Conference Scheduling - An Out of the Box Look

[Mavric]

I'm still kind of sold on the 16-team, 4-pod conference scheduling idea.

But this is a pretty interesting idea for 14 teams. There's still a little issue with parity but with three permanent opponents, you can balance the top teams out pretty well. I started out by preserving all the trophy games except that we'll only get to play for the $5 Bits of Broken Chair Trophy every-other year. Then you play five teams one year and the remaining five teams the next year. You play every team every other year and play every team both home and away every four years. The two best teams play in the Conference Championship Game. Seems pretty slick.

Here's my thoughts on how to do it in the B1G:

Permanent Opponents:

Nebraska - Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern

Ohio State - Illinois, Michigan, Penn State

Michigan - Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State

Michigan State - Indiana, Penn State, Michigan

Penn State - Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State

Wisconsin - Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Iowa - Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin

Northwestern - Illinois, Nebraska, Maryland

Minnesota - Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin

Indiana - Michigan State, Purdue, Rutgers

Maryland - Penn State, Rutgers, Northwestern

Rutgers - Maryland, Indiana, Purdue

Illinois - Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue

Purdue - Illinois, Indiana, Rutgers

You could do the alternating year opponents about however you wanted but it could look something like this (if I don't screw anything up too badly):

Even Year Opponents:

Nebraska - Ohio State, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, Indiana

Ohio State - Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Rutgers, Purdue

Michigan - Iowa, Penn State, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana

Michigan State - Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Illinois, Maryland

Penn State - Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers

Wisconsin - Michigan State, Penn State, Illinois, Maryland, Indiana

Iowa -

Odd Year Opponents:

Nebraska - Michigan State, Michigan, Purdue, Penn State, Rutgers

Ohio State - Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland, Indiana

Michigan - Nebraska, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Rutgers

Michigan State - Nebraska, Ohio State, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers

Penn State - Nebraska, Michigan, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana

Wisconsin - Ohio State, Michigan, Northwestern, Rutgers, Purdue

Iowa -

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

I like it. Especially for the fact that ALL the rivalry games are restored. (Minus the chair). I think the ones missing right now are the lil brown jug, and the Illibuck. They happen to be the oldest trophies in the conference.

 

[Redux]

Interesting take, could definitely work. I would gladly trade our 2016 schedule for this right now.

I agree though, the 4 pod 16 team conference is almost an inevitability though.

 

[Saunders]

SBNation's take:

Conference growth has led to all sorts of problems with scheduling, including unbalanced divisions and schedule difficulty, long waits to play certain opponents, and the challenges of retaining various rivalries.

The 14-team Big Ten deals with all of those. Since just lopping four teams isn't really an option, there has to be a way to help. Right?

Luckily, we might have figured it out.

This week, our colleagues proposed a radical change for the SEC, banishing divisions entirely in favor of three protected rivalries per team. That same approach could work just as well for the Big Ten, placing three annual rivalry games per team and ensuring everybody plays the other 10 conference schools three times every five years.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/15/11923938/big-ten-schedule-divisions-realignment-rivalries

 

[huKSer]

SBNation's take:

Conference growth has led to all sorts of problems with scheduling, including unbalanced divisions and schedule difficulty, long waits to play certain opponents, and the challenges of retaining various rivalries.

The 14-team Big Ten deals with all of those. Since just lopping four teams isn't really an option, there has to be a way to help. Right?

Luckily, we might have figured it out.

This week, our colleagues proposed a radical change for the SEC, banishing divisions entirely in favor of three protected rivalries per team. That same approach could work just as well for the Big Ten, placing three annual rivalry games per team and ensuring everybody plays the other 10 conference schools three times every five years.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/15/11923938/big-ten-schedule-divisions-realignment-rivalries

* We're most devastated not to be protecting Minnesota and Nebraska's $5 Bits of Broken Chair Trophy, one of the most prestigious accolades any team can win. Hopefully the off years in that series will make the trophy even more profoundly meaningful than it already is, if that's possible.

 

[Redux]

That would be a little more telling of how good the SEC overall really is.

But first, just a thought, maybe.......juuuuuuuuust maybe......they untuck their tails and actually schedule a home and home with an OOC opponent and not this "meet you at a neutral site in week 1" crap. Lets see Alabama play in the Colliseum in week 3, or Auburn in Happy Valley in week 4.

 

[Mavric]

SBNation's take:

Conference growth has led to all sorts of problems with scheduling, including unbalanced divisions and schedule difficulty, long waits to play certain opponents, and the challenges of retaining various rivalries.

The 14-team Big Ten deals with all of those. Since just lopping four teams isn't really an option, there has to be a way to help. Right?

Luckily, we might have figured it out.

This week, our colleagues proposed a radical change for the SEC, banishing divisions entirely in favor of three protected rivalries per team. That same approach could work just as well for the Big Ten, placing three annual rivalry games per team and ensuring everybody plays the other 10 conference schools three times every five years.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/15/11923938/big-ten-schedule-divisions-realignment-rivalries

Pretty similar. I originally wanted to put Nebraska with Michigan State but I tried to spread things out a little more so it wasn't so much the top teams playing each other and the bottom teams playing each other. My top 6/7 generally have two other "top" teams and one "lesser" team which I thought helped with to balance the schedule.

 

[huKSer]

SBNation's take:

Conference growth has led to all sorts of problems with scheduling, including unbalanced divisions and schedule difficulty, long waits to play certain opponents, and the challenges of retaining various rivalries.

The 14-team Big Ten deals with all of those. Since just lopping four teams isn't really an option, there has to be a way to help. Right?

Luckily, we might have figured it out.

This week, our colleagues proposed a radical change for the SEC, banishing divisions entirely in favor of three protected rivalries per team. That same approach could work just as well for the Big Ten, placing three annual rivalry games per team and ensuring everybody plays the other 10 conference schools three times every five years.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/6/15/11923938/big-ten-schedule-divisions-realignment-rivalries

Pretty similar. I originally wanted to put Nebraska with Michigan State but I tried to spread things out a little more so it wasn't so much the top teams playing each other and the bottom teams playing each other. My top 6/7 generally have two other "top" teams and one "lesser" team which I thought helped with to balance the schedule.

I like how you gave Iowa a chance to win a divisional championship by letting them only play 3 conference games

 

[Mavric]

I like how you gave Iowa a chance to win a divisional championship by letting them only play 3 conference games

Ha!

Before I started, I thought I should get it set up in a spreadsheet to keep track of the match-ups. But it was too late and I was too lazy. So I was just doing it one team at a time. When I got to Iowa, they already had all their tough games stacked in one year and I didn't want to take the time to fix it.

 

[huKSer]

I like how you gave Iowa a chance to win a divisional championship by letting them only play 3 conference games

Ha!

Before I started, I thought I should get it set up in a spreadsheet to keep track of the match-ups. But it was too late and I was too lazy. So I was just doing it one team at a time. When I got to Iowa, they already had all their tough games stacked in one year and I didn't want to take the time to fix it.

I was going to look at who you had them playing - since they only win when they have a very weak schedule. As I type this I just noticed - no divisions. Who plays in the CCG? Do the top 2 teams play just like the *gulp* Big 12 will next year?

EDIT - Never mind I reread post #1

 

[Mavric]

I like how you gave Iowa a chance to win a divisional championship by letting them only play 3 conference games

Ha!

Before I started, I thought I should get it set up in a spreadsheet to keep track of the match-ups. But it was too late and I was too lazy. So I was just doing it one team at a time. When I got to Iowa, they already had all their tough games stacked in one year and I didn't want to take the time to fix it.

I was going to look at who you had them playing - since they only win when they have a very weak schedule. As I type this I just noticed - no divisions. Who plays in the CCG? Do the top 2 teams play just like the *gulp* Big 12 will next year?

EDIT - Never mind I reread post #1

Yeah, the no divisions is pretty much the "out of the box" way to look at it. Really seems to make sense to me. Protect the biggest rivalries while maintaining a pretty balanced schedule and still get to play everyone at least every other year.

I really haven't come up with a down-side yet.

 

[zeWilbur]

I like how you gave Iowa a chance to win a divisional championship by letting them only play 3 conference games

Ha!

Before I started, I thought I should get it set up in a spreadsheet to keep track of the match-ups. But it was too late and I was too lazy. So I was just doing it one team at a time. When I got to Iowa, they already had all their tough games stacked in one year and I didn't want to take the time to fix it.

I was going to look at who you had them playing - since they only win when they have a very weak schedule. As I type this I just noticed - no divisions. Who plays in the CCG? Do the top 2 teams play just like the *gulp* Big 12 will next year?

EDIT - Never mind I reread post #1

Yeah, the no divisions is pretty much the "out of the box" way to look at it. Really seems to make sense to me. Protect the biggest rivalries while maintaining a pretty balanced schedule and still get to play everyone at least every other year.

I really haven't come up with a down-side yet.

Has anybody addressed the 7 home game per year issue? Having a nice schedule and being able to afford it for the poorest team are usually diametrically opposed. Especially since no one is allowed to schedule the Little Sisters of the Poor any more.

 

[Mavric]

I like how you gave Iowa a chance to win a divisional championship by letting them only play 3 conference games

Ha!

Before I started, I thought I should get it set up in a spreadsheet to keep track of the match-ups. But it was too late and I was too lazy. So I was just doing it one team at a time. When I got to Iowa, they already had all their tough games stacked in one year and I didn't want to take the time to fix it.

I was going to look at who you had them playing - since they only win when they have a very weak schedule. As I type this I just noticed - no divisions. Who plays in the CCG? Do the top 2 teams play just like the *gulp* Big 12 will next year?

EDIT - Never mind I reread post #1

Yeah, the no divisions is pretty much the "out of the box" way to look at it. Really seems to make sense to me. Protect the biggest rivalries while maintaining a pretty balanced schedule and still get to play everyone at least every other year.

I really haven't come up with a down-side yet.

Has anybody addressed the 7 home game per year issue? Having a nice schedule and being able to afford it for the poorest team are usually diametrically opposed. Especially since no one is allowed to schedule the Little Sisters of the Poor any more.

This really wouldn't affect that. In fact, since it's only an eight game conference season, it makes it easier to get seven home games (compared to the nine game conference schedule now). Each team would have four home conference games and four road games. So they could get (at least) three non-conference games at home to get to seven.

But actually, that is the one down-side to me. I'd rather play nine conference games. Technically you could still do that with this format but not nearly as clean. Although if the B1G went to 16 teams in the conference, you could do the same type of scheduling to get three protected games and six other games, still playing everyone every-other year.

Might have to rethink my initial statement in the OP.....

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

Yeah, the no divisions is pretty much the "out of the box" way to look at it. Really seems to make sense to me.

Definitely makes sense. Especially when you consider that CFB conferences have only been allowed to have divisions since 1987, and the SEC was the first D-1 conference to do it in 1992.

Conferences with more than 12 football members is extremely new as well. We need flexibility to be able to do what makes sense IMO.

 

[broganreynik]

This makes too much sense, so it will probably never happen lol.

I think it's a great idea! Not having to wait four years to play certain teams is nice. Plus, you were able to keep the "NU rivalry", so I can make my annual push to have the teams agree to the terms of the losing team can't wear an 'N' on their helmet the following season. It's going to catch on one of these years, I swear!