Nine Game Conference Schedule In 2017

I'd like to see everyone play a BCS opponent outside of our conference. Illinois could play Missouri. Nebraska could play Oklahoma. PSU could play Pitt, Maryland, WVU, etc. It would give everyone 10 legitimate opponents every year and probably give our conference the toughest collective SOS.

The biggest "losers" in this are the MAC and POSSIBLY Notre Dame.

MAC for the obvious reason - Less non-conference games will be played, making it more likely there is less $$$ coming in from the games.

Notre Dame - Michigan, Michigan St and Purdue play Notre Dame on a yearly basis.  The series with Northwestern has resumed (2014 and 2018).  Notre Dame also used to play Penn State and Ohio State regularly.  This may torpedo additional games and possibly hinder one of their current games.

"Winners"?

FCS teams - More likely for teams to bring in a Delaware St type, as opposed to a high MAC program.

Big Ten (as weird as it sounds) - It goes back to the most recent conference schedule of "play everyone but 2 teams."  PAC 10 (now PAC 12) has gained more credibility in recent years with the addition of a 9th conference game.  Big 12 has gone a similar route.

With the general trend towards 9 conference games (Big Ten, Big 12, PAC 12), will we hear calls for a 13th game to be added?

ever get back to competing for the NC every year, but you'd be a fool if you thought they wont continue to get better and become a top 25 team year in and year out.  There is so much money floating around that program, they will do whatever they have to in order to get back up on the totem pole.  They've just been struggling a bit because of the Ty Willingham thing and because of the failed Charlie Weis experiment.

I hate ND so much, but I would put money on them finishing a season in the top 10 within the next five years and continuing to succeed from there.

Michigan means infinitly nore to nd than nd means to Michigan.  nd gave the B1G the finger about joining the conference and I wish every single B1G team would drop them for all football schedules.

The reason they didn't join wasn't for $$, it was because they knew they couldn't be relevent every freaking year.  tsio whomped them the 2 years they played and they just recently split with PSU.  They know that playing in the B1G leaves them out of any "mythical" sense of destiny the media builds every year.

"To Hell with Notre Dame" ... thanks Bo!

Go Blue!

Nebraska, Michigan State and Iowa all play five home conference games in 2017 from the Legends Division along with Illinois, Indiana and Ohio State from the Leaders Division.

I'm going to make a couple of scheduling assumptions here.  The first is that the UM-MSU and UM-OSU series rotations stay the same.  In odd years, Michigan plays at Michigan State and hosts Ohio State in Ann Arbor.  In even years, Michigan plays at OSU and hosts MSU at Michigan Stadium.

The second assumption deals with Iowa and its two trophy games with Nebraska and Minnesota.  If the current scheduling rotation holds thru 2017, IA will be playing at NE and MN that season.  Since IA plays five home conference games, that means Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern will all be playing in Iowa City that season.

What that means for Michigan is that in 2017, two of its three division away games are Michigan State and Iowa--both teams playing five home conference games.  That leaves Minnesota, Northwestern and Nebraska as possibility for the third division away game.

David Brandon has said he doesn't want to play Notre Dame, Nebraska and Ohio State all at home or all away.  Since the 2017 ND game is scheduled for Ann Arbor (as is the OSU game), it would mean that if the Big Ten agreed to Brandon's stated requiement, then Nebraska would be the third road division game for Michigan that season (along with MSU and IA). 

I'm going to make one more assumption here.  Brandon has been quoted as saying during the decision making process behind setting up the two divisions last year is that he wanted to keep Penn State as a rival.  Seeing how the conference scheduled UM and PSU since the Nittany Lions joined the conference in 1993, I assume the Big Ten agreed with that.  My guess is that Penn State and Wisconsin will rotate two years on/two years off on Michigan's schedule with one of Indiana, Illlinois and Purdue as the third opponent from the Leaders Division.  PSU won't be on UM's schedule every year because Delany has said there will be no second protected rivalries.  PSU is on Michigan's schedule in 2013/14, which means Wisconsin is probably on in 2015/6.  Indiana is on 2013/14 schedule, which means Illinois or Purdue are on 2015/16 schedule.

So here's a best guess at what Michigan's 2017 season schedule will look like based on the assumptions above:

9/2 - MAC-LEVEL OPPONENT

9/9 - NOTRE DAME

9/16 - MAC-LEVEL OPPONENT

Four Home Conference Games:  MINNESOTA, NORTHWESTERN, OHIO STATE, ONE OF ILLINOIS/INDIANA/PURDUE

Five Away Conference Games:  At Nebraska, At Iowa, At Michigan State, At Penn State, At One of Illinois/Indiana/Purdue

In 2018 (and 2019), the Notre Dame series takes a hiatus, so another major non-conference home-and-home series gets scheduled in its place.  The schedule for 2018 looks like this:

Home Games - 2 MAC LEVEL OPPONENTS, NEBRASKA, IOWA, MICHIGAN STATE, PENN STATE, ONE OF ILLINOIS/INDIANA/PURDUE

Away Games - At Major Non-Confernce Opponent, At Minnesota, At Northwestern, At Ohio State, At One of Illinois/Indiana/Purdue

In 2019 and 2020, Wisconsin replaces Penn State, but the rotation stays the same.  ND series can restart in 2020 if both parties agree.

What's the trade off for the fans with the nine-game conference schedule?  It certainly means one less home game per season because there won't be alternating years of eight and seven home games per year.  Obviously, also, if there are any neutral site games, that might mean six home games in selected years.

I put two "MAC LEVEL" opponents on the schedules above, but it might well be one MAC team plus a second non-MAC opponent.  In 2011 thru 2013, that would means teams like Connecticut, San Diego State and Air Force.  We're not a major non-conference opponent like Alabama, but certainly not a team like Eastern Michigan either--something that may be a bit more middle of the road, but certainly a program willing to pay for play.  It could be someone from the Mountain West (where SDSU and AFA come from) or perhaps a Conference USA program.  We'll know as the schedules get released, but if Brandon is willing to adding Air Force to next year's schedule, then I could see him keeping that practice in place going forward. 

This set up also splits up the Notre Dame/Major Non-Conference Opponent, Ohio State, Nebraska and Penn State/Wisconsin into two home games and two away each season.  That means the schedules aren't lopsided one way or the other each year.

Let's do a hypothetical and say Georgia replaces Notre Dame in 2018 as a home-and-home opponent and the other two non-conference home games are against Central Michigan and Houston from Conference USA (because UM likes to recruit in Texas).  Here's what a possible UM schedule would look like.

CENTRAL MICHIGAN (MAC)

At Georgia (SEC)

HOUSTON (C-USA)

INDIANA (Leaders)

At Northwestern (Legends)

MICHIGAN STATE (Legends)

At Purdue (Leaders)

NEBRASKA (Legends)

At Minnesota (Legends)

PENN STATE (Leaders)

AT Ohio State (Leaders)

Those seven home games would be what your annual $500 per ticket would be paying for--one MAC team, one C-USA and five Big Ten teams including Penn State and Nebraska.

In 2019, the seen home games would be one MAC, perhaps one from the Mountain West, Georgia, and four Big Ten teams including Ohio State. 

...thought.

That's why I said they wouldn't be actively looking for a team. However, if a good team came knocking on the door, I don't think they'd turn them down.

But, but, he's saving the economy!!!  Look at what a good guy he is!!!

and have to get out of the deal. I'm sure there are buyout /opt out clauses in the deals.

So what?

Hell yeah! Let's go to 11 B1G games, and say screw you NCAA, we're playing 2 non-con games on top of that. You can push the season back another week and have not one but six conference games on championship weekend. One conference championship game cannot (I think) make as much money as six regular conference games. A full round robin will be perfectly fair, decide a worthy Rose Bowl participant, and force the SEC and Pac-12 to do the same thing. More football for everyone!

Pipe dream, though, as long as the NCAA has the 12 game a season rule and teams need 6 wins to get bowl-eligible.

Interesting point, but I disagree with your conclusion.  Division winners are determined by overall conference record, not division record, so I don't think the distribution of inter-division/intra-division home games matters as much as you're saying (except for the tiebreaker).  Here's one way to think about it:  If two teams from the same division played identical opponents and had an equal number of home games, would you really care whether one of them had more home games against divisional opponents while the other had more against non-divisional opponents?

The bigger issue there is the protected rivalry, which gives some teams much more difficult schedules, on average, than other teams.