Per Delany's interview with the Chicago Tribune:
B1G's Delany to Tribune: Status quo of 8 conf games "not even on the table" now. It'll be either 9 or 10. Decision in spring.
A CBS write up is here with the following quote from Delany:
“We like to play each other, and those are not hollow words," said Delany. "We are getting larger and want to bind the conference together.”
It's about time.
I was all
I see you left out the part
I see you left out the part about playing night games in November. Thats probably a good idea. You wouldnt want to cause a mass panic.
THOSE WHO STAY WILL BE CHAMPIONS
Night games...
...in November.
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=ncfnation&id=76909
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
I wonder what Michigan's
I wonder what Michigan's stance will be, given that we have had only one night game in our entire history.
M'Dog
WHAT!!! *Runs around flailing
WHAT!!! *Runs around flailing arms wildly* We are doomed!!
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill
If the big ten sucks now,
If the big ten sucks now, what do u think will happen when u add 2 more games in conference.
Michigan Football- What you gonna do when hokemania RUNS wild over you?
Less FCS/MAC schools on the
Less FCS/MAC schools on the schedule therefore a increase in the quality?
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill
I think you're missing his point.
Since number of losses is the sole metric of quality, teams become weaker when they play a more difficult schedule because they're likely to lose more games. And conference-wide this will almost certainly be so, because the conference is winning the vast majority of the games that are to be replaced and they only win 50% of the in-conference games.
Well, maybe "point" wasn't quite the right word.
That's assuming that that the current metric holds w/ the
selection committee. I understand that it might, but 3 of the 5 conferences have 9 game schedules once the Big Ten changes its structure so I doubt it'll be a huge factor
Rutgers and Maryland suckit
Rutgers and Maryland suckit so that's like adding two weak games right there.
And half the time a B1G team loses to some FCS school anyway!
'Murica & Footbaw: That's what Michigan Does
Exactly. Most Big Ten teams
Exactly. Most Big Ten teams we would add are teams we should be pretty easily. And if it is Wisconsin or Penn State, etc., well, those are teams we should be playing.
"Football is happening at Michigan... we have that savoir faire." Dhani Jones
we'll play teams like penn
we'll play teams like penn state and wisconsin instead of uconn and appalachian state
IMO I'd be fine playing 11
IMO I'd be fine playing 11 conference games. The OOC games really do nothing.
OH-HOW-I-HATE OHIO STATE
I'd prefer 10.
Home field advantage is so important. I'd hate to see conference championships decided because one team got 5 home games and the other got 4.
Ten is the sweet spot. Look
Ten is the sweet spot. Look for it to happen in the next couple of years.
M'Dog
Right, but then the problem is OOC
as Dave Brandon put it in his interview at 11 Warriors:
If we were to go to 10 conference games, which some people are suggesting with 14 teams and, certainly, there is merit to that, you avoid the five and four imbalance.
But now you’ve only got the flexibility of scheduling two non-conference games and if you want to play seven home games both of them have to be at home. When you do that, you really put us in a position where we really can’t go on the road to play a big BCS opponent because they aren’t going to schedule you on a one-and-done. They’re going to want to play a home-and-home.
So the consequences of going to 10, when overlaid with the fact that you have to play seven home games, really puts Gene and me in a position where we won’t be traveling to play non-conference away games. I, personally, am concerned about that. Part of what our fans and college football fans want to see are these great intersectional rivalries that can develop or just good matchups.
Other than ND which we don't play anymore
when was the last time we played a quality OOC opponent on the road? I'm not sure I will be all that broken up about no longer playing at UConn or Utah.
That's not really a fair
That's not really a fair question. ND has been our designed marquee OOC game for a long time. Not many schools will schedule two such opponents. Presumably, after the ND series goes on hiatus (it hasn't happened yet, BTW - it starts in 2015) we will try to schedule someone else.
The five and four home game imbalance
is a phony issue. One division has every team get five one year and four the next. It works very neatly with 14 teams. It's not quite as neat with 16, but it should still work.
Eating is murder.
Brandon's worries about 7 home games.
Re: Brandon's concerns about the number of Conference games (half of which will be away games) and the inability to schedule any good out-of-conference games, in order to assure Michigan fans of 7 home games...
I'd be willing to cut Brandon some slack, on a few seasons where we might have only six games on the home schedule. One particular reason to cut Brandon some slack on that is that there are always options for determined Michigan fans to see the team play on the road -- E. Lansing, Evanston, Bloomington, West Lafayette, Champaign, even Madison -- are not such terrible drives. The visits are generally a lot of fun.
But the big reason for season ticket holders to be angry about a slate of just six home games are the gut-wrenching PSD requirements; payable in full before you can then pay the money for six, or seven, games. My PSD is more than the cost of the year's tickets, for seven games!
I don't think so unless the
I don't think so unless the regular season goes to 13 games. Schools want three OOC games for revenue purposes (and bowl eligibility).
Looking At Combinations...
If you assume that you would play everyone in your division regardless, then with either a nine or ten game schedule, you could create scenarios in the 14-team version of the conference where you could play most teams in the other division at least every other year. One or two would get bumped to every two years, but this seems like it is a gray zone between the present state and needing to consider something akin to the so-called "pod system". That being said, I wouldn't mind more conference games if it meant overall better OOC games.
"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."
Follow the random tweets of a Michigan alum - http://twitter.com/#!/LorneEC3
that's semi-official. good
that's semi-official. good to know. sorry, eastern.
10 please.
10 please.
I hate this. Now we'll never
I hate this. Now we'll never play a big time OOC game that we could of without ND on the schedule.
903 wins most in college football
balanced conference schedules hard to achieve
non-conference cupcakes pad the record and are a profit windfall for the big schools.
big conferences destroy rivalries and make the conference less meaningful.
big conferences with unbalanced schedules will result in some teams playing a much easier schedule in some years will skew the eventual champions of each division and overall.
perhaps focus should be on the division and only those records get you into the championship against the other division.
can you imagine the horror of a young man from iowa not having the opportunity to compete with scholar athletes from rutgers? /s
pbmd
Very Obi Wan Like
Binding the conference (universe) together.
"Better to have died as a small boy than to fumble this football" -- John Heisman
With a 10-game schedule . . .
With a 10-game schedule and 14 teams, the B1G could adopt a 6-1-3 setup with teams playing the six programs in their division, one protected cross division opponent and then three of the other six teams in the opposite division. That allows programs to play one another at least twice in a four year period.
They aren't looking at adapting this until 2016 or 2017, which means they're synching this up with the new television contracts. It's also a signal to any program that is a possible expansion candidate that the B1G intends to play as many conference games as possible while maintaining the financial bottom line.
It'll be interesting to see what programs do with their non-conference schedules if there are only two opponents on it. Some will just schedule two easy opponents. Others might do a home-and-home and opt to play alternate years of six and seven home games. I suppose it will all depend on what their post-season objectives are (playoff or just getting into a bowl game) and what the impact will be revenue wise not only for the athletic department, but the communities where the universities are located.
It's also encouraging to see that they're looking at playing conference games the first two weeks of September. It should make the schedule somewhat more interesting, but it has to be recognized as a move for television. I also wonder if teams are really going to schedule difficult non-conference opponents late in the season. The SEC doesn't do it and I can't imagine there are too many B1G teams that would do it as well.
Well if the conference is
Well if the conference is expanding to 14+ then this is the right move. I don't want it to be 5-6 years before we play Wisconsin or Nebraska. I hope we still schedule 1 big out of conference game each year. The less cupcake games we have, the better. Sorry but playing Eastern Michigan does nothing to help us make a case for making the 4-team playoff.
It's been a lot. Its been a roller coaster that for some reason seemed like it would never get good. But you know what? We kept fighting. It's like that old saying goes, "Those Who Stay Will Be Champions." -David Molk
If no one in the conference
If no one in the conference ever played a cupcake non-conference opponent ever again, I'd be thrilled.
I'd still like to hear an explanation
on how this won't hurt B1G teams down the road. By adding conference games, you're more than likely increasing everyone's SOS which will equate to conference teams having worse overall records meaning less bowl games for the lesser guys and potentially our best team(s) missing out on the playoff. Or am I missing something? Seems like it hurts us unless other conferences follow suit
Or removing the tomato can
Or removing the tomato can games...
I agree.
What we need to do is eliminate conference games entirely and go to a full schedule of 12 MAC games for every B1G team. (I know, there aren't quite enough MAC teams to go around--some of the schools could play a middling 1-AA school to make up the difference.) Best overall record wins the conference.
It would do away with the schedule-imbalance problems; every conference school would play almost exactly the same schedule. Everyone but Minnesota would be bowl-eligible every year, we'd dominate the MNC because we'd always have at least two schools get through the regular season undefeated, and probably more....
Or am I missing something?
there is a very simple answer ...
and it could be used for all schools. Simply go to a 13 game season. Ohhh that was tough /s.
There is no magic in 12 - hell we now play after thanksgiving anyway. Just add one more week onto the existing schedule ... its not like the students aren't still in school. When I was young Michigan played a 10 game schedule, then 11 & now 12. Well the sizes of all conferences are growing so it only makes sense to add that 13 game.
This will also allow for schools to have 7 home games every year - which is critical for (you guessed it) financial reasons !!!!
Go Blue!
No place on earth I'd rather be on a football Saturday than Michigan Stadium !
I would like to see the
I would like to see the return of 11 game schedules. The players are being pimped by administrators IMO.
Re: Nov. night games
Night games in November? Are you fucking kidding me? NO!
We just came off a season of no noon games until november. Even UMASS was a 3:30 game. I was at the point last year where I was taking naps before big games. (Yes I realize I am insane). The suspense kills me all day and the whole argument of more tailgating time is invalid. My mind is not on tailgating before the game, it is thinking about the game. I don't care if it's EMU or Nebraska, I'm still nervous until that ball is kicked off.
I'm not of "those guys" who leaves right after the game to beat traffic. Cannot stand that crap nor do I understand it. Why wait in your car forever with the clogging of traffic when you can party after the (hopefully win) game? And if you're on the golfcourse, forget about it. I tried that before and it was a nightmare getting out of there even after mostly everyone left.
I usually stay after every game until everyone leaves the lot I'm in and it usually is dark out.
I am in favor of playing conference teams more. I want the long series with charter members of the B1G to continue on a yearly basis like illinois, minnesota, wisconsin, purdue & northwestern.
When the ADept sells special jerseys and gear, you'll see my picture next to the targeted customer crowd. A sheep.....but a Blue one.....
They play night games in
They play night games in Chicago and Green Bay in January. Why can't we play Ohio in November at night? Considering the biggest game in the history of the series was half under the lights, what is the problem?
"Ohio is like a giant turd that Michigan just can't pinch off"
1. It was in ohio, where
1. It was in ohio, where everyone expects their fans to act like animals
2. We do it to protect the city of Ann Arbor from drunken fools from ohio. I'd love to be on some kind of secret-masked street militia to protect the athletic campus after the game if they ever did play here at night.
When the ADept sells special jerseys and gear, you'll see my picture next to the targeted customer crowd. A sheep.....but a Blue one.....
The amount of riot police i
The amount of riot police i saw patrolling cbus after The game that year was nuts.
I
I personally prefer the 4 non conference games... Especially the cupcakes it gives younger players playing time, it gives your offense and defense time to get a true identity, work out the kinks and its also 4 easy wins
Sooooooo
Undefeated Ohio State versus undefeated Michigan every year.
I am fine with this. Enough
I am fine with this. Enough with playing MAC level competition for roughly three games every year. Big Ten games are more exciting, and it will make the races for the division titles more exciting.
I think this will mean the
I think this will mean the first 2 games every year are even bigger pancakes than what we're used to. Somewhat like Brandon stated in the quote.
That's not good news.
I also don't see teams going to 13 games. With conference championships and bowl games many teams are already played 14. Adding a 13th regular season game would push it to 15 meaning kids are playing almost a full NFL regular season.
Comapre that to basketball where college plays under 40 games, less than half an NBA regular season. Last year M baseball played 56 games, compared to a 162 pro season. Hockey played 41, basically half of an NHL season (that doesn't involve a lockout).
With the two football seasons already so similar (I know, I'm not counting preseason and playoffs) and ALL the health concerns being based on the long-term damage of football specifically, I would be incredibly surprised if more games were added, especially given the addition for top teams once a playoff is in effect. Eventually I would imagine even the NCAA would say enough is enough.
Adding more games
Would make everything worse. Yes we would get more college football which sounds great but it would turn college football into an even bigger money grab than it already is.
"Those who stay will be champions" -Bo
What about
A SEC/B1G challenge for one of the OOC games? Even though at the beginning it would a big SEC advantage, it would benefit the B1G in the long run. Remember the B1G/ACC Challenge began with the ACC dominating and the B1G has leveled the playing field. To be the best you have to beat the best... It would easier to recruit players for the opportunity to beat an SEC team and still play in the Midwest. Thoughts?
Aren't those called bowl
Aren't those called bowl games?
Lived the Dream. 2008-2012
Not exactly
You won't see Indiana, Wisconsin, Penn State playing these teams in bowl games. The point is, just like the B1G/ACC Challenge, it may be a way to increase recruiting abilities for the lower tier teams to play in the south and recruits like to play the best. Even if we get our ass kicked the first few times, I think it would improve the players and coaches recruiting abilities. Best Big Ten team plays in the Rose Bowl, not the SEC. That's all I'm saying.
Why would the SEC want to do
Why would the SEC want to do that? What with chances to play Savannah State and Louisiana Monroe sitting there so they can score 84 points for their fans and fill their pockets with money for their recruits? Nah, they would never go for a commitment to more big games across the board.
Sure, Alabama has no problem with it. But Florida would have to break from playing Miami and Florida State, etc. I think most of the SEC wants to keep the cupcakes. (oh wait, whoever draws Indiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue, or Iowa would still get quite the cupcake)
But as the other poster mentioned, the SEC and B1G have a bowl game alignment currently that takes care of most of this.
Didn't they try to do this
Didn't they try to do this with the PAC 12 and their 9 game conference schedule made them back out? I would much rather play the SEC if the possible.
Stanford and USC backed out
Stanford and USC backed out because they have their Notre Dame games and feel that it would be too difficult of an OOC schedule to play a B1G team and ND in the same season.
It's about time.
I was all for going to a 9 game B1G conference schedule even when the Pac12 alliance was on the table. If we add two more teams to the conference then a 10 game conference schedule should arrive in tandem.