July 13th, 2012 at 12:17 PM ^

I understand the PAC 12 teams (some of them) having a problem with this. they play 9 conference games and we play 8, so this would increase their schedule difficulty--teams like Stanford and SC already play ND every years, so with 9 conference games plus a B1G team added, that's togher than many want.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:30 PM ^

I sort of understand the tougher schedule issue but not the Notre Dame issue.  Michigan, MSU and Purdue play Notre Dame every year too.  It didn't seem to be a big deal for the Big 10 teams, why is it a big deal for Stanford and USC?   

Does 1 extra conference game make that much of a difference?


July 13th, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^

The original idea was that the B1G would expand the conference schedule to 9 games. This scheduling arrangement with the Pac-12 was in lieu of that.

I assume the push for a 9-game conference schedule will return, so in the end you'll have the same result: 3 non-conference games that the school controls, 9 that it doesn't.

But I prefer 8 conference games, because the schedule is balanced (i.e., same number of home and road games).

turd ferguson

July 13th, 2012 at 1:25 PM ^

I prefer eight conference games, too, but a ninth conference game does much less to create imbalance than the cross-divisional protected rivalries. The home games balance out over time. The schedule strength differences due to protected rivalries do not.
I still believe that putting Michigan and OSU in different divisions was a major mistake.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:26 PM ^

with the new format, teams won't want to schedule top BCS opponents.  You'll have a better shot at the final 4 by playing lower BCS teams that are easier to beat, ie. Kentucky, where you get credit for playing teams with a pulse, but have a better shot at winnig all your games.  There won't be any Div II teams on the schedule, but no more big time OC games.  Woo.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^

those games will be too high of a risk.  If you lose, you're out of the running before the conference games begin.  If yuo schedule UCLA or Kentucky, it will look better than a MAC snack.  This is still going to be a beauty contest.  Teams will find a way to make weak schedules look better so they get more credit for playing BCS teams, even if they are snacky too.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^

This kind of sucks, but I wasn't blown away with the ability to play Colorado and Utah, so those types of matchups won't be missed.  I know that some Pac-10 teams were annoyed with having to play an extra tough opponent, which is understandable.  Hopefully UM still plays the USC's and Oregon's of the world, but not as part of this general relationship.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:46 PM ^

"At least four Pac-12 schools ultimately decided they would not accept mandatory scheduling, ESPN.com has learned. One proposal called for eight intra-league matchups per year, featuring the willing Pac-12 schools, but the Big Ten wanted a complete collaboration or none at all." - from the EPSN article in the thread above

I understand why the Pac-12 didn't want the mandatory scheduling as they do have numerous extra-conference agreements (Utah-BYU, for example) and Stanford and USC already having ND on the schedule (only because they probably want to "right-size" their schedule to have a shot in the new playoff format, or that's my guess - tough, sure, but not necessarily brutal), but I think I get why the Big Ten insisted on full collaboration. I would guess that the quality of the matchups came into question then, and the schools that might have readily agreed wouldn't necessarily be the schools that were top-tier and the matchups that were projected were ones that neither conference was necessarily high on.

I like the idea of going to nine conference games in the Big Ten anyway, and if we can get a good Pac-12 team on the schedule on occasion, that would still be worth seeing. I still think that this arrangement could have had some great games in it.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:43 PM ^

I was hoping to some day see The Team again play here in the Bay Area.

They should still schedule a home.and home vs Stanford for those "academic" recruiting battles.

turd ferguson

July 13th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^

Strange that the Pac-12 couldn't have anticipated and resolved this before the announcement.

Regardless, hopefully those conferences can pull this off as a one-time or occasional event. The yearly thing actually seemed a little excessive to me.

turd ferguson

July 13th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^

Sorry, but there's no way this is about Penn State. The nine conference game schedule is - and always was - a real problem here with what this thing could have done to ticket revenue, bowl eligibility, etc.


July 13th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^

The timing smacks of opportunism. It seems as if both teams, given the new playoff format, decided to lighten their loads. That being said, who really cares if M does or doesn't play a steady diet of mostly uninteresting P10 teams? Utah? Colorado? Whatever. The top teams will (usually) meet in the Rose Bowl. That's the important thing.  Personally, I always thought the regular-season "relationship" undercut the Rose Bowl relationship.


July 13th, 2012 at 12:58 PM ^

Great! Having the rose bowl deal with the PAC 12 is enough. This will allow more flexibility in the schedule. I'd like Michigan to schedule some home and home games with the SEC. Tennessee or the Gamecocks would be cool. Then I'd go after LSU.


July 13th, 2012 at 1:23 PM ^

Because? Why lock yourself into a bunch of games against teams from a conference that's way more basketball than football? The only top-tier ACC football team right now is FSU, and they're looking to leave. Miami is dying. Clemson, VaTech, and UNC often produce very good teams. But are they really all that exciting to B10 fans? ACC football gets mediocre TV ratings. The ACC and the B10 have no meaningful relationship in terms of either football or academics. A deal would benefit the ACC far more than the B10.


July 13th, 2012 at 1:41 PM ^

but the Big Ten will benefit as well:

* Interesting regular season match ups without having to worry about scheduling difficulties.  The most realistic alternative to this would be to load up on MAC teams again.

* better national reach for the Big Ten as a whole - anchoring the Rose Bowl to the West and an ACC partnership to the East will give better reach to the Big Ten and will probably help out with recruiting as well.  The ACC isn't the SEC but they are in many of hte same states...


July 13th, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^

SEC teams, despite their dominance of late, have proven largely unwilling to go home-and-home against top programs.  LSU went to Oregon; Bama went to PSU. Florida, Tennessee, Georgia: they never venture north. This is partly because these teams consider the SEC schedule tough enough and partly because they're afraid to venture out of the South, whose climate gives them a decided advantage. Every January, B10 teams play in blazing Florida heat. But when was the last time you saw an SEC team play in cold weather? 


July 13th, 2012 at 1:18 PM ^

Never because our goll'ram commish gave into their demands and dropped the home site proposal for the 1st round of the playoffs. 

I do not and will never understand the infatuation with the Rose Bowl; its a game played over a 1000 miles away from the closest B10 member and is a defacto home game for the school down the road. 



July 13th, 2012 at 1:31 PM ^

If this leads to a 9 game conference schedule (Add Wisco or PSU to the home slate in even years), + ND + 2 middling BCS teams (Vandy, Baylor, Arkansas, Boston College, etc), I won't be completely devestated.  But we all know that won't happen that way.  We'll be stuck playing Western, Eastern, and Central in the same season. 

I really was looking forward to a potential USC/UM game in Ann Arbor.  That would have been so cool.


July 13th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^

An undefeated B1G team will likely always make the playoffs, regardless whether you beat USC or Vanderbilt, so why take the risk? Nobody has actually said how much SOS will pjay into the decision making. Just win your games, doesn't matter who you play, and you're in (that goes for the big ten, twelve, PAC, and sec).