First Go at Scheduling a 12-Team Conference

Submitted by Seth on

Since we're getting close to a consensus on what the board generally wants to see in a 12-team Big Ten schedule, I went ahead and made one up:

4193039618_50f2ee0298_o 

The Rules:

  • North/South Division (a brilliant idea from Seth 9)
  • 9 Conference Games
  • Each team plays in-division opponents once per year
  • Each team has one cross-divisional rival they play once per year
  • Every team plays three more games against a rotation of the five remaining cross-divisional opponents
  • The cross-divisional opponents rotate by 2 teams every 2 years (never more than 2 seasons without playing an opponent, and it evens out over a 10-year cycle)

Cross-Divisional Rivals

  • Michigan/Ohio St
  • Mich St/Indiana
  • Wisconsin/Pitt
  • Minnesota/Penn St
  • Northwestern/Illinois
  • Iowa/Purdue
Michigan State and Indiana have a trophy game, the Old Brass Spittoon. I know Minnesota/Penn State is contrived but they have a trophy too.

That leaves some combination of Iowa and Wisconsin with Purdue and Pitt. I figure if Pitt's joining the conference, let them pick which one they want.

One thing I like about this division is the competitive balance, e.g., Northwestern and Indiana are split up. The North is a bit deeper but the South has two monsters.

It has symmetry of rivalries. It has relatively balanced schedules.

And we all play each other often enough to still think of ourselves as a close-knit group. The key is the 9th conference game. In case you're wondering, here's a table of the teams left off Michigan's schedule from 2011 through 2020:

2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20
Illini Indiana PSU Purdue Pitt
Purdue Pitt Illini Indiana PSU

Names:

I'm sick of sterile divisional names. I guess it comes from being an old NHL fan, but I'm a big believer in cool names for conferences.

Lakes Division: Michigan, MSU, Iowa, Wis, Minn, NW

River Division: Ohio St, Penn St, Indiana, Purdue, Pitt, Illinois

Get it? Great Lakes/Ohio River. But it's purposely left ambiguous since, like, Iowa doesn't really touch a Great Lake (but it has lots of lakes -- we'll just tell Iowa it's 'cause we all have lots of lakes, deal?)

Ambiguous or not, it's at least feint toward our footprint's geography other than cardinal directions (lame!), and pretty easy to remember.

These are not my dream names. My dream names would be Schembechler and Hayes Divisions. Or Algonquin and Iroquois. Or if you really wanna be clever, then howabout:

Vowel Shift Six and the Barn-Burning Division

Because most of Lower Michigan, Chicagoland, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin have all picked up the Northern Cities Vowel Shift:


495px-Northern_Cities_Vowel_Shift.svg 

(Put two fingers in the corners of your mouth and say a short-a, as in "accent." Did your corners move away from each other horizontally? If so, you have the accent. If your lips moved vertically, you don't).

And it just so happens that the footprint for this dialect includes Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Northwestern, but no other Big Ten Schools (it's in St. Louis and vicinity too, but not Champaign). The isogloss (i.e. border) for our short-a is roughly the same line that separates our divisions. Surely something can be done with this?

As for "Barn Burner" (meaning a great game) -- it's an old Hoosier term that has made its way through the Ohio River valley. Again, it's something that, among Big Ten teams, the southern half could call its own.

As for the conference itself, the problem with changing the name isn't just branding: it has to do with the conference's non-profit status. Yes, it's possible to put the forms back in, but from my limited understand, having gone through the process on a much smaller scale, you end up triggering a bunch of post-1990 grandfather clauses that I'm guessing the Big Ten currently enjoys.

Also, if we go to 12, there's already a 12-team conference.

Of course, it's branding too, especially for the Big Ten Network. But let's say we finally decide that the most academically prestigious BCS conference shouldn't itself be a misnomer, what should we call this collection? Ideas:

  • The Big Athletic Conference
  • The Big Midwest (The "Midwest Conference" is already taken
  • The Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives (its official name until 1987)
  • The Odawa Conference
  • The Big Ten and Then Some
  • The Lakers' Dozen
  • The Bigger 12
  • The Big1T2EN
I'm not really a fan of any of these, really. Maybe the Lakers' Dozen. Keep in mind, historically, "The Big Ten" was just a nickname anyway.

Comments

Goblue89

December 16th, 2009 at 5:05 PM ^

I still think you have to keep Michigan and Ohio State in the same division. Also, I think we have a better shot at Missouri than Pitt. That being said here are my proposed divisions including both Missouri and Pitt. Desmond Howard Divsion: Mich Mich St Ohio St Missouri Illinois Northwestern Charles Woodson Division Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota Penn St. Indiana Purdue OR Mich Mich St Ohio St Purdue Indiana Northwestern Penn St Pitt Wisconsin Iowa Minn Illinois Illinois and Northwestern could be switched around and I don't think they have to be in the same conference because they aren't really a rivalry.

Joined: 08/28/2008

MGoPoints: 2101

oakapple

December 16th, 2009 at 6:04 PM ^

There are a zillion ways to do this, but this is the closest I've seen to a balanced alignment. The only thing I would change is to preserve the existing protected rivalries, where possible. Right now, MSU has a protected rivalry with PSU. I realize that there is not a long history to this, but it can easily be retained without disrupting anything else: just swap Indiana and Penn State in the 6th row. I am opposed to a 9th conference game. The way you've done it, there's a 66 percent chance that the teams meeting in the championship game already faced each other that season. An 8-game schedule would reduce that to 50 percent: not ideal, but a step in the right direction. The other problem is that if the Michigan-Ohio State game returns to its former glory, there would be many years when the two face each other twice. It would also probably involve moving THE GAME away from its traditional end of the regular season, or else they could be playing each other two weeks in a row. Putting Michigan and OSU in the same division eliminates both of those "issues," but you'd have to switch a bunch of other things around to make the other division equally competitive.

Joined: 02/06/2009

MGoPoints: 2130

raleighwood

December 16th, 2009 at 6:11 PM ^

Lots of good work here but I really think that UM and OSU need to be in the same division. At least for now, it needs to stay as the last game of the regular season. That game is the single biggest thing that the conference has going for it and I wouldn't want to lose it at the expense of expansion. Also, I think that it's little risky to play nine conference games. Currently, the PAC 10 is the only BCS conference to play nine games internally (a true round robin). The Big 12, SEC and ACC only play eight conference games. While I think that it might give you a more "true" champion, it might also cost the conference some bowl bids because of extra losses. It also makes it tougher to schedule a good OOC game. Still, there's a lot of good work here and it certainly offers something to think about during the long, long offseason.

Joined: 11/26/2008

MGoPoints: 4710

Seth

December 16th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^

On Ohio State: As Michigan's annual out-of-division rival, we still play Ohio State the last game of the season every year. The only difference is if we lead our divisions after that game, we play it again in the Big Ten Championship Game. You have a good point about a Conference Championship Game taking some luster from Michigan-Ohio State. Heck, most years it IS the Big Ten Championship Game. But that's going to happen regardless. As to whether having a rematch of those teams, well, I was all for it in 2006, and I'm all for it now. In fact, 30 seconds after any Michigan-Ohio State game is over, I want to have another Michigan-Ohio State game as soon as possible. A Michigan-Ohio State rematch every, say, 4 years is not going to diminish the rivalry. I might have an idea for this. I'll come back to it. 9 Conference Games Here is a list of the last games scheduled by Big Ten teams for the 2009 season: Delaware State New Mexico State Fresno State Virginia Northern Iowa Montana State South Dakota State Towson Eastern Illinois Northern Illinois Wofford The most respectable team on that list (and one of only two victors) was Virginia. They played Indiana. Scheduling Indiana is like when Michigan scheduled Vanderbilt then went around saying we beat an SEC school. So Michigan State goes 5-7 instead of 6-6. Whatever -- they're bringing half a team to the Alamo Bowl anyway. The Big Ten went 9-1 against the rest of the field. Would we lose a bowl game eligible team if those games had been one more conference game? Well, probably yes. Purdue and Michigan still miss. Maybe Minnesota does too. One of Wisconsin/Ohio State/Penn State/Northwestern has one more loss. From a money perspective, I think the Big Ten Network makes these games superfluous, while another conference week would bring in more than the take for 5 extra home games (from which you have to subtract the nummy num's payout). From a fan perspective...did you watch Wisconsin's 44-14 victory over Wofford? Did we get anything other than that elusive Coner highlight reel from Delaware State? As a college football fan, how are you not screaming for more Big Ten football over Baby Seals? IDEA: What if instead of a "Conference Championship" game, then, we just called it the "Big Ten Bowl." That's right: our own Bowl game, held in early December in a local pro building, matching either the two Divisional Champions, or if there's already a clear victor, two other teams that the conference selects? As in, just a damn good last final Big Ten football game? It makes the divisional races less important, true, but if the season ends with Michigan 8-4 and winning the Schembechler Division but losing to OSU in the final game, and Hayes Division Champ OSU is 11-1, and Michigan didn't play Hayes Div#2 Penn State at all, why not lock in OSU as the Rose Bowl team and have a Michigan/Penn State game for No. 2? Would we be averse? Just an idea.

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

raleighwood

December 16th, 2009 at 11:50 PM ^

.....but the Big Ten also scheduled Oregon, USC and Notre Dame (three times) last year. Penn State plays Alabama next year. Don't get me wrong, I think that D1AA schools should be banished from all Big Ten schedules. However, I also think that there's nothing wrong with playing a MAC team or two before you get into your conference schedule. I just don't want to see the incentive reduced to play a good OOC game by adding another conference game. I think that the whole concept of a re-match within a conference is a bad idea. What if Michigan (11-0) beats OSU by 35 points in A2 one weekend and loses to OSU (10-1) by 1 point at Ford Field the next weekend. Does that really make OSU the conference "champ"? If they're both 11-1, can they play again for the MNC in January? What if OSU was 8-3 going into that game? I realize that these matchups are unavoidable in a divided conference setting. Alabama and Florida will probably do it sooner or later. I just think that the possibilities should be kept to a minimum.

Joined: 11/26/2008

MGoPoints: 4710

Seth

December 17th, 2009 at 9:55 AM ^

Don't get me wrong, I think that D1AA schools should be banished from all Big Ten schedules. However, I also think that there's nothing wrong with playing a MAC team or two before you get into your conference schedule. I just don't want to see the incentive reduced to play a good OOC game by adding another conference game.
You missed the whole point of that list of teams I provided. It's not that they're D-IAA (many of them were MAC, one was ACC). Those were the LAST TEAMS SCHEDULED BY BIG TEN TEAMS. Most of those games were played right smack in the middle of the Big Ten season. Most were the result of last-minute scrounging. The point is this: unless you're Indiana (and can thus sell yourself as a sacrificial lamb) the USCs and Notre Dames are all scheduled long in advance. The MAC nummy nums to begin the season are also scheduled at least a year in advance, and many of these games are protected by state rivalries. If there's an extra conference game, it will replace the last OOC game scheduled, i.e. the last-minute Baby Seal U's. Obviously, an 8-game conference schedule isn't convincing Big Ten teams to schedule fantastic 4th OOC games right now. Yet with plenty of incentive to play crappy teams (thank you BCS), the top of the conference is scheduling good non-conference games. They're doing it for national exposure, and for rivalries, and for money, and for cred, and for the fans. Those reasons don't change with a 9th conference game. There is zero evidence that a 9th conference game will make Big Ten teams stop scheduling top-tier non-conference games. Michigan and Michigan State and Purdue are locked into deals to play Notre Dame every year even if we had 11 conference games. Ohio State has been actively seeking games with Texas, USC, et al. Still don't believe me? Well, as you pointed out, the Pac Ten already plays 9 conference games. Let's see what the OOC spate looked like for them this year:
  • Zona: Central Mich, N. Arizona, Iowa
  • Arizona St: Idaho St, LA-Monroe, Georgia
  • Cal: Maryland, E. Washington, Minnesota
  • Oregon: Boise State, Purdue, Utah
  • Oregon St: Portland State, UNLV, Cincy
  • Stanford: Wake Forest, San Jose St, Notre Dame
  • UCLA: SD State, Tennessee, Kansas State
  • USC: San Jose St, Ohio St, Notre Dame
  • Washington: LSU, Idaho, Notre Dame
  • Washington St: Hawaii, SMU, Notre Dame
I bolded all of the BCS schools. This took me a long time, because there are 15 of them!!! The Pac Ten, with 9 conference games, played more out-of-conference BCS schools than did the Big Ten, who had 14 more out-of-conference games to schedule! And even among non-BCS schools, they're playing highly ranked WAC powers like Boise St and Utah and away games at UNLV and stuff. They're playing LSU and Georgia and Ohio State and Cincy and Tennessee and -- get this -- more Notre Dame (4) than the Big Ten (3)! The whole Pac Ten played just four games against FCS schools: Portland State, Idaho St, Northern Arizona and Eastern Washington. All of those schools are within the conference's footprint. I think this is damn strong evidence that a 9th conference game would most directly affect the frivolous, stupid, last-minute punching bag games. And for the record, the Pac Ten is sending 7 of its 10 teams to bowl games. I think 70 percent of a conference going to bowls is plenty, don't you? Farfignuten. I just said that because by this point I'm testing to see if you have stopped reading, since both previous responses have ignored sections posted at the end of my comments. Farfignuten again! Because I already responded to your re-match worries -- almost the exact same scenario -- with my "Big Ten Bowl" suggestion. Farfignuten. Logga logga putt putt. Lorem ipsum eggplant.

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

Seth

December 16th, 2009 at 9:53 PM ^

Western Conference: Yes, we used to be the Western Conference because we used to be The West. I think that ship has departed. In fact, I know it did. It had Lewis & Clark and Sacagawea in it. We already confuse enough people that Washington State and Oregon have to call themselves the "Pacific Northwest." Schembechler/Hayes: Reason 1: Michigan State would do their usual "why's HE the important one in the family always" thing, probably with a lot of emoticons. Except this time, every other fanbase who cringed at the phrase "Big Two, Little Eight" would be right there beside them. Reason 2: The Big Ten has enough of a bad wrap for "Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust" dinosaur coaching. If the consensus had relegated Bo and Woody to their proper places in history, fine. But like naming something after Barry Goldwater today, the remnants of that body of thought are still too present for the name not to seem an endorsement. Reason 3: Woody Hayes was a classless, angry turd who physically attacked opposing players on national television. Why would you want to name a conference division for him?

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

imablue

December 16th, 2009 at 11:06 PM ^

I like the setup. We could have the Gerald Ford/Jack Nicholas divisions. Names? The Big North - TBN conference The Great Lakes - TGL conference The North Twelve - TNT conference (I like it) The conference formerly known as the Big 10.

Joined: 09/01/2009

MGoPoints: 1552

Seth

December 17th, 2009 at 10:23 AM ^

That rivalry was really forced, though. PSU didn't join the conference because it had really strong rivals, in fact they ditched their biggest rivals to come here. We contrived a few rivalries for them to make the current "2 locked rivals" scheduling system work. Minnesota and Pennsylvania governors agreed to simply make up a trophy. And that was actually the more relevant rivalry. Before 1993, the two schools had played each other just 9 times, the last being MSU's 42-8 slaughtering of the Lions in 1966. This was before Paterno (just to give you an idea of how ancient it was). The teams were never good at the same time. The Michigan State rivalry was created out of thin air because PSU needed someone to play in the last game of the season, and MSU didn't have an end-of-season rival (their top rivalry being an unrequited one). I'm willing to bet at some point some guy got $50 bucks for realizing "hey, they're both land grant universities!" MSU and PSU are natural rivals to the same extent that my "Vowel Shift Six" is a natural conference division, i.e. only inasmuch as we lucked onto a commonality to fit an already contrived match. Losing the Michigan State/Penn State rivalry wouldn't be a loss for anybody. To be honest, I think Michigan State would rather play Indiana. They have a trophy (the Old Brass Spittoon) which goes back to 1950. It's a very lopsided rivalry, but at least it's one with half a century history instead of something we cooked up in the mid-'90s. And it makes sense, since they're the two of our three basketball-first schools (Purdue being the third).

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

canderso3

December 17th, 2009 at 9:43 AM ^

Maybe this has been posted on here, and I just haven't seen it yet, but how about each team just play 9 conference games, and the teams with the 2 best records play in the championship game. No divisions needed. I realize a 3 way tie for 2nd may sometimes exist, but it's not like that didn't happen in the Big 12 South in 2008. Just a thought.

Joined: 08/18/2009

MGoPoints: 8

canderso3

December 17th, 2009 at 10:14 AM ^

Ohio State is 8-0 in the league. They get in to the championship. Iowa and PSU are tied at 7-1. Iowa beat PSU head-to-head, so they go to the championship to play OSU. If there is some crazy year where the champ would be 7-1 or 8-1 and 4 teams tie at 5-3 or 6-3 for 2nd, that'd be an issue.

Joined: 08/18/2009

MGoPoints: 8

Seth

December 17th, 2009 at 10:29 AM ^

Did you see my "Big Ten Bowl" (instead of a conference championship) idea below? That could work just as well with your 12-game, no-division system. Play out any Big Ten year -- you can almost always find either a situation with a clear top two who need to play each other, or a clear conference champ with a 2 and 3 or 4 who need to play each other. I think the 3-way tie is the big danger (see mid-'90s, 2000) to a 12-team, selection-type bowl system. The divisions, then, become a convenient scheduling tool, and help decide the 3-way tie scenarios. There's just so much that can go wrong with this few of games between this many teams, I think you need a championship system that is incredibly flexible, so that it can meet every type of end-of-year challenge.

Joined: 10/14/2008

MGoPoints: 149219

Alton

December 17th, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^

The NCAA (bylaw 17.9.5.2 (c)) will not let you "exempt" a conference championship game from the 12-game limit unless it is a game between 2 divisional champions in a conference with at least 12 teams. In other words, the no-division proposal can be done, but teams would have to play 11-game schedules instead of 12-game schedules, and the conference championship would be the 12th game. I don't think that is an acceptable price to pay for the championship.

Joined: 07/05/2008

MGoPoints: 13300

champswest

December 17th, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^

Indiana & Purdue Iowa & Minnesota NW & Illinois UM & OSU Penn St. & Pitt (if they are the team) that leaves MSU & Wisconsin If it isn't Pitt joining, put MSU with Penn St. and Wisconsin gets the newbe.

Joined: 10/04/2009

MGoPoints: 25919