What would be the drawback?

Donate To GopherHole
B

Bob_Loblaw

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
21,489
Reaction score
17,698
Points
113
. . . if the Big 10 changed their scheduling for every team to play eachother (11 games) and then added 1 non-conference game?

I realize that it won't happen, but I don't understand why. I think we all prefer Big 10 games and it'd be fun to actually play every team. I know I'm more interested in even Indiana than most non-conference opponents.

I also realize that they probably want each team to have equal number of home/away conference games, so that could be an issue.
 

Because we'd have to cut about half the bowl games (which would be a good idea for the sport, but would generate less money). I actually don't hate the idea, but I think that's one of the main reasons why it will never happen.
 

It could be done, but it would be a pretty brutal schedule. You would only have to schedule one non-conference game, but still, that might get tricky. Each week, one Big Ten team would be playing a non-conference game. It's easy to schedule non-conference games in September, but harder to schedule them later in the year when teams already are playing their conference schedule. The team that gets to play a non-conference game in week one can have a warm-up game, while the teams that have to schedule their non-conference game later in the year would get no such warm-up. It's possible, but I don't think the schools want to beat each other up like that. I'm sure some would use such a schedule to criticize the Big Ten, because the winning percentage of the teams in the Big Ten conference would decrease.
 

RodentRampage said:
It could be done, but it would be a pretty brutal schedule. You would only have to schedule one non-conference game, but still, that might get tricky. Each week, one Big Ten team would be playing a non-conference game. It's easy to schedule non-conference games in September, but harder to schedule them later in the year when teams already are playing their conference schedule. The team that gets to play a non-conference game in week one can have a warm-up game, while the teams that have to schedule their non-conference game later in the year would get no such warm-up. It's possible, but I don't think the schools want to beat each other up like that. I'm sure some would use such a schedule to criticize the Big Ten, because the winning percentage of the teams in the Big Ten conference would decrease.
Click to expand...

Yeah, logistically it's a nightmare.

It would have worked better if we only had 11 teams so you'd have the extra week to schedule non-conference.
 

RodentRampage said:
It could be done, but it would be a pretty brutal schedule. You would only have to schedule one non-conference game, but still, that might get tricky. Each week, one Big Ten team would be playing a non-conference game. It's easy to schedule non-conference games in September, but harder to schedule them later in the year when teams already are playing their conference schedule. The team that gets to play a non-conference game in week one can have a warm-up game, while the teams that have to schedule their non-conference game later in the year would get no such warm-up. It's possible, but I don't think the schools want to beat each other up like that. I'm sure some would use such a schedule to criticize the Big Ten, because the winning percentage of the teams in the Big Ten conference would decrease.
Click to expand...

Why is that?
 



The league choosing to add a guaranteed 18 more losses among its 12 members would be a drawback.
 






Gopherprof said:
Because we'd have to cut about half the bowl games (which would be a good idea for the sport, but would generate less money). I actually don't hate the idea, but I think that's one of the main reasons why it will never happen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was trying to think about the money angle and I just can't see it being that much (if any) less lucrative.

There would be 36 more Big 10 games every year and the Big 10 would lose the revenue from what. . .3 bowls that wouldn't be on BTN anyways?

You'd think the amount of money generated from those extra Big 10 games (compared to non-conference games) would bring in more money to the programs through the BTN than making sure that 6-6 Big Ten teams make bowl games. I'm not sure though.
 


Maximus said:
The league choosing to add a guaranteed 18 more losses among its 12 members would be a drawback.
Click to expand...

I understand the math, but I don't understand why that is such a drawback.
 




1. Every other year a team would only have 6 home games.
2. The end of MSU-Notre Dame, or any good non-conference team vs B1G (every team would try to schedule a home game for their OOC game)

Feel free to add on...
 

discochris said:
More losses mean worse bowl bids, and less chance at a national title.
Click to expand...

I think with SOS in the BCS, I'm not so sure how true that is. The gauntlet of the SEC (granted they play more than 1 non-conference game) seems to help those teams get into the title game.

It makes sense for teams like Michigan last year, where they would have likely lost to Wisconsin and then not gotten a BCS bowl. However, that works both ways. Lets say that Wisconsin didn't lose to tOSU last year and they also beat Michigan on their schedule. They are probably right there with Bama and LSU as far as their BCS standing goes.

I do agree that more times than not it would hurt the Big 10 in those regards. However, I think not having Michigan vs. Wisconsin these last two years hurts. There will be years when tOSU or WI don't play Michigan State, etc.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
1. Every other year a team would only have 6 home games.
2. The end of MSU-Notre Dame, or any good non-conference team vs B1G (every team would try to schedule a home game for their OOC game)

Feel free to add on...
Click to expand...

The only arguments are for Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan who have a game with Notre Dame. With our current schedule, Michigan stopped playing WI for a couple years.

I can't think of another non-conference game that would be missed, maybe Iowa - Iowa State.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The only arguments are for Purdue, Michigan State, Michigan who have a game with Notre Dame. With our current schedule, Michigan stopped playing WI for a couple years.

I can't think of another non-conference game that would be missed, maybe Iowa - Iowa State.
Click to expand...

Ohio St usually plays a major BCS team home & home, as does Penn St.

Michigan played Alabama at a neutral site, say good-bye to that.

The non-conference game will alway be a "buy" game.
 

Your plan would require half of the teams in the conference to play 5 aways games and the other half to play 6 away games. The most any Big Ten team wants to play is 5 away (7 home), but there is a major push to limit away games to FOUR (and 8 at home).

This is why we will never see more than 8 conference games in the Big Ten. Four conference games on the road, and the occassional (increasingly rare) OOC away game.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I think with SOS in the BCS, I'm not so sure how true that is. The gauntlet of the SEC (granted they play more than 1 non-conference game) seems to help those teams get into the title game.

It makes sense for teams like Michigan last year, where they would have likely lost to Wisconsin and then not gotten a BCS bowl. However, that works both ways. Lets say that Wisconsin didn't lose to tOSU last year and they also beat Michigan on their schedule. They are probably right there with Bama and LSU as far as their BCS standing goes.

I do agree that more times than not it would hurt the Big 10 in those regards. However, I think not having Michigan vs. Wisconsin these last two years hurts. There will be years when tOSU or WI don't play Michigan State, etc.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I was looking at this under the current system. When the new 4 team playoff takes effect, it might lessen that concern in theory.

However, if it meant fewer bowls overall because of worse records, that hurts the whole league because of the Big Ten sharing all revenue equally.
 

It would be insanely boring playing almost the exact same schedule every year. As it stands now, only half of the schedule stays the same, and the other half changes every year or every other year. Plus, playing all of the teams every year will make it even harder for us to dig our way out of the bottom third.
 

Goldmember said:
Your plan would require half of the teams in the conference to play 5 aways games and the other half to play 6 away games. The most any Big Ten team wants to play is 5 away (7 home), but there is a major push to limit away games to FOUR (and 8 at home).

This is why we will never see more than 8 conference games in the Big Ten. Four conference games on the road, and the occassional (increasingly rare) OOC away game.
Click to expand...

I thought the conference was very seriously considering moving to a 9 game conference schedule.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom