CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on May 24, 2022, 12:35:32 PM
-
With 14 teams in the league there are 13 potential opponents. The obvious solution is a 3+5+5 where you play three every year then the other ten alternating either every year or every two years after a H&H.
My methodology:
- The four Western schools (IA, UW, MN, UNL) all get each other as their three permanent rivals.
- The three pairs of in-state rivals all get each other as one of their three permanent rivals (M/MSU, IU/PU, IL/NU).
- THE GAME has to go every year (tOSU/M).
- Penn State will want Ohio State.
- Rutgers and Maryland get each other since they came in together and are both eastern.
- Maryland will want Penn State.
That gets me to here:
(https://i.imgur.com/rkKK2Nj.png)
I need one permanent rival each for UMD, PSU, tOSU and M and two permanent rivals each for RU, MSU, IU, PU, IL, and NU.
- Ohio State already has two "helmets" so their third should be a lightweight, I chose Rutgers.
- It makes sense to me for the Indiana and Illinois schools to all play each other every year due to proximity so I gave them to each other.
- Michigan State and Penn State have some history so I gave them to each other.
- That left me with two pairs of two teams that are already playing each other (RU/UMD and MSU/M) and each need one more permanent rival. I went with RU/MSU and UMD/M.
Thus, I present to you the B1G 3+5+5 schedule grid:
(https://i.imgur.com/CDwl1hZ.png)
Next is the issue of what to schedule each seasons' final weekend. I know that most Ohio State and Michigan fans will be apoplectic over this but I think that you just can't schedule the two winningest programs in the league against each other the week before a potential rematch in the CG so THE GAME has to lose it's final weekend slot. Additionally, where possible, we should avoid other likely CG match-ups so as to avoid a rematch just one week after the first game. My solution is:
- The three pairs of in-state rivals all play (M/MSU, IU/PU, IL/NU).
- I'd like the Axe game to be the final weekend so UW/MN get each other and that means that IA/UNL also get each other.
- Ohio State has to finish with Rutgers because otherwise it would be a helmet (PSU or M and M isn't available).
- That leaves PSU/UMD as the final last weekend game.
Thus, I present to you the B1G final weekend games:
(https://i.imgur.com/WXqeWdJ.png)
The next part is the most complicated. This has to be set up such that it is mathematically impossible for three teams to all go undefeated. In order to accomplish that any two teams that DO NOT play each other cannot have a common third team that they also don't play. I think that the easiest way to handle this is to simply figure it out one time and then just alternate (probably every two years so that you play one group of five teams H&H then the other group of five teams H&H. Furthermore, these groups of five should be reasonably balanced because you don't want to end up alternating between your two tough years and your two easy years.
This last part is a lot more complicated than it sounds. If you've ever taken the LSAT, it is like a REALLY complex LSAT question. What makes it tough is that there are so many moving parts. Ie, if Ohio State doesn't play IA, UW, MN, UNL, and UMD then all of them have to play each other. Then in the other group tOSU wouldn't play IU, PU, IL, NU, and MSU so all of them have to play each other. Then keep going for 13 more schools and try not to mix anything up.
-
Hmm... not sure I like that setup.
For UW, Minnie and Iowa are a must. I think Nebraska would probably rather have Penn State than Wisconsin anyway.
I also think Penn State fans would probably rather have Nebraska too.
Give me OSU and I'd be happy. If not OSU, then Michigan. If not Michigan, then Northwestern.
-
Is it locked they go to 8?
-
Everyone wants Northwestern, it's an extra home game for our Chicago alums.
I wonder if there is a way to have a balanced schedule like the NFL has had for years. The problem is that in a world where the 4 "best" teams go to the CFP, there is no incentive to have your good teams play each other. If all 5 conference champs got a bid, you could sell the ADs on that
-
Huskers don't have as many Chitown alums
won't be in the fight for NW
-
Huskers don't have as many Chitown alums
won't be in the fight for NW
Still, probably more Chitown fans than Northwestern. Probably more NYC fans than Rutgers.
Hell, we have a Nebraska fan in our neighborhood, but his wife went to Georgia, and the flag has still not come down since January
-
was always more RED in Evanston than purple
-
Much easier to sell the wife on a weekend trip to Chicago around a football game than Iowa City, State College or East Lansing
-
Ed Zachery
-
Much easier to sell the wife on a weekend trip to Chicago around a football game than Iowa City, State College or East Lansing
Be sure to wear your armored vest. :93:
-
I was gonna say... no thanks to Chicago. I'd stay in Evanston though.
-
Be sure to wear your armored vest. :93:
Spartan armor
-
Hmm... not sure I like that setup.
For UW, Minnie and Iowa are a must. I think Nebraska would probably rather have Penn State than Wisconsin anyway.
I also think Penn State fans would probably rather have Nebraska too.
Give me OSU and I'd be happy. If not OSU, then Michigan. If not Michigan, then Northwestern.
I was going for geographic proximity with that western group (UW/IA/MN/UNL) and the IL/IN group (IL/NU/PU/IU). The problem is that Lincoln, Nebraska is FAR from most every school. Per google maps, Memorial Stadium to other B1G Stadia:
- 306 mi, 4:33 to Kinnick
- 435 mi, 6:27 to TCF Bank
- 472 mi, 7:18 to Camp Randall
- 519 mi, 8:00 to Illinois Memorial Stadium
- 535mi, 8:04 to Ryan Field
- 610 mi, 9:33 to Ross-Ade
- 658 mi, 10:15 to Indiana Memorial Stadium
- 727 mi, 10:55 to Spartan Stadium
- 753 mi, 11:15 to the Big House
- 815 mi, 12:30 to The Horseshoe
- 1,075 mi, 16:21 to Beaver Stadium
- 1,205 mi, 18:28 to Maryland Stadium
- 1,287 mi, 19:33 to SHI Stadium
Madison-->Lincoln or vice-versa is drivable for a lot of people. It is a lot of driving for a weekend but you can do it. Madison-->Happy Valley or vice versa is a REALLY long trip.
Also, I'd prefer to apply these "rivalries" to BB and the non-revenue sports as well for two reasons:
- It would create a sense of continuity to play the same group of teams every year in FB and twice annually in BB, and
- In the non-revenue sports where travel costs are a significant issue it obviously makes sense to group teams geographically.
I fully realize that Nebraska is NOT one of the closest schools to Wisconsin: Per google maps, Camp Randall to other B1G stadia:
- 146 mi, 2:28 to Ryan Field
- 177 mi, 3:03 to Kinnick
- 252 mi, 3:50 to Illinois Memorial Stadium
- 268 mi, 4:09 to TCF Bank
- 269 mi, 4:38 to Ross-Ade
- 367 mi, 6:09 to Spartan Stadium (277 mi in 6:01 if you take a ferry from Milwaukee to Muskegon)
- 389 mi, 6:28 to the Big House (338 mi, 6:56 using the aforementioned ferry)
- 374 mi, 6:19 to Indiana Memorial Stadium
- 472 mi, 7:18 to Nebraska Memorial Stadium
- 504 mi, 8:04 to The Horseshoe
- 714 mi, 11:34 to Beaver Stadium
- 842 mi, 13:34 to Maryland Stadium
- 925 mi, 14:44 to SHI Stadium
If you did it solely by geographic proximity for Wisconsin they'd get NU, IA, and IL but then UNL and MN would end up paired with schools even further away. The same thing happens with Ohio State. Per google maps, Ohio Stadium to other B1G stadia:
- 185 mi, 3:07 to the Big House
- 225 mi, 3:36 to Indiana Memorial Stadium
- 243 mi, 3:45 to Ross-Ade
- 249 mi, 4:00 to Spartan Stadium
- 297 mi, 4:36 to Illinois Memorial Stadium
- 328 mi, 5:21 to Beaver Stadium
- 339 mi, 5:50 to Ryan Field
- 402 mi, 6:37 to Maryland Stadium
- 508 mi, 7:40 to Camp Randall
- 516 mi, 8:17 to SHI Stadium
- 561 mi, 8:10 to Kinnick
- 766 mi, 11:28 to TCF Bank
- 815 mi, 12:28 to Nebraska Memorial Stadium
If you did it solely on geographic proximity for Ohio State they'd get M, IU, and PU but then PSU, UMD, and RU would end up paired with schools even further away.
-
I could've sworn someone already posted about this. They even put something out there and asked for edits. :93:
-
I could've sworn someone already posted about this. They even put something out there and asked for edits. :93:
Yeah, but that one was kind of lame. This one is much better.
-
With so much hatred for me, how do you have any room to hate the gays, BLM, and what not?
-
To me geography is not important anymore - especially for football and hoops. It just isn't. Maybe it's because I don't go to games anymore, not sure. If we are going to have schools be a million miles apart (why?!?!?), then the matchups need to make sense.
-
geography is important to rivalries
programs that share a state border or share a state should play each other
don't worry at all about all teams playing each other regularly
if Nebraska didn't ever play Rutgers or Maryland, what would it hurt?
-
Wisconsin borders Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Michigan.
That makes NU, UI, Iowa, MN, MSU and UM. I like that.
There's 6 games. Who are the others to add to the schedule? I'd say Indiana, Purdue and OSU.
Sounds like a pre-PSU Big Ten to me.
-
see, this could be an improvement if done properly
I have my doubts
-
TV networks posing as Conferences. Geography be damned.
-
My God. Cutting back to 8 conference games? The Game not the final game of the season? Lunacy.
How about the Big Ten goes to 10+ conference games and does away with the conference championship and instead gives everyone another game?
-
I could've sworn someone already posted about this. They even put something out there and asked for edits. :93:
Sorry Fro, I did see your post but couldn't find it when I read an article about the B1G apparently dropping their future schedules on the website in what is a pretty clear indication that changes are in the works.
-
How about the Big Ten goes to 10+ conference games and does away with the conference championship and instead gives everyone another game?
the networks might like this
better content = better $$$
-
So I did this chart for everyone:
(https://i.imgur.com/7sB7f0o.png)
Note:
The distances to/from do not exactly match because I used Google Maps and sometimes when you flip a trip it chooses a slightly different route. Also I didn't turn off traffic and did this in bits and pieces over a few days so routes may have changed due to traffic at the time I was doing this. I also excluded ferries even though Google recommended some because they are seasonal and not exactly comparable. All in all I think it is close enough for approximations.
Some notes:
The shortest trips between B1G Stadia:
- 64 mi between M/MSU
- 92 mi between IL/PU
- 112/113 mi between IU/PU
- 141 mi between PU/NU
- 146 mi between NU/UW
- 152/163 mi between IL/IU
- 155 mi between IL/NU
- 177 mi between UW/IA
- 185/186 mi between tOSU/M
- 193 mi between UMD/RU
There are five 1,000+ mi trips between B1G stadia. The five involve the three easternmost schools (PSU, UMD, RU) and the two westernmost schools (UNL, MN). The longest trips between B1G Stadia:
- 1,287 mi between UNL/RU
- 1,202/1,205 between UNL/UMD
- 1,184/1,185 mi between MN/RU
- 1,101/1,103 mi between MN/UMD
- 1,075 mi between UNL/PSU
- 989 mi between IA/RU
- 973 mi between MN/PSU
- 925/926 mi between UW/RU
- 905 mi between IA/UMD
- 842 mi between UW/UMD
Twelve of the 14 have at least one conference opponent within 200 miles. The two exceptions:
- Minnesota's closest conference opponent is Wisconsin, 267 mi away
- Nebraska's closest conference opponent is Iowa, 303 mi away
Although Purdue has the shortest total combined distance to drive to each of the other 13 schools, Michigan State has the shortest longest trip at 727 mi to Nebraska while Purdue's longest trip is 751 mi to Rutgers which is also longer than Indiana's (734 to RU) and Michigan's (749 to Nebraska) longest trips.
Combined distance to drive one-way to each of the 13 other schools in the league:
- 4,766 from Purdue
- 4,832 from Northwestern
- 5,023 from Illinois
- 5,185 from Michigan
- 5,290 from Michigan State
- 5,322 from Indiana
- 5,448 from Ohio State
- 5,699 from Wisconsin
- 6,060 from Iowa
- 7,428 from Penn State
- 8,356 from Minnesota
- 8,616 from Maryland
- 9,394 from Nebraska
- 9,681 from Rutgers
Note the BIG gap between Iowa and Penn State. Iowa's total is closer to Purdue's than it is to Penn State's. Ie, all of the pre-1990 members except Minnesota are reasonably close to everybody else but the numbers are a lot larger for PSU, MN, UMD, UNL, and RU.
-
My God. Cutting back to 8 conference games? The Game not the final game of the season? Lunacy.
How about the Big Ten goes to 10+ conference games and does away with the conference championship and instead gives everyone another game?
On the league games issue:
As I've said before, I am conditionally for it. The condition is that it is part of the rumored schedule alliance. If we are replacing Minnesota with USC or Clemson on tOSU's schedule then I'm for it (I'd feel the same way if I were a Michigan fan although maybe sub Iowa for MN due to the little brown jug history). OTOH, if we are replacing Minnesota with Directional Michigan then I'm against it.
On moving THE GAME:
As an Ohio State fan and a lover of the history of THE GAME I get it, I truly do. That said, I think you (and most everyone else) are trying to hold on to something that is already gone. The biggest upset in the history of the series was in 1969 when #12 Michigan beat #1 Ohio State. Ohio State was not just any "#1" they had been #1 in 13 straight polls dating back to when the beat Michigan the previous year (50-14) and the Buckeyes were the defending National Champions.
That game was HUMONGOUS but the reasons for that just don't exist anymore:
- There was no CG back then so this was the last game before bowls for both teams.
- The BigTen had a "Rose Only" rule for bowls so this was definitely the last game for at least one of the two.
- The BigTen had a "No repeat" rule back then so this was the last game for Ohio State no matter the outcome.
- There was no CFP back then so there was only one more possible game.
That game, for Ohio State was for all of the following:
- A win in THE GAME, of course.
- An Outright League Title.
- A National Championship (because the Buckeyes were #1 and would not play another game).
Today that would be divided into at least four games:
- The Game
- The CG
- The CFP Semi-Final
- The CFP CG
Losing to Michigan in a similar situation would still suck but I wouldn't have to just stew over it for nine months until football started back up because there would be Ohio State games a week (if they made the CCG anyway) or a month (bowl) later. In a similar situation today Ohio State could still potentially win the league and national championships. Those would be REALLY good consolation prizes.
-
To me geography is not important anymore - especially for football and hoops. It just isn't. Maybe it's because I don't go to games anymore, not sure. If we are going to have schools be a million miles apart (why?!?!?), then the matchups need to make sense.
I get it but I think the distinction you made between football and hoops and the other sports IS important. Football and hoops are "revenue sports" meaning that they make money. It obviously costs more to send Wisconsin's football team almost 1,000 mi to New Jersey to play Rutgers than it does to put them on busses and drive ~150 miles down to Chicago to play Northwestern but if UW/RU would bring better ratings that EASILY makes up for the cost difference.
That, however, is absolutely NOT a factor for the non-revenue sports (everything other than FB and Men's BB). For all of those the cost of shipping UW's teams to New Jersey is just plain dead weight because there is zero return.
We could maximize profit by using two scheduling plans:
- A plan based on maximizing revenue for the Revenue Sports, and
- A plan based on minimizing costs for the non Revenue Sports.
I would prefer, for continuity purposes, that we use more of a hybrid plan that does a reasonable job of accomplishing both goals.
-
see, this could be an improvement if done properly
I have my doubts
This is the problem with much of college football.....there are good ways to implement the inevitable change, but it seems that all too often, the decisions are made by some old guys in a room with no connection with the outside world (ie - those good ideas for implementation).
-
those old guys aren't really that old to some of us
-
It's less about age and more about a willful ignorance of ideas that aren't theirs........oh....uh....yeah, you're right. It's about age.
-
I am not sure I like no divisions, but I can live with it. If that is what we are living with, Medina's scheduling method of three nonrotating rivals appears to me to be optimal. We need three nonrotating games because of Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Minnesota, which the group here seems to recognize, too. There is uncertainty amongst the group here about whether we need to pair Nebraska with Wisconsin. That said Minnesota, and Iowa need to be paired with each other, and with Nebraska, and Wisconsin.
As I have said before the Big Ten has become the Big 1, and Little 13. Instead of Ohio State being in the championship game 75% or more of the time, it will now be in the championship game 90% or more of the time with no divisions. Ohio State will have a great chance of being in the Top 2 when they are not in the Top 1.
Ohio State continues to shape the conference to its liking. Like it or not, Ohio State is to the Big Ten, like Texas was to the Big 12. Ultimately Texas severely damaged the Big 12. Hopefully that will not happen here.
I wouldn't mind 8 conference games, and do as we did in the 1st COVID season and schedule a 9th competitive game after the season has played out. It's a mystery game, and I thought that was cool even though Iowa and Michigan didn't get to play each other due to COVID-19. This could be accomplished by teams playing the 9th game the 1st week of December and the BTCG two weeks after the last regular season game, provided the 4-game national tournament agrees to select teams after the 2nd Saturday of December.
-
Would you guys rather the B1G stay at 14 teams and do the 3+5+5 thing or go to 16 and do the 4x4 pods thing?
The only difference is instead of these 5 one year and those 5 the other year, you'd have 2 from column A, 2 from column B, and 2 from column C, then the other 2 from each column the following year.
It's a great system if you actually want to play everyone in your conference and feel like it's an actual conference. Even with 16 teams!
Florida used to play Auburn every year and it was always a big game, but now I couldn't tell you the last time we played or when we'll face them again. No clue.
-
Why would you wan't to play Auburn instead of Vanderbilt?
It would make it more difficult to just cruise into the playoffs without even being challenged.
-
Ohio State continues to shape the conference to its liking. Like it or not, Ohio State is to the Big Ten, like Texas was to the Big 12. Ultimately Texas severely damaged the Big 12. Hopefully that will not happen here.
I wouldn't mind 8 conference games, and do as we did in the 1st COVID season and schedule a 9th competitive game after the season has played out.
Ohio St. won't cause the same damage because they share the $$$. More importantly, the rest of the conference has been pushed around by Ohio St for decades, they're used to it.
The whole idea going to 8 conference games is an easy path to the playoff. adding a 9th even more competitive game than luck of the draw ruins this. Perhaps you could have the #1 team, Ohio State and the #2 team ??? play the 14 & 13th teams.
-
Ohio St. won't cause the same damage because they share the $$$. More importantly, the rest of the conference has been pushed around by Ohio St for decades, they're used to it.
The whole idea going to 8 conference games is an easy path to the playoff. adding a 9th even more competitive game than luck of the draw ruins this. Perhaps you could have the #1 team, Ohio State and the #2 team ??? play the 14 & 13th teams.
Actually, my thought, was not expressed articulately. #s 3-14 play in the mystery game the first Saturday of December.
Everyone plays only 12-games, 9 of which are against conference opponents. The Top 2 do not play a 13th game. The Top 2's 12th game of the year is the BTCG.
Doomsayers will say that if Teams 3 and 4 play each other in the mystery game, the winner of that game arguably should have played in the BTCG, but I would say too bad, you should have played better your first 8 games.
-
that will work
helps bowl seeding for the winners
-
Actually, my thought, was not expressed articulately. #s 3-14 play in the mystery game the first Saturday of December.
Everyone plays only 12-games, 9 of which are against conference opponents. The Top 2 do not play a 13th game. The Top 2's 12th game of the year is the BTCG.
Doomsayers will say that if Teams 3 and 4 play each other in the mystery game, the winner of that game arguably should have played in the BTCG, but I would say too bad, you should have played better your first 8 games.
I like this idea as a means of balancing schedules but only with the caveat that other than the CG, the rest of the games need to match teams that DID NOT already play. I simply see no reason to add six extra rematches. Using last year as an example but with no divisions, the final standings were:
- 8-1 Michigan
- 8-1 Ohio State
- 7-2 Michigan State
- 7-2 Iowa
- 6-3 Minnesota
- 6-3 Wisconsin
- 6-3 Purdue
- 4-5 Penn State
- 4-5 Illinois
- 3-6 Maryland
- 2-7 Rutgers
- 1-8 Nebraska
- 1-8 Northwestern
- 0-9 Indiana
So the non-divisional CG would be a rematch of The Game which sucks for Michigan. The other six games would be:
- Michigan State vs Iowa
- Minnesota vs Penn State (Minnesota wins tie with UW and PU based on beating both H2H. They play PSU because that is the best team they didn't already play).
- Wisconsin vs Maryland (Wisconsin wins tie with PU based on beating them H2H. They play UMD because that is the best team they didn't already play).
- Purdue vs Rutgers (Purdue is the last of the 6-3 teams after the tiebreakers so they play the best remaining team they didn't already play)
- Illinois vs Indiana (Illinois is the next best remaining team so they play the only remaining team they didn't already play)
- Nebraska vs Northwestern (This is a rematch but it is forced by the fact that the two CG participants are from the East so there were going to be two B1G-W teams left over at the end).
I'm not keen on rematches so I wouldn't be thrilled with the tOSU/M and UNL/NU games but other than that I like this system and there would be some big stakes in a number of these games:
- tOSU/M would likely have been playing for a CFP spot. If tOSU wins then Michigan's earlier win is effectively erased and the Buckeyes go. If Michigan wins they reaffirm their earlier win and easily go to the CFP.
- MSU/IA would be playing for a high-end Bowl. In the actual history Iowa went to the Citrus and played Kentucky while MSU went to the Peach and played Pitt.
- MN/PSU would be interesting. Minnesota had a better record by two games but there is an argument that this was because they were in the easier division and didn't have to play PSU's tougher SoS. Well, lets find out. If PSU wins then it looks like MN's record was a product of an easier schedule. If MN wins then they look like a better team.
- UW/UMD is really not interesting to me. I think UW would have been favored by multiple scores.
- PU/RU, see UW/UMD.
- IL/IN would at least give IU a chance to win a game.
- UNL/NU can play for the title of NU.
-
Would you guys rather the B1G stay at 14 teams and do the 3+5+5 thing or go to 16 and do the 4x4 pods thing?
The only difference is instead of these 5 one year and those 5 the other year, you'd have 2 from column A, 2 from column B, and 2 from column C, then the other 2 from each column the following year.
It's a great system if you actually want to play everyone in your conference and feel like it's an actual conference. Even with 16 teams!
Florida used to play Auburn every year and it was always a big game, but now I couldn't tell you the last time we played or when we'll face them again. No clue.
In terms of scheduling either works for me. With the 3+5+5 you get each team twice every four years which is nice and with pods you get each team twice every six years which is good enough for me.
Thus, I really wouldn't care from a scheduling perspective. To me it is about adding positive revenue and compelling games. If the two additions are ISU and WVU then NO. If the two additions are UVA and UNC then YES.
-
Why would you wan't to play Auburn instead of Vanderbilt?
It would make it more difficult to just cruise into the playoffs without even being challenged.
Fine, we'll put Ohio State in a division with Alabama, Georgia, and the 85 Bears, you insufferable twat. Happy?
-
In terms of scheduling either works for me. With the 3+5+5 you get each team twice every four years which is nice and with pods you get each team twice every six years which is good enough for me.
Thus, I really wouldn't care from a scheduling perspective. To me it is about adding positive revenue and compelling games. If the two additions are ISU and WVU then NO. If the two additions are UVA and UNC then YES.
In pods, you still play every team twice every 4 years. And it's a 9 game league schedule.
.
Example:
Teams as letters:
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
Let's pretend we're Team A. We obviously don't play ourselves
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
We obviously play the other teams in our pod every season.
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
Now you add in 2 teams from the other 3 pods, say for 2022.
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
So in 2022, we play B, C, D, E, F, I, J, M, N.............that's 9 conference games. 4 or 5 are road games, obviously. So let's include that:
B, @C, D, @E, F, @I, J, @M, N. Great. That's 2022.
.
2023:
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
So in 2023, we have the same pod foes B, C, D plus the "other' teams we didn't play in 2022: G, H, K, L, O, P.
Let's add in the home/road aspect:
@B, C, @D, G, @H, K, @L, O, @P......9 conf games.
.
Now, in 2024, our schedule is the same as 2022, but the home/road is switched for the opponents outside of our pod:
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
2024: B, @C, D, E, @F, I, @J, M, @N......Same with 2025 being the same as 2023, just the home/road switched. I dont think I need to type it all out.
.
So you actually see all 15 other teams every 2 years! And you see them home AND away every 4 years.
It's really quite good.
-
As I have said before the Big Ten has become the Big 1, and Little 13. Instead of Ohio State being in the championship game 75% or more of the time, it will now be in the championship game 90% or more of the time with no divisions. Ohio State will have a great chance of being in the Top 2 when they are not in the Top 1.
I don't think there is much (if any) risk of that because the dynamic here is vastly different than it was in the B12.
The problem in the B12 wasn't that Texas was better at football then everybody else, they weren't. Actually when the conference was new the issue was that the B12-N was too strong because the best two teams were UNL and KSU. Then later the B12-S was too strong because the best two teams were OU and UT but it was never really UT all alone.
The issue from the very beginning was that there was simply too much dead wood in the B12 from a revenue perspective. As originally formed the B12 was made up of:
- Four schools from Texas
- Two schools from Oklahoma
- Two schools from Kansas
- Missouri
- Colorado
- Nebraska
- Iowa State
Texas has a humongous population but having four schools from there in a major conference never made sense. They don't have four times the population of Ohio. Moreover, Texas' football fans aren't evenly distributed over UT, aTm, TxTech, and Baylor anyway. My impression is that Texas has the lion's share, aTm is next, and the rest have relatively small fanbases.
Two schools each from Oklahoma and Kansas makes no sense. The B1G has two schools each from Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan but Oklahoma's and Kansas' population is nowhere close to those states.
Iowa State is definitively NOT the main or "flagship" school in Iowa and, like OK and KS, Iowa's population is substantially less than IL, IN, and MI.
OkSU, KSU, ISU, and either Baylor or TxTech never brought enough fans to the table to be logical P5 teams. The B1G has that with Northwestern and the SEC has it with the second schools in TN and MS but one or two in a league isn't a major issue. With the B12, at least a third of their members simply didn't bring enough fans/eyeballs to the table. The B12 didn't share revenue equally because they couldn't. Texas brought the most fans (by a longshot) and they clearly were never going to settle for an even share of revenue in a league with the second schools in OK, KS, and IA plus the second, third, and fourth schools in TX.
The B1G is vastly different. Ohio State has a huge fanbase but there are other huge fanbases in the league (M, PSU, UNL) and even a lot of the league's non-helmets have decent sized fanbases. The Buckeyes aren't nearly as imbalanced here as Texas was in the B12.
A number of years ago the NYT did a study where they used website clicks to measure fanbase size (https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/) and they came up with the following top-10:
- tOSU
- M
- PSU
- ND
- TX
- aTm
- Auburn
- Bama
- UF
- Clemson
They did determine that tOSU's fanbase was the biggest (I have my doubts) but that isn't my point. The more important point is that Ohio State's fanbase is approximately equal to Michigan's (for this purpose it makes no difference which is larger, just that they are approximately the same). Then Penn State's is not much smaller than those two. Within the B1G per the NYT article:
- 3.2M, tOSU
- 2.9M, M
- 2.6M, PSU
- 1.4M, UW
- 1.3M, IA
- 1.2M, UNL
- 1.1M, MSU
- 1.0M, IL
- 1.0M, MN
- 0.9M, RU
- 0.6M, IU
- 0.6M, PU
- 0.5M, NU
- 0.5M, UMD
Ohio State doesn't and can't push the B1G around because they aren't the only game in town. M and PSU have fanbases approximately equal to tOSU's. UW and IA combined have about as many fans as tOSU. UNL, MSU, and IL combined have about as many fans as tOSU. There is very little dead weight in the B1G. Per the NYT article Baylor, KSU, and ISU would all be nearly dead last in the B1G.
-
gee whiz, every 4 years
talk about keeping rivalries alive
NOT
-
Uh....i said twice every 4 years.....as in every other year.
.
Compare that to the 14-team SEC's current scheduling brilliance of non-divisional/non-"rival" teams playing once every 6 years and you have a major improvement.
But please, complain more.
-
my point is that conferences are too big
you should play everyone in your conference every season
if a 16 team conference has two divisions, just play everyone in your division every season
it's really just two conferences joined by a championship game and a TV contract
-
Okay, but until you build a time machine, we are when we are. Playing 3 of your most meaningful rivals (hopefully) every year plus playing everyone else every other year is an incredible reality which is light years better than what is happening now.
.
How it's set up now is lazy and stupid.
-
well, jump into your time machine and go to the future where we have pods or whatever
you may find the NCAA has been redone or killed off
you may find only 64 div I teams playing each other in football
you may find that Northwestern has given up football
you may find that Kirk Ferentz is still coaching and hasn't used the portal yet
-
Kirk getting a 50 year extension with a billion dollar buyout?
-
telling my hawkeye friends that Kirk is too stubborn to use the portal or to pay players
could accelerate his demise
yes, he can still get the 2 & 3 stars and develop them and put a solid team on the field, but it could cause the hawks to drop a spot or two in the west
cause once the 3 star gets developed and is playing at a high level ---- he can go for the $$$
-
In pods, you still play every team twice every 4 years. And it's a 9 game league schedule.
.
Example:
Teams as letters:
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
Let's pretend we're Team A. We obviously don't play ourselves
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
We obviously play the other teams in our pod every season.
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
Now you add in 2 teams from the other 3 pods, say for 2022.
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
So in 2022, we play B, C, D, E, F, I, J, M, N.............that's 9 conference games. 4 or 5 are road games, obviously. So let's include that:
B, @C, D, @E, F, @I, J, @M, N. Great. That's 2022.
.
2023:
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
.
So in 2023, we have the same pod foes B, C, D plus the "other' teams we didn't play in 2022: G, H, K, L, O, P.
Let's add in the home/road aspect:
@B, C, @D, G, @H, K, @L, O, @P......9 conf games.
.
Now, in 2024, our schedule is the same as 2022, but the home/road is switched for the opponents outside of our pod:
Pod 1: A, B, C, D
Pod 2: E, F, G, H
Pod 3: I, J, K, L
Pod 4: M, N. O, P
2024: B, @C, D, E, @F, I, @J, M, @N......Same with 2025 being the same as 2023, just the home/road switched. I dont think I need to type it all out.
.
So you actually see all 15 other teams every 2 years! And you see them home AND away every 4 years.
It's really quite good.
I don't really have any objection to this but I don't think this is the way it will ultimately be done.
At this point our conferences are basically TV Networks masquerading as Associations of Universities and those networks want high-end content. Within the B1G the high end content is games among helmets (tOSU, M, PSU, probably UNL) followed by games between helmets and near-helmets (IA, MSU, UW etc) followed by games between near-helmets.
Consequently, I think the structure (assuming nine games) will be that you play six teams every year (the three in your "pod" and one from each of the other three pods) then you fill out your schedule with the other three teams from one of the other three pods on a rotating basis.
It is easiest to think of this as a grid like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/PrxE52t.png)
So Michigan would play:
- tOSU, UNL, PSU, MSU, PU, and NU every year
- Rotate between RU/IU/IL, IA/UW/MN, and UMD/UNC/UVA
Michigan State would play:
- RU, IA, UMD, M, PU, and NU every year
- Rotate between tOSU/IU/IL, UNL/UW/MN, and PSU/UNC/UVA
Ohio State would play:
- M, UNL, PSU, RU, IU, and IL every year
- Rotate between MSU/PU/NU, IA/UW/MN, and UMD/UNC/UVA
Etc.
I've fine tuned this over a LONG time and it accomplishes what I think the leagues will want:
- A lot of high-end content for the TV Contract: tOSU/M, tOSU/PSU, tOSU/UNL, M/UNL, M/PSU, UNL/PSU are played every year.
- Every team plays one of the four helmets every year and also plays one of the other three every year. This is important for the smaller school AD's because they sell the most tickets when tOSU/M/PSU/UNL comes to town. If you are say Northwestern's AD you KNOW that you are going to get a visit from one of those four EVERY year. You'll also get your in-state rival at home every other year along with PU which is close enough to send a lot of fans and MSU which isn't too far either.
- Geography is a consideration for most of the every year games. Every "pod" except the S is geographically concise. Also, a lot of the row-mates are close to each other (tOSU/M, PU/IU, NU/IL).
This also accomplishes some goals that the league probably doesn't care much about but that we as fans do:
- With six teams that you play every year it will feel like a conference. Those six will "feel like" your league.
- The top row teams are the winningest teams in the league so having them all play each other every year should balance schedules somewhat.
Even without divisions you could still use the same format because it creates rotating quasi-divisions and eliminates the possibility of more than two undefeated teams. Ie, if the N and S "pods" are playing each other and tOSU goes undefeated then it is mathematically impossible for any other row-1, N Pod, or S Pod team to go undefeated (because tOSU would have to beat them to go undefeated). Thus the only potential undefeated teams would be the other three teams in the E and W pods (IA, UMD, UW, UNC, MN, UVA). Only one of them could possibly go undefeated because they all play each other.
-
Note for the above:
With the elimination of the need for divisions you could do this basically without telling anyone you were doing it. I think a lot of people object to the term "pods" and it just seems confusing if you are temporarily combining pods to form divisions so the elimination of divisions altogether simplifies things because you don't have to deal with that anymore. You have "quasi-divisions" which rotate:
- NS and EW one year
- NE and SW one year
- NW and SE one year
That said, the "divisions" only exist as a scheduling crutch to make sure that only two teams can go undefeated. Once the schedule is made there are no divisions there are just 16 teams and the best two will go to the CG. Whether or not those teams are from the same temporary "quasi-division" is irrelevant. All that matters is record.
One final thought:
If it were up to me I'd have some really strange tie-breakers in certain situations.
You don't really need a tiebreaker for a two-team tie for #1 because it doesn't matter, both teams are going to the CG. I guess you'd need some method to determine which team wears home jerseys but I could care less what that is.
If you had a tie among three or more teams for #1 my tiebreakers would be:
- H2H2H - with the notation that 2-0 IS better than 1-0 and 1-0 IS better than 0-0 and 0-0 IS better than 0-1#.
- Scoring differential in games among the tied teams*.
- CFP Ranking
If you had a tie among two or more teams for #2 my tiebreakers would be:
- Record against the #1 team - with the notation that 0-0 IS better than 0-1^.
- H2H.
- CFP Ranking.
# For example, suppose that last year Iowa hadn't played either tOSU or M but tied them at 8-1. In that case the tiebreaker would be:
- 1-0 Michigan
- 0-0 Iowa
- 0-1 Ohio State
So the CG would be Michigan and Iowa.
* I like using scoring differential among the tied teams here because I think it most accurately determines the best team. The example I always think of is the BIG12-S three-way tie between Texas, Oklahoma, and TxTech back in 2008:
- Oklahoma beat TxTech by 44 (65-21) and lost to Texas by 10 (45-35) for a scoring differential of +34
- Texas beat Oklahoma by 10 (45-35) and lost to TxTech by 6 (39-33) for a scoring differential of +4
- Texas Tech beat Texas by 6 (39-33) and lost to Oklahoma by 44 (65-21) for a scoring differential of -38
In that scenario I'd put OU and UT in the CG and I think they were clearly the two best teams, the scoring differential demonstrates that IMHO.
Using scoring differential generally as a tiebreaker would be a mistake IMHO because it would encourage contenders to run up the score against hapless opponents. Thus I would NOT favor it. This application is a limited situation in which we are only using scoring differential among the tied teams so running up the score against a bad opponent doesn't help you. It only helps to run up the score against quality opponents.
^ This one is unusual and would be HIGHLY controversial but I would prefer it. My example here is the Big11Ten back in 2006. Ohio State won the league at 8-0 while M and UW were tied for second at 7-1. Michigan's loss was by a FG at Ohio State while Wisconsin's loss was by two TD's at Michigan. Most tiebreaking schemes would put Michigan in over Wisconsin because Michigan beat Wisconsin H2H. My thinking here is that Michigan already had a chance against Ohio State and lost. Lets give Wisconsin a chance. I'd rather see a tOSU/UW game that wasn't played that year than a rematch of tOSU/M.
-
Some really great points there MB.
I'm beginning to thing you have put more effort into this than the commish (dork) has.
Send an email to King Barry. He's in charge of football now.
-
Note for the above:
With the elimination of the need for divisions you could do this basically without telling anyone you were doing it. I think a lot of people object to the term "pods"
I totally agree.
I can envision an excited southerner complaining about pods and winding up a rant with alien probes and what-not.
-
I totally agree.
I can envision an excited southerner complaining about pods and winding up a rant with alien probes and what-not.
I think part of it is something that us easy for us to forget. All of us here are serious fans. If the B1G and SEC went to pods with rotating divisions you and I would be familiar with that. If our teams were expected to be contenders we'd know which teams we were expected to contend with.
You'd know that in year 1 Florida's competition for the CG was say LSU and that if Florida won they'd likely face Bama. Then the next year you'd know that UF's competition was Bama and that if they won they'd likely face LSU.
For a more casual fan this would be ridiculously complicated. They'd never understand why tOSU was competing with Michigan to play Wisconsin one year then competing with Wisconsin to play Michigan the next.
-
TV contracts for a group of programs don't have to ruin raditional rivalries, but they do
because............ not folks of a certain age........... because folks of a certain limited creativity
it's not a tumor!!!
-
There is something I wanted to add on this that I think favors the idea of dropping divisions and going to a top-2 CG.
In the B1G we presently have a pretty significant imbalance between the Divisions. The B1G-E has won all eight B1GCG's in the B1G-E/B1G-W era. In theory that could be solved by attempting to design balanced divisions but there are several problems:
- I think most people favor logical and easy-to-remember geographic divisions. Most people hated the Legends/Leaders even though it was apparently designed to create balance.
- Things change over time.
That second point is the one I want to focus on here.
After Alabama (SEC-W) won the inaugural SECCG, the SEC-E won six straight with the Gators (4) and Volunteers (2) frequently the perceived best two teams in the league. Then there was a period of relative balance with the SEC-E (UFx3, UGAx2) and the SEC-W (Bama, LSUx2, Auburn) each winning five SECCG's between 1999 and 2008. Then the SEC-W took over and won eight straight from 2009-2016 and 12 of 13 from 2009-2021.
The Big12CG had a similar change in imbalance. It is a little harder to recognize in the B12 because their CG had a slew of upsets but the higher ranked team at kickoff was:
- 4 straight from the B12-N from 1996-1999
- 7 straight from the B12-S from 2000-2006.
- 1 from the B12-N in 2007
- 3 straight from the B12-S from 2008-2010
No matter how well designed the divisions are, this is something that is fluid and will change over time. We've seen the stronger division in the SEC switch from SEC-E to SEC-W and the stronger division in the B12 switch from B12-N to B12-S. Dropping divisions eliminates this problem. The best two teams just play even if they are UNL and KSU or UT-A and OU or Bama and Auburn or UF and TN or yes, tOSU and M.