What are your thoughts on the 9-conference-game schedule?

What's your definition of a "legitimate" team? I agree with those three, but Wisconsin, PSU, and Nebraska are very tough games (especially on the road). If your definition is playoff contender, then I'd agree minus Iowa.

More focus on the conference itself, makes it feel like an actual league.

Love it. Don't have to go 6 years between playing Wisconsin.

We haven't played in Madison since '09

I don't think Bama would smoke us. I'm not certain we would lose to them either. I like new OOC games and having a cupcake in the schedule is ok with me

I really like it because let's be honest: it will be more fun to play a Wisconsin / Nebraska every year than a Miami of Ohio. An ideal schedule in my opinion would be:

Nine Big Ten games
Notre Dame
A team like Vanderbilt, Kansas, or Wake Forest.
And then a Group of 5 game: Hawaii, San Jose St, UAB etc. etc.

Our out of conference schedule has changed a lot since the 80s. Our in conference schedule has too. Today, I'd rather play the entire traditional Big 10 instead of UNLVs and UCONNs. I don't like playing some traditional B1G teams only once every 3-4 years.

love it.

I see no downside. It allows us to play out conference more often, like we should be doing. I just graduated from Michigan and not once while I was there did we play Wisconsin, a conference foe. That's unacceptable.

I'd much rather see us play even a bad B1G school like Purdue than a directional Michigan. Even when they're bad half the time a crappy team we play in the non conference like UNLV is just as bad. And there's a much higher chance that B1G team is good, and this doesn't even include the fact that even a bad B1G team at least has the appeal of being a conference game.

And there's obviously a benefit to having a harder schedule. It's why the SEC has been so dominant recently. They're conference is generally very strong top to bottom, so even when an SEC team loses to a mediocre conference team the public perception is that the conference is so tough that team should get a pass. It makes it much easier for 1-2 loss teams to be ranked higher or make the playoff, which is what matters. So if we're playing a good B1G team instead of a shitty MAC team, even better.

We should want to schedule a harder schedule. Have 9 conference games and schedule an ND. If we're as good as we want to be, we should still be able to win all or all but 1, and that would be good enough to make the playoff. It makes the team better by playing a better schedule.

I like it. Better to play a quality opponent like Nebraska, Iowa or Wisconsin than a snoozebag like Ball State, UMass or UNLV.

I might be in the minority here but I like it. The super conference format leads to unbalanced schedules which makes determining the most worthy bowl selections (see Iowa last year) difficult.

Plus I don't want shit to do with ND and I think that a three game non conference schedule keeps us away from that discussion unless we break an existing contract.

I guess I would rather see us play a team we don't usually get to see than play a 9th game against Purdue or something. I would love it if we scheduled a team like Oklahoma, Florida State, or any number of high profile teams we have hardly ever played on a yearly basis, but unfortunately CFB isn't really set up well enough for that to work out either.

I think it's perfect...for when the Big 10 was ten teams. Full round robin, team with the best record is conference champion. No stupid championship game.

Love it. 

 

It's not right to go more than 3 years without playing a team in your conference, in my opinion (every student and player who attends a Big Ten University for a 4 year span should have at least one game against every other Big Ten school). 

Maybe I am in the minority, but I would prefer more (quality) non-conference games against different teams than only a small pool of teams.

What I think is smart about the SEC scheduling is they have conference and non-conference games from September through November. (Would love to see a home and home series with SEC or other southern teams in November, rather than September). This means exposure in other parts of the country, on other networks. This will be even more important if ESPN loses the B1G contract.

The way it stands now, if a couple of the upper-echelon B1G teams in the conference stumble in September, people write off the strength of the whole conference pretty much until the Bowl season.

I'd rather another big ten opponent at any level that a crappy non conf opponent. Most teams are only scheduling one tough non conf opponent.

i want us to play 10 big ten games every year if u catch my drift.

I prefer variety.
I would rather see series with cross-division and non-conference opponents skip a couple of years before replaying- Yr1 Home, then  off. Yr3 or Yr4 Away, and so on. Yes, it might be a few years between home games with certain opponents, but would have a chance to see more teams- in person or on TV, more variety. More build up, especially with playing a Notre Dame, or Nebraska, or Florida, etc. Better for recruiting in more areas of the country.
 

 

Can we at least see one or two of the cross-division games determined by strength?

Maybe based on the standings at the end of the year before. Allow a little flexibility for one or two of the games for teams we haven't seen in a while. Leave the schedule slots open (though it would be clear which weekend was Home or Away), and then clear up the next season's schedule in December or January.

Otherwise you get situations where the SOS varies wildly.

 

I'm not sure where I stand on this one. I can see it both ways. I like the idea of playing more teams in conference and actually making sure you play everybody as often as possible. 

I don't love the idea of taking away a nonconference game. Traveling outside our footprint is important for recruiting, even if it isn't a power 5 school. I'm not in favor of playing cupcakes to be clear. 

One concern I have is preception. A lot of people have mentioned how the SEC benefits from playing themself and how they are seen as a deep conference so dropping a game in conference doesn't hurt as bad at times. I have covered the SEC for the last two season, approaching my third. I tthink their overall strength of the SEC is a little overstated. I do believe the stadiums that they play in make it very tough and I have never felt anything like it. The fan bases are unreal. I think that factors into watching the product on the field with all of their night games. 

Let me get to my point, the SEC is seen as strong so when they beat each other it's just "Hey a good team beat a good team". They only time that was questioned was two years ago when they dropped all those games during bowl season. So here is the problem, if the BIG Ten is seen as weaker and doesn't have the non-conference games to prove their strength and then beat each other it won't be given benefit of the doubt the SEC would. 

The B1G must first prove it deserves the benefit of the doubt by winning big in bowl games, non-con games and sending talent to the top of draft before they will be given the credit you see in the SEC. 

My concern is that we are hurting ourself but limiting our chance to prove it and by creating more chances to drop a game in CON that will be held in a negative light. 

 

Actaully back in the seventies when it really was the Big Ten they played 9 conference games

My ideal would be a full round robin and no conference championship game. That's not feasible these days, but the more conference games the better.

I'd be in favor of a ten game conference schedule, so every team would play each other at least twice in a four year period. That would also minimize the potential for Michigan State and Wisconsin to miss all of the good teams in the other division.

I like it. Combined with a bunch of awesome non conference games coming up is nice. Bring back ND, but only for series like we schedule other teams.

It is necessary.

Don't like it with a 4 team playoff. One of the P5, maybe 3, if ND is ranked high enough is automatically out. 3 cupcakes help a 1 loss B1G winner.

Unless B1G is going to put up decent teams and not just top heavy, this will not be a good move for B1G. Let us hope WISC, IOWA, NU and NEB stay competitive for longer periods of time. Otherwise, this will come back to bite us. Not to mention not able to play good out of conference games that often. But, looking at SEC, it is not like there are many great teams there. But, they have enough competitive teams that can give AL trouble. That is all you need in B1G. If we can have 4 or 5 teams that can give Harbaugh and Meyer enough trouble, the conference will be looked upon favorably. Then the cupcakes in B1G would be something we need (Rutgers, Purdue, Illinois).

One thing I would suggest is that MSU being moved to the other division. I don't want OSU in another division as we don't want to play them twice in a year. But having MSU in the other division helps shore up that division. I would not mind kicking their a** twice in a year. But it does give them much better chance of going to B1G championship more often than being in the same division as UM, OSU and PSU.

I like the extra conference game, but would prefer it under a system where everyone had to play 9.  Say what you will about the committee taking SOS into account, but a loss is always worse than a better record against creampuff opponents.  If we lose that ninth conference game while an SEC team we're trying to beat out for a playoff spot is busy routing South Carolina State, we're the ones that pay the price and not them.

Basically, it's better for the fans, but is a competitive disadvantage until if and when the committee proves willing to punish an SEC team for playing four joke teams out of conference.