resumed playing B1G football in 1917 (previously played B1G football from 1896-1906)
• Ohio State - started playing B1G football in 1913

The new B1G-W would be:

• Nebraska - started playing B1G football in 2011
• Iowa - started playing B1G football in 1900
• Indiana - started playing B1G football in 1900
• Purdue - charter member, 1896
• Wisconsin - charter member, 1896
• Illinois - charter member, 1896
• Northwestern - charter member, 1896
• Minnesota - charter member, 1896

From my Ohio State fan perspective, my Buckeyes have been competing in a conference with:

• Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa since 1913
• Michigan since 1917
• Michigan State since 1953
• Penn State since 1993
• Nebraska since 2011
• Rutgers and Maryland since 2014

I wouldn't want to completely lose our seven oldest conference-mates.  

That was REALLY small and hard to read.  Here it is showing just each team's six every-year opponents:

pods suck

give me 8 teams that play each other every season

you can rotate the cross overs from the other 8 team conference if you like or make some permanent, don't care

7 teams that your team can build traditional rivalries with works

rotating "pods" doesn't do that for me

"the game" is not going away, so the pods rotating doesn't work

i'm ok with "pods" so long as we don't call them freakin pods.

i like the 4 div setup, with 1 lock from each other div, which would help keep rivalries intact.

using medina's chart, i'll just use the n/s/e/w as divisions, no need for groups.




3 games - play all div opps. for mich, that'd be msu, purdue, nw.
3 games - 1 lock opp in each other div. for mich, lets say osu (rival), minn (rival), and maryland (no historical rival in this group, just picked one)
3 games - 1 rotating game vs each other div. there are numerous ways to make it so you play all 15 other teams in conference in a 4 year span.
3 games - non-conf games.

this setup preserves rivalries, it balances schedules, it provides opportunity to play all conf members in a 4 year career at least once. it's got issues, but it also solves a lot of the problems we have with the current conf setups. it's a pretty good setup, imo.

Maybe the reason we disagree here is that your team already lost all of it's traditional conference-mates and mine hasn't. 

nah, that's not it.

If I could pick my perfect 9 or 10 team conference for the Huskers it wouldn't include all old Big 8 schools

going forward I would like traditional conference mates, rivals to play each other each season.  At least 7 of those games, 8 or 9 would be better
develop a tradition

This discussion pretty much proves my point.

No matter how you attempt to manage it, scheduling for a conference with 16 teams is going to leave a large group of fans unhappy.  It's a bad number.  It's just too big.  So is 14.  12 isn't quite as bad but 8,9,10 is ideal.

Fundamentally, I agree.  With a nine game schedule like we have now, I think that a 10-team conference would be best.  Then you'd play each of your nine conference-mates once each.  

I thought that 12 teams with eight or nine conference games was not too bad.  You have five division-mates that you play every year and either three or four crossovers.  Three on an eight-game schedule works nicely because it is half so you play the non-divisional teams twice every four years.  With nine games you can either add fixed cross-overs or balance schedules or both and still play every team twice in four years.  

I really don't like the 14 team model.  Even with nine games, you only have two three cross-overs each year which means it takes longer to rotate through the non-divisional teams.  Then, on top of that, we decided to do this schedule balancing thing so that it just "feels like" my team never plays certain B1G-W teams anymore.  Here are tOSU's most recent and next games against each B1G-W team:

• Northwestern:  Last was 2016 Home, scheduled in 2019 Away
• Nebraska:  Last was 2018 Home, scheduled in 2019 Away, 2020 Home, 2021 Away
• Wisconsin:  Last was 2016 Away, scheduled in 2019 Home
• Illinois:  Last was 2017 Home, scheduled in 2020 Away
• Iowa:  Last was 2017 Away, scheduled in 2020 Home
• Minnesota:  Last was 2018 Home, scheduled in 2021 Away
• Purdue:  Last was 2018 Away, scheduled in 2021 Home

So the gaps now are two years, for Ohio State:

• Missed NU and UW in 2017 and 2018
• Will miss IL and IA in 2018 and 2019
• Will miss PU and MN in 2019 and 2020

With my 16-team, 4-pod, 4-group model we'd have the exact same gaps but we'd play, I think, a better group of six every-year opponents.  

It isn't perfect.  Like you, I prefer a 10-team conference with nine games or a nine-team conference with eight games (like the ACC used to be).  That said, I'm trying to be realistic about two things:

• We aren't going back to the pre-Penn State 10-team BigTen of 1953-1992.  It just isn't happening.  
• As @847badgerfan and I noted above, the fact that the "1G" in the current B1G logo looks a lot like a "16" can't be coincidental.  

Basically, I'm operating under the assumption that we ARE going to 16 teams whether I like it or not.  Taking that as a given, I think that the best scheduling model with a 16-team conference is a 4-pod, 4-group model where you play your three pod-mates and your three group-mates every year.  I'd also add that I would make all or most of those six teams your twice-a-year basketball rivals as well.  I want it to "feel like" a team is in a conference with those six every-year football opponents.  

The factors at play in 2010 and 2011, driving conference expansion, are diminishing in importance with every passing day.  I'm not certain there is much impetus to push to 16 at this point, for any conference.  And as illustrated from this discussion, there are plenty of reasons NOT to do so.