Hypothetical Mich sched for New Big 10
This is a sample sched with teams in no particular order date wise.
Two things are clear:
1) You absolutely must add one conference game each year.
2) You need to rotate opposite division teams in pairs (not including cross-over rivalry) every other year or you will end up playing a conference member once a decade.
Leaders | Legends | |
1 Rutgers | 1 Michigan | |
2 Maryland | 2 Michigan ST | |
3 Penn State | 3 Nebraska | |
4 Ohio State | 4 Iowa | |
5 Purdue | 5 Minn | |
6 Indiana | 6 Illini | |
7 Wisc | 7 NW | |
Year 1 | Year 4 | |
@NW | NW | |
Illini | @Illini | |
@Minn | Minn | |
Iowa | @Iowa | |
@Nebraska | Nebraska | |
Mich ST | @Mich ST | |
@Wisc | Wisc | |
Indiana | @Indiana | |
@Ohio ST | Ohio ST | |
Year 2 | Year 5 | |
NW | @NW | |
@Illini | Illini | |
Minn | @Minn | |
@Iowa | Iowa | |
Nebraska | @Nebraska | |
@Mich ST | Mich ST | |
Penn State | @Penn State | |
@Purdue | Purdue | |
Ohio ST | @Ohio ST | |
Year 3 | Year 6 | |
@NW | NW | |
Illini | @Illini | |
@Minn | Minn | |
Iowa | @Iowa | |
@Nebraska | Nebraska | |
Mich ST | @Mich ST | |
@Rutgers | Rutgers | |
Maryland | @ Maryland | |
@Ohio ST | Ohio ST |
November 19th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^
Stefon Diggs to Michigan [Stadium, in 2017]
November 19th, 2012 at 2:20 PM ^
The Big 14 just doesn't sound right
November 19th, 2012 at 2:22 PM ^
are going to have to change the name. They can't continue to call it the Big Ten. But what else fits, they can't name it geographically, and they seriously cannot all it the Big 14. WTF!!!
November 19th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
the B1G Delaney Conference
November 19th, 2012 at 4:29 PM ^
I want them to call it the Big Kahuna Conference.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^
They continue to call it the Big Ten after going to eleven and now twelve teams. What about 14 changes things?
November 19th, 2012 at 2:32 PM ^
Why would they have to change the name?? I'd bet large amounts of money that they're not even considering it. From a branding perspective doing so would be extremely counterproductive.
The division names on the other hand, that's something I could see them changing, but even then I don't think it's very likely.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
OK, branding still wins the argument. Twelve schools, arguably yes, I can see going with ten. But at some point you have to allow some form of logic to prevail, when keeping the name is inherently embarassing because it makes so little sense on its face you have to do something about. There are 14 schools, 14 teams, a long way from 10. They are going to have to change the name of the conference.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 4:10 PM ^
you (not in the real bet sense, but in the way that six year olds "bet" on things) that the name of the conference will be changed before expansion and "reorganization" is concluded. The Southwest conference changed its name when it was no longer southwest enought, the Big 8 changed its name when it was no longer feasible, as did the Pac 10. The only reason they did not change it before is because Big 12 is already taken and they were seeking further expansion.
November 19th, 2012 at 5:26 PM ^
What exactly did the Southwest conference change its name to again and when was it not southwest enough? Are you just making stuff up to support your point? Furthermore, the Big 12 offered to switch names with the B1G and we turned him down so your second point is also false.
November 20th, 2012 at 7:14 AM ^
12 offered to switch names with the Big 10 while actively and desperately trying to find twelve members? Are you just making stuff up to support your point? Link it if you got it.
A sixteen team conference (soon enough) will not be called the Big 10 for long. You may be right that is not going to happen by 2014, but the conference will be called something else by the end of the decade.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:44 PM ^
The Pac 10 also used to be the Pac 8. Their brand is tied up in the "Pac" part of the name. The Big 10 can't use the same logic since there's a Big 12 and Big East, so the "10" part of our name is what the conference identifies with. If we had started out as the Midwest 10 or something, then we could just keep changing the number.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:41 PM ^
Why put a new constaining number on it that we have to change as we grow?
We are now the B1G. It is on everyone's uniforms and field. They subtely did that so they could ultimately claim to be the B1G Conference thus dropping Ten out of the thinking as the "off my lawn" types thin out (or just forget) over time.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:57 PM ^
How about the Big North? Maryland is basically Northern nowadays. Or just go back to calling it the Western Conference.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^
Big 16, because it'll be up to 16 teams soon.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:31 PM ^
With two new Divisions: The MASSIVE Division, and the MENTAL Division. This Conference is so massive its going to be downright MENTAL. What a crackin' good time.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:29 PM ^
The League of Legendary Leaders!
November 19th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
won't change the name. This conference is about tradition. If the Big 10 actually changes it's name it will just be the tip of the ice berg; I'm talking about spread offenses, conference expansion, even mascots.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:02 PM ^
Let's go back to the Western Conference?
November 19th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^
for Chicago-based Michigan fans is if they can keep the scheduling right and trade off Northwestern and Illinois each year is that there's an easy road game trip every single season. Champaign isn't much more than 2.5 hours from the city, and Evanston is just north of the city, so it'll be nice to see Michigan every year without having to worry about booking a hotel.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
I see that you are assuming a 9-game conference schedule. Is that just an assumption, or has there been an official announcement?
I am not aware of any official announcement, and I assume that many teams have already booked 4 non-conference games for 2014 and maybe even 2015 and 2016. I don't think a 9-game schedule would even be possible until 2017 or so.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
your conference gets so big that you play members of your conference once every ten years, that's dumb. It's really two separate conferences with an agreement to see teams from the "other side" once in awhile a la Notre Dame-ACC. Let me reiterate. It's dumb.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:27 PM ^
I don't think they'll rotate teams every year. Reason is is that playing a one-off game with the other half of the home-and-home coming 5 years from now kinda sucks when today's good team might be terrible then or vice versa. Avenging the loses on your home turf and all of that. So yeah, prepare to play a home-and-home with PSU once a decade.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:31 PM ^
sounds about right.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
1. Indiana, @Wisconsin
2. Wisconsin, @Penn State
3. Penn State, @maryland
4. Maryland, @Rutgers
5. Rutgers, @purdue
6. Purdue, @Indiana
Not all that different, but I like this better.
November 19th, 2012 at 8:04 PM ^
With pairs that change every year as the OP layed out, u see them once every 3 years.
Under this format, you get the chance at a rematch the next year to avenge a loss, but once you play them twice in two years, you don't play them for 4 straight years meaning:
You might completely miss facing a transcendent player
There will be teams a 4 year graduate never plays against / a fan never watches Michigan play as a student.
Your system is simpler, I think, and easy to plan out... but in terms of balancing which versions of each team you get to face, I like playing in pairs way better
November 19th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^
You're pretty optimistic if you think it's going to move to a 9-game conference schedule.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:44 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^
What could be worse than playing them two weeks in a row?
November 19th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
If we move to this schedule, it will be even more unfavorable that we will have to play OSU every year in the cross over while MSU plays Indiana and Nebraska plays Penn State. I wonder if they would change the rule for qualifying to the Big Ten Championship and consider in-division record first, then total conference record, and finally head-to-head. That seems more fair to me.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:06 PM ^
This seems to be the only way to mitigate the patent unfairness that the protected crossovers create. Division Champions determined by:
1. Divisional Record
2. Head-to-Head winner
3. Conference record (in event of 3+ way tie)
4. Each teams' AD guesses the number of hairs that comprise Jim Delany's eyebrows (closest without going over wins)
November 19th, 2012 at 3:06 PM ^
Isn't that how the SEC does it? In-division first? That only seems fair. Also the only time "SEC" and "fair" will appear in the same paragraph.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^
unless "coeds" is also in said sentence
November 19th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^
I'm having a hard getting worked up about all of these 14-team scheduling hypotheticals. Whatever the result may be, it'll likely be temporary anyhow. If the past 3 years of realignment has taught us anything, it has taught us this.
Bigger questions loom. Who will be Teams 15 and 16? When will it happen? Will the priority be adding traditional football or basketball powers? Which conference will survive, the Big XII or the ACC?
Florida State, Clemson or Miami (YTM) moving to the SEC could make things real interesting. What about UVA or VaTech to the B1G?
Ironically, with a 16-team conference, the options for B1G scheduling may actually open up. You could have 4 divisions of 4 teams, and this notion of playing another school in your conference once every 4 -6 years disappears.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:47 PM ^
In regard to 16 teams I think doing pods of 4 rather than divisions of 8 would be really cool, though it may upset some schools. For shits and giggles lets just say teams 15 and 16 are unc and uva so you have 4 pods
Pod 1: Rutgers, MD, UNC, UVA
Pod 2: OSU, MSU, Mich,, northwestern
Pod 3: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa, minnesota
Pod 4: psu, illinois, indiana, purdue
You could rearrange the pods this is just to illustrate how it could work. So each team plays the other 3 in their pods, thats 3 games. Than each pod is matched up with another pod and every team plays each other for an additional 4 games (so if pod 1 and 2 were matched up our schedule that year would be osu, msu, northwestern, rutgers, md, unc, and uva and osu's would be the same just swapping us out for them). Thats 7 total and each pod would have more or less a balanced schedule with each other (obviously home away splits change schedule difficulty but not much you can do about that). After this the winners of each pod would have a playoff with the seeds being determind by tiebreakers and seed 4 plays at seed 1 and seed 3 at seed 2. You then have a championship game at a nueatral site with the consolation game between the losers at the same site so the fans of all the teams in the 'playoff' can make travel plans for that weekend. The other 12 teams would play against each other with each team gauranteed 1 home and 1 away game. This would leave each team playing 9 in division games and you would not go more than 3 years without playing another team. Obviously there would be rematches, and scheduling would be pretty crazy with every team having two leave the last two weeks open until the end of the season to figure out but I think it could be cool.
November 19th, 2012 at 5:01 PM ^
I'm very much with you in that 16-teams, with 4 divisions would make expansion more palatable. 14 teams is just a mess, frankly.
I'd tweak your model, mainly fueled by my Michigan bias. I'd place us and Ohio in different divisions. I'd continue the tradition of one cross-over rival that each team would play annually. For us, it would be Ohio.
Next, I want 9 conference games. We'd play our 3 division-mates each year. We'd play 4 other conference teams on a rotating basis. We'd play Ohio each year the week BEFORE Thanksgiving, when students are still in Ann Arbor and Columbus. The week after Thanksgiving would be the B1G semis, 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3, with division champs seeded by conference record. These games would be played in the home stadium of the higher seed. I'd insert a stipulation that two teams that are cross-over rivals cannot play in the semis. Fears over back-to-back games against Ohio go away.
The rest of the B1G can matchup in the week after Thankgiving as you describe.
November 19th, 2012 at 5:06 PM ^
I avoided the rotating game schedule and went with pod matchups so that the schedules of the teams in the pods would be equal. That way you would avoid someone winning a pod because they got the 4 worst teams outside of their pod by luck, i.e. I wouldn't want a the situation thats going to let georigia into the sec champ game without playing bama or lsu to happen whereas soutch carolina beat georgia but had to plas lsu and bama.
November 19th, 2012 at 5:53 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 6:05 PM ^
I don't think that Maryland and Rutgers are the right fits for the B10. They don't fit the football pedigree that the Big Ten has and they would go 0-9 in conference play.
November 19th, 2012 at 6:18 PM ^
There is NO hypothetical. Short of 1 game per year it's going to be same teams over and over again.
November 19th, 2012 at 6:41 PM ^
The teams added suck, and Ohio state should be in the championship game each year with that crappy division. While UM, MSU, and Nebraska have a fight nearly every year...too easy.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^
I mean wisconsin has had more recent success than msu and msu seems to be trending down right now, penn state probably should have beaten nebraska this year and has the top qb and te in the country in their upcoming recruiting class and rutgers is probably better than illinois, so I don't think the imbalance is as big as you make it out to be
November 19th, 2012 at 7:01 PM ^
Why have such a big conference? Is it really even a conference when you play some teams every 5 years? I'm not usually a get off my lawn guy, but get the fuck off my lawn Delaney.
November 19th, 2012 at 7:49 PM ^
the Big Teen conference? Name has scalability, as it will not be outdated until they expand to 20 teams, and they don't need to change anything, just use a bunch of those little carrot symbols to insert the extra "e"
e.g.- Big Te^en
Well, maybe not red font, because red is just a horrible, ugly disgusting color, but for presentation purposes, it provides the best contrast to black