Let's discuss B10 scheduling post-2023

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I've already posted a similar thread about a month back, but let's try a different angle. To my knowledge, little at all has been said about how the esteemed geniuses at the B10 HQ plan to sort out the clusterf*** of a 16 team conference basketball schedule (......which btw only gets more clusterf***y if these idiot programs and conferences keep abandoning ship and condensing the total number of major conferences.......imagine the Big Ten trying to make a balanced 32-game schedule with a f***ing 20 or 24 team conference..........dumbasses, all of them).

So in this thread, let's use the offseason to figure out, in our humble opinion, what the best way (or the right way) would be for the Big Ten's future basketball scheduling, once USC and UCLA join.

Here's my proposal:

- 22 game conference schedule (11 home/11 away)

- 7 opponents played twice (14 games split H/A), 8 opponents played once (4H/4A)

- Each school is guaranteed one permanent two-game series against a rival each year while the other 6 series will rotate among the 14 other schools:
-USC vs UCLA
-Iowa vs Illinois
-Indiana vs Purdue
-Maryland vs Rutgers
-Ohio State vs Penn State
-Michigan vs Michigan State
-Wisconsin vs Minnesota
-Nebraska vs Northwestern


- 9 non-conference games (potentially 5+ home games, with goal being at least 16-17 home games. This leaves room for a pre-conference tourney and/or other road matchups, such as AT Iowa State every other year)

So apply that and you could have a 2024-2025 schedule like this:

vs Jacksonville
vs Northeastern
vs Missouri
*Rocket Mortgage Fort Myers Tip-Off:
(Iowa, Oklahoma State, Tulane, San Diego State)
vs Drexel
At Virginia Tech
At Minnesota**
vs Iowa State
vs Western Illinois
***************************
Ohio State
At Maryland
At Wisconsin
Indiana
At Michigan
USC
At Nebraska
At Illinois
Michigan
At Penn State
Rutgers
At Indiana
Purdue
Michigan State
At USC
At UCLA
Maryland
Minnesota
At Northwestern
Wisconsin
Illinois

 

[HawkHoops80]

I guarantee you that it will stay at 20. Coaches already complain that the conference schedule is too long. The A10 has 15 schools and still does an 18 game conference schedule.
They'll be really strategic about scheduling for the California schools. And I could see them adding a protected rival situation to ensure that USC/UCLA always play twice. But that's about all I think we will get for changes.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I guarantee you that it will stay at 20. Coaches already complain that the conference schedule is too long. The A10 has 15 schools and still does an 18 game conference schedule.
They'll be really strategic about scheduling for the California schools. And I could see them adding a protected rival situation to ensure that USC/UCLA always play twice. But that's about all I think we will get for changes.

There's definitely pros and cons to each.

For example, on one hand, adding more conference games means fewer non-conference games, which can help with building a tourney resume, along with the potential lost revenue of a home game.

On the other hand, you get to see more opponents from your conference instead of all these one-offs, which just doesn't feel like a true representation of what a conference schedule should be.

For a 16-team, 20-game conference schedule to work (meaning 10 home and 10 away) you'd have to go to 5 multi-game opponents (5H/5A), and 10 single game opponents (5H/5A). Meaning that's only 5 of the 15 possible conference opponents that you'd see twice that season.

 

[HawknBadgerLand]

All good stuff. Great posts. I might be the only one that feels this way, but I'd abandon all protected rivalry games all together in FB and BB. Just schedule it so that you can't miss a team more than 1 year.

I wouldn't care if we missed WI or MN in FB, or Illinois in BB every now and then. I also think it would be nice to play everyone at least 1x every other year.

I think the old Big Ten is dead. With all these new rules, NIL, power conference LS and expansion, let's turn the page.

 

[HawkRugged17]

There's definitely pros and cons to each.

For example, on one hand, adding more conference games means fewer non-conference games, which can help with building a tourney resume, along with the potential lost revenue of a home game.

On the other hand, you get to see more opponents from your conference instead of all these one-offs, which just doesn't feel like a true representation of what a conference schedule should be.

For a 16-team, 20-game conference schedule to work (meaning 10 home and 10 away) you'd have to go to 5 multi-game opponents (5H/5A), and 10 single game opponents (5H/5A). Meaning that's only 5 of the 15 possible conference opponents that you'd see twice that season.

With that in mind, the rotation should be easy. Play 5 of 15 possible conference opponents twice and 10 others once and then rotate through that every 3 years. No protected rivalries needed in basketball. Easy ... peasy.

With that said, they will never do that.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

With that in mind, the rotation should be easy. Play 5 of 15 possible conference opponents twice and 10 others once and then rotate through that every 3 years. No protected rivalries needed in basketball. Easy ... peasy.

With that said, they will never do that.

I mean....that's what I said at the bottom of the post you quoted, but anywho........


And no, it shouldn't happen. You are right. The problem is if they intend to keep a 20 game schedule then that's the only way it will work with 16 teams in the conference. You have to play all 15 other teams at least once.

That's why I suggested the 22 game schedule as a way to play more opponents twice. And no they don't have to have locked in two-game series. I just threw it in as something to keep some of the top rivalries in the conference as annual two-game matchups. You can also look at some other conferences with how they handle their top rivalries. The ACC will always have Duke-UNC play twice no matter what.

Why wouldn't the B10 want to do that for games like USC-UCLA, Indiana-Purdue, Michigan-MSU or OSU, etc?

 

[HawkRugged17]

I mean....that's what I said at the bottom of the post you quoted, but anywho........


And no, it shouldn't happen. You are right. The problem is if they intend to keep a 20 game schedule then that's the only way it will work with 16 teams in the conference. You have to play all 15 other teams at least once.

That's why I suggested the 22 game schedule as a way to play more opponents twice. And no they don't have to have locked in two-game series. I just threw it in as something to keep some of the top rivalries in the conference as annual two-game matchups. You can also look at some other conferences with how they handle their top rivalries. The ACC will always have Duke-UNC play twice no matter what.

Why wouldn't the B10 want to do that for games like USC-UCLA, Indiana-Purdue, Michigan-MSU or OSU, etc?

Teams can also do silly things like schedule a conference opponent, but don't count it in the conference standings. In other words, in a non-con game against a conference opponent. Again, silly, but then the 2nd game happens and the fans still get to enjoy it. That way, you just do the 15-5 model every 3 years and let the schools decide who the rival is.

As a reference point, there were a couple of seasons back in the 60s where Iowa played Drake twice (home and away). 1965-66 and 1966-67 are 2 examples. I believe there have been a couple of instances recently where a Power 5 team scheduled a conference team in their non-conference schedule for a game to get eyeballs or fill in a lost opponent.

Again ... silly thought.

 

[HawknBadgerLand]

With that in mind, the rotation should be easy. Play 5 of 15 possible conference opponents twice and 10 others once and then rotate through that every 3 years. No protected rivalries needed in basketball. Easy ... peasy.

With that said, they will never do that.

Agree, but also no protected rivalries in football either. No one in American cares about Iowa vs MN and the Floyd trophy except for Iowa and MN fans.

 

[HawkRugged17]

Agree, but also no protected rivalries in football either. No one in American cares about Iowa vs MN and the Floyd trophy except for Iowa and MN fans.

Agreed. Penn State - Pitt used to play every year. ND - Michigan too. Sports evolve ... hard for me to admit.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Agree, but also no protected rivalries in football either. No one in American cares about Iowa vs MN and the Floyd trophy except for Iowa and MN fans.

Well then f*** the rest of America that doesn't care about Floyd.


Btw, stop accepting the "times are changing" bullsh** excuse to kill off CFB rivalries.

I'm also tired of the f***ing morons that think of your schedule isn't comprised of:

Ohio State
Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama
LSU
USC
Clemson
Texas
Oklahoma
Penn State
Florida
Georgia

Then you don't play anybody and your schedule sucks and the AD should be fired for ducking those teams. It's the dumbest f***ing argument that somehow got massive legs over the past decade. Every time I hear these whiny arguments I just want to grab these people by the face with a single hand, lift them up and the spike them face first on the f***ing concrete.........

Stop f***ing trying to kill the rivalries that made college football what it is in the first f***ing place because "money and TV ratings and times are changing so I guess we just have to shrug our shoulders and f***ing accept it".

How bout no.........

P.S. The Iowa State game stays and you all can f***ing deal with it and keep crying about how we should stop playing them if and when they beat us again.

Stop being okay with people trying to kill college football.

You're welcome.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Teams can also do silly things like schedule a conference opponent, but don't count it in the conference standings. In other words, in a non-con game against a conference opponent. Again, silly, but then the 2nd game happens and the fans still get to enjoy it. That way, you just do the 15-5 model every 3 years and let the schools decide who the rival is.

As a reference point, there were a couple of seasons back in the 60s where Iowa played Drake twice (home and away). 1965-66 and 1966-67 are 2 examples. I believe there have been a couple of instances recently where a Power 5 team scheduled a conference team in their non-conference schedule for a game to get eyeballs or fill in a lost opponent.

Again ... silly thought.

Yeah, I know they could, and yes it is a silly thought. The problem is it takes away from other non-conference opportunities.

It'd be a novelty thing to do once in a while, but it's not something teams will actively look to do annually. Programs will want something more concrete than that.

Btw, a good example from the B10 would be when Indiana and Purdue had a OOC game in 2002 at the old RCA Dome.

That was a big success for the rivalry, but that was also the only time they've done it in the handful of years since then that IU and PU were scheduled to only play once in conference.

 

[HawknBadgerLand]

Well then f*** the rest of America that doesn't care about Floyd.


Btw, stop accepting the "times are changing" bullsh** excuse to kill off CFB rivalries.

I'm also tired of the f***ing morons that think of your schedule isn't comprised of:

Ohio State
Notre Dame
Michigan
Alabama
LSU
USC
Clemson
Texas
Oklahoma
Penn State
Florida
Georgia

Then you don't play anybody and your schedule sucks and the AD should be fired for ducking those teams. It's the dumbest f***ing argument that somehow got massive legs over the past decade. Every time I hear these whiny arguments I just want to grab these people by the face with a single hand, lift them up and the spike them face first on the f***ing concrete.........

Stop f***ing trying to kill the rivalries that made college football what it is in the first f***ing place because "money and TV ratings and times are changing so I guess we just have to shrug our shoulders and f***ing accept it".

How bout no.........

P.S. The Iowa State game stays and you all can f***ing deal with it and keep crying about how we should stop playing them if and when they beat us again.

Stop being okay with people trying to kill college football.

You're welcome.

Nah, I'll stick to my opinion on this one. Iowa vs MN isn't what made college football great, and Nebby vs Iowa sure as hell didn't either. Fine, keep one rival for each team. Does Iowa need 3?

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Nah, I'll stick to my opinion on this one. (Lol too many people wanna die on that hill, and for what?) Iowa vs MN isn't what made college football great, (Lol how old are you, and how much do you honestly know about the history of CFB?...............At least pretend that you're gonna answer that, because I'll know you read it, anyway.) and Nebby vs Iowa sure as hell didn't either. (Sure it did because you can find the quote above where I said that Nebraska vs Iowa is solely what made CFB great.................................................PS- fun fact though, for a brief time in the late 2000s, early 2010s, the Iowa-Nebraska internet fan rivalry was bigger than just about anything else you'd find for CFB, and it wasn't really close. At the time, not Bama-Aub, UM-OSU, hell even Texas-OU could touch the animosity between Iowa and Nebraska fans around that time. True story btw, since again I don't know how old or well-informed you are about the history of CFB.......................)Fine, keep one rival for each team. Does Iowa need 3? (Wrong question. Do they have 3?......Yes.)

Hope that helps, Iowa fan.

 

[HawknBadgerLand]

Hope that helps, Iowa fan.

I'm 43. I guess my fandom began in the mid to late 80s watching Iowa vs Michigan and Iowa basketball was pretty exciting as well.

I moved to Wisconsin in '89 (4th grade), and started hating the badgers But I really don't care if Iowa plays them every year. I respect your opinion on this whole thing really, but I also feel like college football has changed more in the last 3 years than the previous 20. It's not slowing down.

The big ten will be unrecognizable in 5 years (if it isn't kind of already), and I'm Ok with change.

I'm not dying on any hill. Nebraska and Iowa are not rivals in my mind. Nebraska is stuck in the 90s, they don't respect Iowa AT ALL, and Iowa has had way more success in the past decade. Sure, the fans like to smart off to each other on the message boards, but I've never seen a decent exchange between and Iowa fan vs Nebby fan. So who cares? I didn't say you said Iowa vs Nebby was what "made college football great" I'm just saying ditch that stupid rivalry because it isn't one. Iowa should put their sites on Ohio State and Michigan like Hayden did.

 

[HawkRugged17]

Yeah, I know they could, and yes it is a silly thought. The problem is it takes away from other non-conference opportunities.

It'd be a novelty thing to do once in a while, but it's not something teams will actively look to do annually. Programs will want something more concrete than that.

Btw, a good example from the B10 would be when Indiana and Purdue had a OOC game in 2002 at the old RCA Dome.

That was a big success for the rivalry, but that was also the only time they've done it in the handful of years since then that IU and PU were scheduled to only play once in conference.

I would rather have Iowa play Wisconsin in a 2nd basketball game (that's non conference) than Florida A and M.

Sports are evolving. MLB didn't have interleague play until the World Series. You only saw the other league at the All Star Game and WS. Now, the leagues inter mix all of the time and it can be fun.

I used to be the traditional fan who didn't want the sport to change (schedules, uniforms, etc.). I have learned to embrace it because it's the way of the world. Everything evolves ...

Play in games, in season tournaments, conferences that have 16 teams from the East Coast to the West Coast.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

I would rather have Iowa play Wisconsin in a 2nd basketball game (that's non conference) than Florida A and M.

Sports are evolving. MLB didn't have interleague play until the World Series. You only saw the other league at the All Star Game and WS. Now, the leagues inter mix all of the time and it can be fun.

I used to be the traditional fan who didn't want the sport to change (schedules, uniforms, etc.). I have learned to embrace it because it's the way of the world. Everything evolves ...

Play in games, in season tournaments, conferences that have 16 teams from the East Coast to the West Coast.

See the thing you and @HawknBadgerLand are forgetting though is the simple question that humanity forgets to ask itself before (often misguidedly) forging ahead with change for the sake of change/"evolving"....................................is it necessary?

 

[HawkRugged17]

See the thing you and @HawknBadgerLand are forgetting though is the simple question that humanity forgets to ask itself before (often misguidedly) forging ahead with change for the sake of change/"evolving"....................................is it necessary?

As said by Tony Kornheiser (as he is quoting Dick Ebersol, I believe), the answer to all your questions is money.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

As said by Tony Kornheiser (as he is quoting Dick Ebersol, I believe), the answer to all your questions is money.

Come up with a better reason for evolution than money.

And no, 'money' is not an answer to whether change is necessary. It's a cop out.

I could go on and on about the ideology and morality and philosophy of it, but this abridged explanation works better............

 

[HawkRugged17]

Come up with a better reason for evolution than money.

And no, 'money' is not an answer to whether change is necessary. It's a cop out.

I could go on and on about the ideology and morality and philosophy of it, but this abridged explanation works better............

View embedded media

In Sports (which is not life), ideology, morality, and philosophy have nothing to do with it. It's entertainment ... which comes down to cold hard cash.

College Playoffs ... expanded tournaments ... TV networks exclusive to college sports. None existed a few years back. However, the money came in and things changed.

In an ideal world, I would love to go back to the old way with the rivalries (play all conference teams twice), games on Thursday and Saturday, travel partners and no conference tournament. However, that genie (Jeanie?) is not going back into the bottle.

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

In Sports (which is not life), ideology, morality, and philosophy have nothing to do with it. It's entertainment ... which comes down to cold hard cash.

College Playoffs ... expanded tournaments ... TV networks exclusive to college sports. None existed a few years back. However, the money came in and things changed.

In an ideal world, I would love to go back to the old way with the rivalries (play all conference teams twice), games on Thursday and Saturday, travel partners and no conference tournament. However, that genie (Jeanie?) is not going back into the bottle.

Would you like me to put it back in the bottle?...........

 

[HawkRugged17]

Would you like me to put it back in the bottle?...........