Division elimination

[84HuskerLaw]

How does Neb or other bottom tier schools benefit from eliminating divisions?   Schedules aren’t drawn randomly or apparently in some other unbiased manner.  Look at our matchup history so far.  We finally should get less OSU and more winnable opponents for awhile. Really trying to see how the haves and have nots are going to be equally treated in chances to win a spot in the final analysis.  

[not me]

15 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Actually, 5-4-4 would protect all the rivalry (trophy) games and balance out the schedules a little better.  A 3-5-5 doesn't protect all the trophy games.  Three teams have four of them and Minnesota actually has five.

 

Here's my stab at it.  Games in red are trophy games.  Each team plays five teams every year and alternates the other eight every other year.

 

Thanks for working it out. I figured it was possible, but hadn't done the work to draw up a possible schedule.

 

I like getting a repeatable schedule like this because it lets us play everyone regularly and have opportunities to go to away games against all the teams in the conference as a fan. You can rework the groupings for the 8 alternative teams every 4 years after you get a full set of Home-Away as well.

[walksalone]

In the next 5-10 years conferences as we know it are probably going to go the way of the dodo...

 

There'll be 4 conferences made up of 16 or 20 teams, and the winners of those conferences will go to the final four.

[Mavric]

Quote

The conference is focused on a “single-division model,” per Sankey, with one option, an eight-game schedule where schools would have just a single permeant opponent and seven rotating opponents. The other potential proposal is a nine-game format where every school would have three permanent opponents and six rotating league games — thus preserving more rivalries and creating more regular matchups.  

 

[84HuskerLaw]

No doubt SEC doesn’t want more league games as it makes total conference wins go down and hurts bowl and ratings etc.  Every school knows you ‘schedule’ wins to get better records.  SEC has a built in advantage vs conference teams that play more conference games vs non con ‘easy’ weaker teams.  

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

No doubt SEC doesn’t want more league games as it makes total conference wins go down and hurts bowl and ratings etc.  Every school knows you ‘schedule’ wins to get better records.  SEC has a built in advantage vs conference teams that play more conference games vs non con ‘easy’ weaker teams.  

 

So you didn't read anything in the article.  Making assumptions is much more fun.

[84HuskerLaw]

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

So you didn't read anything in the article.  Making assumptions is much more fun.

Article.  Just the post.  My assumption remains.  Big Ten wants 8 without divisions etc again to schedule for wins and so on.  

[Red Five]

20 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

 Big Ten wants 8 without divisions etc again to schedule for wins and so on.

 

The B1G and SEC will both have no divisions and 9 game conference schedules w/in the next couple years.

[Mavric]

21 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Article.  Just the post.  My assumption remains incorrect.  

 

FIFY

 

21 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Big Ten wants 8 without divisions etc again to schedule for wins and so on.  

 

More assumptions (that are probably wrong).

[84HuskerLaw]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

FIFY

 

 

More assumptions (that are probably wrong).

Why would the big ten want more conference losses than the SEC?   What benefit is that when rankings, bowl slots, TV attractions, etc are all helped by teams with better win/loss records?

[Mavric]

28 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Why would the big ten want more conference losses than the SEC?   What benefit is that when rankings, bowl slots, TV attractions, etc are all helped by teams with better win/loss records?

 

More inventory for TV contracts.

[84HuskerLaw]

6 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

More inventory for TV contracts.

So a NU vs Rutgers is more valuable than NU vs CU or Even NU vs NCState or Pittsburgh for example, even though with 9 conference games it assures 9 more Big Ten losses per year?   
 

When teams need 6 wins to get bowl eligible and you lock in 5 losses for half the conference teams out of 12 total, that leaves only 3 possible games to get that 1 must have win.  And, in order to assure at least two Big Ten teams in the race for the CFB playoff slots (essentially one loss or none), that requires even more conference losses for the rest of the teams.  This is my feeling.  We need more ranked teams with winning records to bolster the overall perceived conference strength.  That happens with wins. Great matchups are nice but wins are a must.  
The saying is “You don’t win championships, you schedule them.”  
 

Big Ten Network gains games with non con games so more TV games to show.   
 

It’s complicated, I know but I’m just asking.  We need a level playing field to have a chance.  We don’t need schedule disadvantages on top of all our other issues.  All I’m saying really.  
 

[Mavric]

19 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

So a NU vs Rutgers is more valuable than NU vs CU or Even NU vs NCState or Pittsburgh for example, even though with 9 conference games it assures 9 more Big Ten losses per year?   

 

It's not either-or.  Most schools will still have a major non-con game.  

 

TVs contracts don't care about win/loss record.  When you have more games to offer, that's a bigger payday.

 

19 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

When teams need 6 wins to get bowl eligible and you lock in 5 losses for half the conference teams out of 12 total, that leaves only 3 possible games to get that 1 must have win.  And, in order to assure at least two Big Ten teams in the race for the CFB playoff slots (essentially one loss or none), that requires even more conference losses for the rest of the teams.  This is my feeling.  We need more ranked teams with winning records to bolster the overall perceived conference strength.  That happens with wins. Great matchups are nice but wins are a must.  
The saying is “You don’t win championships, you schedule them.”  

 

That's one consideration.  But it's trading guaranteed money for the possibility of a little more money.  The former usually wins out.

 

19 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Big Ten Network gains games with non con games so more TV games to show.   

 

There are more higher-profile games with conference games.  The big non-con games are almost always home-and-home so only half of those would be B1G home games as opposed to all of them with an extra conference game.  And you're probably not even losing those big non-con games because they're still going have those (for most teams).  You're really replacing a lower-level opponent with a conference game which is good for TV revenue.

 

19 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

It’s complicated, I know but I’m just asking.  We need a level playing field to have a chance.  We don’t need schedule disadvantages on top of all our other issues.  All I’m saying really.  

 

I think the schedule disadvantages are over-blown.  A couple years ago everyone was saying what an advantage an eight-game conference schedule was.  The reality was that Clemson and Alabama happened to play in eight-game leagues.  I.e., the best teams happened to be in those leagues, not the other way around.  Once Clemson took a step back the eight-game ACC schedule wasn't much of an advantage.

 

Plus, the SEC is seriously looking at nine league games anyway, as was noted in the article I posted.  Probably for the same reasons the B1G will probably stay at nine games (TV money).

[NoLongerN]

43 minutes ago, Mavric said:

Plus, the SEC is seriously looking at nine league games anyway, as was noted in the article I posted.  Probably for the same reasons the B1G will probably stay at nine games (TV money).

Yes.  

There is a whole other angle on this to consider.  At present, the $EC is of course growing to 16 teams.  I would think that the "power grab" and "money grab" would be the $EC even expanding to something like 20 teams and having even more conference games.  Maybe the better conferences like the $EC or the B1G might look to expand and actually take in 10 conference games ... or even all conference games and look to establish your own conference as the elite one and then having the biggest money payouts to the conference.  

At present, it is sounding more like the $EC would try to erect their own championship that would be in it's view [and it might be true] the "True National Champion".  The NCAA is just so weak and within the power and money grab, I could see them pulling this off.  I don't think the B1G would ever try anything like this because it is more traditional and blue collar ... but it could of come to this [still might].  I think that the resurrection of USC will bring more balance to the total national picture and balance out what opportunity the $EC has.  Yet, between the $EC being better and above and the present opportunity, I can see not just nine games but maybe even 10 for the $EC if they consider cornering the market and wanting to really grab even more of the pie.

[Huskerfollower4life]

This is getting ridiculous in my book. Ive heard that the SEC wants to be the most dominant conference in terms of thinking of having there own playoffs. I will be upset if in the next couple of years the smaller conferences combine to form or join the bigger conferences and then scheduling games will be a headache. How would you like to be that guy or girl that makes the scheduling of each team and see a conference have 20 teams within the conference??