Thursday: 2024-25 B1G Opponents to be announced
4:30 ET. Interesting that it says "2024-25", whatever it may only have a 2 year lifespan.
https://twitter.com/BigTenNetwork/status/1666547082876932098
2024 Prediction:
Home: UCLA, MSU, Minnesota, Penn St, Iowa
Away: Rutger, OSU, IU, Purdue
That'd be a tough conference schedule.
No way. Guarantee we will be at USC. Because, B1G and Michigan. The Michigan Screw is alive and well.
Is it bad to play good teams? Would be much more worried about it if the playoff wasn't expanding. Also, USC can't play every top exiting program in the conference each year
So at 4:30 tomorrow we find out (officially) that we play USC in ‘24 and ‘25.
Yes, each year TWICE.
Look on the bright side, only one of those will be at the Coliseum each year.
The other will be a neutral site game...
At SoFi Stadium
Michigan will play both SC and UCLA. Probably go to SC.
I am unreasonably excited for the ‘24 season with Texas and SC/UCLA on the schedule.
I don't think Michigan is going to get both LA schools on the schedule in the same year. I think Michigan is going to get a home-and-home with one of them (probably USC), and Ohio State is going to get a home-and-home with the other. Or possibly they will get one for a year and the other the following.
But your point remains, the 2024-25 schedule with OSU, Texas, and one of USC/UCLA on the schedule is going to be big upgrade after previous two years. MSU will still be on there and probably Iowa or Wisconsin too. My guess is that PSU is going to come off the schedule though.
Of course Michigan would get USC while OSU get UCLA…
I don't mind it for two years. The part I am waiting to see is if they do a permanent fixed rivalry with one of the LA schools which would be a huge disadvantage to the team that draws USC.
The Big Ten hasn't answered any questions about how future scheduling format will work moving forward, and I'm surprised they are releasing this schedule first without revealing the other part yet. It's possible they do both at the same time? The Athletic was reporting that they were leaning toward a "Flex Protect" model which I assume would mean Michigan would probably only protect OSU and MSU.
I’m sure that might be apart of the rollout on BTN. Gives them a chance to fill up air time explaining the new “protected games”
You are correct. I didn't look at the BTN release which mentions that the future scheduling format will be part of the release.
This is why I think JJ may come back for the 2024-2025 season. That is a some serious competition. Yeah, maybe his stock would never be higher after another run in the playoffs after this season but...
Real competitors (like Brady) never shied away from competing.
Most cfb pundits, fwiw, predict that M will first draw UCLA and Ohio will get USC. I suspect they are right.
Ohio state, michigan state and one of the LA schools will be our rotation. Book it!
BOLD prediction!
I wouldn't mind this as long as Penn St. is left off the schedule. Hopefully the LA team will be a home game. I would guess we could get into the CFP with 2 losses if it came down to it.
I just hope they don't give MSU back-to-back home games like last time
C'mon, man. Be sensitive. Sparty is still suffering nightmares about our tunnel.
Was going to tune in until I read Gene Smith is one of the featured guest. What the hell is he adding to the conversation?
I'm guessing everyone wants one of the Big Ten's top tier: M, OSU, PSU, USC. And FOX, CBS and NBC want those 4 to play each other often. I'm guessing the top tier each plays 2 of the other 3.
M's locked into OSU and MSU. Guessing USC gets PSU and M, OSU gets PSU and likely UCLA as well. That way, the top tier play 2 of the other 3. Everyone else probably wants to get one of the top tier as well - that's very doable with the 9 game schedule. An opportunity to make everyone happy for 2 years until the Pac12 blows up and we add 5 more teams to the Big Ten.
It might end up being the other way around. I think the league might keep as few games as protected as possible. I think the weaker teams are going to want fewer protected games against the blue bloods to increase their chances of bowl eligibility or sneaking into the championship game/playoff. All these teams are already going to get one or two of the blue bloods every year as it is.
Especially with the West Coast teams--it might end up that USC only ends up with UCLA as its only protected rivalry. There are some reports that the other Big Ten schools want to limit to one West Coast trip per year which might be tougher to schedule with protected rivalries with the LA schools. The schools I am interested in seeing--PSU and MSU. Will PSU get a protected rivalry with OSU or any blue blood? Will MSU get protected rivalries with PSU and Michigan? PSU might end up the big winner and MSU the big loser tomorrow of the new scheduling model if so.
Everyone here seems to assume M will get USC. Ohio will get USC because M has the harder schedule overall, and Ohio is just as big a draw as Michigan.
I was thinking about the math on this - and it's very likely that they match up USC-OSU-PSU-M all against each other, instead of just playing 2 of the 3. For one, this ups the total "marquee" matchups from 4 to 6, but also it means everyone else in the conference gets 2 of us, rather than an imbalanced 2.3 (meaning 4 schools get all of us 3). I think the money move is making those 2 marquee games and 2 lower tier games, rather than 4 games with big money schools playing lower schools.
I won't be shocked if Wisconsin doesn't have to play Michigan, Ohio State or USC. Seems like every time schedules get redone they end up with the easiest schedule.
With the addition of USC and the elimination of divisions, I think it is going to be hard to avoid at least two of Michigan, OSU, USC, or PSU on your schedule every year even with a potential model with 3 protected rivals without those schools in it. Big Ten West teams have nowhere to hide anymore.
The thing is that they are releasing 2 years of schedules today. Every team will play 3 opponents twice and the other 12 teams once each. If you skip Michigan, Ohio State and USC in 2024 I think that would mean you are playing all 3 of them in 2025.
I suspect the teams that play Michigan & Ohio State once each will prefer that those 2 teams are split rather than playing both the same year.
Lemme guess, Michigan gets USC locked in as a permanent rival and OSU gets UCLA…
I think part of the reason for the flex protect model is to not make up rivals. I bet USC and UCLA only get each other, Michigan only gets OSU and MSU and the schedule makers just put the big time teams together more often outside of the protected element
All indications are that they are going to a "hybrid" type system where a school will have 1, 2 or 3 permanent rivals. If they planned on giving USC or UCLA multiple rivals I don't think they would be going to that system.
The thing is, though, that each team will have 3 teams that they play in both 2024 and 2025, and it seems likely that Michigan's 3rd, after MSU & OSU, will be selected by the TV networks...so USC might end up being a multiple-opponent throughout the '20s, even if they are not an official rival.
And when it's not USC, it'll be Penn State, unless Oregon joins in which case it's Oregon. Which is fine, it's interesting games against different teams.
I'm curious if OSU-PSU will be dubbed a "Rivalry" or a "flex home and home"
Adding UCLA and USC is pretty damn exciting, IMO, so don't care if M gets a raw deal on the schedule. Win the game.
And it's been a long time since being this excited to see a Trojan up close.
This will be fun to watch - hopefully, I'll be able to tune in live and hear it presented.
That they are only presenting a two year schedule, with the associated conference alignment is - interesting - to me. And, it's interesting in the respect that there could be a change in the next two year period - "26-27" - with potential additions to the B1G membership.
In a given four year cycle - I would expect the Conference leadership wants to have heavyweight matchups - because the eyes it will draw have the potential to be significant. So, who do I think are the heavyweights? Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, USC, and UCLA.
In years 1 and 2 - I could envision a two year "home and home" between Michigan and UCLA, followed by Michigan and USC in years three and four. In those same two years - you could see "home and home" between OSU and USC, followed by OSU vs UCLA in years three and four.
Some have pointed out the average attendance in the Pac-12, especially for UCLA home games (at the Rose Bowl). Does anyone think that the Rose Bowl won't be a sell-out when Michigan or Ohio State play there?
The challenge is - what to do about Penn State - since, I'm pretty sure they want the visibility / interest that a heavyweight matchup would offer. In my mind - it goes even a bit further - how much would Penn State want an October Whiteout against USC or UCLA?
It's tough--there isn't that much flexibility. Over the next 4 years we are already guaranteed:
* 4 games (2A, 2H) vs Ohio State
* 4 games (2H, 2A) vs Michigan State
* 2 games each (1H & 1A) vs the other 13 teams
So that's 34 of the 36 games already spoken for--Michigan will need 1 more at home and 1 more on the road. Where do those last 2 come from? Presumably the extra road game will be USC or UCLA, sending Michigan out west 3 of the next 4 years. The extra home game will be USC, UCLA or Penn State I would think.
Alton, Respectfully - I don't know if you've captured it accurately. The matchups you've described are speculation. I'm not disagreeing - but, the four guaranteed games against MSU - that reflects an implied structure for protected rivalries. Now, there may be protected rivalries in the announced structure - and, then again, there may NOT be protected rivalries.
One structure I do like is - in a given four year period - each team in the conference plays every other team in the conference twice - "home and home". My feeling is - it's great that a student at any school in the conference would have an opportunity to see every other conference team at home - at least once - while they're enrolled.
Well, equally respectfully, somebody pretty high up has come right out and said that Michigan will have a protected rivalry with Michigan State. They (for certain definitions of "they") have also said that they are going with a "hybrid" system where everybody will have 1, 2 or 3 protected rivalries.
I am taking these, along with the 9-game schedule rather than an 8-game or 10-game schedule, as baseline assumptions.
Alton, I look forward to hearing what the conference is going to do.
I long for the days of ten teams in the Big 10 - when everyone plays everyone else each season.
I don't think the conference is going to stop expanding - which is part of the reason for only releasing a two year schedule.
IF there are protected rivalries (and - honestly, I see no reason why there shouldn't be - it's part of the tradition of the game) - Michigan's #1 rival would be Ohio State. I'd guess the Spartans would like their #1 rival to be Michigan.
You point out the 9 game schedule - and, I agree with that. Though, depending on the future size of the conference - I'd be fine with a ten game conference schedule too.
Enjoy...
Yeah, when you start with the assumption that there are protected rivalries (and I think there should be), you can start with some pretty uncontroversial assumptions: (1) every team deserves at least 1 rival, (2) every in-state rivalry will be protected, (3) the 2 Old Rivalries (M v OSU and Minnesota v Wisconsin) will be protected too.
There are other obvious rivalries but there is no way Michigan will escape MSU & OSU and I would suggest it is unlikely they get a third permanent rival, even though they will have a third opponent that repeats in 2024 & 2025.
My tinfoil hat theory is they are only announcing '24 & '25 for now because the conference will be different (i.e. bigger) starting in '26.
With the turmoil going on with the PAC lack of TV contract and Colorado seemingly with 1 foot out the door heading back to BIG12. Plus the ACC drama with the 7 teams looking to break the contract. Realignment is coming, so grab your popcorn and hold onto your butts...
Will be pretty disappointed if we play Rutgers or Maryland in 24. Only benefit of this new schedule is getting to play the old Big 10 West teams more often.
Also Indiana (I know they're historic but...ugh). I think because we have the "extra" rivalry with MSU, we are less likely to face all of those 3, but likely to get one because everybody wants games against the top tier.