Protected Marquee Cross-Division Games
For the purposes of this thought experiment, ignore the location in the calendar of the games, just simply the idea.
Let us say, for the sake of argument, that Michigan and Ohio State are placed in opposite divisions. Let us also presume that Nebraska is placed in Michigan's division and Penn State is placed in Ohio State's. Let us also presume that with a nine-game conference schedule, two cross-division games are protected.
So Michigan and Ohio State is a given for a protected cross-division game. Should the Big Ten then also protect Michigan-Penn State and Nebraska-Ohio State, which would then insure that every season:
Michigan-Ohio State
Michigan-Penn State
Michigan-Nebraska
Ohio State-Penn State
Ohio State-Nebraska
Penn State Nebraska
are all played and that you would give significant value to the regular season?
I can see cons in this, from a Michigan standpoint and from a Big Ten standpoint, but does this at least make it more reasonable to say "We're preserving "rivalries" among great teams. Would anyone among you be opposed to knowing, yes, Michigan has to play Nebraska, Ohio State, and Penn State every year, but all four the "marquee teams" would have the same killer "circle of death" (or Octogon of horror, whatever floats your boat.)
Note: In the divisions version I created that brought this about, Michigan State ends up in Michigan's division with protected cross-over games against Iowa and Minnesota, which makes very little sense, but honestly, does Michigan State care about playing any one else in the Big Ten besides Michigan?
August 20th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
That would make those four schools play a much harder Big Ten schedule than say Indiana, Purdue and so on.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^
having trouble seeing them have 2 protected cross-overs because if you have 2, then you play the other 4 teams in that division 2 out of every 4 seasons, if you have 1, then you play the other 5 teams 3 out of every 5 seasons.
I think just that increase from 2/4 to 3/5 is more important for continuity within the conference than 2 protected crossovers because you'll end up having quite a bit of those crossovers with no reason for them even being protected except that "well, these are the teams we had left" (ie-MSU vs Iowa, Minnesota in your hypothetical scenerio)
I do think you must have 1 protected because of the preservation of rivalries amidst trying to split the divisions up as equally as possible--some meaningful rivalries will need to be preserved by protected cross.
It's an interesting debate, albeit a more "off-the-radar" debate: should the Big Ten have 1 or 2 protected?
^to actually respond to your inquiry, I think your model of the 4 powers all playing eachother will be pushed very hard if they end up having 2 protected-cross's in the 9 conf game layout (matching up traditional powers=$ ... and I think $ just might be a factor for Delany & Co.)
August 20th, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
Let me ask this, would it be better, in a two on, two off model, to have a one on, one off model that repeats (which is to say that you would play every team in the Big Ten once in a two year cycle and you would never go through a four year cycle where you didn't see every Big Ten school in your stadium.) Similarly, you could also, within those cycles potentially rotate whom the "two on" and "two off" are so that it was not a lucky cycle that you always played the same order or teams?
Honestly, the more I look at this, the more I run numbers and start putting together things that I think work, I see flaws.
There is no perfect solution here. We will need to find a "optimal" solution in this.
August 21st, 2010 at 12:17 AM ^
logistics would be easier for a 2 team protected crossover: with 4 teams you have a 4 year cycle (no matter if you play back to back years or not) making home/away arrangements easier than a 5 (non-backtoback) or 10 (back-to-back) year cycle which is what you would have with a 5 team rotation.
Actually, a back-to-back cycle would really be almost as easy with a 10 year cycle as a 4.
With a 4 year, 4 team cycle, you know each year you'll have 2 Home, 2 Away (against non-protected teams).
With a 10 year, 5 team cycle, you'll know have 3 home, 2 away in odd years, 2 home 3 away in even years (or visa versa).
I would really prefer only 1 protected team because I hate not playing other conference opponents, so the more you can play everybody, the better ... I'd say zero protected, but with all of the divisional scenarios I see, you always have at least 2-3 teams that could "lose" a meaningful rival without it.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
Not going to happen - Big 10 will allow 1 cross divisonal rival and it will be the Suckeyes. I'm more interested to see if Michigan final regular season matchup will be Nebraska. Now that sounds like fun...
August 20th, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
2 conferences: UM, MSU, Purdue, NW, Wisconsin, Iowa - OSU, PSU, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska
have 3 out of big Ten games starting the season, 5 conference games and rotate 3 teams of the 4 from the other bracket. final game of the season is protected rivalry game.
schedule would end on a non-conference title impacting game. bfd. why would this not work, keep UM/OSU in-tact as last game of the season and, likely, either result in a rematch (bfd/awesome) or no problem whatsoever?!
... not to mention, for basketball, those would be compelling...
August 20th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^
I have a feeling the last week of the season is going to look somthing like this OSU vs PSU, UM vs UN, UW vs UI.
August 21st, 2010 at 1:17 AM ^
Keep OSU and Mich in same division and you get:
OSU v UM and UN v UI on the final weekend!
The Game and The Corn Bowl!