[Husker] Big Ten Scheduling

[Steve Schmadeke]

There are two big downsides of a 3+2+2+2 schedule.

The first is that, despite a nine-game conference schedule, two teams in the same division are guaranteed to have no more than one head-to-head match and just two common opponents.  They could have as many as six conference games that are not scheduled against a conference opponent.

An even bigger problem with the 3+2+2+2 schedule is that the only teams you are guaranteed to play every year are the three teams in your division.  Therefore, if you want to preserve the traditional rivalries, you would have to place the teams in the same division, which would then preclude those teams from appearing in the championship game(s) against each other.  The Big Ten already made it clear they weren't going to do that with the Michigan-Ohio State matchup.

To resolve those two problems -- and to also help increase the number of easily marketable games in the inventory, which is one of the main purposes of the expansion -- you can tweak the formula to a 3+4+1+1.  Each team has a designated traditional opponent in each of the other three divisions that they play each year.  Each team also plays the other three teams in the division each year and, finally, each division is matched up against one of the other three divisions each year, with the divisional matchups rotating the same way of the conference games in the NFL.

That results in a nine-game schedule where you play the other three teams in your division and your other three designated opponents every year and you play the once every three years (or twice every six years).  Furthermore, only two of the nine conference opponents will not be shared with the other teams in the same division, so that the quirks of the scheduling rotation won't have the huge impact that they could have in the 3+2+2+2 scheme.

As for game inventory, this frees up the conference to scatter the big-name schools evenly across the four divisions, but still have those teams play each other every year with the intent to fill those prime-time slots.  For example, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Penn State could be the headliner in separate divisions and each of them could be the designated opponents of each other so that they all play each other every year.  (Which would mean that if those teams all retain their long-term success, they would always have a slightly harder schedule than their fellow division mates, but it certainly helps Delaney's inventory.) It's relatively easy to fill in the rest of those divisions with the other opponents for games that must be preserved on an annual basis (e.g. Michigan-Michigan State).

Oh yes, it also means that there is no need to create a semi-final.  Each pair of quadrants constitutes a division for that year and it is impossible for more than one team from each division to run the table.  Furthermore, each team will have played each other and will have seven head-to-head or common games with anybody they might be tied with in the standings, so we probably won't have to rely on the dreaded "Highest BCS Ranking" tie-breaker.

One possible setup:

Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota

Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Illinois

Ohio State
Purdue
Indiana
Team #15

Penn State
Rutgers
Maryland
Team #16

(I suppose in this setup, the Michigan-Minnesota rivalry would probably take priority over a potential Michigan-Nebraska game on an annual basis.  Both games could be preserved on an annual basis by swapping the Wisconsin-Minnesota pair for the Northwestern-Illinois pair, but that would probably leave the resulting Michigan-Michigan State-Wisconsin-Minnesota group a bit too top-heavy based on historical performance.)

One last side note, it has been traditional to rotate the opponents in a scheme where you play each of your rotating opponents home-and-home in consecutive years and then you have to wait twice as long for that team to rotate back on your schedule.  I would prefer that the games be spread out more evenly so that you don't have to wait for an entire graduating class to go by before you match up with a team.  By rotating the quadrants each year, NFL-style, you would end up playing your non-designated opponents in the other divisions once every three years, with each of those teams coming to your stadium once every six years.  This would also lesson the effects if two divisions temporarily become top-heavy while the other two divisions are weaker.  At most, you would have one year when the two top-heavy divisions are matched together fighting for the same slot in the title game.  The next year they would be split apart.  By the time they get paired together again three years later, the strengths might have evened out.


On Nov 29, 2012, at 9:19 PM, Mike Nolan <nolan at tssi.com> wrote:

>> I can see it divided into 4 - 4 team divisions. You would play the 3 other teams in your division every season and the 2 from the other 3 divisions. That gives a 9 game conference schedule.  I can't see anyone wanting more than that and still do a meaningful out of confernce game. 
> 
> I thought of the 3+2+2+2 9 game conference schedule, too.  That has the
> advantage that you would play all non-division teams twice every 4 years.  
> 
>> The down side is there is always that chance of 4 undefeated teams then and how to tie break those
> 
> The best way to deal with it is to have semi-final games.  If Division 1 FCS and
> the lower divisions can handle multi-round playoffs, Division 1 FBS can too.
> (And think of the additional money it would bring in.)
> 
> Anybody want to set up a pool on which conference approaches the NCAA
> with this idea first?
> --
> Mike Nolan