Big Ten and Pac-12 announce plans to suspend scheduling agreement

Quotes from delany rolling in as well. Looks like we're playing Utah and Colorado just for fun.

Looks like 4 PAC12 schools wouldn't agree to it: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53126/big-ten-pac-12-pact-dissolves-fans-lose

Well that sucks.

I understand the PAC 12 teams (some of them) having a problem with this. they play 9 conference games and we play 8, so this would increase their schedule difficulty--teams like Stanford and SC already play ND every years, so with 9 conference games plus a B1G team added, that's togher than many want.

That partnership really did nothing for me.  And, this should give us back a little more control of our nonconference schedule. 

Well that stinks. Back to Northwest Indiana and Southcentral Delaware College

that is all

with the new format, teams won't want to schedule top BCS opponents.  You'll have a better shot at the final 4 by playing lower BCS teams that are easier to beat, ie. Kentucky, where you get credit for playing teams with a pulse, but have a better shot at winnig all your games.  There won't be any Div II teams on the schedule, but no more big time OC games.  Woo.

The article mentions that the Big Ten now may pursue another conference to have a similar scheduling arrangement.

well goddammit then. so much for opening against usc in 2017.

Pussies.

This kind of sucks, but I wasn't blown away with the ability to play Colorado and Utah, so those types of matchups won't be missed.  I know that some Pac-10 teams were annoyed with having to play an extra tough opponent, which is understandable.  Hopefully UM still plays the USC's and Oregon's of the world, but not as part of this general relationship.

Wow. That's really disappointing. This was one of the more exciting developments of the past year, IMO.

"At least four Pac-12 schools ultimately decided they would not accept mandatory scheduling, ESPN.com has learned. One proposal called for eight intra-league matchups per year, featuring the willing Pac-12 schools, but the Big Ten wanted a complete collaboration or none at all." - from the EPSN article in the thread above

I understand why the Pac-12 didn't want the mandatory scheduling as they do have numerous extra-conference agreements (Utah-BYU, for example) and Stanford and USC already having ND on the schedule (only because they probably want to "right-size" their schedule to have a shot in the new playoff format, or that's my guess - tough, sure, but not necessarily brutal), but I think I get why the Big Ten insisted on full collaboration. I would guess that the quality of the matchups came into question then, and the schools that might have readily agreed wouldn't necessarily be the schools that were top-tier and the matchups that were projected were ones that neither conference was necessarily high on.

I like the idea of going to nine conference games in the Big Ten anyway, and if we can get a good Pac-12 team on the schedule on occasion, that would still be worth seeing. I still think that this arrangement could have had some great games in it.

I was hoping to some day see The Team again play here in the Bay Area.

They should still schedule a home.and home vs Stanford for those "academic" recruiting battles.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

Strange that the Pac-12 couldn't have anticipated and resolved this before the announcement.

Regardless, hopefully those conferences can pull this off as a one-time or occasional event. The yearly thing actually seemed a little excessive to me.

Nobody in the Pac 10 will play Penn State.  Sad, but I believe unfortunately true.

The timing smacks of opportunism. It seems as if both teams, given the new playoff format, decided to lighten their loads. That being said, who really cares if M does or doesn't play a steady diet of mostly uninteresting P10 teams? Utah? Colorado? Whatever. The top teams will (usually) meet in the Rose Bowl. That's the important thing.  Personally, I always thought the regular-season "relationship" undercut the Rose Bowl relationship.

Great! Having the rose bowl deal with the PAC 12 is enough. This will allow more flexibility in the schedule. I'd like Michigan to schedule some home and home games with the SEC. Tennessee or the Gamecocks would be cool. Then I'd go after LSU.

If not, I personally think the ACC is a very intriguing option...

SEC teams, despite their dominance of late, have proven largely unwilling to go home-and-home against top programs.  LSU went to Oregon; Bama went to PSU. Florida, Tennessee, Georgia: they never venture north. This is partly because these teams consider the SEC schedule tough enough and partly because they're afraid to venture out of the South, whose climate gives them a decided advantage. Every January, B10 teams play in blazing Florida heat. But when was the last time you saw an SEC team play in cold weather? 

If this leads to a 9 game conference schedule (Add Wisco or PSU to the home slate in even years), + ND + 2 middling BCS teams (Vandy, Baylor, Arkansas, Boston College, etc), I won't be completely devestated.  But we all know that won't happen that way.  We'll be stuck playing Western, Eastern, and Central in the same season. 

I really was looking forward to a potential USC/UM game in Ann Arbor.  That would have been so cool.

An undefeated B1G team will likely always make the playoffs, regardless whether you beat USC or Vanderbilt, so why take the risk? Nobody has actually said how much SOS will pjay into the decision making. Just win your games, doesn't matter who you play, and you're in (that goes for the big ten, twelve, PAC, and sec).

stood to legitimize the Pac 12 more than to boost the B1G. Don't think their backing out hurts us in any way.

Return of the MAC.  

You lied to me, Jim Delany.