Ali G Bomaye

February 13th, 2013 at 10:52 AM ^

Football is the only sport in which the divisions matter.  And in football, the teams in the outer ring of the eye would only have 1-2 long road trips per year, and the rest of the road trips would be much shorter than they are now.  Right now Wisconsin is in a division with Penn State and Ohio State and it doesn't seem like a problem; under the Eye they would swap OSU for the two eastern additions.  Since an away game at either OSU or Maryland/Rutgers means a plane flight, I don't see a big difference.  Plus, they would gain Nebraska/Iowa/Minnesota in their division, which means several very easy road trips.


February 12th, 2013 at 11:14 PM ^

This announcement probably means that the Big Ten is going for a 10 game conference slate (and almost guarantees further expansion sooner than later).

Assuming a 14 team league at 9 conference games, there would be 42 (14x3) OOC games to schedule annually from a pool of 110 teams.  My gut feeling would be that it would be hard to arrange matchups against 1/3 of all eligible opponents annually.

Then again...I suppose 1 MAC, 1 Big East, 1 Real opponent might work...


February 12th, 2013 at 11:39 PM ^


We will be expanding again and going to 10 games within the next two years.  The only question is 16, 18, or 20 teams?

We will definitely pick up UVA and GT.  The SEC will get VA Tech.  

If we keep going, look for UNC and Duke.  The SEC will get NC State.

This is all about footprints.  The Big Ten expands to the east and south.  The SEC expands to north to NC and VA. 

FSU and Clemson go to the Big 12 as the ACC gets carved up to look pretty much like the old Big East..



February 13th, 2013 at 7:54 AM ^

I believe that Jim Delany had said earlier in the week that whichever model they ultimately implement (nine or ten games - he gave a timetable for the decision to come in May, I think) would not be in effect until around 2016 at the earliest, so we probably have a few more seasons of the odd FCS opponent (which makes sense since several schools have some scheduled in the next few years anyway, and I can't imagine the conference would make them back out of existing agreements now.). It seems like ten games makes more sense, however, if the idea is to eliminate FCS matchups by design essentially.



February 12th, 2013 at 11:41 PM ^

And MSU is doing whatever they can to get out of the Michigan-Ohio State shadow, trusting a protected rivalry to keep that game intact. GUH!

Nine games still means a major decrease in how often we see our "conference" rivals. Under the current system we see Purdue-Indiana-PSU-Wisconsin-Illinois just 40% of years. With 9 games, a protected rival, and 14 teams that becomes 33% of years -- 2-year series every six years. We'll play directional Michigan schools far more often than the Brown Jug game. 

Maryland and Rutgers would STILL end up with made-up protected rivalries they have to play every year in the central time zone. What frick of difference will it make to them if they have to fly to Chicago instead of Detroit every year? And Ohio State gets who? Illinois?

With no protected rivalries and 9 games we'll see the other division about 43% of years, basically no different than it is now, except it affects two more teams.



February 13th, 2013 at 8:50 AM ^

Drop the protected rivalries.  

The Big Ten is blessed with natural rivalries that are already geographical . . . Michigan-Ohio State, The triad of iowa, Wisc, Minn (you can now add Nebraska to that), Ill-NW, etc.

A geographical alignment matches up these natural rilvalries.  If MSU wants out, then let them play us once every 3 years.  

Or, the Big Ten could have a special provision if they have to break a natural rivalry like Michigan-MSU or Indiana-Purdue, that in that case and that case only, there is a protected rivalry.  But every team does not need one.   



February 13th, 2013 at 12:47 AM ^

I'd like to see them implement a 10 game conference schedule and add an FCS/cupcake exhibition game.  Both teams get a nice payday, players get eased into the season, redshirt-bound freshman/depth players get to play, and conference games are maximized. If conferences keep expanding, they'll have to do something, and this is probably more feasible than lengthening the regular season or forgoing revenue.


February 13th, 2013 at 7:52 AM ^

I love this idea. The Fbs tune-up would be a great chance to run through some plays in live action, get the young kids some quality reps, and see how some of the newbies play in actual game action. Kind of like the NFL preseason games. Make no mistake - this exhibition will not be all that exciting, but who cares - I would wager that every one of us will tune in or attend anyway.


February 13th, 2013 at 8:59 AM ^

Revenue idea:  If the NCAA won't allow an exibition game, then what about a "Spring Game" the week before the season starts?

Just like the Spring Game is the final event of spring practice, the "Fall Game" would be the final event of fall practice.

Football-starved fans would flock to it, the weather is great for tailgating, and it gives a good look at what the team will be.  

If they run it as a real game, it's as least as compelling as a game against EMU.  The risk of injury is even less because some of the rules could be modified and even your most aggressive players know not to kill their own guys.

Are schools allowed to do something like this?


February 13th, 2013 at 11:53 AM ^

in during the school year.

NCAA rules state that

1)All eligible players can participate in a maximum of 12 regular season games (+ exceptions of CCGs, international games, Hawaii games)

2)A regular season game is defined as a scrimmage against outside competiton


This means that a intra-team scrimmage that is open to the public can be held as long as the starters (maybe the entire 2-deep) don't play.

How enticing is a Fall 'Spring game' where the starters don't play?  No clue, but it'll be good practice for guys who have already burned a red-shirt and I'm sure enough people will show up for the school to not lose money on it.


February 13th, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^

I love this idea.  I am a proponent of the FCS/FBS games because of the economic impact it has on FCS athletic programs (cross country, tennis, etc.).  These guarantee games have a major impact on FCS athletic deparment budgets.

The probem is that there aren't enough FCS teams currently eligible to play FBS schools.  An FCS school must maintain an average of 57.6 football scholarships yearly in order to play an FBS school.

Rework the legislation!

The Mick

February 13th, 2013 at 3:55 AM ^

For the sake of playing as many B1G teams as possible, they should loose the protected rivalries. If Sparty wants to bolt for the West, they better not expect to play us every year.


February 13th, 2013 at 8:24 AM ^

If Sparty does lobby successfully to be in the west, then it can be forever concluded that OSU was/is/and will always be our biggest rival. Spartys little 3 year run of being in our division and them mouth breathing that they mean more since they are divisional and OSU is not will be over. Good riddance assholes!