Big Ten Conference Schedule to Remain at 8 games
At today's Big Ten media day, Commissioner Jim Delany said that the conference agreed unanimously to keep playing an 8-game schedule. Previously, the conference had planned to expand to nine games, but that was not unanimous.
The now-canceled Pac-12 scheduling alliance was supposed to be in lieu of the ninth game, but Delany doesn't (yet) have another conference lined up. But he said that the schools now believe that better out-of-conference games would help improve the Big Ten's strength-of-schedule relative to other leagues.
I was never fond of playing a ninth conference game, because every year half the teams have the advantage of an extra home game. I would rather see a wider variety of opponents coming onto the schedule.
It would be interesting to know which A.D.'s changed their minds. I, for one, am pleased to have it stay at 8 games, but I know Brian is going to be unhappy.
On one hand, I like it at 8 games, but on the other, a 9 game conference schedule would even out some of the built in advantages some teams have because of the protected crossovers *AHEM MSU AHEM*.
If we're going to partner with one of the best basketball conferences for the Big Ten-ACC Challenge, then the SEC would make sense for football.
I agree with your basic premise -- losses in football hurt more proportionally than in basketball.
But I'm uncomfortable with the implied conclusion -- since we can't beat the SEC we should not play them so we better our chances to get to the playoff.
How better to get to a point where we can beat the SEC than by playing the SEC. We're going to have to play them in the playoffs anyway. Unless the objective is just to get to the playoffs, collect the money and go home.
The first thing is that the Big Ten plays the SEC at least three times a year in three Florida bowl games. While that's not exactly what you're talking about here, at least we see the two conferences in head to head battles at the end of the season.
Realistically, though, SEC teams generally don't play many games outside their region. Alabama seems to be changing somewhat with Saban at the helm with the home-and-home series with Penn State and Michigan State coming up (I'm not counting the neutral site game with Michigan in Dallas). Georgia hasn't come to Big Ten territory, but they have had series with Arizona State, for example. LSU played Oregon last year, etc.
But I'm hard pressed to imagine the two conferences actually setting something like this up to match 12 B10 teams with twelve of the 14 SEC teams. More likely than not, the individual teams in the conference are going to put together all their own schedules.
This upsets me for two reasons. One, the teams that have creampuff crossover games like Indiana, will not be taking on a tougher opponent. Second, this means Michigan will play Penn State less over the next 10 years when they are absolute dreadful while OSU gets to play them every year.
...but Nebraska's playing them every year definitely does.
Hmmm....I just realized that UM's two most likely competitors for the Legends division (MSU and Nebraska) have one horrible team (Indiana) and one soon-to-be mediocre team (Penn State) as their protected rivalries.
Yeah, not real happy about that....
Add to that the fact that OSU will basically be winning the Leaders division just about every year, which means UM will need to beat OSU twice in the same season to win the B1G.
Definitely not happy about that....
The more I think about it, the more in favor of a re-structuring of the conference I become.
You have to play the best to be the best. Don't worry about other teams' schedules. Take care of business on our own schedule, and it won't matter.
...that's the players' attitude, and I'm sure that's the message the coaches give them, but the reality is, fans *are* going to "worry" about that sort of thing. Because it's not like we can do much to "take care of business on our own" as fans.
if we don't win all our big ten games, we don't deserve to go play for the NCS so this doesn't really matter to me.
you guys honestly think MSU's last few years weren't just a flash in a pan? they'll regress back to lossing to ND then collapsing within a year or two.
What makes you say that? Dantonio has proven that he is a formidable coach, and has brought stability to the program, something they haven't had in a very long time. They don't pull in top talent, but they've proven that they can win with what they have. I don't think they will ever reach 'elite' status, but they will continue to be a force to be reckoned with as long as Dantonio is there.
Losing Narduzzi (as they probably will after this season) may hurt them a lot though.
Bingo. It hurts to say, but Dantonio has built a quality program in EL. Anyone saying otherwise is being pretty delusional.
It will be very interesting how they react when they lose Narduzzi. He is one heck of a coach and is a big reason why they turn so many 2/3 stars into quality Big Ten players.
I agree that MSU is here to stay. They've had back-to-back 11-win seasons, and were very close to winning back-to-back big ten championships. Their defense still looks scary good this year. I used to think MSU was just a flash in the pan too, but Dantonio has proved me wrong.
Sometimes football is weird. It's not like Dantonio was a world-beater at Cincinnati. It's not like MSU is the kind of school you'd expect to be good, but there they are, and it doesn't show much sign of stopping.
Once the post-season was expanded to four teams with no autobids for conference champions, the stage was set for the Big Ten staying with an eight-team conference schedule when the agreement with the Pac 12 fell through.
I imagine the top teams who feel they can contend for the national championship think that going undefeated or 12-1 with a Big Ten championship title is enough to get into that four-team playoff regardless of the strength of schedule of the non-conference schedule. It would make no sense to schedule an additional conference game when beating a couple of MAC level teams will suffice when it comes to getting a berth in the playoff--especially when a conference championship game is added.
I really don't think there's much initiative for Big Ten schools to have incredibly aggressive non-conference schedules. I suspect we'll see the status quo where a B10 team will have one home-and-home series per year and three buy in games from the MAC, Mountain West, Big East and Conference USA.
We'll see what David Brandon does, but at the minimum, it allows him to continue scheduling up to eight home games a year with this setup. If he brings in teams like Colorado or Oregon State as one and done opponents, then he that would certainly upgrade the non-conference and the home schedules. But if he goes with three less than stellar teams and Notre Dame each year, then it's bound to be less exciting.
If there's going to be any conference partnership, I doubt it'd be with the SEC since three of their teams have traditional non-conference games with instate opponents from the ACC. Conversely, the same dynamic exists for the ACC, especially since they are going to have a nine game schedule for the 14 teams in that conference.
In the end, I don't think much is going to happen. I frankly don't think there's much motivation to upgrade the schedule, even if the playoff committee is supposed to evluate strength of schedule. For most Big Ten teams, what they have on their future schedules now along with a conference championship game is probably enough to get them into the playoff with an undefeated or one loss record.
???
I'm not following the premise that the Big Ten teams' strength of schedule is "good enough" at 8 conference games to consistently get them into the 4-team playoff. Wisconsin would not even have made it last year.
The Big Ten has to fight the perception that it is a waek conference. It has to improve its percieved strength of schedule or it will get shut out of the 4-team playoff. A 9th Big Ten team on the schedule would help somewhat, a 9th quality "BCS" conference game would help even more.
The status quo will not do it.
Call me crazy but I'd like to see 10 conference games. That leaves one fcs/mac warm up opponent and notre dame as the 2 non-conference gamees.
More is always better, especially when it comes to B1G football.
That's just crazy ...
(Actually, not entirely ... I see the point ... and certainly given playing two or three FCS/MAC teams or playing more Big10 I think I'd like more Big 10. But I'd rather have better non-conference.)
The Big Ten schools need 7 home games a year, to cover their costs. (Michigan is getting paid a ton of money to go play Alabama in Dallas; that is the only reason they play 6 this year.)
If you're locked into 5 conference road games every year, then most of the conference will never schedule a serious OOC opponent again, because they'll need two body-bag games at the front end of the schedule to get up to 7 home games.
Schools that have standing OOC rivalries, like Michigan, Purdue, and Iowa, would have six home games every other year. I don't know how Purdue and Iowa fans would feel about that, but as a Michigan fan I want more games in the Big House, not less.
This is all about $$$, nothing else. Nobody wants to give up a home game, which you would have to do every other year with a 9-game B1G schedule.
They'd schedule high schools before they'd go to 9 B1G games and give up home game.
They'll spin it as something else, lord knows they'll spin it, but it's all about the $$$.
I guess Wisconsin will keep playing charmin soft schedules in perpetuity.
Wisconsin has BYU (2013, TBA), Virginia Tech (2016, 2017), Washington (2017, 2018) and Washington State (2014, 2015) on its future schedules along with Arizona State in 2013. See http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/big-ten/wisconsin-badgers.php
Washington and WSU are both not so good. BYU is up and coming. Still not the same as playing ND or Ohio every year.
Don't underestimate Mike Leach.
Mike Leach is the most unique coaches in College Football. TTU will never return to where he took them.
Hopefully this will lead to some better non conference games at least....
The problem is the Big Ten is very top heavy. Adding a ninth game to the schedule doesn't help the Big Ten's national perception as much as scheduling solid non-conference opponents. Take 2012 predictions for example: OSU, U-M, MSU, NEB and WIS are going to somewhere between pretty good to solid. PSU and Iowa might be decent. NW, ILL and Purdue will be fighting to qualify for a bowl. And IU and Minny will be fighting to stay out of the cellar. The Big Ten might have seven or even eight teams that are bowl eligible, but likely only one or two that reach more than 10 wins.
So, if you add a ninth game, you likely are adding a six- to eight-win team. If you go out of conference, you can schedule a team that has a better chance of being in the national conversation.
"Delany said that the Big Ten schools serious about competing for national championships will soon have "enhanced schedules," meaning tougher nonconference games. Those schools, he said, will "not only demonstrate strength by winning Big Ten championships but also demonstrate strength relative to other conferences." " - from the ESPN Blog - link
One of the other notable items in this entry is that it was not exactly popular with the coaches, and of course, many of the athletic directors were uncomfortable with the notion of having an imbalanced number of home and away games. I suppose I can see that if your department is not exactly making money hand over fist (not everyone in the Big Ten is) - the lack of a home game every other year would definitely hurt a few teams in the pocketbook more than others.
As for what Delany said, a better non-conference schedule as a substitute for the extra in-conference game is not necessarily a bad thing. As for our future schedules, I would actually like to see fewer MACrifices, and Oregon State, Utah and Colorado in future years are a small step in that direction in relative terms overall.
Today, it's eight games. A year or two from now, it may be more. It's impossible to predict what is going to happen in the future, because this is the most volatile the situation has ever been regarding schedules and expansion.
If they're not going to go to nine games, they should consider realignment. Ditch these artificial divisions and go with geography.