Muck
New member
Did you just argue that playing teams from California, Oregon, Washington & Arizona instead of ones in Indiana & Pennsylvania will reinforce the stereotype of the B1G being a regional 'mid-western' conference?
Big Ten/Pac-12 to enter regular season scheduling agreement in 2017
- Thread starter papersun87
- Start date
Blackshirt316
New member
No, but I apologize as my wording did unintentionally imply that.
I mean the conference is already seen as focusing too much on the middle and western areas of the country due to the longstanding history with the Pac 12 and the Rosebowl. With this move you're further distancing yourself from the interest from southern and eastern recruits in Texas, Florida etc.
I can't wait till we get to watch a non conference B1G vs Pac12 game and then see a rematch in the Rose Bowl. :sarcasm
I don't really understand the point of this. It would be completely different if it was against the SEC or Big12 because then you could avoid rematches in the bowls. There is no way to avoid it with the Rose Bowl.
I don't really understand the point of this. It would be completely different if it was against the SEC or Big12 because then you could avoid rematches in the bowls. There is no way to avoid it with the Rose Bowl.
Not true. As of right now B1G is contracted to three bowl games against SEC (Capital One, Outback, Gator). Three bowl games against Big 12 (Insight, Meineke, TicketCity). And only one bowl game with Pac-12 which is the Rose Bowl.
Last edited by a moderator:
GSG
Active member
Last edited by a moderator:
I know the B1G is contracted to play bowl games against the SEC and Big12. If Florida and Nebraska played a non conference game in an SEC vs B1G challenge and then happened to end up as the second or third place teams in both the B1G and SEC, the bowls could put, for example, Nebraska in the Cap One Bowl and Florida in the Outback to avoid the rematch. The wouldn't HAVE TO play each other again in the Cap One Bowl.
If Nebraska and Oregon play each other in the non conference and then both teams end up winning their conference title, the HAVE TO play each other again in the Rose Bowl. There is no way to avoid the rematch. Only way they don't is if one of them is playing for the National Title.
I'm indifferent to the scenario either way. The same thing can be applied to the B1G CCG. It's unavoidable sometimes. Just play the game and be glad you're playing for something, is my mindset.
JJ Husker
Donor
I think it's a good idea. Cutting B1G conference games from 9 to 8 and adding 1 PAC-12 matchup per year. Don't see the down side at all. It could possibly make it a little tougher to schedule that one good non-con game but if all B1G schools are doing this then it stands to reason that the PAC-12 matchup may not have to fall in the first 4 weeks of non-con games. I don't want to see a dedicated team (like CU) every year but some variety from another major conference would be nice. Is it really that bad that we may have to give up an opponent like UT Chatt, Fresno, or Wyoming to make this happen? The possibility of a Rose Bowl rematch is very slim but, if it does happen, so what? For the near future, the B1G Rose Bowl rep is going to probably be Wiscy, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, MSU, or Penn St and the Pac rep Oregon, USC, Stanford, & maybe UCLA or Washington. I'm no statistics guru but 1 of 5 or 6 teams being rematched with 1 of about 4 teams in the Rose Bowl, when your chances of meeting them regular season is 1 in 12, is hardly an eventuality to worry about.
Plus, I am tired of the southeastern exposure/recruiting angle constantly thrown in. 1 possible game yearly at a random SEC school is not going to change our recruiting there one iota IMO. If Nebraska or B1G schools want more SEC area recruits, then the best solution is to reduce our entrance requirements to meet those of the SEC. Personally I would rather we remained viable academic institutions rather than lowering ourselves to the SEC academic level. So what if they win 9 out of every 10 NCG's? Most reasonable people can see why that is. I can beat most any 4 year old in a game of chess. Should I be proud of that? Is that a completely fair contest? Personally I felt sorry for the SEC during the Heisman awards. Luck, RG3, and Ball were so well spoken and the standouts from Bama and LSU could hardly formulate a sentence. That's it in a nutshell right there.
Plus, I am tired of the southeastern exposure/recruiting angle constantly thrown in. 1 possible game yearly at a random SEC school is not going to change our recruiting there one iota IMO. If Nebraska or B1G schools want more SEC area recruits, then the best solution is to reduce our entrance requirements to meet those of the SEC. Personally I would rather we remained viable academic institutions rather than lowering ourselves to the SEC academic level. So what if they win 9 out of every 10 NCG's? Most reasonable people can see why that is. I can beat most any 4 year old in a game of chess. Should I be proud of that? Is that a completely fair contest? Personally I felt sorry for the SEC during the Heisman awards. Luck, RG3, and Ball were so well spoken and the standouts from Bama and LSU could hardly formulate a sentence. That's it in a nutshell right there.
@HuskerBCS,
Another thing I should've mentioned in my last post. Bowl reps are interested in traditional powers with big travelling fanbases. They're all about $$ first. Since Nebraska fits both of those definitions, bowl reps wouldn't think twice about a rematch if the other opponent also fits that definition. It's business for them.
With that in mind, who is to say that Nebraska and Tennessee won't play twice in 2017? Both fit the definition highlighted above. And if circumstances allowed (even if they're not playing in the national title game against each other), you can bet any of those bowl games would love to have Nebraska vs Tennessee, rematch be damned.
Another thing I should've mentioned in my last post. Bowl reps are interested in traditional powers with big travelling fanbases. They're all about $$ first. Since Nebraska fits both of those definitions, bowl reps wouldn't think twice about a rematch if the other opponent also fits that definition. It's business for them.
With that in mind, who is to say that Nebraska and Tennessee won't play twice in 2017? Both fit the definition highlighted above. And if circumstances allowed (even if they're not playing in the national title game against each other), you can bet any of those bowl games would love to have Nebraska vs Tennessee, rematch be damned.
Last edited by a moderator:
WoodyHayes1951
New member
I'd rather have an SEC or ACC challenge but oh well. We don't recruit players out west and like others have mentioned the fanbases out west are lacking. Tiny fanbases mean less exposure(unless you're the Canes).
I think it should rotate some though and not just #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2 etc. It should be handled like the Big Ten ACC hoops challenge.
I think it should rotate some though and not just #1 vs #1, #2 vs #2 etc. It should be handled like the Big Ten ACC hoops challenge.
Michiganball
New member
Next year Pac-12 is starting their own network. This will give both conferences roughly 43% of the national market from what I was reading. That's pretty damn good exposure for just two conferences. That and the green of course.
HuskerShark
Banned
The problem that I have with this agreement (aside from the financial/national exposure aspect) is that the B1G already has the Rose Bowl, which ties these 2 conferences together already. What I don't like is that you are going to run into a situation where a team from the B1G plays a team from the Pac12 in the regular season and then they win their conferences and face each other in the Rose Bowl.
You know what this means? As fans of those 2 teams, we watch it. For the rest of the country, their view is, "Why waste my time watching that game when I saw them play already this year.
Examples:
Last year: Nebraska and Washington
This year: LSU and Alabama
Both of these games were total drags the first time they were played, so why tune in to watch the rematch in the bowl game when it wasn't a good game to watch in the first place? I guess that's really my only reason to dislike this agreement. I guess if we were to make this type of agreement with anyone, make it with the SEC or Big12. There's my 2 cents.
You know what this means? As fans of those 2 teams, we watch it. For the rest of the country, their view is, "Why waste my time watching that game when I saw them play already this year.
Examples:
Last year: Nebraska and Washington
This year: LSU and Alabama
Both of these games were total drags the first time they were played, so why tune in to watch the rematch in the bowl game when it wasn't a good game to watch in the first place? I guess that's really my only reason to dislike this agreement. I guess if we were to make this type of agreement with anyone, make it with the SEC or Big12. There's my 2 cents.
Just doesn't happen very often. Business or not, the bowls try to avoid regular season rematches. In the business aspect of it, they are afraid fans won't travel and buy tickets because it's a rematch. Most fans aren't gonna wanna watch a second game unless the 1st game as an amazing game.
I heard that they are going to try and protect the competitve equity in these games. Meaning that they are going to try and match up the top teams from each conference. Meaning B1G #1 vs Pac #1. This makes a Rose Bowl rematch scenario even more likely.