CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: ohio1317 on August 04, 2023, 01:16:58 PM
-
I hate these additions for a lot of reasons, but biggest was I loved getting rid of divisions and playing traditional foes more.
Have been thinking a bit on now scheduling would look now. I don't like it but I think something like this makes the most sense.
You need some form of divisions now in my view as you can't miss 8 teams a year and come up with good CCG opponents. The format that probably works best is something like this.
Two teams always in opposite divisions, but play annually (like Indiana-Pudue now). Then you have 4 pods of 4 which rotate to form divisions with those two. You get one game vs a team in the other division a year.
Example.
Locked 2: Indiana-Pudrue
Pod A: USC,UCLA, Oregon, Washington
Pod B: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
Pod C: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Illnois
Pod D: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Noethwestern
The only game that would have to be locked here beyond Indiana-Purdue is Northwestern-Illinois. Could also play around a lot with specific pods, but as a format I could see them using something similar.
-
2) 9-team divisions
1 game a season vs a team from the other division - if you want that locked, fine
-
I would favor a 3 + 4/4 + 2/2/2 format.
3 permanent rivals you play every year. Play 6 times in 6 years.
8 half-rivals you play 50% of the time. Play 3 times in 6 years.
6 teams you play once every 3 years. Play 2 times in 6 years.
For the Big Ten, the 4 West Coast teams would all be permanent rivals. The 14 eastern teams all would get at least 1 west coast team and at most 2 west coast teams as Half rivals.
-
I agree that at the numbers we are talking now, you need divisions. With eight missed teams the schedules would be so out of balance as to necessitate it.
-
I would favor a 3 + 4/4 + 2/2/2 format.
A what now? :96:
-
Quick idea:
3 divisions of 6 teams (We'll call them A, B, C)
.
If I'm a team in A, I play:
5 fellow Div. A foes
2 from Div B and 2 from Div C
Every 3 years, I'd have played all Div B & C teams once.
.
The conference would map those pairs out by random, luck-of-the-draw every 6 years (3 years, but home-and-home).
Division ideas:
West: USC, UCLA, UO, UWarsh, UNL, Iowa
Central: Minn, UWmad, ILL, NW, IU, PU
East: UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, MD, RU
.
Or you could mix them up a little and go with something like Legends, Leaders, and Poachers.
-
Legends, Leaders, and Lucky
-
20 teams?
Notre Dame and another
-
Or you could go with 10 conference games and a 3 + 7/7 format
3 permanent rivals you play every year.
14 schools you play once every 2 years.
-
3 permanent rivals????
geez
-
Or you could keep 9 conference games and go with a 1 + 8/8 format
1 permanent rival you play every year
16 teams you play once every 2 years.
If you want to play a 2nd team every year, you can always schedule them as a non-conference game once every 2 years.
-
If you want to play a 2nd team every year, you can always schedule them as a non-conference game once every 2 years.
2) 9-team divisions
1 game a season vs a team from the other division - if you want that locked, fine
2nd team from the other division
-
2) 9-team divisions
1 game a season vs a team from the other division - if you want that locked, fine
2nd team from the other division
The only way 9-team divisions make sense is if you redo them every year.
-
This is so dumb and inevitable.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2uKbt_XUAAioul?format=jpg&name=small)
Welcome to The Big Pac
East/West divisions, one fixed crossover based on helmetiness (with Illinois-Northwestern paired up, of course), CCG in the Rose Bowl.
-
Thanks, B1G, for killing the regionality of college football.
-
Pods.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Ox12ZRN.jpg)
-
Thanks, B1G, for killing the regionality of college football.
Like when the B12 added West Virginia?
-
I like your idea but with the following changes.
Division ideas:
West: USC, UCLA, UO, UWarsh, ILL, NW
Central: Minn, UWmad, Iowa, Neb, UM, MSU
East: OSU, PSU, MD, RU, IU, Purdue
-
The only way 9-team divisions make sense is if you redo them every year.
what???
the goal of divisions is playing the same teams EVERY season
a round robin within the division produces a champion
-
Like when the B12 added West Virginia?
We've had wide-ranging conferences before, but they'd been G5, so it didn't matter. Adding WV was the same thing, as if they were desirable, they'd have been in the ACC.
The B1G went across the country to poach a blueblood, starting all of this with that domino.
-
Like when the B12 added West Virginia?
Uhh, yeah, no. Not even close to the same thing.
-
Fearless,
If you keep static divisions, you are only getting one crossover a year. The East and West divisions (or whatever you use) are effectively 2 separate conferences connected by a CCG. We would have out of conference opponents we would casually play more than conference schools.
I hate this expansion, because to me all the options are bad now. I haven't seen a lot about option 2 listed, but think its a really option. Our choices:
1. We keep no divisions. This was my prefence since we added a CCG and was the silver lining of the USC/UCLA additions. With 18 teams though this means we play 9 other teams and miss 8. The schedules are way too imbalanced to only choose 2 teams.
2. We could try for unofficial conference semi-finals. Keep no divisions and move rivalry week up a week again. On Thanksgiving weekend you have a flex day where the conference announces opponents a week ahead of time. The top 4 would be matched up together for semifinals while the rest would be scheduled to balance home schedules over the years. The winners of the top 4 would go on to the CCG.
There is a lot I don't like one this, but given alternatives, could see at least explored. Alternatively could have 4 small divisions or 3 divisions and a wildcard with this approach.
3. Two permanent 9 team divisions. I hate this one the most personally as I want to play the traditional Big Ten teams home and home more than once in two decades.
-
Fearless,
If you keep static divisions, you are only getting one crossover a year. The East and West divisions (or whatever you use) are effectively 2 separate conferences connected by a CCG.
Not to speak for him, but he's made this point many times in recent years-- that's exactly what Fearless wants. He would prefer to play the same teams every year, in order to develop deeper connections and potential rivalries with those teams.
I don't necessarily agree with him but I totally get where he's coming from. An 18-20 team conference really isn't much of a conference, and if you're rotating the schedules then the chances to establish some deep connections to other schools, are minimal.
I think we're all going to have to get used to the idea that conferences are no longer conferences anymore, instead they're more like leagues with member schools that are only loosely associated, all in the name of consolidated broadcast rights.
-
I guess I do understand that philosophy and it is really just a tad different from mine (which oddly leads to completely different prefences).
From my perspective though, I want to be playing traditional opponents as much as possible. If we get a schedule where half them are on the other side, it will feel more like we left the Big Ten more than the Big Ten expanded (granted the confernce is becoming more an alliance than a conference). I get some of that is inevitable at this point, but I was very happy to be done with east and west and don't want to go back to an even larger form of it.
-
For a Nebraska in the 3-divison setup:
Year 1 opponents:
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Indiana
Penn State
.
Year 2 opp:
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Iowa
Wisconsin
Michigan
Purdue
Maryland
.
Year 3 opp:
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Iowa
Illinois
Michigan St
Ohio St
Rutgers
.
Nebraska is one of the more 'meh' schedules in this format, as they're playing all the PAC teams + Iowa every year.
But you get your 5 annual opponents and 2 from each of the other two divisions.
I think it's pretty good.
-
You want divisions? Here you go
Division A - USC, Neb, NW, MSU
Division B - UCLA, Iowa, ILL, Mich
Division C - Wash, Minn, Ind, Ohio ST, Rut
Division D - Ore, Wisc, Pur, PSU, MD
Fixed crossover groups
Group 1. USC, UCLA, Wash, Ore
Group 2. Neb, Minn, Wisc, Iowa
Group 3: ILL, NW, Pur, Ind
Group 4. MSU, Mich, Ohio St
Group 5: MD, Rut, PSU
Division A & B teams - 3 games against Division, 3 games against fixed crossovers, 3 games against other teams rotated
Division C&D teams - 4 games against Division, 2 or 3 games against fixed crossover, 2 or 3 games against other teams rotated.
-
Like when the B12 added West Virginia?
The Big 12 is actually pretty compact at the moment, save for the three eastern outliers, who could maybe join the Acc after FSU, Miami and Clemson figure out a way to weasel out of their legally binding contracts.
Then it's back to regionality, save for the B1G and Pac operating under one banner.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2uwu0lWgAATuw4?format=jpg&name=medium)
-
For a Nebraska in the 3-divison setup:
I think it's pretty good.
sucks
-
You want divisions? Here you go
there ya go
complete craziness
never know who yer playin next season
-
Fearless,
If you keep static divisions, you are only getting one crossover a year. The East and West divisions (or whatever you use) are effectively 2 separate conferences connected by a CCG. We would have out of conference opponents we would casually play more than conference schools.
Ed Zachery
that's what's the powers have done
there's no good way to play 18 or 19 other teams regularly
-
sucks
I think you'd prefer the four divisions of 4, 5, 5, and 4.
.
The problem is having 4 way out west and then avoiding putting UM, OSU, and PSU all together.
-
obviously I'd prefer playing the same 8 teams each season in a 9 team division of an 18 team conference
and a permanent cross over makes 9 teams every season with a 9 game schedule
rotating is what non-con sched is for
playing the same team home and away for 5 or 6 decades in a row is a proven deal
-
Decades?
One bad tv contract, and your conference vanishes overnight.
-
Maybe the best format for 3 divisions is to split up the west coast schools.
North Division - Wash, Ore, Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc
South Division - USC, UCLA, ILL, NW, Pur, Ind
East Division - MSU, Mich, OSU, PSU, Rut, MD
Then have all the west coast schools have fixed cross-overs so that they all play each year.
-
Decades?
One bad tv contract, and your conference vanishes overnight.
obviously, things were better before television
-
Legends, Leaders, and Lucky
Legends, Leaders, and Leftists.
-
Ed Zachery
that's what's the powers have done
there's no good way to play 18 or 19 other teams regularly
Sorry @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) , I'm with @ohio1317 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=27) on this. I just REALLY don't like the idea of being in a conference with a team (or group of teams) that my school plays LESS than they would if they weren't in the same conference.
With 16+ I think you have to go to some form of pods. The idea here for 18 with four pods of four plus IU/PU makes sense.
If we go to 20 I like four pods of five. A lot depends what two we add.
-
but it's not a conference
it's a super conference or a conference that's too large to play all the other teams in the conference on a regular basis
-
A what now? :96:
You know, maybe you are right. Maybe a better format would be 3 + 5/5 + 1/1/1/1 model
3 primary rivals you play every year
10 secondary rivals you play once every 2 years
No Tertiary Rivals you play once every 3 years.
4 Quarentary (Quad) rivals you play once every 4 years.
-
ya gotta think that the 4 teams from the PAC are gonna play each other every season
-
4 times each
-
I guess another idea is to redo divisions every year based on some idea of rotating opponents. Basically keep the flex plus that came out for locked games, lock Oregon and Washington only with each other (they weren't playing USC and UCLA every year), and then redo the divisions every year. For teams with two locked opponents, they would have to be in a division every year with one or the other. For Iowa (the only team with 3 locked opponents), they'd have to be in a division with 2.
This isn't as neat as a pod or semi-pod system, but would allow for some flexibility and different competition each year.
On other approaches. I am not really a fan of the 3 division approach unless they have already decided on a method for introducing semi-finals (doubt and hope that doesn't happen). While I think I think 3 divisions has merit, since we are trying to get 2 teams for a CCG, I don't love the approach.
Side Note: There is some rumors of 10 conference games coming. I think that will help however this is done.
-
What I would like to see is a flexible schedule for 8 conference games. Each team plays 4 home and 4 away games. Game 9 would be determined by conference standing at year end. Top 4 teams play for Big championship. Teams 5 thru 11 have home field and play 12 thru 18.
To determine match ups between non play off teams, rivalry would be matched first if they haven't played each other already. Then try to get as many teams as you can to match up that haven't played each other during the year.
-
What I would like to see is a flexible schedule for 8 conference games. Each team plays 4 home and 4 away games. Game 9 would be determined by conference standing at year end. Top 4 teams play for Big championship. Teams 5 thru 11 have home field and play 12 thru 18.
To determine match ups between non play off teams, rivalry would be matched first if they haven't played each other already. Then try to get as many teams as you can to match up that haven't played each other during the year.
This is an interesting concept, I like it.
I'd add that I'd basically include your determinants for the 5-11 vs 12-18 matchups to the 1-2 vs 3-4 matchups also. Ie:
- First determine the teams, 1-2-3-4.
- Next 1&2 host, 3&4 travel.
- Select matchups to minimize rematches so if 1 has played 3&4 and 2 has played 3 but not 4 then matchups are 1vs3 and 2vs4.
- Default is 1vs4, 2vs3.
-
so easy to have two 9-team divisions
one crossover game - fixed or not
winners of each division meet for the champ game
simple
-
It is simple. It would basically be 2 traditional conferences. I get the appeal (I think ideal conference size is 8-11 members and even in the 11 team Big Ten we played everyone at least 3/4 the time), but since it would likely mean almost never playing Wisconsin, Iowa, etc, I don't want them to go for it. It is not worth giving up those teams to me to get that destination. I'd rather have everyone as often as possible.
-
Running this exercise right now is fruitless.
The BIG will be at 24 schools in short order.
-
Running this exercise right now is fruitless.
The BIG will be at 24 schools in short order.
Ugh.
At that point I'm really confused. To even play all the teams in your half/division would take 11 games.
Four pods of six?
- 5 games against the other 5 members of your pod
- 3 games, one each against one team in each of the other three pods.
- 9th game is determined by standings.
- The four pod champions play each other.
- The other 20 teams play each other.
- CG is between the winners of the two games between pod champions.
-
Two 12-team divisions (conferences). Everyone plays 11 games plus two OOC.
First division - Original Big Ten + PSU and UNL.
Second division - Everyone added post UNL.
Winners play in the CCG.
-
Ugh.
At that point I'm really confused. To even play all the teams in your half/division would take 11 games.
Four pods of six?
- 5 games against the other 5 members of your pod
- 3 games, one each against one team in each of the other three pods.
- 9th game is determined by standings.
- The four pod champions play each other.
- The other 20 teams play each other.
- CG is between the winners of the two games between pod champions.
The four pods:
West Coast:
- USC
- UCLA
- Washington
- Oregon
- Stanford
- ?
West-Midwest:
- Nebraska
- Minnesota
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
- Illinois
- Northwestern
East-Midwest:
- Indiana
- Purdue
- Michigan
- Michigan State
- Ohio State
- ?
East Coast:
- Rutgers
- Penn State
- Maryland
- North Carolina
- Virginia
- ?
So we need another West Coast school, another in the Indiana/Michigan/Ohio area, and another East Coast School.
-
Side Note: There is some rumors of 10 conference games coming. I think that will help however this is done.
10 conference games does make scheduling for 18 teams a lot easier. You could have 3 primary rivals you play every year and 14 secondary rivals you play once every 2 years.
3 + 7/7. That's pretty simple.
I know schools love their 7 home games so that would destroy any ooc P5 scheduling. Schools like USC and Iowa would have to make some tough choices. Either go to 6 home games once every 2 years or cancel their OOC home and home series, USC with Notre Dame, and Iowa with Iowa St.
I personally think it's worth it to give up 1 home game every 2 years to get 10 conference games and keep the home and home OOC series with your main rival, but not everybody agrees with me.
-
The SEC's scheduling after adding A&M and Missouri is embarrassing.
Lazy. Stupid. Idiotic.
Taking 12 years to play everyone home and away.
FFS, don't do that.
-
no shit
only have as many teams in a division as can play each other round robin
18 teams - (2) 9 team divisions = 8 conference games
20 teams - 9 games
22 teams - 10 games
24 teams - 11 games
-
Running this exercise right now is fruitless.
The BIG will be at 24 schools in short order.
You might be right about the 24 teams but it won't be before the 2024 schedule comes out.
Just think that 4 team play off for conference game 9 would select the best 2 teams for the championship game. Picking the top 2 division winners may not be the 2 best teams.
-
Running this exercise right now is fruitless.
The BIG will be at 24 schools in short order.
gross
-
gross
Agree, but so will the SEC.
Another possibility is the football model in Europe.
You have 24 schools - 12 in the upper division and 12 in the lower division.
Maybe 2-3 schools per year change divisions based on a 4-5 year performance metric. Could be interesting.
-
Agree, but so will the SEC.
Another possibility is the football model in Europe.
You have 24 schools - 12 in the upper division and 12 in the lower division.
Maybe 2-3 schools per year change divisions based on a 4-5 year performance metric. Could be interesting.
Oh great, here we go with the relegation talk again.
Come on man, surely you understand the difference between professional sporting organizations in Europe that are solely focused on one single sport, and collegiate sporting organizations in the USA that support between 10 and 30 sports?
ADs can't tolerate the kind of inconsistency in revenue streams involved in relegation/promotion. They need to understand what their income is going to be looking 10-20 years into the future. Look no further than the current dire situation of the PAC leftovers for an example of the devastation that's going to occur when your revenue gets cut by half or more.
The only way relegation/promotion would work in college athletics, is if those 12 lower division schools in your example are paid exactly the same as the 12 upper division schools. So the only difference is in level of competition, but not in compensation.
Otherwise there's zero chance a university AD or president is going to vote for it, knowing that his own school could potentially be relegated and lose all that money. No way that happens.
-
And don't get me wrong, I really love regulation in world soccer. It's a really cool system.
There's just no analog between a pro soccer franchise in England, and a collegiate athletics department in the USA. It just doesn't work that way.
-
It could work if Chip Kelly and I get our way.
-
It could work if Chip Kelly and I get our way.
Only if every school is paid exactly the same, regardless of relegation/promotion status.
-
deal killer for helmets in the SEC and B1G
-
deal killer for helmets in the SEC and B1G
Deal killer for the TV partners as well. Say that one of the bluebloods struggles enough one season that they get relegated (I'm looking at you, Texas).
So now instead of getting Texas vs. OU and Texas vs. Georgia and Texas vs. Florida, you're only getting Texas vs. Vanderbilt and Texas vs. Miss State and Texas vs. Kentucky.
What do you think that does to the value of the TV contract? Are the TV partners going to be willing to pay the same amount for those matchups, as they would for the marquee ones? Nope.
-
A recent report states that the Big Ten Conference will be expanding the number of league games per season. Our colleagues at Spartans Wire have reported that the Big Ten will “most likely be moving to (ten) 10 conference games with the additions of the Ducks and Huskies.”
It’s also unknown when this change would occur if it does indeed happen.
-
A recent report states that the Big Ten Conference will be expanding the number of league games per season. Our colleagues at Spartans Wire have reported that the Big Ten will “most likely be moving to (ten) 10 conference games with the additions of the Ducks and Huskies.”
It’s also unknown when this change would occur if it does indeed happen.
In related news, the SEC has decided to drop to 5 conference games per year, and a mandatory 7 FCS games, for each team.
-
A recent report states that the Big Ten Conference will be expanding the number of league games per season. Our colleagues at Spartans Wire have reported that the Big Ten will “most likely be moving to (ten) 10 conference games with the additions of the Ducks and Huskies.”
It’s also unknown when this change would occur if it does indeed happen.
If true I would guess 2026 at the earliest for 10 conference games.
SO FOR 2024-2025 with just 9 games, they can set it up so that everybody has 3 teams they play twice, 12 teams they play once and 2 teams they skip.
Then in 2026-2029 go to the 3 + 7/7 rotation for 4 years.
Of course I am assuming the Big Ten has already negotiated this all with the TV networks to get extra money for all these extra games.