http://sports.omaha.com/2011/12/28/big-ten-partners-with-pac-12/
The Big Ten has junked its plan to create a nine-game conference schedule in football.
The Big Ten has junked its plan to create a nine-game conference schedule in football.
-
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 .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked BREAKING NEWS: Big Ten and Pac-12 Enter Scheduling Agreement
- Thread starter DuckTownHusker
- Start date
- Status
I think this is a great agreement. It will help promote both the Big Ten Network as well as the Pac-12 networks and help counter the SEC's expansion to 14 teams. Reminds me of the cooperation between MWC and C-USA.
Also, I might add:
Going to be fun to watch the chess moves en route to super conferences.
Also, I might add:
Going to be fun to watch the chess moves en route to super conferences.
after rereading the article....the scheduling is STOOPID. Everybody should play everybody. There be idgits running the B1G. Screw the Michigan/Ohio St rivalry, they need to drop the dedicated rival and go to the Big 12 scheduling model of 3 on and 3 off during conference play and if we're adding the Big 12 to the schedule then PLAY THEM ALL. Setting a schedule now, you have no idea how good or bad a team will be in 5 years let alone 10, 11, 12. STOOOPID, STOOOOPID STOOOOPID......
UNLESS....they're gonna split it into 2 groups of six from each conference then have a home and away series with each...that would be a little more palatable
Last edited:
I concur I do not like the 'dedicated' opponent plan at all...don't like it in conference play and like it even less in this Pac 12 scenario.....I would say STOOOOOPID a few times more if I were you !!!!
I like this new arrangement. Cooperating with the Pac12 in sports will greatly increase our exposure on the West Coast (and likely nationally), which will then help with recruiting and increase TV revenue.
I also like that we'll be playing a Pac12 team rather than another Big Ten conference game. I never liked that idea as it adds 6 losses to conference members right off the top.
Finally, I like that it's with the Pac12 and not the SEc or Big12. The Pac12 schools are real academic institutions more in line with those of the Big Ten. I don't think we want to partner with conferences with different academic goals and different standards for athletes.
I also like that we'll be playing a Pac12 team rather than another Big Ten conference game. I never liked that idea as it adds 6 losses to conference members right off the top.
Finally, I like that it's with the Pac12 and not the SEc or Big12. The Pac12 schools are real academic institutions more in line with those of the Big Ten. I don't think we want to partner with conferences with different academic goals and different standards for athletes.
They'd be "idgits" without jobs if they made the decision to "screw" one of the biggest rivalries in all of sports.
I don't think seeding the teams would work unless the games were played at neutral sites. I would imagine you'd want home-and-home two-game series at a minimum for each matchup.
Somebody, maybe Tom Dienhart on the BTN site, talked about maybe making pods of four teams from each conference and pairing them up, etc.
I almost think you would need to simply cycle through all 12 teams. That way, some years you have tough games and some years you have easier ones. I like playing UM every year in our conference division, and I like having Penn State as an annual opponent. But I'm not sure it's "fair" for NU to have Penn State and Wisconsin to have Indiana, or whoever. Matching up the traditional powers makes for better games but also makes winning tougher.
Might also get two harder games paired with two easier games for the four game set......
The dedicated opponent plan is just fine as long as they match ups are 100% randomly generated and not some sort of forced manufactured rival/ranking match-ups. And as far as dropping the protected rival games:
[video=youtube;5hfYJsQAhl0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0[/video]
I love this agreement for two main reasons:
1) It helps eliminate the 9 conference games. I'm one that actually enjoys the non-conference schedule.. As long as there are good matchups (Toledo v. tOSU, scUM v. Western Michigan gets old). I really enjoyed the Gophs hosting Cal-Berkley and USC at TCF Bank Stadium and look forward to further Pac12 matchups in the future.
2) I love the thought of a Pac12/B1G challenge along with the current BBall ACC/B1G challenge. I like the idea that neither conference feels the pressure (whether it's manufactured pressure from the media or the real deal) to expand thanks to this partnership.
How they arrange the matchups shouldn't make a shred a difference to us.
1) It helps eliminate the 9 conference games. I'm one that actually enjoys the non-conference schedule.. As long as there are good matchups (Toledo v. tOSU, scUM v. Western Michigan gets old). I really enjoyed the Gophs hosting Cal-Berkley and USC at TCF Bank Stadium and look forward to further Pac12 matchups in the future.
2) I love the thought of a Pac12/B1G challenge along with the current BBall ACC/B1G challenge. I like the idea that neither conference feels the pressure (whether it's manufactured pressure from the media or the real deal) to expand thanks to this partnership.
How they arrange the matchups shouldn't make a shred a difference to us.
Plus, this agreement should prevent tOSU from playing all the Ohio schools in the off-season. BONUS!!!!!
But it wouldn't be clean energy. As we'd see when clouds of smug simultaneously formed over both Palo Alto and Ann Arbor.
- Status
