Michigan and MSU drop Minnesota
RU gets Maryland Indiana and Northwestern
Maryland and Nebraska add each other
All done
Last edited:
Football REPORT: Big Ten could eliminate divisions
- Thread starter rutgersguy1
- Start date
RU gets Maryland Indiana and Northwestern
Maryland and Nebraska add each other
All done
A move to break up the divisions was to be expected, the B1G is running scared, they know that Rutgers is just a year or two away from dominating the conference like no other program has before. OSU, PSU, and Michigan are absolutely desperate to get out of a division with Rutgers, they know there is little chance of them winning the division as soon the 2023 season. The only hope OSU, PSU, and Michigan have of playing in the Rose Bowl or playoff in the future is if they can play a round-robin schedule for second overall place in the conference.
LOL, would love to see RU play one of them every few few years or all three on a rotating bases every couple of years
But will they want to schedule home and home with RU.
😁
There's no grounds to declare it unconstitutional. The Congress could rescind all antitrust legislation tomorrow and the SC couldn't unilaterally re-institute it.
Kratch makes it sound like we would play 1 acc team AND 1 pac12 team every year.
I’d never heard that before.
Anybody with Intel on this wrinkle?
I’d never heard that before.
Anybody with Intel on this wrinkle?
Games with both conferences was my understanding when the Alliance idea was first presented.
Someone has to work on the specifics about unbalanced number of teams in the conferences, many ND vs Pac-12/ACC matchups, and many ACC/SEC rivalry games.
I hope Penn State and Maryland are 2 of our 3 annual opponents.
I’m ok with getting rid of divisions but I don’t understand the point of scheduling an alliance team as opposed to a big 10 conference game. What’s the difference ?
I’m ok with getting rid of divisions but I don’t understand the point of scheduling an alliance team as opposed to a big 10 conference game. What’s the difference ?
MD seems a lock. Would think PSU but I could see Michigan, MSU, and/or OSU for them, and maybe either RU or MD. Ours could be MD and the 2 Indiana schools, or MSU, though hope it would be PSU and MD plus Purdue, Indiana, or MSU.
And what’s the problem with that? Minnesota played just 3 top 25 teams all season and at 9-4 everyone sees them as a very good team. Give them 5 top 25 schools like Rutgers and suddenly they’re not viewed.the same.
When we’re vying for the playoffs then we can start thinking you have to beat the best to be the best. All anyone remembers is your record at the end of the year, not who you played.
Maryland and Penn State will be two of our yearly opponents. B1G 10 will try to make these games geographic and/or tradition based.
Last edited:
The way to force them is to have all the other teams unite and say we wont play any games with you unless you reign in NIL. Just the threat will get them negotiating
I would expect PennState to get Rutgers, Maryland, and Michigan State (trophy game).
That was a great trip.
Actually went to Seattle twice to see us play WSU in an earlier season then to see us play Washington .
The game against the Cougars was great.
What would Big Ten schedule look like without divisions (and would it be a big boost to Rutgers?)
Legends and Leaders gave way to East and West which may now give way to what the Big Ten did for its first century or so of existence.
I'm not buying into Kratch's idea that Rutgers v Northwestern should be an annual matchup.
Especially of it puts some of our games in Yankee Stadium as he suggests.
Boo Hiss on that.
Especially of it puts some of our games in Yankee Stadium as he suggests.
Boo Hiss on that.
Good post. I don't think there is any question many of these rivalry games would enter into which 3 teams would be permanent on the schedule. Penn State and Maryland seem to be no brainers as two of our three. While having OSU or Michigan on the schedule is attractive for selling tickets, I'd rather see a traditionally weaker opponent as our third game. I'd be satisfied with Indiana, Illinois or Northwestern.
Good Lord. No Yankee Stadium. Hate the obsession with it. It’s an awful venue for football.
And hopefully the possibility of the Yankees playing playoff-World Series games keeps it from happening.
I just tried to take that wiki list of Big Ten rivalries from above and turn it ion a series of 3 games for each team.. the math did not work out. I noticed 4 games for Illinois in my work up and I also noticed that a 4-team "pod" was made.. where each team plays eachother.. Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota and Wisconsin. So I tried to make other pods and it showed the obvious problems in trying to make 3 permanent games for each team in a 14 team conference:
Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana
Penn State, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue
Rutgers, Maryland (Penn State, Northwestern)
In the above example I included Penn State and Northwestern in Rutgers/Maryland pod which means those two teams would have 5 annual games instead of 3.. is that fair?
Maybe Rutgers and Maryland pair up for 2 year stints rotating among the other 3 pods.. plus playing eachother for 4 annual games each year.
While the well-reasoned consensus says Rutger-Penn State-Maryland should be a 3-team pod... maybe they will need a solution of some teams rotating pods every couple of years (to allow for home/home in their temporary pod).
3-team pods would still leave 2 teams on the outside.
Only 2-team pairings would allow for even distribution. And that does not make sense. IIf there were 2-team pods, what would they be?
Michigan-Ohio State
Penn State-Michigan State
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Iowa-Nebraska
Rutgers-Maryland
Then, for each of these pairings, the other 12 teams would rotate (in 2-year stints to allow for home and homes) among each pairing in enough quantity for the desired number of conference games. In some years one of the traditional trophies would be up for grabs.. in other years, not.
So let's try that using alphabetical order of members to rotate.. and aim for 8 total Big Ten games..
Michigan would play
Ohio State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Ohio State would play
Michigan
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Penn State- would play
Michigan State
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Rutgers
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan State would play
Penn State
Michigan* (from alpha-order above under Michigan-OSU pod)
Ohio State* (that's 3 games, they need 5 more from rotating alpha order)
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Indiana would play
Purdue
Michigan*
Ohio State*
Penn State
Rutgers
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
Purdue would play
Indiana
Penn State*
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Illinois would play
Northwestern
Michigan*
Ohio State*
Penn State*
Indiana*
**** oh damn.. I don't know how to do this..was trying to rotate the list of Big Ten teams in here but that would have Purdue being added here and their full schedule above does NOT include Illinois..
Bottom line.. I have no idea what is possible to do with a 14 team conference. So I'll just say it is impossible to do fairly and that is likely why we have the format that we do now... 2 divisions of 7 teams guaranteeing 6 games and rotating the other 3 games. Then when that "breaks", just reschedule with a new scheme.
Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Indiana
Penn State, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue
Rutgers, Maryland (Penn State, Northwestern)
In the above example I included Penn State and Northwestern in Rutgers/Maryland pod which means those two teams would have 5 annual games instead of 3.. is that fair?
Maybe Rutgers and Maryland pair up for 2 year stints rotating among the other 3 pods.. plus playing eachother for 4 annual games each year.
While the well-reasoned consensus says Rutger-Penn State-Maryland should be a 3-team pod... maybe they will need a solution of some teams rotating pods every couple of years (to allow for home/home in their temporary pod).
3-team pods would still leave 2 teams on the outside.
Only 2-team pairings would allow for even distribution. And that does not make sense. IIf there were 2-team pods, what would they be?
Michigan-Ohio State
Penn State-Michigan State
Indiana-Purdue
Illinois-Northwestern
Wisconsin-Minnesota
Iowa-Nebraska
Rutgers-Maryland
Then, for each of these pairings, the other 12 teams would rotate (in 2-year stints to allow for home and homes) among each pairing in enough quantity for the desired number of conference games. In some years one of the traditional trophies would be up for grabs.. in other years, not.
So let's try that using alphabetical order of members to rotate.. and aim for 8 total Big Ten games..
Michigan would play
Ohio State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Ohio State would play
Michigan
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maryland
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Penn State- would play
Michigan State
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Rutgers
Wisconsin
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan State would play
Penn State
Michigan* (from alpha-order above under Michigan-OSU pod)
Ohio State* (that's 3 games, they need 5 more from rotating alpha order)
Iowa
Maryland
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Indiana would play
Purdue
Michigan*
Ohio State*
Penn State
Rutgers
Wisconsin
Illinois
Iowa
Purdue would play
Indiana
Penn State*
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Illinois would play
Northwestern
Michigan*
Ohio State*
Penn State*
Indiana*
**** oh damn.. I don't know how to do this..was trying to rotate the list of Big Ten teams in here but that would have Purdue being added here and their full schedule above does NOT include Illinois..
Bottom line.. I have no idea what is possible to do with a 14 team conference. So I'll just say it is impossible to do fairly and that is likely why we have the format that we do now... 2 divisions of 7 teams guaranteeing 6 games and rotating the other 3 games. Then when that "breaks", just reschedule with a new scheme.
The whole alliance thing only has any impact of the members of the alliance refuse to play SEC teams so they are isolated and out of the larger national conversation. Is that happening also?
As Kratch courageously noted, Kevin Warren is hurting the Big 10.
We shouldn’t need a John Nash to figure out our schedules. And we shouldn’t be lowered in prestige by an alliance with 2 inferior leagues.
We should have plucked 2-6 Pac-12 teams. Gone to pods, and rotated games in a 3 or 4 year period so everyone plays everyone. The math works out well, and for purists of a smaller conference, it simply just shifts 2 OOC games under stupid alliance to more big ten games.
SEC would be more of our equal, and more teams would give us a better chance to get a team in the playoff each year.
What on earth is going to keep Nebraska from leaving when SEC calls? They want to be back with their Big12 mates. And we might say, well, who cares — let them! But the moment the B1G loses a team, we will become the lesser conference.
Instead, as a counter-punch to SEC grabbing behemoths TX & OK, we’re dropping in reputation to give ACC/Pac-12 a boost. Now, have to figure out these insane scheduling issues bc both ACC/Pac12 have weird numbers/needs.
And we’re sitting here while the ACC commissioner is almost single-handedly stopping playoff expansion. Just stupid leadership
We shouldn’t need a John Nash to figure out our schedules. And we shouldn’t be lowered in prestige by an alliance with 2 inferior leagues.
We should have plucked 2-6 Pac-12 teams. Gone to pods, and rotated games in a 3 or 4 year period so everyone plays everyone. The math works out well, and for purists of a smaller conference, it simply just shifts 2 OOC games under stupid alliance to more big ten games.
SEC would be more of our equal, and more teams would give us a better chance to get a team in the playoff each year.
What on earth is going to keep Nebraska from leaving when SEC calls? They want to be back with their Big12 mates. And we might say, well, who cares — let them! But the moment the B1G loses a team, we will become the lesser conference.
Instead, as a counter-punch to SEC grabbing behemoths TX & OK, we’re dropping in reputation to give ACC/Pac-12 a boost. Now, have to figure out these insane scheduling issues bc both ACC/Pac12 have weird numbers/needs.
And we’re sitting here while the ACC commissioner is almost single-handedly stopping playoff expansion. Just stupid leadership
Kratch should be tarred and feathered for suggesting that.
Well, if each conference in the alliance has 8 conference games + 2 games against other teams in the alliance, that would certainly be 5 home games and 5 away for each team.
Most will use the remaining 2 games to have home dates for 2 likely wins, presumably 2 G5 teams or 1 + FCS team.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
True. It won't fully freeze out the SEC, but certainly limit opportunities for them to get games out of conference.
We'll see. I think the cross conference and cross country games are pretty interesting. We'll see what the rest of the country thinks and if intra SEC games get a little stale for the casual fan.
The 3rd team won't be OSU or Michigan unless either of those want it to be that way. As long as PSU and MD are two of the three, I'll take anyone else as the 3rd.
You aren't building a rivalry when you are a combined 1-23 against them. Add in MSU and Rutgers is a combined 2-30 against the top 4 teams in the division. It more important to get back to a winning record. Not having to play those three annually is the best path to being competitive again. Then if/when Rutgers is competitive again you will see them more on an annual basis.
This is why I want 8 conference games. I get tired of playing the same old teams year in year out. Some of the best games are the teams you see for the first time. Will won't miss not getting indiana or Minnesota every year.
What schools do PSU fans think will be their 3 annual opponents? I think Rutgers, Maryland and Ohio Stare.
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Similar threads
