Big Ten considering 8-game conference schedule and dropping divisions

ghostOfHomer777

HR Heisman
May 20, 2014
7,858
8,523
113
The Alliance is a loose affiliation at best. Don't bet on Iowa playing one P12/one ACC any time soon.

Iowa is going to continue playing ISU every year. It is a financial home run. If the B10 drops to 8 conference games, I think Iowa's new schedule opening will focus on P12/ACC. Look for Pitt/BC/Ariz/AzSU/WVU on future schedules, not Oregon or Clemson.
Well certainly one of the bigger part of the alliance is to control the nature of conference expansion.

However, it is an intriguing thought if it might evolve into something that also encourages more enticing OOC match-ups.

Money ultimately is another side of the equation. It deals with the ability of a conference to have negotiating power when it comes to live-coverage dollars. Conference expansion was occurring, at least in part, as a means of expanding available markets.

I'm curious how the Alliance might try to leverage things in a way to benefit them financially.
 

ichawk24

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
8,913
8,640
113
This is a possibility that would assist in minimizing the mathematical inequities of the available matchups between the conferences. Iowa could possibly play only one of ACC/Pac-12 on a rotating basis.

The PAC-12 have fewer teams and they have multiple teams with yearly ND games.

The ACC also has multiple ND games and SEC rivalry games.

Agreed, even if Alliance scheduling goes up, it will be uneven. The teams with a non-conf annual matchup probably won't want to schedule two. USC/Stanford with ND, Georgia Tech/Georgia, Clemson/SC, etc.
 

PlutoDroid

HR All-State
Aug 16, 2015
695
520
93
The problem with the divisions is that all the sharks are in the east. Geographically you can't switch Northwestern for Michigan State, Minnesota for Ohio State, or Purdue for Michigan to even out the disparity. How many times do we have to see the East beat the West in Indy? The only narrative has been if the West champion can upset the East champion to knock them from playoff inclusion. The SEC has a much stronger Western division, but at least the East has Georgia. When they first created the divisions it was the East that was the much stronger conference. With Florida and Tennessee being down the last decade , it has been flopped. But still Florida shouldn't have been this bad for so long. If Tennessee and Florida can get it together I can see the East becoming strong again.

Realistically is there any chance any of the Western teams moving up to challenge Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State yearly?
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
Definitely like dropping the divisions; not in favor of cutting back to 8 conference games.

playing only 8 conference games would arguably make it easier to get two teams in the current 4 team playoff. That’s a not insignificant reason why the SEC has done that multiple teams now by playing a 2nd tier school instead of another conference opponent.
The problem with the divisions is that all the sharks are in the east. Geographically you can't switch Northwestern for Michigan State, Minnesota for Ohio State, or Purdue for Michigan to even out the disparity. How many times do we have to see the East beat the West in Indy? The only narrative has been if the West champion can upset the East champion to knock them from playoff inclusion. The SEC has a much stronger Western division, but at least the East has Georgia. When they first created the divisions it was the East that was the much stronger conference. With Florida and Tennessee being down the last decade , it has been flopped. But still Florida shouldn't have been this bad for so long. If Tennessee and Florida can get it together I can see the East becoming strong again.

Realistically is there any chance any of the Western teams moving up to challenge Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State yearly?

The East Division dominance is exaggerated. It’s really Ohio State dominance more than anyone else. Ohios State has dominated the league that really hasn’t been seen in 50 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kceasthawk

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
8,383
14,024
113
playing only 8 conference games would arguably make it easier to get two teams in the current 4 team playoff. That’s a not insignificant reason why the SEC has done that multiple teams now by playing a 2nd tier school instead of another conference opponent.
Even if this is correct, then I'd be much more in favor of forcing the SEC to go to 9 conference games. Maybe playing a 9-game conference schedule (reg season) could be a new prerequisite for a CFP bid. If not, then maybe at least require 10 P-4 opponents.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
Even if this is correct, then I'd be much more in favor of forcing the SEC to go to 9 conference games. Maybe playing a 9-game conference schedule (reg season) could be a new prerequisite for a CFP bid. If not, then maybe at least require 10 P-4 opponents.

Good luck forcing the SEC to do that.
 

SWIowahawks

HR Legend
Gold Member
Sep 2, 2006
19,817
18,299
113
Tabor
The problem with the divisions is that all the sharks are in the east. Geographically you can't switch Northwestern for Michigan State, Minnesota for Ohio State, or Purdue for Michigan to even out the disparity. How many times do we have to see the East beat the West in Indy? The only narrative has been if the West champion can upset the East champion to knock them from playoff inclusion. The SEC has a much stronger Western division, but at least the East has Georgia. When they first created the divisions it was the East that was the much stronger conference. With Florida and Tennessee being down the last decade , it has been flopped. But still Florida shouldn't have been this bad for so long. If Tennessee and Florida can get it together I can see the East becoming strong again.

Realistically is there any chance any of the Western teams moving up to challenge Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, or Michigan State yearly?
The West has done more damage to the East/OSU during the regular season. See Iowa beating them in 2017 and Purdue beating them in 2018. Both losses kept them out of the CFP more than winning the Big Ten title game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LastTop5_1960

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
I didn't know they had veto power over every other conference. Link?

Creating the playoff required approval from all 5 of the power conferences. Making any additional changes will likewise require approval from all of them. I would be shocked if the SEC ever agreed to any sort of requirement about the number of p5 opponents everyone would have to play without major concessions, and j in doubt the b12 for one will be in any hurry to just give the SEC what they want.


I think all p5 teams should play the same # of conference opponents, whether that’s 8 or 9. Also that playoff should expand to 8. 5 p5 champs, highest ranked g5 champ and two at large bids to highest non-auto qualified teams.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
The West has done more damage to the East/OSU during the regular season. See Iowa beating them in 2017 and Purdue beating them in 2018. Both losses kept them out of the CFP more than winning the Big Ten title game.

Take Ohio state out of it and I think the win/loss record is darn near equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWIowahawks

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
8,383
14,024
113
Creating the playoff required approval from all 5 of the power conferences. Making any additional changes will likewise require approval from all of them. I would be shocked if the SEC ever agreed to any sort of requirement about the number of p5 opponents everyone would have to play without major concessions, and j in doubt the b12 for one will be in any hurry to just give the SEC what they want.


I think all p5 teams should play the same # of conference opponents, whether that’s 8 or 9. Also that playoff should expand to 8. 5 p5 champs, highest ranked g5 champ and two at large bids to highest non-auto qualified teams.
I guess I don't like the idea of going "backwards" in order to help the conference compete for the national championship. Kinda sounds silly - The Big Ten should play easier schedules in order to prove they are worthy of a national championship??? When I first started following Iowa football they were playing Mich, OSU and MSU every year, and later on PSU, with one dropping off for a 2 year period here and again; now some of those matchups are ridiculously few and far between. It's an absolute crying shame that we're going to the Horseshoe for the first time in 9 frickin' years this fall. Yeah, college football would be much more exciting every year with 14 additional Big Ten vs. MAC games instead of more Big Ten intraconference games.

I'm one of the few who doesn't give a rat's arse about the CFP for the most part, and while I know it will be expanded, doing so will cause more problems than it will solve (but that's an argument for another thread).
 
  • Like
Reactions: LastTop5_1960

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
It will be interesting to see what kind of power the alliance generates if the Big 12 dissolves. You’d think with the additions of Texas and OU, the SEC would go to 9 conference games automatically.
Why? Operating as is gives them an advantage towards getting 2 teams in the playoffs. Zero incentive to adding the 9th game.
I guess I don't like the idea of going "backwards" in order to help the conference compete for the national championship. Kinda sounds silly - The Big Ten should play easier schedules in order to prove they are worthy of a national championship??? When I first started following Iowa football they were playing Mich, OSU and MSU every year, and later on PSU, with one dropping off for a 2 year period here and again; now some of those matchups are ridiculously few and far between. It's an absolute crying shame that we're going to the Horseshoe for the first time in 9 frickin' years this fall. Yeah, college football would be much more exciting every year with 14 additional Big Ten vs. MAC games instead of more Big Ten intraconference games.

I'm one of the few who doesn't give a rat's arse about the CFP for the most part, and while I know it will be expanded, doing so will cause more problems than it will solve (but that's an argument for another thread).

When the b10 went to 9 conference games I think they did so with the assumption that everyone would be doing the same. But the SEC in particular decided not to and it was the right one from a postseason perspective.

I also don’t think the way the b10 has done it’s conference scheduling has been smart. Hard to believe this was the best they could do.
 

amahawk

HR All-American
May 1, 2002
4,814
1,709
113
I think no protected rivalries. Play every team at least once in two seasons. In four seasons everyone gets a home and away with every team.
 

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
8,383
14,024
113
Why? Operating as is gives them an advantage towards getting 2 teams in the playoffs. Zero incentive to adding the 9th game.


When the b10 went to 9 conference games I think they did so with the assumption that everyone would be doing the same. But the SEC in particular decided not to and it was the right one from a postseason perspective.
Ok, but let’s not pretend that the SEC has dominated and had all these CFP appearances because of their 8-game schedule. They’re who they are because their best teams are usually head and shoulders above everyone else. I doubt that an extra game against Missouri or Arkansas would have derailed the seasons of any of their CFP teams.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
Ok, but let’s not pretend that the SEC has dominated and had all these CFP appearances because of their 8-game schedule. They’re who they are because their best teams are usually head and shoulders above everyone else. I doubt that an extra game against Missouri or Arkansas would have derailed the seasons of any of their CFP teams.

it’s not the only reason obviously but it’s absolutely a contributing factor. A crazy upset is far more likely against a conference opponent who knows you better than a Little Sister of the Poor like the SEC likes to schedule prior to Rivalry Week.

Last year you had #1 Georgia vs Charleston Southern on the same day that #4 Ohio State played #7 MSU for instance.
 
Jan 9, 2009
9
6
3
it’s not the only reason obviously but it’s absolutely a contributing factor. A crazy upset is far more likely against a conference opponent who knows you better than a Little Sister of the Poor like the SEC likes to schedule prior to Rivalry Week.

Last year you had #1 Georgia vs Charleston Southern on the same day that #4 Ohio State played #7 MSU for instance.
Your last paragraph is another example of SEC smarter scheduling. On the other end, the B1G will many times bunch 2 (or 3) tough games in a row as opposed to spreading them out.

Btw, the 2nd SEC CFP team (UGA) played Clemson and GT OOC, so they had 10 P5 games.

The year Bama was the 2nd, they had FSU, but also had respectable Fresno and CSU.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
Your last paragraph is another example of SEC smarter scheduling. On the other end, the B1G will many times bunch 2 (or 3) tough games in a row as opposed to spreading them out.

Btw, the 2nd SEC CFP team (UGA) played Clemson and GT OOC, so they had 10 P5 games.

The year Bama was the 2nd, they had FSU, but also had respectable Fresno and CSU.
Sure, but they’re also in an unusually situation not dissimilar to Iowa where their in-state rival, Georgia Tech, is in another conference. power 5 schools that play 10 p5 games are unusual.

and I firmly believe the SEC scheduling strategy is a big reason why the b10 is considering the change, along with the football alliance.
 

9and4

Scout Team
Dec 4, 2013
99
134
33
Give me a 20-team Big Ten.
Original Recipe Division
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin.
Extra Crispy Division
Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma State.

If you want AAU schools, you replace OSU with ISU, and West Virginia with Virginia, and you reinstate Nebraska's membership (ag research doesn't count and having the med center 60 miles away in Omaha is bad?).

Round-robin nine-game schedules for each to determine the division title. Wanna play a team from the other division? Schedule it as a non-conference game or win the division and play in the CCG.

Take that, Big XII and SEC!
 
Last edited:

hoks2415

HR MVP
Gold Member
Sep 19, 2013
1,921
2,260
113
The Alliance is a loose affiliation at best. Don't bet on Iowa playing one P12/one ACC any time soon.

Iowa is going to continue playing ISU every year. It is a financial home run. If the B10 drops to 8 conference games, I think Iowa's new schedule opening will focus on P12/ACC. Look for Pitt/BC/Ariz/AzSU/WVU on future schedules, not Oregon or Clemson.
Sure a lot of years will look like that. Still more interesting than playing Rutgers, Indiana, or Maryland. There's a lot of interesting teams and road trips to go around (USC, Oregon, Clemson, Stanford, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Washington, Colorado). Even if Iowa only gets one of those opponents every couple years, I'll take it.

Kinnick is also an attractive venue, they're not going to line up Boston College and Wake Forrest to play in Kinnick every year. USC or a Florida State in Kinnick (possibly under the lights) is going to be attractive to the schedulers.

This is much needed for Iowa fans. Iowa State and two nobodies every year is getting stale.
 
Last edited:

ichawk24

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
8,913
8,640
113
Iowa had a random P5 team on their schedule for a lot of this century, and it was the type of team I listed. Current decision makers don't appear to be looking for USC or FSU on the schedule.

Maybe future scheduling will change if the Ferentz/Barta regime ever leaves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LastTop5_1960
Mar 29, 2007
5
1
3
Need the same format as the SEC and ACC eight conference games and keep divisions in place. There are too many teams in the Big to do away with divisions. This also allows for scheduling one game with ACC and Pac12 every year.
 

59DAWG

Team MVP
Aug 4, 2002
185
179
43
It will be interesting to see what kind of power the alliance generates if the Big 12 dissolves. You’d think with the additions of Texas and OU, the SEC would go to 9 conference games automatically.
I think that the SEC will go to a 9 game conference schedule when Texas and Oklahoma join. They will have four, four team pods with a team playing the other three teams from their pod and two each from the other three pods. Or they will keep divisions with 7 games in your division and 2 from the other.

Both Kirby Smart and Nick Saban want 9 game conference schedules with 2 P5 games OOC.

One of the main reasons that the SEC and ACC have 8 game conference schedules now is the in-state rivalries of Georgia/Georgia Tech, Florida/Florida State, Kentucky/Louisville and South Carolina/Clemson.
 

HedgeHawk1

Rookie
Nov 4, 2018
28
39
13
Why have protected rivalries?
If you make it more “random” who gets fired when the OSU-Michigan game goes on a two/four year hiatus? If you’re penciling that one in every year seems like other games should be treated somewhat similarly. It should make scheduling easier also. Not sure that’s a huge concern but secondary considerations like balancing schedule travel demands also become easier if you’re guaranteed to play all other schools either 4/4 years (protected games) or 2/4 years (non protected).
 

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
8,383
14,024
113
Why have protected rivalries?
With all the trophy/rivalry games in the conference, it would suck to not have Minnesota or Wisconsin on the schedule, or Wisconsin not play Minnesota, Michigan/Ohio State every year.
I seriously think that 1 protected rival is enough (IA-NE, MN-WI, NW-IL, IN-PU, MI-OSU, PSU-MSU, MD-RU). Giving teams 3 protected rivals works ok for Iowa, but for most teams many of those rivalries would essentially be made up. Why should MSU have to play OSU every year? Why should PSU be stuck with the recent East Coast additions to the conference? I know I wouldn't mind missing out on MN and WI some years for a chance to play OSU and MI more often.

9-game schedule: 1 protected rival plus 8 games against the other 12 teams. Over a 6-year cycle you get a home-and-home with every Big Ten team twice.
 

amahawk

HR All-American
May 1, 2002
4,814
1,709
113
If you make it more “random” who gets fired when the OSU-Michigan game goes on a two/four year hiatus? If you’re penciling that one in every year seems like other games should be treated somewhat similarly. It should make scheduling easier also. Not sure that’s a huge concern but secondary considerations like balancing schedule travel demands also become easier if you’re guaranteed to play all other schools either 4/4 years (protected games) or 2/4 years (non protected).
All teams would play each other at least every other year.
 

sober_teacher

HR Legend
Mar 26, 2007
12,209
14,488
113
I seriously think that 1 protected rival is enough (IA-NE, MN-WI, NW-IL, IN-PU, MI-OSU, PSU-MSU, MD-RU). Giving teams 3 protected rivals works ok for Iowa, but for most teams many of those rivalries would essentially be made up. Why should MSU have to play OSU every year? Why should PSU be stuck with the recent East Coast additions to the conference? I know I wouldn't mind missing out on MN and WI some years for a chance to play OSU and MI more often.

9-game schedule: 1 protected rival plus 8 games against the other 12 teams. Over a 6-year cycle you get a home-and-home with every Big Ten team twice.
Just about every team in the conference, especially the older ones, have two, if not 3 rivalry or trophy games. for Iowa, losing the annual games against minnesota or Wisconsin would suck. it’s possible to set up the schedule to play every twice every four years, as others have pointed out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ichawk24

kceasthawk

HR Legend
Nov 5, 2016
10,996
12,012
113
All teams would play each other at least every other year.
They will NEVER get rid of "the GAME". The Michigan vs OSU game is such a big part of conference lore. Don't see that happening, and if you protect one rivalry you pretty much have to have one for each team, which of course has become problematic with the additions of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers for which any protected game is made up.
 

amahawk

HR All-American
May 1, 2002
4,814
1,709
113
They will NEVER get rid of "the GAME". The Michigan vs OSU game is such a big part of conference lore. Don't see that happening, and if you protect one rivalry you pretty much have to have one for each team, which of course has become problematic with the additions of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers for which any protected game is made up.
At least every other year
 

ichawk24

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
8,913
8,640
113
The OSU/UM game is the most valuable regular season property in college sports. There is a zero percent chance of it not being annual.

There are going to be locked rivals. Guaranteed.
 

MeetTheFerentz

HR Heisman
Nov 20, 2006
8,383
14,024
113
Just about every team in the conference, especially the older ones, have two, if not 3 rivalry or trophy games. for Iowa, losing the annual games against minnesota or Wisconsin would suck. it’s possible to set up the schedule to play every twice every four years, as others have pointed out.
Matter of opinion, I guess. The conference didn't come crashing down when they stopped making MI-MN an annual game. And I think that there are a lot of Hawkeye fans like me that wouldn't be utterly disappointed if MN and WI dropped off the schedule here and there. Glancing over all the Big Ten "trophy games," most of them I never heard of. In my example, IA-MN and MI-MSU are the only true forever rivalries (>110 meetings) that would not be played annually anymore. The way I look at, much like IA-ISU, a short hiatus from the rivalry would make the next meeting that much better. Not saying I completely like it, but since the conference isn't going back to 10, 11 or 12 teams anytime soon, just looking for the best situation from a fan's standpoint. Price of conference expansion.