Hypothetical Mich sched for New Big 10

Submitted by ciszew on November 19th, 2012 at 2:15 PM

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 2:32 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 ^

They don't and won't. The expansion from 10 to 11 to 12 and now to 14 can be applied indefinitely. Expansion is driven solely by money, and branding is a huge part of it. Name change is off the table. In fact, it never was on it.


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 2:23 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.

UM Indy

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.

Kilgore Trout

November 19th, 2012 at 2:37 PM ^

If you have two non-guaranteed crossovers, it doesn't make sense to do them in two year pairs. Change one per year. For example....

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 2:56 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)

Billy Ray Valentine

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.

Billy Ray Valentine

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.

Yale Van Dyne Fan

November 19th, 2012 at 5:53 PM ^


Over the last 20 years, while the rest of college football fought over the likes of Mizzou, Colorado and Utah, Delany delivered the Big Ten iconic college football behemoths Penn State and Nebraska. And let's be honest, not even a lot of Big Ten fans saw Nebraska coming. We were pretty convinced it would be Mizzou. So, what I'm saying is that there's no way Delany has all his cards out on the table yet. But this had to be the first domino to fall, and since Maryland was vulnerable, they were an easy target to start the destabilization of the ACC. 
What if this is the end game: 22-team Big Ten. The West is the current B1G minus Penn State. This whole shit storm they're involved in is the perfect time to inform them they'll be anchoring the East with Maryland, Rutgers, Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech and obviously a couple others (to be determined later). 
THEN you have everyone play 10 conference games. Michigan plays EVERYONE in the West. 10 games. Instead of Iowa once every six years, you get 'em every freakin' year. Michigan-Ohio State, rather than being minimized, is more important than ever. In a lot of years it might be a ticket to the playoff. The B1G championship game is a de facto national quarterfinal, a permanent B1G vs. Pac-12 Rose Bowl is the national semifinal and then you have your title game. You can preserve rivalries with two non-conference games, but by and large... NO MOAR BODY BAG GAMEZ. No more UMass, no more Central Michigan, no more Delaware Fucking State.
The B1G and the Big Ten Network bring the old ACC the stability they never could have dreamed of in the ACC. B1G lacrosse takes off like wildfire, B1G hoops is basically a mini freaking NBA, the Big Ten Network has an assload of programming, most of those old ACC stalwarts can preserve many of their traditional rivalries, and well there ya go. 


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 6:41 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.

Benoit Balls

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