Report: B1G possibly looking to make USC/Michigan & OSU/UCLA permanent rivalries as part of new conference scheduling
Matt Hayes is reporting in the new conference scheduling that is a year away, that the 2 biggest brands in the B1G will possibly be made permanent rivals for the new west coast teams(source was a current B1G AD). It is all apart of a 3-6 format for conference games that has been explained on the board in the past. He states that the TV execs want more marquee matchups and this is a way to ensure that.
I kind of expected this, so no surprise here. Figured they were not dishing out $1B to see USC/UCLA play Rutgers and Indiana every year. Would be rough though having to play SC/OSU every season but getting out to So Cal every other year would probably be a great thing for all the west coast alums.
SC replaces PSU.
Yup basically it would be MSU/OSU/USC every year
IDK why I can't comment on the post, but from what I've heard:
OSU requested Ill, M and USC
MSU requested M, PSU, IU (or Wisc? I forget)
M requested OSU, Minn, UCLA
The conf/TV networks will likely force M to play MSU instead of Minn and force OSU to play PSU instead of Ill. Either way, M or OSU will play out west every year. Some are worried about unbalanced schedules there, but the 3-6-6 model for 9 B10 games a year is what to expect with M playing MSU, OSU and UCLA every year. The other 6 and 6 teams will play M every other year.
We didn't request MSU? Disrespekt!
I don't want to get stuck with OSU, USC, and MSU as our permanent rivals. MSU can go off our schedule for all I care even though it's their super bowl.
I like the OSU, Minnesota, UCLA option better than OSU, MSU, USC.
UCLA and Michigan are very similar academic institutions, and USC games get annoying with their school song.
I think the little brown jub is best college trophy game. MSU is at the point I worry about our players getting hurt by cheap shots, as well actual assault.
I want a change too. The Michigan St game isn't fun anymore. It hasn't been for a while. I don't look forward to it. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone. If we ended up playing them once in 10 years or something that would be ok. But no rivalry has to happen.
I’d rather play USC than UCLA. Although I’m against “permanent” rivalries quite honestly. The focus has to be making the playoff and winning it all and I’m not sure a permanent rivalry schedule of OSU, MSU, and USC/UCLA, is in the best interest of our chances or the players. Those are big games that will account for a lot of wear and tear on the body….not to mention the ridiculous distance they’ll have to travel to the west coast. I understand keeping OSU on the schedule especially with playoff expansion, but otherwise mix it up.
There’s no reason to make any game other than OSU an every year thing. Having to play USC every season would be a significant disadvantage for Michigan. With Lincoln Riley, USC is probably going to be excellent every year and certainly better, on average, than UCLA.
Agree there's no reason why a team needs to have 2-3 protected rivalries. Protect each team's main rival and then rotate the rest for fairness and distribution. Everybody will play everybody else often enough.
I don't like these added rivalries either. But this whole move is about getting the Los Angeles market. So I see why they want it. And so also I see why we might be getting something most fans don't want.
I always considered USC a rivalry because of some Rose Bowl games, but giving OSU UCLA and Michigan USC seems a little lopsided. The whole mega-conference thing sucks. I get that it is a competition for TV deals (and then direct-to-consumer streaming services after that), but I'd like to play MN, WI, MSU, IL, NW, IN, IA, Purdue and OSU every year. PSU is in there at this point, I guess, but I don't really care about Rutgers or Maryland and UCLA/USC is just weird.
MSU needs us. We don’t need them.
It's vital we play MSU every year, as it serves a purpose, because it's their Super Bowl and they play accordingly, and it keeps us from not going soft before the OSU game.
I would like USC only because I love those Song Girl sweaters.
Go Blue!!!!
The Yay girl from Michigan can compete against these girls.
Negging me for a pic of hot chicks in tight sweaters makes you look dumb.
Go Blue!!!!
USC has a much higher ceiling than PSU - zero chance Warde keeps his job if we don’t get UCLA, OSU has no real in state rival
Doubt Warde has much say, the voices at FOX, NBC & CBS will probably have the most say in this matter.
Wtf why would it be Wardes fault? It won't be his choice.... People here better be careful they don't get what they wish for. Our teams across board have done quite well on Wardes watch. He could have canned Harbaugh like most of you wanted, and didn't. Show some fucking respect.
And drop State. Replace them with a cupcake every year.
A different cupcake.
I am meaning a 70-9 type game.
MSU is like a cupcake with a razorblade in it.
Could replace MSU with Nebraska. It has 1997 for some rivalry history. Programs quality is on par with MSU with higher up side. And fans have order of magnitude more class than MSU.
Of course osu gets ucla but it’s still good to have more interesting games
my thoughts as well - OSU has played USC 2.5x as many times as they've played UCLA (and 2.5x as many times as we've played USC) whereas we've played USC/UCLA about the same # of times. Clearly USC is the harder draw:
OSU v USC: 10-13-1 (24 games)
OSU v UCLA: 4-4-1 (9 games)
UM v USC: 4-6-0 (10 games)
UM v UCLA: 8-3-0 (11 games)
USC v UCLA: 50-33-7 (90 games)
UM v OSU: 60-51-6 (117 games - I spent between 45 and 23 seconds deciding whether to include this one or not)
Sure, why not. Just make the schedule harder and harder. While entertaining for college football fans, as Michigan fans who want to see them play for the title, playing OSU/USC/MSU/PSU is a rough road. With Lincoln at USC, I think OSU vs USC would be the better matchup.
I don't like it either.
What Michigan is going to have to do in response is play a cupcake where 2nd stringers get in by end of the 2nd qtr. They could drop Mich St from the schedule, and play Western every year or something. Something has to be done to compensate for the difficulty level added to the schedule by this game.
Folks…we are not dropping MSU! Besides they need to get some comeuppance for the tunnel incident last year
I'm not wanting to argue, but I don't see any value in play them. Play some nearby college like Toledo, or Eastern, or Central, or Western, or something.
They are a rival…besides it does great ratings, no one wants to watch us play Toledo.
USC ratings will surpass that.
I hope Mich St is off the schedule very soon.
Agree, people are dreaming if they think MSU is coming off the schedule.
Expansion of the CFP could mitigate some of the effects of a harder schedule?
100 percent.
It could, but it also makes the argument against a harder schedule... when playing not just for a playoff spot, but for a 1st round bye and/or home field, there's no reason to try to bolster the strength of schedule when UM is already in the 2nd toughest division in the P5. imo, of course.
With the 12 team playoff it won’t matter as much. A 2 loss Michigan team can get into the field easily with a schedule like that
Good point. Probably more value in a big win than being hurt by a loss to a good team once we go to 12.
LOL, worried they'll "make the schedule harder". Poor us. Do you mean like harder than in the 80-90's when our non-conf schedule was, oh, say Florida State, Notre Dame and Boston College? Or maybe Notre Dame, That #1 Miami, and Wake Forest? Or maybe Notre Dame, Colorado, Baylor? I'm sick of these awful cupcakes with maybe one good non-conf game, or, like last year and this year, maybe just joke scrimmages. And back then it was much harder to have a shot at the national title. With a 12-team playoff, our non-conf should be power 5 only. It's low risk, helps the team improve, doesn't change the B1G standings and means something to kids and fans. Would the players rather play Hawaii and CSU than Florida and Oregon? I highly doubt that.
How did you feel about 8-4 seasons and never getting a shot for a national championship then?
The expanded playoffs allow for 1 or 2 loss teams to enter the picture. The SoS argument becomes stronger as well.
LOL. One of the schedules I quoted was 97 when we went 12-0. Another was 88 when we won the BG1 and Rose Bowl, lost to ND by 2 and Miami by 1, then went 10-0 and finished ranked #4. So I’d say I was good with those schedules. The 8-4 years were because we collapsed in B1G play. Know your history.
Totally hear you about how schedules used to be tougher. The difference is it was equitable back then. Everyone was playing a harder schedule.
Here, it may not be. Take MSU, for instance. They’re about to drop OSU as an annual opponent and likely won’t get USC or UCLA either.
Can't upvote this enough. All the whining about 'harder schedules' is disgusting loser talk. Especially with a 12 team playoff coming! The team will be fine, 'croots will come from everywhere, and the stadium capacity might need expansion again (well, except for game length and shitty commercial time entertainment).
If the conference wants to use Michigan as a main draw (as it should, and will), then bring a tough schedule and have the team ready for it. Man the fuck up and play the games in front of you.
BTW, FWIW, I don't give a rats ass if MSU is on or off the schedule. But if we play them then beat the ever loving shit out of them mercilessly every year. No more 'little brother' talk - take them seriously and beat the shit out of them.
Having 2 losses won't matter as much with a 12-team tournament, especially if the losses are to ranked opponents.
It will still be easier than our schedule as of a few years ago when we had Norte Dame on the schedule and Wisconsin was our permanent rival. We’ll just need to make sure the non conference games are cupcakes. Honestly our schedule would still be easier than most SEC schedules.
I'll bet Bo and John Robinson are smiling about this upstairs. The rivalry makes sense given the tradition set in the 1970s Rose Bowl games. The home/away format would work. The trick would be to have USC up here in late October or in November when it starts getting cold in A2. No doubt it would be night game up here as well. Actually, a noon kick would be better so USC has to prep for a 9AM Pacific time kick off.
Forget that, it's BS if we get USC, give OSU USC . That schedule would be unfair if we had to play USC MSU and OSU every year while OSU will get UCLA IL and Mich. Give USC OSU PSU and Wisconsin give UCLA Mich MSU and Iowa. So with that, you will have:
Mich. UCLA MSU. OSU
MSU. UCLA MICH PSU
OsU. USC. PSU. Mich
PSU. OSU. MSU. USC
UCLA. Mich. MSU. USC
USC. OSU PSU UCLA
Thats what I came up with. It would be bs for the other teams because they wouldnt have a big dog as a rival
I hate watching us smash cupcakes. We're a top team in college football and should act like it. Not to mention with playoff expansion it won't matter if we drop a game during the season.
The toll to the body is a factor though. If the 1st team can get to the bench during the 2nd qtr of a cupcake game, that has a good effect on the health of the players in the overall schedule.