[Husker] Big Ten Scheduling

[RJ Wessel]

Well said and all true

---- Agris Taurins <taurins at scifipenguin.com> wrote: 

=============
Everyone seems to be glossing over a factor that I think will weigh heavily
on the minds of most ADs.  They're not generally looking for "best match
ups" or "divisional parity".  They're looking for $$$.  And for most
power-house football programs that means a minimum of 7 home games a year.
With a 9 game conference schedule (regardless of how you work up various
divisions) you're looking at years where the conference schedule will only
give you 4 home games.  In those years it will be absolutely imparative for
ADs to schedule teams that don't insist on a home-and-home arrangement.  In
other words, "powerpuff" games.  Even though the new 4 team playoff format
will start to factor in strength of schedule more, the chance that you're
going to be the number 5 team, on the bubble, hoping your SOS is good
enough to vault you into that playoff game isn't going to be persuasive
enough to negate the guaranteed 6, 7, 8, 9 million you're pocket from an
additional home game.

If your argument is that the new expanded league will generate additional
broadcast money, that means that the new contract will need at least in the
neighborhood of $50 million just to "break even" for the schools that might
lose that additional home game.  Honestly, I think some of these cable
deals are reaching towards their upper bounds of what
networks/broadcasters/cable systems are willing to pay.  Now some marketing
genius might prove me wrong but...*shrug*

And the more we start talking about play-off, quarter finals, divisional
playoffs or what have you, the chance that the NCAA would allow schools to
expand their schedule to lock in the extra home games will be either slim
or none.  I'd bet on the "none".




On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Steve Schmadeke <husker at schmadeke.com>wrote:

>
> 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 lat
>  er, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker