10 Game Conference Schedule Being Considered?
Not sure what to make of the idea of a 10 game conference football schedule. That would only leave 2 non-conference slots on the schedule. I'm interested to hear people's thoughts on the probability and ramifications of such a proposal.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/2…;
January 28th, 2013 at 6:47 PM ^
Interesting read, but it doesn't not separate Universities with big-time programs from those who are perpetual bottom dwellers. The study even factors wins vs. in-state rivals, bowl appearances, home attendance, etc... all things that EMU lacks in a big way. Moreover, I'd imagine that state appropriations generally grow year after year simply due to growth and inflation, not because of a football program. I didn't read it very closely, it did make some decent arguments, but I'd still be hard pressed to agree that EMU benefits from football. Here is an interesting read from out very own MGoBlog:
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/why-does-eastern-michigan-play-d-1-athletics
~Herm
January 28th, 2013 at 7:18 PM ^
January 28th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
If they were to go to 10 game conference schedule you know that marquee non-conference games won't happen. We will get either 2 MACrifices or possibly 1 MACrifice and a one-off from a lowly BCS level team like Colorado. More neutral field games could be an option too.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:42 PM ^
January 28th, 2013 at 3:17 PM ^
Yes, I think Michigan will be unhappy with 6 home games unless we get a revenue sharing neutral site game.
I like the balance that 10 conference games provides so that no team has an advantage because of scheduling. I do like the possibility of scheduling home and homes with a 9 game conference schedule so that we always play 7 home games.
January 28th, 2013 at 3:36 PM ^
I'm guessing DB won't be to happy if they only have 6 home games every other year. Maybe you occassionally have a solid home and home but if there's 10 league games, I'm guessing UM's non-conference slate will usually be 2 home games against lesser competition.
January 28th, 2013 at 1:15 PM ^
January 28th, 2013 at 1:16 PM ^
January 28th, 2013 at 2:23 PM ^
January 28th, 2013 at 2:35 PM ^
More Big Ten games, and we can play one directional tuenup followed by a better game against a team from a BCS conference.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:55 PM ^
Always made no sense to me how teams got off by not playing certain teams. This evens the "playing field" a bit. Michigan always had a worse draw due to always playing rival teams e.g. Ohio. Use the non-conference as trainig camp.
January 28th, 2013 at 2:56 PM ^
Sounds great!
I also love to hear people bemoan how 'big conferences mean we won't play conference foes as much' yet they also hate the idea of the 10 game schedule to...ya know...play each other's conference foes more...because...they can't play random teams more often?
It's cognitive dissonance at its finest.
January 28th, 2013 at 6:23 PM ^
A ten-game conference schedule isn't very likely because the ticket revenue for a home football game is still an important element in any athletic department's budget. That gets compounded for schools like Michigan with larger stadiums and bigger budgets. Athletic directors will want to have the opportunity not only to schedule seven home games per year, but to at least have a somewhat compelling non-conference lineup.
If the conference did adopt a ten-game conference schedule, it'd probably mean Michigan would have two pay-for-play opponents in the non-conference portion of the schedule. UM isn't likely to get a very interesting opponent in either case, especially if the B1G opts to move conference games up into the September timeframe. In other words, you're more likely to see a MAC level team non-conference team on the schedule in October and November in the midst of conference play than a higher quality program (which is what happens in the SEC).
It would also essentially eliminate any chance for a home-and-home game with an interesting non-conference opponent from outside the Midwest. I think the last thing the B1G wants to be is Midwest-centric in its approach, but that's exactly the sort of thing that would happen with a ten-game conference schedule and with 14 teams at hand. You might make a somewhat different case with a larger conference that is geographically diverse and/or adds more major programs (Notre Dame, Florida State). But until that happens, I think it makes more sense to adopt a nine-game schedule and let the athletic directors take their own direction regarding the non-conference line ups.
One other thing to keep in mind is that while a nine-game conference schedule means alternating years of five and four home games, having a seven team division means that there will be three home and three road games within the division each season. Since winning the division is the prerequisite for getting into the CCG, it's at least fair that there's a round robin within that division with each team playing an even number of home and road games.
We'll see what happens with the divisions, but I think it's highly likely that Michigan and Ohio State will be in the east with Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland. The sixth and seventh members of the division will be either Michigan State or Northwestern or Indiana or Purdue. Regardless of the lineup, UM will probably play MSU annually either because they're both in the same division of its a protected crossover game between teams in two divisions.
Let's assume the latter and put Michigan in the east with Indiana and Purdue while MSU goes out west. That means UM might play the following rotation within the division:
Year 1 -
Home: Ohio State, Rutgers, Indiana
Away: Penn State, Maryland, Purdue, Michigan State
Year 2:
Home: Penn State, Maryland, Purdue, Michigan State
Away: Ohio State, Rutgers, Indiana
That leaves two open slots for six schools from the west. A likely pairing of those schools would be Nebraska-Minnesota, Wisconsin-Illinois, Northwestern-Iowa. They rotate through every two years as the eighth and ninth games in the conference schedule with one home and one on the road.
That leaves David Brandon the opportunity to schedule three non-conference home games in Year 1 in order to have seven in Ann Arbor and two OOC home games in Year 2 for the same result. That means two pay for play games and one major non-conference home and home (such as Arkansas in 2018/9). UM gets seven home games per year and the opportunity to have one good major non-conference opponent each year.
When we get to 16 or more teams, we could still have fixed divisions with a 7-2 split or a 4X4 pod set up. The latter is more likely because it allows all the teams to play one another over a two year period at least twice and it means all the Big Ten teams get to play throughout the physical breadth of the conference.
If there's any takeaway to this, it's that a nine-game schedule can work with a conference that goes up to 20 teams in a 4X5 pod setup while still leaving room for programs to have seven home games per year and still keeping at least one good home-and-home non-conference game on the books. If the B1G is seriously contemplating having that many teams in the near term, then it might make sense to adopt a nine game set up now. Otherwise, the conference would be going back and forth between nine- and ten-game conference schedule formats and cause a lot of chaos in the maintenance of the non-conference schedule.