• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

B1G removes conference schedules from 2023-24 seasons

The issue of having a 'weak' conference champion seems to have been exaggerated a lot lately. But I think this move away from division must be seen as necessary if you tie an automatic bid into the post-season to the conference championship. That all seems fine with me.

If Nebraska had kept being Nebraska when they joined the Big 10, I don't think the Big 10 would have had any worries here. You'd have Wisconsin and Nebraska vying for the division leader, with teams like Iowa and Northwestern trying to sneak in. Championship games between OSU vs Nebraska would have happened multiple times. That had the potential for a great rivalry.

Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin will lose the most with scuttling divisions. If the schedule is anywhere close to balanced (as in, Nebraska gets an equal share of (for example) Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana as much as Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State it will be fine. I don't really care what the rules are, but I'd like to see Nebraska vying for the championship game berth past the mid-point of the season.

One thing I'm a little disappointed about, is the auto-bid thing. Until you were mathematically eliminated from your division crown, you had a path to the national championship (theoretically, if they did auto slots for conference champs). But with no divisions, teams will get eliminated earlier in the year, making the drama of staying alive in the race less compelling.

Finally, even though there will be less OOC games, hopefully they can be scheduled against quality opponents if we're (eventually) shifting to auto bids for the conference champs. They won't be hurt by losing to a high quality OOC foe in September. Much rather see those games than Bethune Cookman. Maybe even the SEC would feel free to stop scheduling those late season scrimmage games.
 

The SEC is expected to jump up to 9 conference games too. The ACC is probably staying at 8.
 
Just a 5 minute thought exercise. If the Big 10 kept only a single rivalry game:
Rutgers vs Maryland
Purdue vs Indiana
Nebraska vs Iowa
Wisconsin vs Minnesota
Northwestern vs Illinois
Penn State vs Ohio State? or Michigan State?
Michigan vs Michigan State? or Ohio State?

I think its weird to imagine Michigan State not paired with Michigan. Who would the Spartans play instead? Penn State?

If you only protect a single rivalry, you will get a lot of the trophy games not happening annually any more. To me that's a real shame. I'd much rather have annual games vs Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern than to have a gave vs Maryland or Rutgers. Playing every year keeps those match-ups more fiery.

The Big 10 would lose revenue by not having an annual Michigan/OSU game, so they probably will propose some version of this that guarantees it. But that same logic also probably keeps Nebraska playing OSU, Michigan and PSU disproportionately (as they have been) under whatever the new rules end up being.
 
Cornjob said:
Just a 5 minute thought exercise. If the Big 10 kept only a single rivalry game:
Rutgers vs Maryland
Purdue vs Indiana
Nebraska vs Iowa
Wisconsin vs Minnesota
Northwestern vs Illinois
Penn State vs Ohio State? or Michigan State?
Michigan vs Michigan State? or Ohio State?

I think its weird to imagine Michigan State not paired with Michigan. Who would the Spartans play instead? Penn State?

If you only protect a single rivalry, you will get a lot of the trophy games not happening annually any more. To me that's a real shame. I'd much rather have annual games vs Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern than to have a gave vs Maryland or Rutgers. Playing every year keeps those match-ups more fiery.

The Big 10 would lose revenue by not having an annual Michigan/OSU game, so they probably will propose some version of this that guarantees it. But that same logic also probably keeps Nebraska playing OSU, Michigan and PSU disproportionately (as they have been) under whatever the new rules end up being.
Click to expand...
I believe the most western teams want the most protected rivalries. Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota are all going to want to play each other. And Iowa and Nebraska will probably want to play each other.

I think some schools would be okay with only one protected game.

Penn State seems okay with no protected games.
 



Cornjob said:
The issue of having a 'weak' conference champion seems to have been exaggerated a lot lately. But I think this move away from division must be seen as necessary if you tie an automatic bid into the post-season to the conference championship. That all seems fine with me.
Click to expand...

The challenge is when you have those seasons where a team is on probation, etc.

For example, assume Wisconsin gets probation with the chart below. What should be a #2 OSU vs #10 Wisconsin championship game quickly becomes a #2 versus Unranked game for the title, despite there being two other Top 10 teams in the East.

WestEast
#10 Wisconsin#2 Ohio State
#UR Iowa#6 Penn State
#UR Northwestern#9 Michigan

The Pac-12 has ran into this with USC, and the Big Ten has had it with Ohio State and Penn State in the same year. Often times, you might only have 2-3 teams ranked within a conference, so if one of them gets knocked out for any sort of off-field issues, you're suddenly plummeting to a championship game featuring some 7-5 unranked team. Meanwhile, the other conferences have CCGs featuring two Top 15 teams against each other.

Knowing how much scandal pervades CFB, it's pretty easy to assume that even a minor off-field violation (see: Ohio State, Jim Tressel, Tattoos) can essentially sideline your entire conference out of the playoffs.

If you're a commissioner that's a horrible reality. You're playing Conference Fantasy Football, so you don't care if Ohio State or Michigan or Penn State makes it - you just need SOMEBODY highly ranked to make it. While it makes for good TV, no commissioner wants a 6-6 Northwestern or Iowa accidentally upsetting the #2 team in the nation and sidelining the whole conference out of that big pile of CFP and/or NYD 6 Bowl money.
 
Cornjob said:
Just a 5 minute thought exercise. If the Big 10 kept only a single rivalry game:
Rutgers vs Maryland
Purdue vs Indiana
Nebraska vs Iowa
Wisconsin vs Minnesota
Northwestern vs Illinois
Penn State vs Ohio State? or Michigan State?
Michigan vs Michigan State? or Ohio State?

I think its weird to imagine Michigan State not paired with Michigan. Who would the Spartans play instead? Penn State?

If you only protect a single rivalry, you will get a lot of the trophy games not happening annually any more. To me that's a real shame. I'd much rather have annual games vs Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern than to have a gave vs Maryland or Rutgers. Playing every year keeps those match-ups more fiery.

The Big 10 would lose revenue by not having an annual Michigan/OSU game, so they probably will propose some version of this that guarantees it. But that same logic also probably keeps Nebraska playing OSU, Michigan and PSU disproportionately (as they have been) under whatever the new rules end up being.
Click to expand...
Yep have to keep the long term rivalries in place.
 




tango said:
Nebraska returns to its 1990s glory days and goes undefeated every year and we really don’t care how they line up the competition. We will play anyone anywhere.
Click to expand...
Not under Frost
 
Two things:
1) Not being nasty but I really don't care if we have divisions or not, doesn't matter to me, play who you play and win, and it will take care of itself, plus every time I come up with a plus to scrap the divisions I can come up with a negative as well. Just doesn't matter.

2) If UNO could leave the NCHC it could move to the Big Ten (in hockey), problem solved.
 
joncarl said:
Two things:
1) Not being nasty but I really don't care if we have divisions or not, doesn't matter to me, play who you play and win, and it will take care of itself, plus every time I come up with a plus to scrap the divisions I can come up with a negative as well. Just doesn't matter.

2) If UNO could leave the NCHC it could move to the Big Ten (in hockey), problem solved.
Click to expand...

They should just reclassify UNO and UNL into "Nebraska" and boom - Husker hockey that plays at the Omaha campus.
 



The ACC and PAC are the step children of the P5. Especially in the ACC, the weekly matchups were lacking. I don't know why the BIG and SEC would want to emulate those conferences. And in the SEC, some of those divisions have been pretty baked.

If the BIG wants to keep 9 games, then a 5-4-4 may make the best sense
 

joncarl said:
Two things:
1) Not being nasty but I really don't care if we have divisions or not, doesn't matter to me, play who you play and win, and it will take care of itself, plus every time I come up with a plus to scrap the divisions I can come up with a negative as well. Just doesn't matter.

2) If UNO could leave the NCHC it could move to the Big Ten (in hockey), problem solved.
Click to expand...
They would have to play in The Big hockey league that ruined so many rivals
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top