Alvarez on 9- Big Ten Games

[Iceland12]

From Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (jsonline.com)

He's for it for an odd reason.

"Holding at eight: When the Big Ten added Nebraska and voted to go to a pair of six-team divisions for football only beginning in 2011, there was discussion of eventually playing nine league games instead of eight.

The possible target date was the 2015 season.

However, Alvarez said the topic isn't set to be discussed during the league meetings next month in Chicago and a nine-game schedule likely wouldn't be implemented until at least 2017.

"That's not on the docket," he said. "We won't do anything or be serious about that for several years."

Alvarez would prefer to add a ninth league game and said such a move would open the possibility of giving each team a second protected rivalry game. UW's protected rivalry game is against Minnesota. A second such game would allow UW to play Iowa each season."

 

[BisonGopher]

If it were a fan's world, really why not go to 10 B10 games a season? No B10 is coming to mind that has more than 2 legitimate big-time non-conference rivals.

The rest are filled with low quality games to ensure enough wins.

B10 vs. B10 games is what the fans want to see. That's where the quality is.

 

[GoAUpher]

If it were a fan's world, really why not go to 10 B10 games a season? No B10 is coming to mind that has more than 2 legitimate big-time non-conference rivals.

The rest are filled with low quality games to ensure enough wins.

B10 vs. B10 games is what the fans want to see. That's where the quality is.

Yes, let's do this unilaterally and make sure that B1G athletic departments make less money (which is what happens when B1G teams get guarateed more losses thereby reducing the number of 2 team BCS seasons). And I for one love the idea of never playing a BCS team in the non-con part of the schedule ever again (which is the likely outcome since you'd have to have both NC games be home games to guarantee 7 home games in a season).

 

[corcoran1]

Yes, let's do this unilaterally and make sure that B1G athletic departments make less money (which is what happens when B1G teams get guarateed more losses thereby reducing the number of 2 team BCS seasons). And I for one love the idea of never playing a BCS team in the non-con part of the schedule ever again (which is the likely outcome since you'd have to have both NC games be home games to guarantee 7 home games in a season).

+1- certainly not another BigTen game and still schedule a "name" BCS game. Last time I checked we got our fifth choice as head coach. The fact he probably should have been the first choice is just luck, there was no skill involved by anyone in the Admin, or the fan base (that reads as us) based upon my memory of the process and reaction.
I don't think this is good for anyone. We need more games with OSU and PSU like we need a hole in the head, given who is in our division.

I think we got screwed being in this division, given that both scUM and MSU are in it, and adding to the problem is stupid. If we are going to have 5 bowl quality teams in our division, signing up for Wisconsin as our "protected rivalry" is nuts for the next 5 years at least adding another game that could be oSU or PSU makes no sense to me. That is exactly why I expect Joel to vote for it, "because it would be the right thing to do." He lives in a parallel universe where doing "right" based on his principles is all that counts and getting results is apparently just dependent on the blessings of the gods's, and something he just sees as outside his control. (See Bleeped-up firings of Monson, Mason, Brewster, and Lucia).
He likes being in this division because we will have full houses for almost all conference games, even if half of the fans are wearing red, black& yellow, green or blue. Winning the games is extra credit for Joel, not part of his job. He does not understand you have to win to build fan bases, and having our teams, that are thin on talent, get pounded by deeper teams week after week is stupid. If he does understand the concept, he is just clueless about how to do it, or unwilling to make decisions threatening his Director's Cup ratings. It must be great to set your own expectations, I should have thought of that years ago. Be great at sports no other gives a real damn about and claim you have a "balanced" athletic program. Just amazingly brilliant.

 

[Cayman]

Yes, let's do this unilaterally and make sure that B1G athletic departments make less money (which is what happens when B1G teams get guarateed more losses thereby reducing the number of 2 team BCS seasons). And I for one love the idea of never playing a BCS team in the non-con part of the schedule ever again (which is the likely outcome since you'd have to have both NC games be home games to guarantee 7 home games in a season).

Not really agreeing or disagreeing here, but isn't one of the reasons that some people want a 9th conference game because of the money it costs to get non-conference opponents to play? Would sticking with 8 conference games, and in theory having more seasons where 2 teams make BCS bowls, really offset the money the schools pay for non-conference games?

It would seem to me that at least in a monetary sense, it would make more sense to play 9 conference games, saving the cost of paying for that extra non-conference opponent, seeing as I'm sure the rate of 2-BCS-bowl seasons wouldn't decrease that much.

For instance, if Ohio State and Nebraska are winning their respective divisions, each having conference records of 7-1, they would be the most likely to earn the 2 BCS bowl bids. That extra loss that half the conference would receive from a 9th conference game would only affect the Big Ten's likelihood of getting 2 teams into the BCS if Ohio State or Nebraska lost, meaning an upset would have to occur, what with Nebraska and Ohio State being the top teams, unless of course that extra game meant playing each other, blemishing one team's record with another loss.

The extra conference game then would probably mostly mean an additional loss for the bottom teams in the conference, such as Indiana, Purdue, and unfortunately us, but I don't think it would greatly affect the Big Ten's ability to receive the money from sending 2 teams to the BCS, while then saving money from not having to pay another school for a non-conference game.

 

[highwayman]

For instance, if Ohio State and Nebraska are winning their respective divisions, each having conference records of 7-1, they would be the most likely to earn the 2 BCS bowl bids.

No 2 loss team that loses a conference Championship Game is going to get a BCS bid unless the game winner is in the National Championship game. That is the downside to the Championship Game format.

 

[Iceland12]

No 2 loss team that loses a conference Championship Game is going to get a BCS bid unless the game winner is in the National Championship game. That is the downside to the Championship Game format.

That seems pretty logical to me, though hasn't a SEC or Big !2 team that lost their Championship game giving them a 2nd loss ended-up in a BCS game? Maybe, but not as often as a 2 or more loss Big Ten team has. They're balancing the money for the Championship game versus a "non-Rose Bowl" BSC game or worse. Expensive gamble to be sure.

On the 9th game itself, Cayman is right. The majority of the Big Ten ADs cited the cost of "buying" a non-conference game as one of the main reasons for a 9th game. Would Barry be talking about adding Iowa on a regular basis if Cal Poly or San Diego State would still come in for $150,000?

 

[GoAUpher]

Not really agreeing or disagreeing here, but isn't one of the reasons that some people want a 9th conference game because of the money it costs to get non-conference opponents to play? Would sticking with 8 conference games, and in theory having more seasons where 2 teams make BCS bowls, really offset the money the schools pay for non-conference games?

It would seem to me that at least in a monetary sense, it would make more sense to play 9 conference games, saving the cost of paying for that extra non-conference opponent, seeing as I'm sure the rate of 2-BCS-bowl seasons wouldn't decrease that much.

For instance, if Ohio State and Nebraska are winning their respective divisions, each having conference records of 7-1, they would be the most likely to earn the 2 BCS bowl bids. That extra loss that half the conference would receive from a 9th conference game would only affect the Big Ten's likelihood of getting 2 teams into the BCS if Ohio State or Nebraska lost, meaning an upset would have to occur, what with Nebraska and Ohio State being the top teams, unless of course that extra game meant playing each other, blemishing one team's record with another loss.

The extra conference game then would probably mostly mean an additional loss for the bottom teams in the conference, such as Indiana, Purdue, and unfortunately us, but I don't think it would greatly affect the Big Ten's ability to receive the money from sending 2 teams to the BCS, while then saving money from not having to pay another school for a non-conference game.

Keep in mind that I wasn't responding to the more reasonable idea of a 9 game conference season (which is already being done by the Pac-10 and I believe is also being considered by the Big XII). I was responding to the idea that the B1G be the first to implement a 10 game conference schedule under the guise of "fan friendliness."

In retrospect, the monetary argument is probably the weakest one to make...especially when you keep in mind that most schools barely break even on bowl trips. So I'm going to withdraw that one because I'm betting I'm actually on the losing end of that argument. However, the increase in guaranteed losses that comes with each additional conference game will likely affect BCS berths and possibly overall bowl appearances for the conference which isn't good from an exposure perspective. Especially for the U. Won't stop the move to 9. But it is one of the myriad of other reasons (again, see no big NC games) as to why moving to 10 just shouldn't be in the cards.

 

[Goldmember]

9 conference games would be good for Wisconsin and bad for almost everyone else in the conference. Barry wants to prevent Michigan (and probably OSU and PSU) from playing 8 home games every other year. And at the same time he can force half of the teams in the conference to move to a "6 home/6 away" schedule.

Wisconsin gains some ground on the big dogs, creates some speration from the bottom-half of the league, and gives up absolutely nothing by moving to 9 games. And on top of it all, he increases the number of games against Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan, Michigan State and Northwestern ... all vastly more attractive home opponents than Wisconsin can land for a home-and-home on its own.

That's why Alverez is basically the only proponent of this plan. For everyone else, 9 conference games creates more problems than it solves.