CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on May 14, 2022, 05:49:28 PM

Title: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 14, 2022, 05:49:28 PM
Apparently the ACC is thinking about this - 3 annual opponents, then 5 one year, the other 5 the next year, alternating.
So naturally, if it became the norm (for conferences of up to 16 teams:  3+6+6), what might that look like?
It's basically a pod system when you don't yet have enough teams for the pod system.
The B1G, Big 12, and PAC may look into this as well, if expansion isn't happening anytime soon.
The SEC, with 16 teams, would just do a pod system (4x4).
.
ACC - the easiest way to do this is to pair up each team with 2 others, then fill it in from there.
For the ACC, this is doable with geography, old ACC, old Big East....but then there's Louisville.  Someone will just be stuck with UL, basically at random. 
.
I start with FSU getting Miami and Clemson.  2 name programs, so this would be the toughest pair of opponents initially, and that will encourage a weaker 3rd team later on.
FSU:  Miami and Clem, Duke
Clemson:  FSU and GT, UNC
GT:  Clemson and WF, Pitt
WF:  GT and Duke, NCST
Duke:  WF and UNC, FSU
UNC:  Duke and NCST, Clem
NCST:  UNC and UVA, WF
UVA:  NCST and UL, VT.....here's who gets randomly paired with Louisville.  It's okay, though, as the Cavs will have their real rival, VT, as their 3rd annual opponent. 
UL:  UVA and SU, BC
SU:  UL and BC, Miami....the UL-SU pairing is weak and kind of basketball-y, but it's fine.  SU-BC starts the old BC run.
BC:  SU and Pitt, UL
Pitt:  BC and VT, GT
VT:  Pitt and Miami, UVA...while not very geographic, VT was Miami's toughest out back in the Big East days.
.
So all of that focused on clumping teams that might give a damn about each other, aside from the exceptions noted.  The 3rd team will be to try to even things out, as much as that is possible.  So we're not going to sit here and toss Clemson and Miami together or make FSU play those 2 plus VT.
.
Added in above, in bold.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 14, 2022, 06:07:55 PM
How might it look for the B1G?
.
Again, my first step is creating a circle where each team has one on either side that make some sort of sense:
UM-OSU and MSU, ILL (weak one)
MSU - UM and Neb, Penn St....wasn't sure which western team to go with here, as I feel like MSU kind of has a little link with Iowa and UW as well.  Am I making that up?
Neb - MSU nd Iowa, UW
Iowa - Neb and UW, NW
UW-Iowa and Minn, Neb
Minn-UW and NW, Purdue....not a rivalry, basically an "I'm stuck" pairing
NW-Minn and ILL, Iowa
ILL- NW and Purdue, UM
Purdue - ILL and IU, Minn
IU- Purdue and Rutgers, Maryland....again, here, as with Louisville in the ACC, no one is invested in playing Rutgers.  
Rutgers-IU and Maryland, OSU....solely on joining the conference together and geography
Maryland-Rutgers and Penn St, IU.....weak pair, but something's there, right?
Penn St-Maryland and OSU, MSU
OSU- Penn St and UM, Rutgers (weak one)
.
Then we'd add in the 3rd team for evening-out purposes and where it makes sense.  Again, you all would be better suited for this than I am (I'll whiff on some old oaken spittoon trophy somewhere).
Above, in bold.
.
*note, I got about 85% through this before realizing I hadn't included Nebraska.  I blame working on a Whoa Nellie order full of late 70s teams.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 15, 2022, 08:29:10 AM
I would want OSU to have MSU's trio, in this absurd hypothetical. 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 15, 2022, 08:49:45 AM
Is there some kind of greater link between OSU and Nebraska than OSU and Rutgers?  And why do I get the feeling that you deem reality an absurd hypothetical?
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: LittlePig on May 15, 2022, 10:51:38 AM
The ACC adopting a 3-5-5 is most likely reality.  What other conferences do is still open to speculation.  The Big Ten could go to a 5-4-4 scheduling model if it keeps 9 conference games or use the 3-5-5 model if they switch to 8 games. 

 If the Big Ten goes with 3 permanent rivals, I think you can do better than your choices above.  Just forget the pod idea and focus on giving each school the 3 best choices for annual rivals.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 15, 2022, 10:57:12 AM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 15, 2022, 08:49:45 AM
Is there some kind of greater link between OSU and Nebraska than OSU and Rutgers?  And why do I get the feeling that you deem reality an absurd hypothetical?
Yeah, both are helmets, and they were fixed crossover rivals there for about a six year stretch where OSU was the only team in the Big 10 that played all of the other "helmets" annually. 

Why should MSU get to have the ultimate fixed schedule while OSU gets stuck with Rutgers? This idea sucks. 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 15, 2022, 11:42:38 AM
Quote from: LittlePig on May 15, 2022, 10:51:38 AM

 If the Big Ten goes with 3 permanent rivals, I think you can do better than your choices above.  Just forget the pod idea and focus on giving each school the 3 best choices for annual rivals.
This isn't pods.  
You can't just give each school the 3 best choices, it's all uneven.  Some schools have 2 others that deem them their top rival, while others have zero.  
You'd also have wildly uneven schedules in terms of difficulty if you didn't toss in a weaker foe in there.  
.
No one wants to play Rutgers every year, because no one gives a shit about Rutgers.  But someone has to play them.  Does it not make sense that the team with the toughest other pair of annual foes plays them?  
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 15, 2022, 11:59:39 AM
So OSU can't play Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska because "it's all uneven" but MSU can play Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska, and everything comes up Even Stephen? 

Thread fail. 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 15, 2022, 02:50:10 PM
I know you're eager to hate me, but try having an actual conversation.

Penn St being included in MSU's trio and making it too tough is what I'm looking for to improve it.  Pointing out what you deem as an error and saying I suck isnt helpful.
Providing a fix would be nice.  You're not nice, but still.  Try it.
.
The "OSU and Nebraska were crossover rivals for a time" was useful.  Try sticking to that mindset.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 15, 2022, 03:14:14 PM
You could have drawn names out of a hat, and it would have been better. :D
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 15, 2022, 06:34:34 PM
And no improvement suggestions....thanks for being useful.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: FearlessF on May 15, 2022, 07:30:26 PM
pods are for whales
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 16, 2022, 01:52:33 AM
This isn't pods, ffs. 
It's 3 annual opponents + "half of the rest" each season, possibly including no divisions.  The "half of the rest" could be the same groups, alternating each season or it could be a gradual mix.
.
Pods are solely divisions, of which you play the other teams in yours every year (3 annual opp) + 2 from each of the other pods one year, the other 2 from each in the next.  Pods wouldn't work with 14 teams. 
.
The only similarity between these two are the 3 annual opponents thing.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Hawkinole on May 16, 2022, 02:09:00 AM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 15, 2022, 06:34:34 PM
And no improvement suggestions....thanks for being useful.
In my opinion, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa are a starting point because arguably these schools have the closest connections in the current western division, although Nebraska-Wisconsin is the more tenuous than the other rivalries. 
I haven't figured out how three protected games for these four schools would affect the rest of Big Ten Scheduling.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 07:29:46 AM
UW needs to play Iowa and Minnesota for sure, and Ohio State would be my preferred 3rd protected game.

OSU would get UM, PSU and UW.

Iowa gets UW, Minnesota and UNL.

Minnesota gets Iowa, UW and UNL.

UNL gets Iowa, Minnesota and tNU. 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 16, 2022, 07:57:18 AM
I still don't see how the trio of Penn State, Michigan and Nebraska could be "too tough" for OSU, but "just right" for MSU. 

I don't think I will get an answer either, just more tap dancing from our resident clown.

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/xpipBcvgSTptK/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: FearlessF on May 16, 2022, 09:24:18 AM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 16, 2022, 01:52:33 AM
This isn't pods, ffs. 
It's 3 annual opponents + "half of the rest" each season, possibly including no divisions.  The "half of the rest" could be the same groups, alternating each season or it could be a gradual mix.
just break into 2 separate conferences and play everyone every season
7 annual opponents, then play whomever the other games
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 09:56:45 AM
How would you break the 14 schools into separate conferences today? Just go East-West like now?

Add schools (if so, which ones)?

If the West is a conference, it's probably at the bottom of the P5 immediately.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: FearlessF on May 16, 2022, 10:13:42 AM
I just know that 14 or 16 schools all trying to play each other regularly w/o having annual matchups for certain programs doesn't work

Minnesoota, Nebraska and Iowa being forced to schedule Rutgers and Maryland regularly just because they're in the same "conference" sucks

I'm sure MAryland and Rutgers feel the same way

Perhaps each program in the Big should pick 3 teams that they are not going to play regularly and develop the rivalries with the other 10 programs?
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 10:39:34 AM
Quote from: FearlessF on May 16, 2022, 10:13:42 AM
I just know that 14 or 16 schools all trying to play each other regularly w/o having annual matchups for certain programs doesn't work

Minnesoota, Nebraska and Iowa being forced to schedule Rutgers and Maryland regularly just because they're in the same "conference" sucks

I'm sure MAryland and Rutgers feel the same way

Perhaps each program in the Big should pick 3 teams that they are not going to play regularly and develop the rivalries with the other 10 programs?
Well, in my mind that would be akin to returning to this:


(https://i.imgur.com/t43WDGc.png)
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: FearlessF on May 16, 2022, 10:58:33 AM
I'm ok with that

could easily be more $$$ per program

Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on May 16, 2022, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 14, 2022, 06:07:55 PM
MSU - UM and Neb, Penn St....wasn't sure which western team to go with here, as I feel like MSU kind of has a little link with Iowa and UW as well.  Am I making that up?
I appreciate what you are trying to do here but I agree with @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) that this is just way too unbalanced.  MSU would be playing three of the four traditional helmets annually.  Even if Nebraska never returns to their former glory they are still probably going to be better, on average, than most of the league's other non-helmets so MSU gets stuck playing what are likely to be at worst three of the top-half teams every year.  

It is funny in this thread you see two views.  Brutus thought it sucked that tOSU got "stuck" with Rutgers and similarly, @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) wanted tOSU for his Badgers.  So those are the people looking for tougher games which should also be higher-rated games.  Basically more risk and more reward.  Other fans are going to be a bit more strategic.  I'd be fine if you said tOSU's three annual rivals would be Rutgers, Indiana, and some other team that is typically a bottom-feeder.  Brutus would be apoplectic but that would get tOSU into more CFP's than playing his preferred UM/UNL/PSU every damn year.  

MSU and Iowa:
You really need answers more from Spartan/Hawkeye fans but I've always thought of them as at least having some history largely because back in the "Big2/Little8" era they were generally either the best or among the best after the "Big2" of tOSU/M.  For example, Indiana (yes, the Hoosiers) went to the 1968 Rose Bowl (1967 season).  Then from 1969 through 1981 (1968 through 1980 seasons) the BigTen was represented in the RB every single year by either tOSU or M.  Iowa broke that with an appearance in the 1982 Rose Bowl (1981 season) and Michigan State was not long after with an appearance in the 1988 Rose Bowl (1987 season).  Also note that between Purdue's win in the 1967 Rose Bowl (1966 season) and Wisconsin's win in the 1994 Rose Bowl (1993 season) only three of our teams won Rose Bowls:

Part of that, of course, is the BigTen's colossally bad RB record of 6-20 in those 26 years.  

Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 12:18:58 PM
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on May 16, 2022, 11:47:31 AM
Part of that, of course, is the BigTen's colossally bad RB record of 6-20 in those 26 years. 


If you look at 88-93, The Big Ten was 3-3. So really even worse at 3-17 for 20 years.

I blame Bo.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 16, 2022, 01:22:12 PM
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on May 16, 2022, 11:47:31 AM
I appreciate what you are trying to do here but I agree with @Brutus Buckeye (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) that this is just way too unbalanced.  MSU would be playing three of the four traditional helmets annually.  Even if Nebraska never returns to their former glory they are still probably going to be better, on average, than most of the league's other non-helmets so MSU gets stuck playing what are likely to be at worst three of the top-half teams every year. 

It is funny in this thread you see two views.  Brutus thought it sucked that tOSU got "stuck" with Rutgers and similarly, @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) wanted tOSU for his Badgers.  So those are the people looking for tougher games which should also be higher-rated games.  Basically more risk and more reward.  Other fans are going to be a bit more strategic.  I'd be fine if you said tOSU's three annual rivals would be Rutgers, Indiana, and some other team that is typically a bottom-feeder.  Brutus would be apoplectic but that would get tOSU into more CFP's than playing his preferred UM/UNL/PSU every damn year. 

MSU and Iowa:
You really need answers more from Spartan/Hawkeye fans but I've always thought of them as at least having some history largely because back in the "Big2/Little8" era they were generally either the best or among the best after the "Big2" of tOSU/M.  For example, Indiana (yes, the Hoosiers) went to the 1968 Rose Bowl (1967 season).  Then from 1969 through 1981 (1968 through 1980 seasons) the BigTen was represented in the RB every single year by either tOSU or M.  Iowa broke that with an appearance in the 1982 Rose Bowl (1981 season) and Michigan State was not long after with an appearance in the 1988 Rose Bowl (1987 season).  Also note that between Purdue's win in the 1967 Rose Bowl (1966 season) and Wisconsin's win in the 1994 Rose Bowl (1993 season) only three of our teams won Rose Bowls:
  • Ohio State in 1969 and 1974
  • Michigan in 1981, 1989, and 1993
  • Michigan State in 1988

Part of that, of course, is the BigTen's colossally bad RB record of 6-20 in those 26 years. 


You'd rather play Rutgers every year than the Wolverines?
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: ELA on May 16, 2022, 02:05:47 PM
During the entire 11 team era, MSU was the only team locked into playing 2 of the 3 helmets, with the possibility of playing the third.

So we've been there before.

We had a respite for a minute when the divisions were split evenly, rather than geographically, but then that ended too
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 02:12:32 PM
An easy fix for this would be to move MSU into the West and Purdue to the East. Still have that one locked crossover anyway, except it's MSU-UM versus PU-IU.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: ELA on May 16, 2022, 02:17:08 PM
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/1hMhlrWWfXU77iYnBB/200.gif)
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 03:09:58 PM
^^^^

That started almost 20 years ago my friend, when the ACC blew up the Big East.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: ELA on May 16, 2022, 03:31:52 PM
Haha, yes, but that's also Purdue's football program in the East, after never winning the West, even with Indiana has a locked in crossover
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on May 16, 2022, 05:36:19 PM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 16, 2022, 12:18:58 PM
If you look at 88-93, The Big Ten was 3-3. So really even worse at 3-17 for 20 years.

I blame Bo.
If you really want to cherry-pick you can make it even worse than that.  Between Ohio State's win over USC in the 1969 Rose Bowl (1968 season) and Michigan State's win over USC in the 1988 Rose Bowl (1987 season) our league was an abysmal 2-16 in 18 years.  In those 18 years:

I'm happy to blame Bo but in reality it wasn't just Bo/Michigan.  In that era Woody was only marginally better and while Earle Bruce, Mike White, and Hayden Fry didn't lose as many Rose Bowls as Bo, they didn't win any either. 
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on May 16, 2022, 01:22:12 PM
You'd rather play Rutgers every year than the Wolverines?
No, I'd rather that Michigan be the "some other team that is typically a bottom-feeder".  
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Hawkinole on May 16, 2022, 05:42:46 PM
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on May 16, 2022, 11:47:31 AM
MSU and Iowa:
You really need answers more from Spartan/Hawkeye fans but I've always thought of them as at least having some history largely because back in the "Big2/Little8" era they were generally either the best or among the best after the "Big2" of tOSU/M.  For example, Indiana (yes, the Hoosiers) went to the 1968 Rose Bowl (1967 season).  Then from 1969 through 1981 (1968 through 1980 seasons) the BigTen was represented in the RB every single year by either tOSU or M.  Iowa broke that with an appearance in the 1982 Rose Bowl (1981 season) and Michigan State was not long after with an appearance in the 1988 Rose Bowl (1987 season).  Also note that between Purdue's win in the 1967 Rose Bowl (1966 season) and Wisconsin's win in the 1994 Rose Bowl (1993 season) only three of our teams won Rose Bowls:
  • Ohio State in 1969 and 1974
  • Michigan in 1981, 1989, and 1993
  • Michigan State in 1988

Part of that, of course, is the BigTen's colossally bad RB record of 6-20 in those 26 years.
For me MSU is just another Big Ten game, but you make valid points, and the all-time series is close with Iowa leading it currently, Iowa 24 - MSU 22.
Historically there have been a few blowouts, but most games are competitive, and even for the games that were not competitive usually they were expected to be competitive coming into the game, but one team gets momentum and doesn't let up.
Keeping divisions and moving MSU or Michigan to the west are possible solutions. Michigan can rarely defeat Ohio State these days either, so actually whether we have divisions, or not, the Little 13 has to get its $hit together.
That said, the NCAA votes this week on whether to allow conference championship games for conferences with no divisions.  I suspect this vote is prompted by how poorly the West performed in the Big Ten CCG. Divisionless Big Ten football will arrive in 2023.

Here is the all-time MSU-Iowa series records:

     (HOME) 2020/11/07  Iowa             49 - Michigan State    7    W                           
     (AWAY) 2017/09/30  Iowa             10 - Michigan State   17    L                           
     (N)    2015/12/05  Iowa             13 - Michigan State   16    L ** BIG TEN CHAMPIONSHIP **
     (HOME) 2013/10/05  Iowa             14 - Michigan State   26    L                           
     (AWAY) 2012/10/13  Iowa             19 - Michigan State   16 OT W                           
     (HOME) 2011/11/12  Iowa             21 - Michigan State   37    L                           
     (HOME) 2010/10/30  Iowa             37 - Michigan State    6    W                           
     (AWAY) 2009/10/24  Iowa             15 - Michigan State   13    W                           
     (AWAY) 2008/10/04  Iowa             13 - Michigan State   16    L                           
     (HOME) 2007/10/27  Iowa             34 - Michigan State   27 OT W                           
     (HOME) 2004/10/02  Iowa             38 - Michigan State   16    W                           
     (AWAY) 2003/09/27  Iowa             10 - Michigan State   20    L                           
     (HOME) 2002/10/12  Iowa             44 - Michigan State   16    W                           
     (AWAY) 2001/10/13  Iowa             28 - Michigan State   31    L                           
     (HOME) 2000/10/07  Iowa             21 - Michigan State   16    W                           
     (AWAY) 1999/10/02  Iowa              3 - Michigan State   49    L                           
     (HOME) 1996/10/05  Iowa             37 - Michigan State   30    W                           
     (AWAY) 1995/10/07  Iowa             21 - Michigan State    7    W                           
     (HOME) 1994/10/22  Iowa             19 - Michigan State   14    W                           
     (AWAY) 1993/10/23  Iowa             10 - Michigan State   24    L                           
     (AWAY) 1990/10/06  Iowa             12 - Michigan State    7    W                           
     (HOME) 1989/10/07  Iowa             14 - Michigan State   17    L                           
     (AWAY) 1988/10/01  Iowa             10 - Michigan State   10    T                           
     (HOME) 1987/10/03  Iowa             14 - Michigan State   19    L                           
     (AWAY) 1986/10/04  Iowa             24 - Michigan State   21    W                           
     (HOME) 1985/10/05  Iowa             35 - Michigan State   31    W                           
     (HOME) 1984/11/10  Iowa             16 - Michigan State   17    L                           
     (AWAY) 1983/11/12  Iowa             12 - Michigan State    6    W                           
     (AWAY) 1982/11/20  Iowa             24 - Michigan State   18    W                           
     (HOME) 1981/11/21  Iowa             36 - Michigan State    7    W                           
     (AWAY) 1980/11/22  Iowa             41 - Michigan State    0    W                           
     (HOME) 1979/11/17  Iowa             33 - Michigan State   23    W                           
     (AWAY) 1978/11/25  Iowa              7 - Michigan State   42    L                           
     (HOME) 1977/11/19  Iowa             16 - Michigan State   22    L                           
     (AWAY) 1976/11/20  Iowa             30 - Michigan State   17    W                           
     (HOME) 1975/11/22  Iowa             23 - Michigan State   27    L                           
     (AWAY) 1974/11/23  Iowa             21 - Michigan State   60    L                           
     (HOME) 1973/11/24  Iowa              6 - Michigan State   15    L                           
     (HOME) 1972/10/28  Iowa              6 - Michigan State    6    T                           
     (AWAY) 1971/10/23  Iowa              3 - Michigan State   34    L                           
     (AWAY) 1970/10/24  Iowa              0 - Michigan State   37    L                           
     (HOME) 1969/10/25  Iowa             19 - Michigan State   18    W                           
     (AWAY) 1966/11/05  Iowa              7 - Michigan State   56    L                           
     (HOME) 1965/11/06  Iowa              0 - Michigan State   35    L                           
     (AWAY) 1960/10/08  Iowa             27 - Michigan State   15    W                           
     (HOME) 1959/10/10  Iowa             37 - Michigan State    8    W                           
     (HOME) 1954/09/25  Iowa             14 - Michigan State   10    W                           
     (HOME) 1953/09/26  Iowa              7 - Michigan State   21    L    





Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on May 16, 2022, 05:57:24 PM
Thanks @Hawkinole (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=25) for answering from and Iowa fan perspective.  

As an Ohio State fan I've viewed Iowa and MSU as in the next group behind tOSU/M since before PSU was even in the league and obviously before Wisconsin's rise.  
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: FearlessF on May 16, 2022, 07:17:52 PM
5+5-3 is better

I'd rather just have 11 and toss 3 to the curb
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 16, 2022, 09:43:11 PM
I'm not understanding wanting to be the program playing the 3 other toughest opponents every season.  It's going to cost you.  And with your rivals having other, easier teams to play every year, you're literally just purposely lowering your shot at a conference championship each season.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: ELA on May 17, 2022, 09:51:29 AM
Yeah, MSU and Iowa have maybe been historically the next in line, but maybe it's been because their peaks haven't really aligned, but they haven't had a ton of meaningful games over the decades. They met once in the CCG, but aside from that? Even in 1990, when they were co-champs, they played in the first conference game, on October 6, when MSU was 1-2-1 and Iowa was unranked
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 17, 2022, 08:36:04 PM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 16, 2022, 09:43:11 PM
I'm not understanding wanting to be the program playing the 3 other toughest opponents every season.  It's going to cost you.  And with your rivals having other, easier teams to play every year, you're literally just purposely lowering your shot at a conference championship each season.
Because those are the games that you circle on your calendar every year, not the 59-17 beat downs of Rutgers, Indiana, etc. 

Because you need to be battle tested in order to get anywhere in the playoffs, not fattened up on cupcakes. 

Because there's a LOT more to CFB than just the GD playoffs.

Because you have no business being in the playoffs if you can't beat the top teams in your league. 

Because you have no business winning a conference title if you had to duck the top teams in your league in order to do it. 

Because why the Hell would anyone even buy season tickets if it's Rutgers and Indiana type teams every week. 

And yes, I am also glad that OSU is opening with Notre Dame this year, instead of an FCS team that they could beat by 100. And I'm also glad they opened with Oregon last year, even though it was a loss. 

Big games are what make CFB fun. Blowing out cupcakes can also be fun in moderation, but if it's just going to be that all the time then the regular season will be completely meaningless. 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 17, 2022, 08:47:23 PM
Uhh....nice speech, but you're missing that you'd be playing that additional tough team every other season anyway, lol.  

Your piss and vinegar clouds your mind.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 17, 2022, 08:56:34 PM
You are looking at it through SEC goggles. No matter who you duck, you still play a bunch of strong teams that prepare you for the playoffs. You aren't just taking a cakewalk through a park, trying not to trip over any of the road apples. 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: ELA on May 18, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Pac 12 officially scrapping divisions
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 18, 2022, 03:56:28 PM
Quote from: ELA on May 18, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Pac 12 officially scrapping divisions
I think they B1G is too. They pulled off all the future schedules from the website.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 18, 2022, 07:02:49 PM
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on May 17, 2022, 08:56:34 PM
You are looking at it through SEC goggles. No matter who you duck, you still play a bunch of strong teams that prepare you for the playoffs. You aren't just taking a cakewalk through a park, trying not to trip over any of the road apples.
It's not about ducking, it's about some semblance of equity.  No one said anything about a cakewalk.  How can you be so radically wrong about so many different things?!?
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 18, 2022, 07:03:27 PM
Quote from: ELA on May 18, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
Pac 12 officially scrapping divisions
Well, well, perhaps this is going to be a thing after all.
I was assured it wouldn't be......but that poster is nearly wrong about everything.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: OrangeAfroMan on May 18, 2022, 07:04:38 PM
I find it interesting that 12 to 14 teams = this 3+5+5 model, but once you get to 16, it's pod city.
.
A 16 team pod could be described as 3+4+2+2
.
Wouldn't that be fun?  If the B1G changed to an 8-game conference slate and the SEC to a 9-gamer?  
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on May 18, 2022, 08:04:25 PM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 18, 2022, 07:02:49 PM
It's not about ducking, it's about some semblance of equity.  No one said anything about a cakewalk.  How can you be so radically wrong about so many different things?!?
If Penn State and Michigan are off of the schedule, it's a cakewalk. 

If their biggest challenge is "gee, I hope Purdue doesn't catch us napping again" then what the Hell is the point? It's like playing the old NCAA video game on "JV Mode." 
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: ELA on May 18, 2022, 10:36:24 PM
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on May 18, 2022, 08:04:25 PM
If Penn State and Michigan are off of the schedule, it's a cakewalk.

If their biggest challenge is "gee, I hope Purdue doesn't catch us napping again" then what the Hell is the point? It's like playing the old NCAA video game on "JV Mode."
Nah, it was the Heisman mode where Purdue would randomly pick you off 6 times and you were convinced the game was rigged
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on May 19, 2022, 11:22:25 AM
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on May 18, 2022, 07:04:38 PM
I find it interesting that 12 to 14 teams = this 3+5+5 model, but once you get to 16, it's pod city.
I think it is because of some things that everyone "knows" but most people haven't really thought through.  

I've spent some time in the past working out hypothetical schedules and anytime you have a divisionless CG with more than one conference team missed you have to follow the rule that no two teams that miss each other can also miss a common third team.  

That made it sound extremely complicated so an example will make it easier:

The obvious reason is that if you have three teams not playing each other then you have the possibility of ending up with three undefeated teams.  Ie:

This is important, I think, because while it sucks when your team is one of three with one loss that misses out it is a completely different thing for an undefeated team to miss out.  Ie, if Ohio State, Iowa, and Purdue all go 8-1 and my Buckeyes miss the CG due to tiebreakers I obviously would be disappointed but I'd understand and just figure "well that sucks but it happens".  However, if Ohio State, Iowa, and Purdue all go 9-0 and my Buckeyes miss the CG due to tiebreakers I'd be livid.  My team beat everybody in front of them, how can they not even have a chance at the league title?  

In theory you can figure this all out in your head but as a practical matter it is a lot easier to basically create "quasi-divisions" where all the teams in each play each other and then miss some fraction of the other.  
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 19, 2022, 12:12:02 PM
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on May 19, 2022, 11:22:25 AM
if Ohio State, Iowa, and Purdue all go 9-0...
...the B1G brass would figure out a way to pair Ohio State and Michigan in the CCG.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on May 19, 2022, 03:41:50 PM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 19, 2022, 12:12:02 PM
...the B1G brass would figure out a way to pair Ohio State and Michigan in the CCG.
LoL.  For reasons of ratings/revenue I'm sure they'd try to make sure that tOSU was in but they wouldn't actually jump a team with a worse record into it even if that worse record team was named tOSU or Michigan.  
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 19, 2022, 03:48:28 PM
Depends who they think is the better team perhaps. Or maybe the playoff committee rankings??
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: FearlessF on May 19, 2022, 04:18:17 PM
it doesn't have to be logical or fair

the only logic is $$$
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: MrNubbz on May 19, 2022, 06:17:20 PM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 19, 2022, 12:12:02 PM
...the B1G brass would figure out a way to pair Ohio State and Michigan in the CCG.
As long as UW keeps tanking in or before INDY what's it to you 😁

 (https://media.giphy.com/media/87NS05bya11mg/giphy.gif) 



Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: 847badgerfan on May 20, 2022, 07:32:37 AM
UW has not the payroll of OSU, and never will.

The last time UW beat OSU was 2010. 

I'm glad to have been there to witness the Badgers' final win against the evil empire.
Title: Re: Conferences with the 3+5+5 scheduling model
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on May 20, 2022, 09:45:01 AM
Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 20, 2022, 07:32:37 AM
UW has not the payroll of OSU, and never will.

The last time UW beat OSU was 2010.

I'm glad to have been there to witness the Badgers' final win against the evil empire.
Eh, things are cyclical.  As an Ohio State fan I'm obviously enjoying the current run but things change.  

Wisconsin lost 21 in a row to the Buckeyes from 1960-1980 by an average score of 33-8.  That included shutouts of:
That was preceded by a Wisconsin win in 1959, a tie in 1958, six more tOSU wins (1952-1957), another tie (1951, Woody's first year), then three more tOSU wins (1948-1950.  In total from 1948-1980 Wisconsin went 1-30-2 against Ohio State with an average score of 28-10.  Then things changed dramatically with Wisconsin winning five out of seven against the Buckeyes from 1981-1987.  This is amazing when you consider that prior to the 1981 win Wisconsin had only beaten Ohio State seven times ever and their prior five wins took place over nearly 70 years:


Looking at the series overall:

The spacing of the games in a little goofy:

Those last eight aren't a knock on Wisconsin.  Of the seven tOSU teams that have beaten Wisconsin since 2010 only the 2011 team finished with more than two losses.  The other six finished: