I agree..I like it very much..Wonder if this means the end of the ND series as well...
to play football, not to play trumpet
I agree..I like it very much..Wonder if this means the end of the ND series as well...
So is this the big news thats supposed to be announced at 4 or is this unrelated? Im assuming this is the big story that was coming out at 4. Could be wrong.
Forget the ND series, this may be the first step to saying screw the NCAA and their stupid post season. I like this paragraph. It follows the same line of logic as saying that it is unlikely that Craig James killed 5 hookers...
Likewise, the two commissioners dismissed any suggestion that their close alignment could be the first step toward a pullout by them and other major football-playing conferences from the NCAA. Speculation about such a jump has bubbled as the revenue-generating and spending gaps between their schools and those in lower-tier conferences continue to widen.
I love it. SEC, and Ohio State leave the NCAA and create minor league football. They wouldn't have to change any of thier recruiting practices and can actually do it in the open now.
Does Michigan follow up by dropping ND to create space on their schedule for the PAC-12 team?
If we could get USC to do the same thing, this would get interesting...
I can't imagine we'll play a Pac 12 team and ND. He's made it pretty clear he wants an easier non-conference slate with tons of home games.
We'll also be playing a ninth conference game by then, so dropping ND would make a lot of sense.
than 4 teams from the B1G and Pac 12 every year. Of late, it's been 5. (U of M, MSU, Purdue, USC, Stanford).
I will not be surprised if ND is dropped by everyone, which would almost certainly force them to join a conference.
all over twitter. personally i like it. i think its a good move and gives us a way to renew that old rose bowl rivalry.
i will add that i would have LOVED to see the speculation about cutting out ND tho, as that wouldve been the ultimate FU
Dammit, you just beat me to it.
I think it's exciting. We'll have to see what the details are; I'd love to see us play USC or Oregon.
(or maybe this is all the Arizona AD's doing to get RR his game against Michigan? /s)
Bet we'll get Arizona.
RR might not be there.
Or, he could be.
Or Tony Gibson will be DC.
If they do that because of RR, that'd be great - it means he lasted at least five years and did good things.
Dionne Warwick I said hi.
News conference must be about mascot
Would this mean that ND loses...pretty much all of its top rivals at once?
USC, Stanford, UM, MSU...
USC has historically been fairly aggressive in non-conference scheduling (OSU home-and-home etc).
USC needs to schedule aggressively or they can't maintain interest in LA. By 2017, USC will have a chance to be fully recovered from the roster hit they're about to take.
The real roster hit won't be all that bad because of last year's appeal which allowed them to sign 31. At 15 a year for the next three that leaves them at 76 scholarship players pending transfers and/or early departures. This is typical in the range of what Pete Carroll normally had during his tenure. LOI's by year from 2010 ten back 18, 18, 19, 18, 27, 19, 19, 28, 22.
If Lane Kiffin can keep every player on that team for the next four years, he deserves to have the national title trophy named after him. There's no realistic way for a team to keep every single player on board and contributing over a four year period. The 31 player class helped them, but even given moderate attrition of 3 players / year leaves them with about 64 players on the roster. That's well below critical level for any team out there--even if they've got USC's talent.
would be awesome.
How long do they have contracts with all of those schools?
Also; once we set up the B1G-Pac Challenge, will we get to play in an early season football tournament in Maui?
If only there was some way to ensure that they could play a certain group of teams every year.
What's that you say? Oh. That's right. JOIN A GODDAMN CONFERENCE.
they deserve it
This would be fantastic news. I don't mind the ND series, but I'm sick of having it every season. I'd much rather have the variety of a series with the PAC-12.
and rotate the 3rd game between Texas, LSU, Alabama, Florida State, Oklahoma, Florida, and Virginia Tech.
Personally, I'd prefer one good non-conference game and two middle school teams. In your scenario, Michigan could easily lose all three non-conference games followed by a nine game Big 10 schedule. I like the balance provided by having some near guaranteed wins early in the season.
Regardless, it won't happen. Michigan is only going to get 4-5 home games out of their nine conference games and can't afford to not have 2-3 of the non-conference games be at home every season.
but in my scenario, Michigan could also play Oregon, Notre Dame, Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan State, and Nebraska in the same season.
Which would be awesome.
That could be the case next season
EDIT: Add Penn State to that (in 2017)
I would prefer it not be a team that we may have to play again in the Rose Bowl. Since the Rose is where our champion goes to play, unless they're in the MNC game, I would prefer this be set up with another conference. Another reason I'm against this is our history of laying eggs on the west coast in OOC games.
if they could figure in the PAC12- BIG games into the BIG championship game? (and the PAC championship as well) Since both of the conference winners are going to most likely play each other--or the runners up in NC years--it would be great if this interconference play factored in. I'm not sure if you would just want to count this game as a conference game, but maybe involve it in tie breaking procedures?
I'm not sure, but it smells like awesome to me.
Edit: even if the overall conference preformance just determines the "home" team in the Rose bowl, I like it. I think this could be a great partnership.
Revenge oppourtunities against arizona state, utah, oregon. And the chance to kick rich rod's ass? I'm in.
Shut the hell up.
Let it go already.
He said he wants a game with Michigan, then he'll get it and get pounded. If you don't like that, well then maybe you should go be an arizona fan.
I really hope we draw Colorado. But a USC/Oregon/Arizona matchup would be sweet as well.
I'm hoping we draw UW.
bye bye ND no more purdue, msu, usc, stanford or us for them
It would be cool if they based the match-ups on the conference rankings from the year before.
This wouldn't be as exciting if we ended up with a bunch of USC v Purdue/Michigan v Utah type games every year
Michigan vs Utah....sigh
Love the idea. Potentially great matchups, possible rematch in Rose Bowl (longshot, but still there) and a possible ND screwing. I'm liking the looks of my wednesday!
Is this the big announcement? Or is there something else
If it does makes it tougher for ND to schedule with its primary rivals, it could apply more pressure on ND to join the B1G. If it ends up pushing ND into the B1G, it will be considered a stroke of genius. If it pushes ND to another league, maybe not so much.
It does have quite the effect on ND, considering they like to schedule three B1G and two Pac teams every year.
Love the idea. Potentially great matchups, possible rematch in Rose Bowl (longshot, but still there) and a possible ND screwing. I'm liking the looks of my wednesday!
I'd frankly rather we have such an agreement with the SEC but I will take it.
USC - 4-6
That 3-1 against Colorado is as painful as any of those records.
We own UCLA!!
I remember that game.
We were on our way out of the house just before the final play, and my dad was like, "Hold on, I just want to make sure."
"Aww, come on, dad. We're gonna be late. The game's over."
USC is on that list twice, and there is no Stanford.
Hmm. This part of the story worries me...
One could be featured annually as a preseason kickoff event, perhaps staged at the Rose Bowl. Others could be played in neighboring NFL stadiums, including the planned Farmers Field in downtown Los Angeles, the San Francisco 49ers' new facility or Chicago's Soldier Field.
I'm very much against that idea. Both conferences have iconic stadiums (stadia?) that are great places to see games We know the Big 10, but Autzen, Husky Stadium, Stanford Stadium, Cal's Memorial Stadium, the Colosseum are all great venues. Would playing them in NFL stadiums, away from the home teams fan bases, in many cases places with fewer seats, actually bring more money?
I think it would benefit certain teams. USC or UCLA (obvs) would certainly be willing to play their first game in the Rose Bowl and Stanford would probably be happy to play at Candlestick. Likewise, Illinois or Northwestern would probably be fine going to Soldier Field and MSU has played early season games at Ford Field.
Michigan isn't going to be giving up a home game to play in Chicago or Indianapolis.
I doubt USC would be willing to play at UCLA's home field. They might go for the new downtown stadium though. Who knows, they might move there, though I doubt it, since the Colesseum is close to campus and isnt' going anywhere since it's landmarked.
Candlestick, however, isn't likely to exist by the time these games start. I could imagine Stanford playing at the new 49ers stadium down the penninsula (that's going to be a long way from Berkeley, especially given traffic in the Bay Area), but both Stanford and Cal are or have put big money into renovating their stadiums. Same deal with UW and Qwest Field. The Oregon teams as well as U of A don't have a great pro option. I could see ASU at Glendale, especially given the early season heat, but that's about the only one. Maybe Wazzou at Qwest in a FU move to UW.
For the Big 10, there's no way UM, OSU, PSU, or Nebraska, are giving up home games. Minnesota just built their stadium. Iowa doesn't have a good option. MSU might do Ford Field, Purdue and Indiana might do Indy. The Illinois schools might do Soldier. And Wisconsin might go for Lambeau, but I doubt the Packers are interested in fronting the money to make it happen. Which raises the other issue. We're only going to Dallas because Jerry Jones is guaranteeing us some ungodly payment to show off his palace. I doubt that's going to be the case with every NFL owner.
It definitely isn't for every team, I agree.
However, I think USC, Cal, and Stanford would be willing to do those games, but we can agree to disagree. All of them have trouble selling out their stadiums sometimes.
That's a good point about sell outs. Hadn't thought of that. Makes it easier to move a game.
USC doesn't seem to mind playing in UCLAs stadium every time they get invited to the Rose Bowl though.
I agree, neutral fields are one part of college football that I wish would stay away.
I know it sucks for season ticket holders, and the atmosphere isn't nearly what it is on campus, but I'm all for the Jerry Jones series that's unfolding. If he wasn't cutting a check, we wouldn't have had Oregon/LSU this year and Michigan/Alabama in 2012. I hope he can keep that going; those are way more interesting than watching Michigan/CMU or Alabama/FCS.
Revenge bowl? I guess it could go both ways. You of course could see it as RR avenging his firing (since, you know, he would've been at least as good as 10-2 this year). Or you could see it as Michigan enacting vengeance on RR for a miserable three years.
We already have the matchup with the PAC10 in the Rose Bowl, and it's not like we haven't played plenty of P10 teams over the years. I'd much rather have seen us enter a scheduling pact with the SEC or ACC.
A B1G-SEC partnership would be intriguing, but there are already three guaranteed B1G-SEC matchups in the Gator, Capital One, and Outback Bowls. Since the Rose Bowl joined the BCS, we lost our guaranteed Pac-12 matchup, so this is a good way to rekindle some tradition while creating exciting nonconference games. I love the idea.
As for the ACC, that conference sucks and won't be improving anytime soon.
The Rose Bowl features the Big 10/Pac 12 champions unless one or both are playing in the MNC game.
Like I said, it's no longer GUARANTEED. Since '98, there have been five Rose Bowl games featuring a team from outside the B1G and Pac-12. The Gator, Capital One, and Outback Bowls have guaranteed tie-ins with the SEC and B1G.
The SEC, sure (though I doubt they'd be interested) but the ACC? Why? Who, beyond Va Tech and FSU, and maybe Clemson, would be an interesting game?
There's also the issue of numerical balance. Both the SEC and ACC are now @ 14. Ensuring that every team will have a slot filled for that particular week seasons in advance is crucial if they're going to do the most interesting thing and try to calibrate to league finish the year, or two years, prior.
A few Florida State and Miami matchups might be intriguing purely for historical reasons, but beyond that, there isn't much compelling about a B1G-ACC agreement.
I would prefer the SEC as well, but outside of football they don't offer much. Money is driving this (like everything else) and now the Big Ten has footholds on the entire West Coast, which is better than just getting NOLA and parts of Florida
I find this interesting as travel expenses are going to be huge for the road teams. With the Big House at or near capacity no matter who we play I just don't see how this is about money unless these games are going to be restricted to Big 10/Pac 12 channels to try to drive ratings number or increase buy in.
Great USA Today article...more than football.
...Rethinking the 9-game schedule
Damn, beat me to it.
but I found this interesting:
"Together,the Big Ten and Pac-12 encompass 15 states holding 43% of the nation's population and 22 of its top 50 television markets."
I love the basketball doubleheader idea. It would great to put the 12 Big Ten teams into pairs...
Michigan - MSU
Ohio State - Penn State
Purdue - Indiana
Northwestern - Illinois
WIsconsin - Minnesota
Iowa - Nebraska
and match up with one of the Pac 12 pairs at a sensible location...
Say Michigan vs. UCLA and MSU vs. USC at the Staples Center, Illinois vs. Cal, Northwestern vs. Stanford at the United Center. Michigan and MSU host at the Palace... good times.
I like that idea.
I know college baseball is not followed by that many, including myself. But i could see them doing the same for baseball series. UM-MSU hosting Oregon and Oregon Sate at Comerica, Arizona and Arizona State hosting Iowa and Penn State at Chase Field (Arizona).
Baseball may be the best sport if they wanted to use pro stadiums. B1G country has Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago x2, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, and potentially Kansas City. The Pac 12 has Seattle, Anaheim (Angels), LA, San Fransico, Oakland, Arizona, San Diego, and Colorado.
Obviously the problem is that the venues would rarely, if ever, sell out and thus it would be hard to fork over the money to use the stadiums. Just a wild shot i guess, kind of an interest idea for a non-revenue sport.
Also, hold the phone on dropping ND:
With the additional one-game-a-season commitment to the Pac-12, Delany said the Big Ten — which added Nebraska as a member this year — likely will rethink its move to a nine-game conference schedule in football in 2017.
Our all-time records vs Pac-12 teams:
Redundant. Don't Care. My post has the added bonus of crappy formatting.
yes 8 conference games though we've played these teams before and I would rather have an agreement with the SEC.
Disagree. I think the Big 10, PAC 12, and Big 12 should be publicly chastizing the SEC for oversigning and should more or less refuse to play them outside of BCS games. They have a built in advantage right now and I think the other conferences should be working to eliminate it. Giving them a scheduling agreement validates their practices while exposing the Big 10 to a lot of losses to teams that sign 20% more players every recruiting cycle.
Oklahoma State's team this year is comprised of taking 109 LOIs over the last four years or the same as Bama. Oklahoma in the mid to upper 90s, Texas Tech regularly upper 90s, A&M only one year under 23, Mizzou never under 23 per year. These scholarship numbers are from Rivals since 2002.
I actually really like this - nice concept that could create a pretty cool rivalry between our conferences. I'd like to think that they'll match us up with either USC or Oregon....
I would not like to play Arizona, despite the whole RichRod intrigue. I could see an Arizona/Purdue matchup as interesting...the "Snake Oil" Bowl.
...California already had their schedule made to where they would accomodate such a move as this. Many teams haven't made it that far ahead, obviuously, but Cal specificallly is playing both Northwestern and O$U in the next two years. Cool move, but not necessarily a surprising one.
I agree, and it hasn't been explained yet, but I think it would be crazy to pass on Michigan, Ohio, Beaver, Nebraska Memorial, Husky stadiums, the Coliseum, or the Rose Bowl. The Big Ten and Pac-12 have been thinking creatively, so maybe the headliner game will be played at a Solider Field or (proposed) AEG Stadium when there's a Michigan-USC, Wisconsin-Oregon, or UCLA-Nebraska top-10 matchup.
Also consider the matchups will change and different venues may be appropriate in different years. Indiana vs. Washington State makes sense at Lucas Oil. Cal vs. Iowa at the new (2017) Niners/Raiders Stadium makes sense. An Oregon State home year wouldn't make sense to move to Seattle or San Francisco and they won't play on the road all the time. Same goes for Nebraska, Iowa, or technically Wisconsin (although Soldier Field might as well count, and Wisconsin played there this year).
Plus, LA doesn't have a stadium alternative at the moment, so unless one gets done by 2017, UCLA and USC will have to play at their stadiums or out of town.
Last Meeting vs Arizona: Never
Last Meeting vs Arizona State: 1987 Rose Bowl: L 15-22
Last Meeting vs California: 1979 W 14-10
Last Meeting vs Colorado: 1997 W 24-3
Last Meeting vs Oregon: 2007 L 7-39
Last Meeting vs Oregon State: 1986 W 31-12
Last Meeting vs Stanford: 1975 T 19-19
Last Meeting vs UCLA: 2000 L 20-23
Last Meeting vs USC: 2007 Rose Bowl: L 18-32
Last Meeting vs Utah: 2008 L 23-25
Last Meeting vs Washington: 2002 W 31-29
Last Meeting vs Washington State: 1998 Rose Bowl: W 21-16 (National Champions!)
Overall Record of 48-24-1 vs Pac-12
Last meeting with Arizona was 1978, UM won 21-17.
Last meeting with Cal was 1980, UM won 38-13
Last meeting with Colorado 1997, UM won 27-3
Last meeting with Stanford 1976, UM won 51-0
this doesn't realy excite me though because besides USC or possibly Oregon there are no games to really get pumped about. Washington State, Oregon State, and Arizona= blah but better than MAC games.
Why are you guys scared of ND? So happy about an ND screwing when the matchup provides historic rivals and the winningest programs. This agreement will not make Rose Bowl matchups--it'll make USC-Indiana, Michigan-Washington. Despite DB's need for MOAR Home Games, keeping Notre Dame AND adding a Pac-12 opponent presents the best schedule.
I don't think anyone is scared of ND. People may have a lot of strong feelings about ND, but fear is definitely not one of them.
Could this force ND to go to a conf.?
...would welcome them. Natural rivalries with Ball State (instate), Northern Illinois (Chicago subway alums), Buffalo (gives them their exposure in the east), and they get their annual rivalry trips to the state of Michigan with EMU, WMU and CMU on a rotating basis.
Plus the MAC only has 13 schools right now and Notre Dame will make it an even 14. Like Jesus and his 12 disciples, except with Akron and Kent State thrown in as well.
Brian Kelly clearly has what it takes to win in the MAC.
Hoping for these matchups in 2017:
Wisconsin-Stanford (If Stanford is as good as they are now by then)
Nebraska-Colorado is a no-brainer. It's actually looks really weird to see that on a list of Big Ten-Pac-12 matchups.
to be fair the Pac 12 might be worse than the ACC at this point in time. maybe dave brandon can use his influence to get the games played in ann arbor?
No way. Oregon is a national championship caliber team. Stanford is almost there, and anyone think longterm USC will be held down? Arizona State and Cal are decent, the rest of the conference...meh. But the ACC? They pretty much suck all the way down. No championship caliber teams, decent Clemson, Va Tech and Florida State...and after that, nothing much...I know I am missing someone, but still doesn't matter.
Huh? Perhaps the mediocre teams in each conference are roughly the same, but I don't think the top quarter of the ACC is in any way comparable to Oregon, Stanford, and USC.
ehhh...this appears to not excite me so much as others....
where the Rose Bowl no longer is tied to the two conferences so as a pre-emptive move, the two conferences "align" themselves to keep pace with the ever-growing SEC and media biases toward them and the Big 12.
And as stated many times earlier, if it shuts out ND all the better.
The Rose Bowl's B1G-PAC tie-in has always impeded CFB from implementing a system that would rightfully crown a national champion. This move will help traditionalists let go of that tie-in, as we make way for the highly-anticipated playoff system.
This setup trumps conference expansion, which spiraled out of control this year. Playing certain teams only twice every 7+ years? No thank you.
Well 1 more thing of my "college football would be insanely awesome if they did these 10 things list". At this rate they will implement Brian's playoff system in 2030 and I'll drop dead 2 months later.
2017? I know scheduling is tricky and planned well in advance but for fucks sake move this shit up faster and do more of it.
I cant see how this doesnt force ND's hand. There's no way USC is going to want to play ND and a Big10 team every year and likewise for Michigan, MSU & Purdue via the Pac whatever number they are now.
ND better hope the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marines and the US Forrestry Service field footballs teams between now and 2017 or their schedule will have some serious holes in it.
Now they will be able to schedule 10 home games.
USC actually tends to be pretty ambitious with its scheduling. They usually play at least two non-conference games against real BCS opponents every year. In '02, they played Auburn, Colorado, Kansas State, and Notre Dame. In '06, they played Arkansas, Nebraska, and ND. Even when they play non-BCS opponents, they're usually from the Mountain West or the WAC. There are a lot of reasons to criticize USC, but one thing I have to give them credit for is their willingness to schedule tough non-conference games.
Might be true for the Big 10 teams, but USC has, admirably, never had a problem with scheduling other BCS teams in addition to ND. In the last 10 years, they've played K State, Auburn, Colorado, VA Tech, Arkansas, Nebraska, Virginia, Ohio State, Minnesota, and Syracuse OOC. They kind of have everyone's dream scheduling philosophy of playing ND and one additional BCS team. Also helps that they won every one of those games except for one game against K. State.
Cue 10,000 NDNation posts:
But college football NEEDS Notre Dame! We are important! Things must stay the same forever and always on our eternal return to glory!
ND just needs to drop down a couple of levels to play the Coast Guard:
Coast Guard snaps a five-game losing streak and finishes 2-7 overall and 2-5 in the Bogan Division. The Bears lost five games this season by seven points or less, four of those in the final minute of play.
And the Merchant Marine was even on the USCGA schedule. The Golden Domers would fit right in with the Mariners and the Bears.
I know they aren't very good right now (and may not be in 5 years), but I'm really hoping for the 'Public Ivy' Bowl: UM vs. Cal. Road trip to Berkeley would be *awesome*.
Increase revenue without conference expansion
"Together, the Big Ten and Pac-12 encompass 15 states holding 43% of the nation's population and 22 of its top 50 television markets.
Looks like an assault on the SEC,with a potentially higher profile OCC schedule, marque match ups that effectively make the SEC OCC scheduling cupcakes look really bad for the SEC.
Some potential great match ups I look forward to seeing.
AU vs Michigan
USC vs Michigan
OU vs Michigan
Standford vs Michigan
Cal vs Michigan
Notre Dame vs Youngstown State.
Hey man, leave my Penguins outta this.
I like it a lot. I would rather see Michigan play any Pac-12 school (home or away) than any MAC or FCS team. I would love to go see Michigan play in Boulder, Salt Lake City, Corvallis, Tucson, Tempe, Los Angeles, Seattle, Eugene, the Bay Area, and Pullman. How cool!
How does playing a Pac-12 team mean we won't play and FCS or MAC team?
IMO it just means we won't play TWO MAC teams and an FCS.
This year we played EMU, WMU, SDSU and ND...this game would just replace one of the MAC games or the SDSU game. I don't get why people think it has an affect on ND or BOTH MAC games?
Sparty should schedule UCLA so they can actually see the Rose Bowl.
You win the Internet.
And if they win, they can claim themselves 'Rose Bowl Champions'..perfect
about this arrangment being similar to what other conferences are doing appears to be a slight towards the over-expansion/realignment of the other major conferences. It's as if Delany and Scott are saying "Go ahead and have your 14 team mega-conferences and country-wide Big East. Grab all the middling programs you want. We're going to stick with our traditions while moving forward at the same time."
Love this move because it doesn't leave the two conferences stuck in the past, but doesn't entirely do away with it at the same time.
if this concept expands, can this be the end of the bcs? Why do the major conferences need them or the ncaa for that matter?
I know many people are saying they would've rather seen a B1G vs SEC scheduling pact, but that is just unrealistic because I highly doubt the SEC wants to travel north of Kentucky on a regular basis. As is noted in every single bowl game they play being in their own backyard.
Just another step in the progression towards Jim Delaney & Larry Scott's master plan: a coast -to-coast partnership of dominance in college football.
-Expansion to 16 teams each
-Add major media markets
-Corner the market on traditional powers
Major targets for expansion include Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame and maybe Kansas? Okla State? Texas Tech? Rutgers? Uconn? That would give the B1G/Pac partnership:
-at least 8 of the 10 winningest all-time programs
-a coherent coast-to-coast geographic footprint
-a very formidable mini-playoff with the B1G/Pac championship games leading into a restored New Year's grand finale Rose Bowl matchup.
-and lastly a giant "FU" to the BCS and a "suck it" to the SEC
Just imagine the two conferences featuring four equally weighted division champions (for example, Texas vs. USC and Notre Dame vs Nebraska) with a Rose Bowl finale. Now campare that with the farce that is the current BCS championship featuring two teams from the SEC west. Which is more likely to provide a winning team with a resume that AP voters would declare as "national" champion?
And if the B1G/Pac really wanted to stick it to the SEC, they could try to entice Alabama and Tennessee into the fold (i.e., the only 2 SEC amongst the top 10 all time winningest programs).
Call me crazy...but something like this is probably more likely the endgame of college football over the next 10-20 years rather than any NCAA sanctioned Division II style or BCS plus-one playoff.
I absolutely love this.. Great moves by both conferences. Should make college football even more exciting.
This is awesome, and I heartily approve. It will cost some amount of revenue to Michigan and Ohio State, but it provides a great out of conference game every year. If we alternate Pac 10 & ND schedules, you have a marquee out of conference game yearly.
Especially if you cycle through the entire conferences, you will end up facing a very strong team 25% of the time (once every four years, Oregon, USC, & Stanford this year,) a middle of the road team 50% of the time (once every two years,) and a bottom dweller 25% of the time (once every four years, Arizona, Washington State, and Colorado this year.)
With 12 teams in each conference, it will take 24 years for Michigan to cycle through having a home game and an away game with every team in the Pac 10.
I don't fully know the financial repercussions, but it seems to me that TV could have a strong interest in ponying up more cash for this set up, alleviating the lost revenue from scheduling more home game tomato cans every year.
Win your Divison (duh)
Round 1: Win your Conference (B1G)
Round 2: Win the Rose Bowl (Super Conference)
Round 3: Win the +1 game against other TBD Super Conference (Sec vs ACC, etc)
That's essentially a sixteen team playoff.
We might add a couple teams to the B1G (ND etc), but won't rehash that here.
that is an 8-team playoff. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But compared with what exists now, it's a 4-team playoff (Round 2 and Round 3). There are no playoff games in winning your division - that's called the regular season.
Also a report of potentially holding a new bowl game between the conferences and hosting it on the Big Ten and Pac-12 Networks. Awesome....
Plus, from a Michigan perspective, a new team to play a night game against when Notre Dame is away.
unless we play USC or Oregon every year I really have no wishes to play the rest of their conference when we could be scheduling home and homes with Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, or Georgia.
we always schedule home and homes with those guys.....
Sounds like it could be good, but hmmm.... playing both Ohio State and USC (or Oregon) twice in one season? Crazy.
Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this…and totally redeem yourself!
This is brilliant on multiple levels.
First, there's traditional cooperation between the two leagues that makes them comfortable with each other. In my prehistoric era, Michigan often played then-PAC-8 schools instead of MAC teams OOC, so this is really not all that new.
Second, who would the B1G or PAC12 add for expansion that would meet their academic and athletic standards? There really aren't any good candidates except for Notre Dame. We're not going to be poaching a school from another league any time soon.
Now think about the CIC and the potential academic cooperation between the Midwest Ivies and Stanford, Cal, and UCLA, and how that impacts the academics of the two leagues. It's a natural fit.
Now that the SEC has added a couple of schools with good academics, they'll probably find the ACC a natural partner.
I'll bet Nebraska is feeling like they hit the lottery. The Big 12 is back to being the SWC plus Oklahoma.
I don't see why we have to get rid of ND...
Play 8 conference games a year.
Always play the ND home and home OPPOSITE the Pac-12 home and home.
You can still schedule a cupcake, you can still schedule a Michigan directional.
...am I missing something? How does this really change anything?
Our schedule could now look like this:
vs. Notre Dame
...8 B1G Games.
@ Notre Dame
...8 B1G Games.
How is that so much different from what we do now?
Harvard won't play Michigan.
I've been wondering why we don't schedule IVYs as the FCS school...
I want to play Harvard, Yale and Princeton if we HAVE to play these schools. Just a good institutional matchup.
i think this is a fantastic move by both conferences. even if we give up notre dame, the prospect of playing the likes of usc, oregon or stanford every year are amazing. delany has a smart way of sitting back and only making moves when he can hit a grand slam deal. acquiring nebraska and getting this deal done are perfect examples.
2017 college football season opener, usc vs michigan, either jerry world or at the rose bowl.
This is what I was going to come say when I was trying to put this into perspective for when this will be starting.
Pretty cool idea but can't they get this started earlier? I know football schedules a few years out but if teams are able to up and switch conferences in a 2 year span I see no reason this has to take 5-6 years to implement.
I hope that means that Michigan will come out to CA more often. Would love to catch a game at the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl.
You mean the Spartans might actually get to play in the Rose Bowl? Ridiculous, I say.
I would love to see the B1G Ten teams get to play the home games later in the year to get the home field advantage with the weather. We have to play the Rose Bowl on their turf..time for UCLA to play Wisconsin, Arizona State to play ohio, and Stanford to play Michigan in some crappy cold weather.
I want another crack at the duckies
So how long does this agreement go for ? Is this just a 5-10 year agreement or forever ?
I hope we have 1 year breaks in the agreement so we can play other teams as well otherwise the schedule gets handcuffed with the Pac 12/ Big 10 deal and the Notre Dame series.