Realignment talk not going away

[gatormarc 904]

13 minutes ago, bullet said:

Maryland and the rest of the SEC in the southeastern group.

Ew

Edited August 7, 2023 by gatormarc

[bullet 1,596]

1 hour ago, gatormarc said:

 

all for one and one for all!!!

And Clownzano and Clowndel really think all 9 were committed Friday morning?

Maybe the Oregon St. president thought they were, but its obvious UW, Oregon and Arizona all were on their way out and weren't about to sign any deal.

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, hawkfan said:

This is where the B1G has to stick the landing. 

If they want a true "national" conference, they need to be going to FSU/Miami and offering them both to get a strong presence in Florida, then probably offer UNC/UVA to get the flagship school in those two states.  Once the ACC is dead, add ND/Stanford.  Then go to 11 conference games and make regional divisions like an NFL lite that preserves close to all your important rivalries:

Pacific Division

Notre Dame

USC

UCLA

Oregon

Washington

Stanford

Great Plains Division

Wisconsin

Nebraska

Iowa

Minnesota

Illinois

Northwestern

Great Lakes Division

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Purdue

Indiana

Rutgers

Atlantic Division

Penn State

Florida State

Miami

North Carolina

Virginia

Maryland

With 11 conference games you just play the 5 schools in your division + six from another division that rotates every year.  Rutgers is the only school that feels truly out of place there, but fuck them.  Notre Dame doesn't want to be viewed as "midwest", and would want to preserve the USC game, which the above accomplishes.

The only negative of that path is the Great Plains Division is a little weak, but really there isn't a perfect way to balance competitive balance with preserving geography/rivalries, and since the schedule would be formed by the divisions rotating every year, one division being weaker than another isn't as big of a problem as it is right now where the B1G West is currently guaranteed a spot in the CCG - they'd have to earn it in the above model.  I feel like permanent division become necessary after a conference gets this big - the scheduling gets too hard for fans to follow without them.

That's how I picture the ideal endgame for the BIG.  Totally agree about the schools, the divisional setup, and ND wanting to be in the West or SE.

A 5-2-2-2 schedule would be best for travel, and I think the rotation can offset the relative weakness of the Plains division.

Year 1:

 Iowa- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

WI- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

NE- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

Year 2:

 WI- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

NE- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

Iowa- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

Year 3:

 NE- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

Iowa- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

WI- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

//

 

While we're sitting at 18 waiting to carve up the ACC with our friends in the SEC, what do you think of a 1-8-8 schedule ?

The BIG's COO said they want to stay closely aligned to the principles they had for the 16 team model: getting teams in the playoff, competitive balance, and full rotation in two years.  If that's the case, then the only two options are 1-8-8 (9 games) and 3-7-7 (10 games).

Going to 10 games would hurt their playoff chances when the SEC is still at 8 games, so I can't imagine they'd be dumb enough to do that. That's Scott/Klownkoff level stupidity.

There were also some complaints about travel being unequal under the 3-6-6, with some teams not going to the West Coast in a given year.  Under a 1-8-8, every current BIG school would make 1 trip per year to the West Coast, and no more, so that will have some appeal.

The drawback to the 1-8-8 is that UM-MSU IA-MN, IA-WI and IL-PU turn into every other year games.  UM seems like they'd be happy about that, and IL-PU isn't going to stop the networks from getting the full rotation they want.  

How hard would Iowa fight against the 1-8-8, and how much juice do they have in the boardroom ?

I think the networks will ultimately get what they want, but wanted to get your take.

 

 

[Lidig8r 1,852]

1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

WTF are you talking about?  Texas/aggy and TX/arky are both coming back starting in '24.  And oh BTW in the time since those rivalries had stopped being played each year I think that CFB has done kinda OK.

You have echoed my point. 

From the date Arkansas left the SWC, its rivalry with Texas was dead.

When aggy left the Big 12, its perceived rivalry with Texas was dead.

And yes, financially, CFB has exploded, thus proving the point that rivalries are NOT needed for the proliferation of the money grab in college football.

It was Skippy McSkip who previously attempted to connect rivalries and geography with the golden goose. My reply indicated his statement was fallacious.

College football is about Mr. Green.

Dammit.. pay attention. 

[closetojumping 62,141]

I've heard and read enough commentary from talking heads and writers to feel like the various talking points are being cemented to paint Cal and Stanford as victims who need to be accounted for by somebody, somewhere. 

1) But where will all of the olympic sports athletes go??!! This is an existential threat to American olympic primacy!

2) Stanford shouldn't be left out of the Big 10, because they fit the academics standards and are a big brand. Okay. 

3) If Cal doesn't get a good landing spot, the board of regents will just siphon off from UCLA's revenue bucket to make Cal whole.

4) What's happened to these poor, innocent schools is a tragedy and people, whoever they are, need to be held accountable, dammit!

No one mentions Cal's general indifference, if not outright disdain, for football and other schools that care about it. No mention of Stanford's intractability regarding entrance reqs and transfer restrictions making them a relic in today's landscape. No mention of either school's generally low viewership numbers and mediocre attendance numbers, or their historical mediocrity. No mention of either school's culpability in limiting the future of the PacX at every possible juncture. 

 

[USC Traveler 488]

3 hours ago, gatormarc said:

I'm guessing this is straight up Fox wanting to create specific matchups rather than any attempt at a balanced schedule.

Yeah- the BIG will say "We want all our schools to play each other more often, so every athlete can play at every stadium over four years", but the two year rotation gives Fox, CBS, NBC what they want- the largest number of high-profile games each year.

That means it's either a 1-8-8 or a 3-7-7 schedule.  BIG would be stupid to go to 10 games with SEC at 8, so my money is on the 1-8-8.

Every BIG team would take one trip to the West coast each year under a 1-8-8.

 

Year 1: USC vs UCLA, UW, UM, WI, NE, IA, etc

             UO vs UW, UCLA, OSU, PSU, MSU, IL, etc

 

Flips in year 2, then flips back in year 3 with locations flipped, etc.  There's a lot of games there that would drive big ratings, on top of the existing BIG games.

 

 

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

3 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Yeah- the BIG will say...

Doesn't matter what the B1G says any more, they're being run by Fox.

[BachelorTrek 2,933]

15 minutes ago, Lidig8r said:

You have echoed my point. 

From the date Arkansas left the SWC, its rivalry with Texas was dead.

When aggy left the Big 12, its perceived rivalry with Texas was dead.

And yes, financially, CFB has exploded, thus proving the point that rivalries are NOT needed for the proliferation of the money grab in college football.

It was Skippy McSkip who previously attempted to connect rivalries and geography with the golden goose. My reply indicated his statement was fallacious.

College football is about Mr. Green.

Dammit.. pay attention. 

[4th&Five 41,457]

Lulz

 

[camel at sea 589]

33 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Yeah- the BIG will say "We want all our schools to play each other more often, so every athlete can play at every stadium over four years", but the two year rotation gives Fox, CBS, NBC what they want- the largest number of high-profile games each year.

That means it's either a 1-8-8 or a 3-7-7 schedule.  BIG would be stupid to go to 10 games with SEC at 8, so my money is on the 1-8-8.

I doubt the B1G ends up with a clean schedule model.  Michigan can't go to a 1-8-8 model bc they are going to want to play MSU and tOSU each year.  I bet they keep and expand the convoluted system they just installed, with each school having a different number of permanent rivals, depending on their situation.  

The two overriding concerns will be protecting the rivalry games that matter, and making certain that the over-the-air TV partners get as good a slate as possible.  I'd guess a distant third will be rotation through the conference slate.  The upshot of that is that it likely reduces the number of times any one PAC addition might play Maryland or Rutgers to once a decade (those games are bad for travel, and not great for TV.)    

[Jasper_Jester 356]

Hopefully the corn stalkers in Nebraska get left with no rival. 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

46 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I've heard and read enough commentary from talking heads and writers to feel like the various talking points are being cemented to paint Cal and Stanford as victims who need to be accounted for by somebody, somewhere. 

1) But where will all of the olympic sports athletes go??!! This is an existential threat to American olympic primacy!

2) Stanford shouldn't be left out of the Big 10, because they fit the academics standards and are a big brand. Okay. 

3) If Cal doesn't get a good landing spot, the board of regents will just siphon off from UCLA's revenue bucket to make Cal whole.

4) What's happened to these poor, innocent schools is a tragedy and people, whoever they are, need to be held accountable, dammit!

No one mentions Cal's general indifference, if not outright disdain, for football and other schools that care about it. No mention of Stanford's intractability regarding entrance reqs and transfer restrictions making them a relic in today's landscape. No mention of either school's generally low viewership numbers and mediocre attendance numbers, or their historical mediocrity. No mention of either school's culpability in limiting the future of the PacX at every possible juncture. 

 

Yeah. I feel for Oregon State and Washington State. Cal and Stanford can get fucked, though.

[BachelorTrek 2,933]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Fuck pods.

 

Lulz.

[BachelorTrek 2,933]

2 minutes ago, Jasper_Jester said:

Hopefully The Children Of The Corn in Nebraska get left with no rival. 

FIFY

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

6 minutes ago, Jasper_Jester said:

Hopefully the corn stalkers in Nebraska get left with no rival. 

If I had to choose a rival for them, I'd choose Northwestern. They both have an N on their helmet and put similar products on the football field.

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

10 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

If I had to choose a rival for them, I'd choose Northwestern. They both have an N on their helmet and put similar products on the football field.

[Richard Kimball 1,492]

Conferences aren't conferences as we used to think of them. They're negotiating agents for a collection of teams for media contracts. Nothing matters except what makes the most money. 

Right now, it's working great for my alma mater, Texas, cause we got Arkansas, OU and LSU. I know LSU isn't a historical rival, but those should be awesome games. aggy's back, but I was happy to have scoreboard on those bastards and never have to see them again. 

We'll also have to play fukkin Mizzery every so often. 

As for the money, none of it's going in my pocket, so "yay." I just want to see some good games. What I don't get, to some extent, is why schools that don't want to make the athletic investment and can't go big time try to keep up. About forty schools can make money, and schools like Washington State and Cal have mortgaged their futures trying to keep up. 

I cover a 2A school in high school. They play 2A against other 2A schools. They don't run around wanting to play 6A schools. 

Why (other than money and fuck the players) do schools like Vanderbilt want to go out on the field and see their players get a mud hole stomped in them by Alabama's second string? 

The quest for money will eventually lead to what the ASU president was talking about with apps, but he didn't tell the whole story. Make a gambling app where you watch the game and make micro bets for the whole game. Make an account, put your credit card in. Ten bucks charged to you on the game. Use that ten bucks during the game to bet on whether he makes the field goal or goes for it on fourth. Point spread at the end of 1st, 2nd, 3rd quarter. Bet on the point spread. Your card is on file, and they keep a tally on how much you bet. 

 

 

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1,291]

22 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The series is 5-5 over the last 10 games.

[Evil Bill Obrien 3,175]

Couldn't decide if this was better here or the Aggy thread...Realignment related so here won

 

Followed up by:

 

If that doesn't encapsulate the duality of man as it relates to College Football Conference Realignment, I don't know what does lol

[Huckleberry 32,694]

21 minutes ago, Richard Kimball said:

Conferences aren't conferences as we used to think of them. They're negotiating agents for a collection of teams for media contracts. Nothing matters except what makes the most money. 

Exactly. People can wish this weren't the case (and I'm one of those people who does precisely that) but it's the truth. In my perfect world Texas is in a 10 team conference that includes Oklahoma, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, Tech, Oklahoma State (because OU), Rice (someone has to go 1-17 every two year cycle and Rice is cool), and throw in two other schools. But that will never happen. 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Huckleberry

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

6 hours ago, Lidig8r said:

Soooooooo.... you take Wisconsin, whose border is touched by not just one, but TWO of the Great Lakes ... and you put them in the Great Plains Division?

Then you take Rutgers, which actually borders the Atlantic Ocean ... and you put them in the Great Lakes Division?

Then, you take Penn State, which borders one of the Great Lakes ... and you put them in the Atlantic Division?

Then, you take Minnesota, which borders both Canada and one of the Great Lakes ... and you put them in the Great Plains Division?

Then, you take Notre Dame, which is in Indiana, which is 2 time zones, and which at closest, is 6 states away from the Pacific Ocean, and put them in the Pacific Ocean?

Uh..... alrighty then!

If you’ve ever been to Moorhead or LuVerne, you wouldn’t take much umbrage at Minnesota in a “Great Plains” division.

Seems like the best designation for said division all things considered.

[bullet 1,596]

1 hour ago, USC Traveler said:

That's how I picture the ideal endgame for the BIG.  Totally agree about the schools, the divisional setup, and ND wanting to be in the West or SE.

A 5-2-2-2 schedule would be best for travel, and I think the rotation can offset the relative weakness of the Plains division.

Year 1:

 Iowa- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

WI- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

NE- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

Year 2:

 WI- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

NE- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

Iowa- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

Year 3:

 NE- USC/UCLA, OSU/RU, Miami/UNC

Iowa- ND/Stanford, MSU/IU, FSU/UVA

WI- UW/UO,  UM/PU, PSU/MD

 

//

 

While we're sitting at 18 waiting to carve up the ACC with our friends in the SEC, what do you think of a 1-8-8 schedule ?

The BIG's COO said they want to stay closely aligned to the principles they had for the 16 team model: getting teams in the playoff, competitive balance, and full rotation in two years.  If that's the case, then the only two options are 1-8-8 (9 games) and 3-7-7 (10 games).

Going to 10 games would hurt their playoff chances when the SEC is still at 8 games, so I can't imagine they'd be dumb enough to do that. That's Scott/Klownkoff level stupidity.

There were also some complaints about travel being unequal under the 3-6-6, with some teams not going to the West Coast in a given year.  Under a 1-8-8, every current BIG school would make 1 trip per year to the West Coast, and no more, so that will have some appeal.

The drawback to the 1-8-8 is that UM-MSU IA-MN, IA-WI and IL-PU turn into every other year games.  UM seems like they'd be happy about that, and IL-PU isn't going to stop the networks from getting the full rotation they want.  

How hard would Iowa fight against the 1-8-8, and how much juice do they have in the boardroom ?

I think the networks will ultimately get what they want, but wanted to get your take.

 

 

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan St. will fight tooth and nail.  I don't think Illinois and Purdue really care that much, but the schools are close.

Is 2-7 really much different from 1-8?  You get everyone 7 in 15 years instead of 7 in 14.  Iowa is the only school with 3 fixed games-Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska.  Maybe they are willing to give up Wisconsin.

[Huckleberry 32,694]

1 minute ago, bullet said:

Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan St. will fight tooth and nail.  I don't think Illinois and Purdue really care that much, but the schools are close.

Is 2-7 really much different from 1-8?  You get everyone 7 in 15 years instead of 7 in 14.  Iowa is the only school with 3 fixed games-Minnesota, Wisconsin and Nebraska.  Maybe they are willing to give up Wisconsin.

The fact pointed out above that conferences at this point are just media contract partnerships means we might be paying way too much attention to balancing schedules. The position occasionally stated by conference reps and frequently wished for by fans that all teams in a conference should play each other regularly seems like the first thing that will be sacrificed. The SEC has been sacrificing it for decades and the only effect they have suffered is continued enrichment and media puffery.

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

The fact pointed out above that conferences at this point are just media contract partnerships means we might be paying way too much attention to balancing schedules. The position occasionally stated by conference reps and frequently wished for by fans that all teams in a conference should play each other regularly seems like the first thing that will be sacrificed. The SEC has been sacrificing it for decades and the only effect they have suffered is continued enrichment and media puffery.

Yeah, these non-power match ups like Iowa/Minnesota or Indiana/Purdue are going to be conference channel draws.   The B1G's big games will be one of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan or USC at noon, 3:30 or primetime (eastern) against whoever they play that week.

[Josef Pwag 1,722]

59 minutes ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Yeah. I feel for Oregon State and Washington State.

Why?

They have had generations to do something that matters on the field and they couldn't pull it off. They have high school level stadiums - they've made no serious commitment to high-level football. Oregon state is around 150 in the US News academic rankings and Washington State is outside of the top 200 - maybe it is time for them to at least try to give a fuck about academics. As of now, they suck at absolutely everything. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. People can wish this weren't the case (and I'm one of those people who does precisely that) but it's the truth. In my perfect world Texas is in a 10 team conference that includes Oklahoma, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, Tech, Oklahoma State (because OU), Rice (someone has to go 1-17 every two year cycle and Rice is cool), and throw in two other schools. But that will never happen. 

That would be a really entertaining arrangement.  8 10 school pairings feeding a playoff would be amazing.  Make playoffs contingent off of winning that round robin and use non-con to schedule some really great cross pairing match ups, where you’d have blue bloods playing blue bloods and bottom feeders playing bottom feeders.

A 10 team pairing of ISU, KSU, KU, Mizzou, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, and Colorado State is my CFB wet dream in such an arrangement.

[Al_4_ISU 12,409]

1 minute ago, Hurtlocker said:

Yeah, these non-power match ups like Iowa/Minnesota or Indiana/Purdue are going to be conference channel draws.   The B1G's big games will be one of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan or USC at noon, 3:30 or primetime (eastern) against whoever they play that week.

Iowa/Minnesota was pushed to a Friday in 2021.  I actually thought it was pretty fun at the end of the day.  Some Hawk buddies of mine did a big fish fry for it.

[TKthunder2 4,980]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Lulz

 

That doesn’t make the statement he thinks it does. Iowa/MichiganSt/Purdue/Rutgers all played at the same time a drew 1.47 million viewers ALTOGETHER. That’s less than 370,000 viewers per game if you average it out.

Ohio State (who also was opposite a rating giant of Bama@UT) averaged out to 700k and Michigan averaged out to 500k, both more than Iowa/ISU (who were opposite Tenn@Pitt)

 

[Zhorn96 1,772]

Huh...believe it when I see it but some exploratory discussions were taking place when UO and UW were still in

[Hurtlocker 2,208]

 

 

[mdmost 42,827]

Man, ASU guy bitching about traveling to WVU. Just imagine what the Cal and Stanford people might be bitching about when you're heading to Raleigh/Durham or Tallahassee. 

[Huckleberry 32,694]

If the ACC says no then the Big 12 should immediately call those two schools and the ACC and say they'll send UCF and WV and take Cal and Stanford. 

Make those two schools take their last lifeline to stay in the top 4 conferences. 

[camel at sea 589]

6 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

Huh...believe it when I see it but some exploratory discussions were taking place when UO and UW were still in

It's hard to see how this works for either side, unless it's to set up a scheduling agreement for both as independents in football.  They could then join the WCC together for all other sports.

[camel at sea 589]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If the ACC says no then the Big 12 should immediately call those two schools and the ACC and say they'll send UCF and WV and take Cal and Stanford. 

Make those two schools take their last lifeline to stay in the top 4 conferences. 

Yeah... I think we could see some horse trading between conferences sometime soon, especially if FSU/Clemson end up moving to the SEC.  Maybe Stanford/Cal are part of it.  

[closetohumping 17,386]

9 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Man, ASU guy bitching about traveling to WVU. Just imagine what the Cal and Stanford people might be bitching about when you're heading to Raleigh/Durham or Tallahassee. 

I'd bet there's some direct flights from Raleigh to the Bay Area

[Vertigo 20,265]

8 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

If the ACC says no then the Big 12 should immediately call those two schools and the ACC and say they'll send UCF and WV and take Cal and Stanford. 

Make those two schools take their last lifeline to stay in the top 4 conferences. 

Stanford would rather give up their endowment than to go to the B12. That will never ever happen. Cal on the other hand, is all of the pomp and arrogance of Stanford without any of the money. 

[closetohumping 17,386]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

Lulz

 

Honestly, I'm surprised that quartet of games drew higher than Ohio St vs Arkansas St.  But I guess that what they get for scheduling Arkansas st

[USC Traveler 488]

4 hours ago, mdmost said:

Was out of town when all the craziness went down on Friday. I'm happy for Oregon and Washington as their patience paid off. I'm happy that Arizona State, Utah, and Arizona got what they wanted and should've had a long time ago. It definitely makes the Big 12 a fun, no defense league (outside of Utah). Stanford and Cal get their wish to be sports-irrelevant. College football relegation finally occurred with the rest of the Pac 4. I guess Stanford might be thrown a bone if it can bring in Notre Dame but I think it's going to take the Big 10 forcing USC, Michigan State, and Michigan to no longer schedule Notre Dame to force their hand. That would mean moving to a 10 game conference schedule. I'm going to chuckle that we're going right back to having divisions in the Big 10 and Big 12 when everyone was thrilled that those had gone away. I hope the SEC holds firm and doesn't add anymore for now. I hope ESPN holds the ACC line on the GOR so FSU can't get out of it. You made the deal so live with it. 

I finally figured it out.  mdmost=Yormark

Yormark's understanding of realignment has been impressive.  He's made all the right moves, and this explains it.

Yormark has been on the Shag and Surly sharpening his skills, gaming things out, and preparing for this moment for the last 13 years.

md- when you say "out of town", you mean you were bunkered down in your war room in Dallas getting these deals closed, right ?   

Well done sir!!!🤘

['stache 21,744]

3 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

It's hard to see how this works for either side, unless it's to set up a scheduling agreement for both as independents in football.  They could then join the WCC together for all other sports.

Seems it would need to be football only or a scheduling agreement which gets them some network money. There's no way they are sending their swimming and cross-country teams to the opposite coast for every single matchup in every single sport except when its Stanford v. Cal. 

[USC Traveler 488]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Doesn't matter what the B1G says any more, they're being run by Fox.

Agreed.  That was my point- the BIG will say it's for reasons x,y,z, but it's really about Fox, CBS and NBC getting what they want- the frequent rotation of big games.

[USC Traveler 488]

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

Each team having a different number of “protected” games sounds like a complete nightmare. And having some with zero regular games is odd. Conferences are gonna be a complete clusterfuck going forward. 

Agreed.  Can't see how the BIG doesn't go 1-8-8 or 3-7-7 going forward.  

1-8-8 would be the cleanest and makes the most sense.  Gives you the most balanced schedules, balanced travel (except West Coast schools, but that is what it is) and most opportunities for getting teams into the playoff.

It would also just happen to give Fox and the tv partners what they want- frequent rotation for the most top tier matchups.

[gatormarc 904]

3 minutes ago, USC Traveler said:

Agreed.  Can't see how the BIG doesn't go 1-8-8 or 3-7-7 going forward.  

1-8-8 would be the cleanest and makes the most sense.  Gives you the most balanced schedules, balanced travel (except West Coast schools, but that is what it is) and most opportunities for getting teams into the playoff.

It would also just happen to give Fox and the tv partners what they want- frequent rotation for the most top tier matchups.

1-8-8 would still have a tendency to kill rivalries though. It makes sense to leave 2 or 3 spots for those to protect secondary rivalries or unbalanced rivalries. You still have a good rotation though.

 

 

 

[camel at sea 589]

1 minute ago, gatormarc said:

1-8-8 would still have a tendency to kill rivalries though. It makes sense to leave 2 or 3 spots for those to protect secondary rivalries or unbalanced rivalries. You still have a good rotation though.

Yeah.  Is Michigan giving up an annual game with Michigan State or Ohio State?  There are something like 3 Big Ten West schools that consider Iowa an important annual game.  There's just no clean way to format the schedule so they'll do it in a convoluted way instead (which is what they have already announced, prior to adding UO and UW.)  

[Huckleberry 32,694]

3-x-x-x is how they'll probably do it. The networks care a lot more about making sure that Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and USC all play at least two of the other three each year than they care about everyone in the conference plays everyone else every two years. They don't give a single shit if Indiana ever plays Rutgers. 

['stache 21,744]

8 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

Yeah.  Is Michigan giving up an annual game with Michigan State or Ohio State?  There are something like 3 Big Ten West schools that consider Iowa an important annual game.  There's just no clean way to format the schedule so they'll do it in a convoluted way instead (which is what they have already announced, prior to adding UO and UW.)  

That's so weird to me, I've never heard of a "rivalry" game involving Iowa other than v. Iowa State. And I think I've followed the sport long enough that I have heard of most rivalry games.

Edited August 7, 2023 by 'stache

[camel at sea 589]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That's so weird to me, I've never heard of a "rivalry" game involving Iowa other than v. Iowa State. And I think I've followed the sport long enough that I have heard of most rivalry games.

Iowa was one of the schools with 3 protected rivalry games in the new format:  Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin

[Zhorn96 1,772]

 

[BachelorTrek 2,933]

7 minutes ago, Zhorn96 said:

 

Will the last school left holding the PAC-bag turn out the lights?  Lulz.

[Sir Ulrich 5,187]

 

 

[closetohumping 17,386]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

That doesn’t make the statement he thinks it does. Iowa/MichiganSt/Purdue/Rutgers all played at the same time a drew 1.47 million viewers ALTOGETHER. That’s less than 370,000 viewers per game if you average it out.

Ohio State (who also was opposite a rating giant of Bama@UT) averaged out to 700k and Michigan averaged out to 500k, both more than Iowa/ISU (who were opposite Tenn@Pitt)

 

Uh oh.  Should somebody tell him?   🤣