Big Ten Expansionfiasco: Silver Linings

All the folks that love the "Eye Of Sauron" are within the eye.  For the eye-outsiders, it's a brutal mess.

the conference tried to get cutesy once and gave us Legends and Leaders. if they try to get cute again, no matter if it makes all the sense in the world, they will continue getting roasted by the national media.

9 game conference schedule with no crossovers (MSU in the east) gets michigan vs the west once every 3 years and every 6 years at the opponent stadium.

The prospect of replacing traditional Big Ten teams on the schedule with Maryland and Rutgers is...depressing

But what about the Hopkins LAX rumors, BRA?

Draw a line from Lincoln to Ann Arbor on that map up there. NW and SE divisions. Done.

Why do we continue to assume the B1G will remain a two division conference? That makes absolutely no sense to me. The most sensible thing the conference can do is explore dividing the conference into 3 or 4, picking up two more schools down the eastern seaboard. Make the B1G a mid / north / south conference. Maintaining a two division conference, when a professional model of 3-4 divisions would afford a more lucrative, competitively balanced, and geographically balanced conference, makes NO sense.

The difference between a 2 division conference and a 3-4 division conference is one more playoff game to choose a legitimate conference champion. Cap the conference play at 8 games (3 of which have to be within your division), add 1 to the playoffs, allow 2 inter-conference games to beef up your team's national ranking (likely resulting in less cupcakes), and you have a net game increase of 0. Meanwhile, it would guarantee the conference champion is a legit contender for a BCS bowl. Why isn't this being discussed?

*with 3 divisions, the division champs would be the ones with the best conference records in each division, and the fourth "wild-card" playoff team would be the team with the best overall record. Tie-breaks go the best intra-division record. In any event, I ultimately favor two more teams for a 16 member, 4 division conference. Whether the 4 divisions will be consolidated into 2 "leagues", or whether playoffs will be simply record-based, is a much more interesting conversation than the idea of sticking with 2 bumbling that dilute rivalries, interest, and parity. Isn't it? Am I crazy?

and be done with it.  It won't even matter that much what the divisions are since everyone will be pretty much playing everyone (and we don't have to watch any more cupcake games or complain about how easy some other team's non-conference schedule is).

I hope MSU ends up in the same division as UM and OSU.  We're going to have to play MSU every year with a protected cross-over, so fuck them, and stick them in a divison with probably the two most powerful progams in the B1G and watch them squirm.  Plus, again, considering we're going to have to play them every year in a protected cross-over, it keeps us MSU and Ohio on more equal footing scheduling wise.

From mGrowOld:

I fear this speculation is meaningless as whatever path makes the most sense to all parties concerned will  be immediately discarded by B1G leadership in favor of something noboby likes or understands.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

I'm all for the idea being floated as long as they keep MSU with us in the East. I don't want protected rivalries, and Michigan-MSU is probably the conference's second fiercest, second most entertaining rivalry. Maryland and Rutgers will take some getting used to, though.

Division A:  The original ten members of the Big Ten.

Division B:  PSU, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers.

The conference championship would be awarded to the team in Division A that has the best record during the regular season against the other members of Division A. There would need to be tie-breakers, of course...As for the regular season, Division A and Division B teams would not play each other unless they scheduled "non-conference" games against one another.   

Any scenario in which UM is in the same division as OSU and MSU seems like a win.  How many of us really care if we don't play Iowa or Illinois or Indiana or Northwestern every hear. 

I understand the nostalgia for the Big Ten with ten actual teams, but that day is gone.  Even if UM plays in a division with MSU, OSU, and then a bunch of teams who weren't in the B1G before 1990, is that really so bad?  Maybe for some.  I do beel bad for those people.  I don't care all that much.  And you'd still get a couple of those other teams every year.

The inner-outer scenario seems very unlikely -- it's not a particularly good set up for the Eastern push, for instance, and pretty much screws over the outer teams. 

You have to ask yourself: what are my primary interests?  Getting into the same division as OSU and keeping the Game on the last week of the season seems by far and way the 1st.  Keeping MSU seems like the second.  You're getting those. 

It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

Brian,

If you added 2 more ACC schools why would you just got East and West at that point?

Michigan, MSU and OHIO would just play in the east with the current 3 east B1G teams (PSU, Rutgers and Maryland) and the 2 new ACC schools.

A sixteen-team conference with two fixed 8-team divisions would work out fine geographically with a nine-game conference schedule.  Assuming Virginia and Georgia Tech are the 15th and 16th programs, then here's a simple East-West Split-

East:  Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech

West:  Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue

That's pretty straightforward.  With a nine-game conference schedule, teams would play the seven in their division plus two in the other division (7-2).  If the B1G opted not to make those cross-divisional games home-and-home on the schedule, then the teams in each of the divisions would play one another once in a four year period.  Admittedly, this would mean that teams wouldn't travel to all eight different schools in that time frame, but there would be at least one game apiece with all the other squads.

In this setup, Michigan would play Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Virgnia, Georgia Tech and two of the West Division teams each year.  The pro side is UM gets to play its conference rivals, have two games on the east coast each year and still have two more games against traditional B10 teams in the western division.

The other way to do it is construct four 4-team pods and having them rotate every two years.  A team would play the three programs in its pods plus four in the pods its paired up with and two more teams in a third pod.  After two years, swap pods and keep the same set up.  That ensures team get at least two games per opponent every four years.

The pods could be set up as follows:

Pod A:  Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota

Pod B:  Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue

Pod C:  Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State

Pod D;  Rutgers, Maryland, Virgnia, Georgia Tech.

With this setup, Michigan would play Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State annually.  In Years 1 and 2, Pod C and Pod D form one division and UM would also play Rutgers, Maryland, Virgniia and Georgia Tech.  The fnal two games are from opponents in Pod A (perhaps paired up this way--Nebraska/Minnesota and Wisconsin/Iowa)

In Years 3 and 4, Pod B and Pod C form one division.  Michgian continues to play MSU, OSU and PSU, but now the rest of the division is Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana and Purdue.  The final two games are the two opponents in Pod A that weren't played in Years 1 and 2.

So in a four-year cycle, Michigan would have four games with Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State and two games apiece (one home, one away) with the other twelve teams in the conference for 36 total conference games.  The winners of the two divisions would go onto the conference championship game.

I don't agree with Brian's assessment that the Big Ten can't have all its teams play one another in a four-year period in a sixteen-team conference.  The two methods I described above work and the second one was used during the brief period when the WAC had 16 teams. 

Obviously, the schedule would be rounded out with three non-conference games and in years where Michigan had four home conference games, those three OOC contests would have to be played in Ann Arbor to ensure seven home games are played at Michigan Stadium.  That means one of those three non-conference games can be a home-and-home series.

You can set up the pods differently, but the one I outlined above is mindful of geography and most of the rivalry/desired games.  Its not perfect on all accounts because the Little Brown Jug and the Illinibuck, for example, would be contest for two years out of every four.  It also ensures that Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa are always in one divisions and Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State are in the other for some semblance of competitive balance.

East-West divisions could work with a 9 game conference schedule. 

Michigan would play:

Ohio

Sparty

PSU

Purdue

Rutgers

Maryland-every year with 3 crossover games against:

Minnesota (other trophy game)

annual rotation of 2 of the other 6 teams

Nebraska-Wisconsin

Northwestern-Iowa

Illinois-Indiana

I like this because it protects our other trophy game, and more often than not we'll play 3 of the remaining 6 schools if we're in the title game.

The knock to the 9 game schedule is the competitive imbalance:  Some teams get 4 conference home games, some get 5. 

Couldn't the scheduling be set up so that all teams in the same division have the same number of conference home games?  The entire "leaders" division gets 5 home games one year, the "Legends" division gets 5 the next.  That way there is at least an equal competitive home-away basis for getting to the B1G Championship Game.

Wow.....a front page bump that wasn't Seth making fun of me.  I'm all tingly.

Let's just have Michigan play Ohio EVERY week and whoever wins the season series gets to go to Abu Dhabi for the BIG54 Championship Game. 

That last comment comes to you courtesy of a man who posts bikini pictures of his wife on the Internet.

I don't understand how playing a 10-game conference schedule would significantly hurt gate receipts, or how it would force us to play only uninteresting teams OOC.  Take a look at what would happen if we played 10 conference games (5 at home), 1 home-game MACrifice, and regular home-and-home series with other OOC power schools (at home every other year).  Our annual home schedule would be:

• 5 B1G games
• 1 non-BCS-level opponent
• 0.5 interesting OOC matchups (every other year)

Compare that to our current annual home schedule:

• 4 B1G games
• 2 non-BCS-level opponents
• 0.5 games against ND
• 0.67 more non-BCS-level home games (Michigan played another non-BCS-level opponent at home in '08, '09, '10, '11; Alabama in Dallas in '12; and will play at Connecticut in 2013)

We haven't played a home game against an interesting nonconference opponent other than ND since 2007 (Oregon).  So essentially, if we play 10 conference games and swap out ND for a high-level OOC opponent, we would trade an average of 1.67 non-BCS home tickets for 1 B1G home ticket.  Given that discriminatory pricing (charging different ticket prices based on the quality of the opponent) seems to have gained widespread acceptance in college football, I would imagine the athletic department could make up the money from the extra 2/3rds of a MAC home game each year by increasing the price of a B1G home game ticket by 10% each (of course, the increase for each game would depend on the quality of the opponent).  I think most fans would agree this is well worth it in order to have almost every home game be interesting.

Not only that, but the B1G could easily make up the lost revenue through its TV deals.  You think ABC/ESPN wouldn't gladly pay more for their broadcast rights if they could broadcast 11 BCS-level Michigan games per year instead of the current 9?  Or that the B1G Network couldn't sell a few more ads and get into a few more markets if the lower-tier games they received were interesting matchups that had a bearing on the conference title, instead of seeing Jack Kennedy take snaps when beating UMass by 50?

10 conference games makes sense in every way.  Plus, needless to say, it's great for the vast majority of fans who watch almost all their games on TV.  Let's stop subsidizing the MAC and do this.

I think we are gonna end up at 20 teams, 2 divisions of 10. You play everyone in your division (9 games) and the division winners go into a defacto national quarterfinal. Winners of 4 conferences (20 teams each) go to a playoff.



Whatever is decided now wont last more than 2 years.