3 locked rivals schedule

swelna

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2016
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
884
Points
113
I want Michigan as the third locked rivalry for the Gophers, but I also know there are other considerations that might cause that not be the third rivalry. The other benefit to this model is the jug would become a roughly bi-yearly game, so it'll still be played for more often then it is now even if the rivalry isn't locked in.
 
Last edited:

Tucker32

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
1,903
Reaction score
1,303
Points
113
Illinois - Northwestern
Indiana - Purdue
Iowa- Minnesota, Nebraska, wisconsin
Maryland - Penn State
Michigan - Ohio state, Michigan state
Michigan state - Michigan
Minnesota - Iowa, wisconsin
Nebraska - iowa
Northwestern - Illinois
Ohio state - penn state, Michigan
Penn State - Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State
Purdue - Indiana
Rutgers - Penn State
UCLA - USC
USC - UCLA
Wisconsin - Minnesota, iowa


These are locks. No chance these aren’t in there.
My take on how it works out:
Opponent (#oftop4brands/#oftop8brands)

Illinois - Northwestern, Purdue, michigan state (0/1)
Indiana - Purdue, Michigan State, Maryland (0/1)
Iowa- Minnesota, Nebraska, wisconsin (0/2)
Maryland - Penn State, Rutgers, Indiana (1/1)
Michigan - Ohio state, Michigan state, USC (2/3)
Michigan state - Michigan, Illinois, Indiana (1/1)
Minnesota - Iowa, wisconsin, northwestern (0/2)
Nebraska - iowa, USC, UCLA (1/2)
Northwestern - Illinois, wisconsin, Minnesota (0/1)
Ohio state - penn state, Michigan, UCLA (2/2)
Penn State - Maryland, Rutgers, Ohio State (1/1)
Purdue - Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers (0/0)
Rutgers - Penn State, Maryland, Purdue (1/1)
UCLA - USC, Ohio State, Nebraska (2/3)
USC - UCLA, Nebraska, Michigan (1/2)
Wisconsin - Minnesota, iowa, Northwestern (0/1)


They want brands playing brands.
They don’t want anyone playing more than 2 of the big 4 (PSU/OSU/MI/USC)/at least 1 of the top 8 (top 4 plus WI/IA/NE/MSU)


How do you think it works out?
I think there is a lot of debate about the next four in brand. I don't think there is enough in any of those four to make a difference. NW has been better than NE consistently the last 7-10 years, as has MN. UCLA a bigger "brand" than NE, WI, or IA. I think the only three "brands" they consider for football are OSU, MI, PSU because they are consistently good enough to compete for playoffs and don't want to just beat one another up. Will probably throw USC in there, but them in UCLA will be in whatever geographic group they pick. There other two beyond USC/UCLA won't be beyond CST time zone.
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,369
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
I think the bottom line is there will be only three games the B1G wants played every year:
1. Michigan vs Ohio State (one of the best rivalries)
2. Minnesota vs Wisconsin (consecutive record)
3. UCLA vs USC (rivalry and location)

Everything else comes second.

I do think the three protected games make sense, but who gets who isn’t as important as the above three matchups.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,406
Reaction score
11,656
Points
113
I think the bottom line is there will be only three games the B1G wants played every year:
1. Michigan vs Ohio State (one of the best rivalries)
2. Minnesota vs Wisconsin (consecutive record)
3. UCLA vs USC (rivalry and location)

Everything else comes second.

I do think the three protected games make sense, but who gets who isn’t as important as the above three matchups.
There are more than that. We have a really strange scheduling system right now to protect Indiana-Purdue
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,369
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
There are more than that. We have a really strange scheduling system right now to protect Indiana-Purdue
Of course there are more that the schools want, but I think the three I noted are the ones that will be there whether or not there are protected rivalries.
 


Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,406
Reaction score
11,656
Points
113
Of course there are more that the schools want, but I think the three I noted are the ones that will be there whether or not there are protected rivalries.
If those three are there no matter what then by definition there are protected rivalries
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,369
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
If those three are there no matter what then by definition there are protected rivalries
What are you arguing? I’m only stating my opinion that there are 3 B1G rivalries they’ll always schedule, no matter what. Sure the others will be played, but are they needed every year for the B1G brand?
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,406
Reaction score
11,656
Points
113
What are you arguing? I’m only stating my opinion that there are 3 B1G rivalries they’ll always schedule, no matter what. Sure the others will be played, but are they needed every year for the B1G brand?
You just said 3 rivalries will be saved whether or not they lock games

And I’m saying that is kind of a ridiculous statement because when you say they’ll save those 3 no matter what you kind of eliminate one of the two possibilities you listed.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
It's TV money/value for the regular season, but also making sure we're in the best position to try to get three teams in the 12 team playoff every year.
 



WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,369
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
It's TV money/value for the regular season, but also making sure we're in the best position to try to get three teams in the 12 team playoff every year.
good point. Maximizing revenue is what it’s all about, and they will make the schedules to best reach that goal. And getting three teams in the post season is a huge part of that.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
8,086
Reaction score
5,817
Points
113
It's TV money/value for the regular season, but also making sure we're in the best position to try to get three teams in the 12 team playoff every year.
+ a Bye for the Big 10 Champion, though that's probably more the Division-less Title game format rather than the schedule.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
I have read some speculation where the the SEC will go to 9 conf games and break into four pods of four teams each, with each pod team playing the three other pod teams every year. So the exact same thing, in the sense of three locked in, play every other team every two years, visit every stadium every four years.

It can appear "neater" to do it this way, with a semblance of divisions or keeping geography in tact.

Perhaps in the SEC they can get away with this. But I don't see how it would be done cleanly in the Big Ten.

- You could easily make pods of Minn - Iowa - Neb - Wisc and NW - ILL - IU - PU, but then who are the California schools going to play? At the same time, Minn - Iowa, Minn - Wisc, NW - ILL, IU - PU are non-negotiable.
- Similarly for Mich - OSU and Mich - MSU

So you could concoct pods like:
USC/UCLA - Minn - Iowa - Wisc
UCLA/USC - Neb - NW - ILL
IU - PU - PSU - Maryland/Rutgers
Mich - MSU - OSU - Rutgers/Maryland


Is that really better than what I listed in post #17? I don't think it is. Particularly for the four Chicago-centric schools.

All it defacto accomplishes is making it "easier" for the public to understand.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,406
Reaction score
11,656
Points
113
I have read some speculation where the the SEC will go to 9 conf games and break into four pods of four teams each, with each pod team playing the three other pod teams every year. So the exact same thing, in the sense of three locked in, play every other team every two years, visit every stadium every four years.

It can appear "neater" to do it this way, with a semblance of divisions or keeping geography in tact.

Perhaps in the SEC they can get away with this. But I don't see how it would be done cleanly in the Big Ten.

- You could easily make pods of Minn - Iowa - Neb - Wisc and NW - ILL - IU - PU, but then who are the California schools going to play? At the same time, Minn - Iowa, Minn - Wisc, NW - ILL, IU - PU are non-negotiable.
- Similarly for Mich - OSU and Mich - MSU

So you could concoct pods like:
USC/UCLA - Minn - Iowa - Wisc
UCLA/USC - Neb - NW - ILL
IU - PU - PSU - Maryland/Rutgers
Mich - MSU - OSU - Rutgers/Maryland


Is that really better than what I listed in post #17? I don't think it is. Particularly for the four Chicago-centric schools.

All it defacto accomplishes is making it "easier" for the public to understand.
No way.
The thing that makes it easier to do though is play two divisions for scheduling purposes

If each pod plays their own pod and another pod. You eliminate the possibility of three unbeatens.
 



Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
No way.
The thing that makes it easier to do though is play two divisions for scheduling purposes

If each pod plays their own pod and another pod. You eliminate the possibility of three unbeatens.
After playing your own pod, you have six conf games left and three pods (12 teams) left.

So you could rig up a thing to play one full other pod per year plus half another, then the next year get the other half and the other full pod.
 

Plato

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1,364
Points
113
As for the actual topic of the thread -- since I agree 100% that it's all but a lock that we're going to see a 9 game conference schedule, no divisions, with 3 locked-in yearly games per team once USC and UCLA join -- here is the guess I made in the other thread:


Minn - Wisc, Iowa, UCLA
Wisc - Minn, Iowa, USC
Iowa - Minn, Wisc, Neb

Neb - USC, UCLA, Iowa
USC - Neb, UCLA, Wisc
UCLA - Neb, USC, Minn

Ill - NW, Pur, IU
NW - Ill, Pur, IU
Pur - Ill, NW, IU
IU - Ill, NW, Pur

MSU - Mich, OSU, PSU
Mich - MSU, OSU, Mary
OSU - Mich, MSU, Rut

PSU - Rut, Mary, MSU
Rut - PSU, Mary, OSU
Mary - PSU, Rut, Mich

(the Mich-Mary and OSU-Rut could be switched and were selected arbitrarily)
It is not certain that there will be three "locked-in games" because of the difficulty it causes scheduling.
The guaranteed games were and are supposed to be long-standing rivalry games like MN/WI, MI/MSU, etc.
The only history that WI has with USC and UCLA has been in the Rose Bowl. Neither MN nor NE has any long-standing history of playing those teams.
These are just a few examples of why your chart makes no sense.
 

Plato

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1,364
Points
113
No way.
The thing that makes it easier to do though is play two divisions for scheduling purposes

If each pod plays their own pod and another pod. You eliminate the possibility of three unbeatens.
The two divisions idea is a zombie idea that had been declared dead long ago but still arises from the grave time and time again.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
It is not certain that there will be three "locked-in games" because of the difficulty it causes scheduling.
The guaranteed games were and are supposed to be long-standing rivalry games like MN/WI, MI/MSU, etc.
The only history that WI has with USC and UCLA has been in the Rose Bowl. Neither MN nor NE has any long-standing history of playing those teams.
These are just a few examples of why your chart makes no sense.
We just got done having Maryland be our locked-in yearly opponent for six years.

What history did we have with Maryland?

So clearly, that doesn’t matter.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
8,086
Reaction score
5,817
Points
113
We just got done having Maryland be our locked-in yearly opponent for six years.

What history did we have with Maryland?

So clearly, that doesn’t matter.
It was part of a larger plan were every team was going to rotate being a "yearly opponent for six years", as if the conference was going to remain static in terms size for several decades.

I think Michigan St was up next.

Seems comical in retrospect.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
It was part of a larger plan were every team was going to rotate being a "yearly opponent for six years", as if the conference was going to remain static in terms size for several decades.

I think Michigan St was up next.

Seems comical in retrospect.
Except for IU-PU. They were the only big rivalry that got split by the divisions, so they were locked in.

But yeah, I suppose on paper we would’ve rotated the other 11 over 66 years …
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
8,086
Reaction score
5,817
Points
113
Except for IU-PU. They were the only big rivalry that got split by the divisions, so they were locked in.

But yeah, I suppose on paper we would’ve rotated the other 11 over 66 years …
I think it was over 36 years, each team in the East other than Indiana. They were already playing the 6 teams in the West annually. Somehow the formula was going to work out to play those 6 East teams equally over that time span.

I guess the lesson learned is don't get bent out of shape about playing another team "every year" for a specified amount of time. Odds are it will change somehow, as soon as in a couple of years.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
I think it was over 36 years, each team in the East other than Indiana. They were already playing the 6 teams in the West annually. Somehow the formula was going to work out to play those 6 East teams equally over that time span.

I guess the lesson learned is don't get bent out of shape about playing another team "every year" for a specified amount of time. Odds are it will change somehow, as soon as in a couple of years.
Whoops yep, the other six East teams other than Indiana, so yes 36 years. Thanks
 

Zeppelin Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,831
Reaction score
1,390
Points
113
I am under the understanding that PSU wants the opposite of what you state here. That having to play Ohio State every year has really limited them and they want to get away from that as much as the conference will allow.

If you have PSU message board posts largely arguing that they want the game, etc., then I will defer to that and admit I am wrong.
Ohio St is easily the biggest game on Penn St's schedule every year and their biggest rival.
 

Plato

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1,364
Points
113
We just got done having Maryland be our locked-in yearly opponent for six years.

What history did we have with Maryland?

So clearly, that doesn’t matter.
MN was not locked in with MD that was just chance from computer-driven scheduling.
 


Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,406
Reaction score
11,656
Points
113
The two divisions idea is a zombie idea that had been declared dead long ago but still arises from the grave time and time again.
Im not talking about two divisions as currently constituted

4 pods of 4 where one pod always completely plays another pod eliminates odd three way ties.


They essentially create new scheduling divisions every year. You do not see divisions in the standings
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
Ohio St is easily the biggest game on Penn St's schedule every year and their biggest rival.
You were right, and I was wrong on this. Happy to admit it when the numbers clearly back you up.


From an The Athletic piece on Big Ten scheduling that I'll make another more general post about in a bit, where fans voted on who they want to play most and then the article writer has some comments:

Penn State

Top vote totals: Ohio State 1,288; Maryland 868; Michigan State 707; Rutgers 701; Michigan 598

Choice 1: Ohio State 630; Maryland 307; Michigan State 305; Michigan 197; Rutgers 127

Choice 2: Ohio State 410; Rutgers 278; Michigan 264; Maryland 259; Michigan State 227

Choice 3: Maryland 302; Rutgers 296; Ohio State 248; USC 223; Michigan State 175

Who is Penn State’s rival? It’s the question the Nittany Lions have faced since joining the Big Ten and one that the conference has tried to fill with Rutgers and Maryland. Penn State will never be Ohio State’s rival (thanks, Michigan), but voters do want to play the Buckeyes, and I’m not surprised. Penn State has played Ohio State better than most in recent memory, even if the record is still lopsided in those games. Surely, Ohio State would like to stop being on the receiving end of the Beaver Stadium White Out.

Maryland as the second choice surprises me a bit. I suppose the Terrapins could help soften the schedule, and regionally I absolutely could see players enjoying playing Maryland because of so many familiar faces on the other side. In that regard, it seems right, even if the most notable moment between teams since Maryland joined the conference likely had to do with a pregame handshake. — Snyder
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
Right so, The Athletic had fans of each team vote on who each team should play.

Based on the votes and then their own analysis, this is their projection for the initial 4-year cycle:

QWYOHmR.png
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
Indeed, as I guess should have been obvious from the git-go: these matchups don't all have to be permanent.

A cycle only lasts 4 years, in this arrangement. After a cycle, the non-permanent matchups can be shuffled around.


Here is what they said for Minnesota, though it's probably obvious to most here:

Minnesota

Top vote totals: Wisconsin 1,547; Iowa 1,475; Nebraska 761; Michigan 496

Choice 1: Wisconsin 1,081; Iowa 418; Michigan 66

Choice 2: Iowa 835; Wisconsin 335; Nebraska 170; Michigan 121

Choice 3: Nebraska 547; Michigan 309; Iowa 222; Illinois 139; Wisconsin 131

There’s no surprise on the first two choices. Wisconsin and Minnesota have the most-played series in FBS. The Iowa-Minnesota rivalry is tied for fourth in Big Ten longevity. Both rivalries boast iconic trophies. To lose either series would rip apart the seams of what makes college football special.

The third choice is the most interesting. The oldest traveling trophy belongs to Minnesota-Michigan, and it once was the league’s signature rivalry. But its importance waned in the 1950s, and it cycled off as an annual series in the 1990s. Still, there’s a tug of war among Gophers fans between resuming yearly games with Michigan for the Little Brown Jug or continuing a regional series with Nebraska. — Dochterman
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,369
Reaction score
1,600
Points
113
I grew up when the Michigan game was THE game of the year, every year. Now, it’s still a nice trophy game, but has moved behind Nebraska as a rivalry. And we no longer seem to be on the Michigan fan’s radar as they would prefer a game with Rutgers over us.

It would be interesting to see the Michigan vote totals to see if we received any. Maybe Gophers_4Life can update The Athletic info for us.
 

Gophers_4life

Banned
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
15,846
Reaction score
3,986
Points
113
I grew up when the Michigan game was THE game of the year, every year. Now, it’s still a nice trophy game, but has moved behind Nebraska as a rivalry. And we no longer seem to be on the Michigan fan’s radar as they would prefer a game with Rutgers over us.

It would be interesting to see the Michigan vote totals to see if we received any. Maybe Gophers_4Life can update The Athletic info for us.

Michigan

Top vote totals: Ohio State 1,674; Michigan State 1,504; Penn State 505; Minnesota 417

Choice 1: Ohio State 1,438; Michigan State 210; Illinois 20

Choice 2: Michigan State 1,184; Ohio State 208; Penn State 115; Minnesota 53

Choice 3: Penn State 390; Minnesota 364; USC 318; UCLA 165

The top two spots broke down exactly as you might expect for Michigan: Ohio State No. 1, Michigan State No. 2, with a decent gap in between. Meanwhile, Michigan was far and away the No. 1 choice for Michigan State, a result that speaks to the uneven dynamic of that rivalry.

The 2022 Michigan-Ohio State game reached 17 million viewers on Fox, making it the highest-rated regular season college football game in 11 years. The Michigan-Michigan State game doesn’t draw the same audience, but it’s still one of the Big Ten’s longest-running annual rivalries. That game needs to stay on the schedule, even if there’s an argument for a cooling-off period after last year’s tunnel incident.

The third spot gets interesting for Michigan. Penn State is the most popular choice, with Minnesota not far behind. From an audience perspective, there’s also a case for playing Michigan-USC or Michigan-UCLA on an annual basis. Since there’s no clear consensus, maybe the right move is to give Michigan two protected rivals and rotate the rest. — Meek



Their fans still care about us. But assigning Michigan to play OSU, MSU, and PSU yearly would be a tough load and so that's why I guess that the Athletic staff gave them a reprieve with Rutgers in the third spot.


As has been noted, if you don't get your favorite team as a yearly matchup .... well, now you'll see them every two years worst case.
 




Top Bottom