An objective look at the B1G Schedule

[BarnBoy]

We keep hearing that our schedule is hard.
We keep hearing that Wisconsin's scheudule is a cake-walk.
Here is an objective look at the schedules.

EDIT: When examining a team's schedule, find it along the left (not the top). This will establish the correct "home/away" context.
EDIT2: I realize a major flaw is the rankings, which are objective based on the sourced article below.

Methodology:

• I used this TheDailyGopher B1G power poll to establish team rankings
• Charted each game. Home games in green. Away games in red.
• Calculated "average opponent ranking"
• Showed each teams' breakdown against "top half" teams. Some play 3 games against the top half. Some 4. Some 5.

Interesting tidbits

• Wisconsin technically has the easiest schedule when looking only at opponents' average ranking.
• MSU plays only 3 games against the top half. All at home.
• Minnesota, Illinois and Rutgers each play 5 games against the "top half", 3 of those away.

Blast away.

 

[WorkingMyTailOff]

Very cool BarnBoy!

 

[maroonedinCA]

It also shows that the top teams are often hurt by their own success. MSU can't play themselves, nor can OSU or Wisconsin (although at first glance I don't think it would matter for Wisconsin at all, their ease of schedule being an outlier). But for the most part if you were to take a quick glance you'd say "The Big Ten is just trying to protect the top teams" when in reality it's really prett mch even (again, throw Wisconsin out on that).

 

[FireDaveLee]

It also shows that the top teams are often hurt by their own success. MSU can't play themselves, nor can OSU or Wisconsin (although at first glance I don't think it would matter for Wisconsin at all, their ease of schedule being an outlier). But for the most part if you were to take a quick glance you'd say "The Big Ten is just trying to protect the top teams" when in reality it's really prett mch even (again, throw Wisconsin out on that).

Don't know if you & I are reading the same chart.....OSU plays 0 of the "top 3" in the west, MSU plays 1 of 3, Michigan plays 0 of 3. On the west side, Wisconsin & Iowa play 0 of the "top 3" in the east, Nebraska plays 1 of 3.

Granted, some will always play more than others, and yes, Ohio State playing Minnesota helps Minnesota's SOS while OSU's is hurt, but that there is only one game between the top-3 (Nebraska vs. Michigan State) isn't by random chance, and if it was, should cause the conference office to say "wait a minute here." There's no logical reason that Wisconsin & Iowa shouldn't have at least one game against MSU/OSU/Michigan. I think it's much more trying to protect the top teams. The only thing that's even is that they all have it.

 

[Nate]

Don't know if you & I are reading the same chart.....OSU plays 0 of the "top 3" in the west, MSU plays 1 of 3, Michigan plays 0 of 3. On the west side, Wisconsin & Iowa play 0 of the "top 3" in the east, Nebraska plays 1 of 3.

Granted, some will always play more than others, and yes, Ohio State playing Minnesota helps Minnesota's SOS while OSU's is hurt, but that there is only one game between the top-3 (Nebraska vs. Michigan State) isn't by random chance, and if it was, should cause the conference office to say "wait a minute here." There's no logical reason that Wisconsin & Iowa shouldn't have at least one game against MSU/OSU/Michigan. I think it's much more trying to protect the top teams. The only thing that's even is that they all have it.

but but but, can we please not say bad things about Wisconsin

 

[Golden_Sloth]

Don't know if you & I are reading the same chart.....OSU plays 0 of the "top 3" in the west, MSU plays 1 of 3, Michigan plays 0 of 3. On the west side, Wisconsin & Iowa play 0 of the "top 3" in the east, Nebraska plays 1 of 3.

Granted, some will always play more than others, and yes, Ohio State playing Minnesota helps Minnesota's SOS while OSU's is hurt, but that there is only one game between the top-3 (Nebraska vs. Michigan State) isn't by random chance, and if it was, should cause the conference office to say "wait a minute here." There's no logical reason that Wisconsin & Iowa shouldn't have at least one game against MSU/OSU/Michigan. I think it's much more trying to protect the top teams. The only thing that's even is that they all have it.

+1. I don't think it's any big secret... The B1G schedule makers want to have as many teams as possible reach 9/10 wins and play in meaningful bowl games, because it helps the conference. That's really all there is to it.

 

[MNVCGUY]

+1. I don't think it's any big secret... The B1G schedule makers want to have as many teams as possible reach 9/10 wins and play in meaningful bowl games, because it helps the conference. That's really all there is to it.

You do understand there are division matchups that are set in stone and cross division matchups that rotate right? Sure we got the short end of the stick this season by drawing Mich and OSU but those two will rotate off the schedule in future years and be replaced by different presumably easier teams from the other side of the conference.

But yeah go ahead and keep thinking there is a scheduling controversy at play. I am sure the AD's from the schools that were not getting the favorable draw would go right along with it.

 

[Killjoy]

It also shows that the top teams are often hurt by their own success. MSU can't play themselves, nor can OSU or Wisconsin (although at first glance I don't think it would matter for Wisconsin at all, their ease of schedule being an outlier). But for the most part if you were to take a quick glance you'd say "The Big Ten is just trying to protect the top teams" when in reality it's really prett mch even (again, throw Wisconsin out on that).

Your argument reminds me of the old joke about a kid who killed his parents and then asked the judge for leniency because he was an orphan.

 

[BarnBoy]

Rutgers got the short end of the stick this year. Welcome to the B1G.

 

[maroonedinCA]

Your argument reminds me of the old joke about a kid who killed his parents and then asked the judge for leniency because he was an orphan.

Do the math. It really does even out quite a bit if you swap out OSUs 7 and our 3. Not 100% but it's certainly not OSUs fault that they get saddled with Rutgers and Maryland in their division and the conference wanted those two teams to get introduced to the big boys in their crossovers first.

 

[maroonedinCA]

but but but, can we please not say bad things about Wisconsin

Are you incapable of reading? I ragged on Wisconsin's schedule in my own post. Seriously, is it painful to be as stupid as you are? How hard is it for you to do the mental gymnastics to feel like a victim every day that you wake up?

 

[maroonedinCA]

Don't know if you & I are reading the same chart.....OSU plays 0 of the "top 3" in the west, MSU plays 1 of 3, Michigan plays 0 of 3. On the west side, Wisconsin & Iowa play 0 of the "top 3" in the east, Nebraska plays 1 of 3.

Granted, some will always play more than others, and yes, Ohio State playing Minnesota helps Minnesota's SOS while OSU's is hurt, but that there is only one game between the top-3 (Nebraska vs. Michigan State) isn't by random chance, and if it was, should cause the conference office to say "wait a minute here." There's no logical reason that Wisconsin & Iowa shouldn't have at least one game against MSU/OSU/Michigan. I think it's much more trying to protect the top teams. The only thing that's even is that they all have it.

There is a logical reason, and the B1G has been open about it: They wanted Rutgers and Maryland to have the opportunity to play the bigger brand name teams the first few years to generate the most amount of interest in those areas. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not logical.

 

[Unregistered User]

Are you incapable of reading? I ragged on Wisconsin's schedule in my own post. Seriously, is it painful to be as stupid as you are? How hard is it for you to do the mental gymnastics to feel like a victim every day that you wake up?

People here (like Nate) post like he did simply because you makes posts like the one I'm quoting.

The insulting BS, and calling people stupid gets old really ****ing fast. I know this will be hard for you to believe, but you are not the smartest person in the world, or even on this board. And you know what, asshole? Sometimes it's better to be kind than right. And don't read that in any way whatsoever to mean that I think you're right. Just STFU.

 

[slarson]

Rutgers got the short end of the stick this year. Welcome to the B1G.

I see 1, maybe 2 wins on the B1G schedule. Can't imagine the head coach is thrilled.

 

[FireDaveLee]

There is a logical reason, and the B1G has been open about it: They wanted Rutgers and Maryland to have the opportunity to play the bigger brand name teams the first few years to generate the most amount of interest in those areas. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not logical.

Is there an actual quoted source from the Big Ten about this, or is this a passed around wives tale among the fan bases of the conference elite?

Rutgers & Maryland are already in the east playing Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State & Penn State. You really think bringing in Wisconsin & Nebraska would be necessary to gain local interest? If you seriously do, you need to get over yourself!

 

[maroonedinCA]

People here (like Nate) post like he did simply because you makes posts like the one I'm quoting.

The insulting BS, and calling people stupid gets old really ****ing fast. I know this will be hard for you to believe, but you are not the smartest person in the world, or even on this board. And you know what, asshole? Sometimes it's better to be kind than right. And don't read that in any way whatsoever to mean that I think you're right. Just STFU.

You're right, you add so much to the discussion other than swooping in and passing judgement. Thanks for more excellent contributions.

 

[maroonedinCA]

Is there an actual quoted source from the Big Ten about this, or is this a passed around wives tale among the fan bases of the conference elite?

Rutgers & Maryland are already in the east playing Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State & Penn State. You really think bringing in Wisconsin & Nebraska would be necessary to gain local interest? If you seriously do, you need to get over yourself!

You're right, they should have chosen Illinois and Northwestern.

 

[FireDaveLee]

You're right, they should have chosen Illinois and Northwestern.

So, you're saying that you don't have a quoted source?

I'm not saying that Illinois & Northwestern would be better choices (if that was the actual stated goal, which I still have not seen). I'm saying that if the goal was to welcome Rutgers & Maryland with traditional powers, that goal would be accomplished with them each getting to play the biggest name powers in the conference annually already. You have to get over yourself if you think Wisconsin would move the fan interest needle drastically more than Ohio State, Penn State & Michigan.

 

[maroonedinCA]

So, you're saying that you don't have a quoted source?

I'm not saying that Illinois & Northwestern would be better choices (if that was the actual stated goal, which I still have not seen). I'm saying that if the goal was to welcome Rutgers & Maryland with traditional powers, that goal would be accomplished with them each getting to play the biggest name powers in the conference annually already. You have to get over yourself if you think Wisconsin would move the fan interest needle drastically more than Ohio State, Penn State & Michigan.

I didn't say that. I said that in addition to those in their own division they wanted to give them the big name crossovers for their first few years...they automatically get OSU, MSU and Michigan. The choice the Big Ten had was Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, northwestern, Wisconsin and Purdue. Objectively, if you got two choices in that group and had to choose who would generate fan interest who would you choose?

I'm not going to provide a direct quote because I don't have one. I'm on my phone so that doesn't help the search. But my argument is that those that make the point that the Big Ten has some diabolical conspiracy use the term logically to say they're maintaining the status quo when you can say they're being logical for trying to get as many big games on the Rutgers and Maryland schedule as possible for the first two years.

 

[Nate]

People here (like Nate) post like he did simply because you makes posts like the one I'm quoting.

The insulting BS, and calling people stupid gets old really ****ing fast. I know this will be hard for you to believe, but you are not the smartest person in the world, or even on this board. And you know what, asshole? Sometimes it's better to be kind than right. And don't read that in any way whatsoever to mean that I think you're right. Just STFU.

I just saw the poster name and Wisconsin, so just assumed it was a slobberfest, didn't actually read it. I do like the personal attacks however, those are a great addition to this wonderful forum.

 

[maroonedinCA]

I just saw the poster name and Wisconsin, so just assumed it was a slobberfest, didn't actually read it. I do like the personal attacks however, those are a great addition to this wonderful forum.

So let me get this straight? You decided to comment (incorrectly) without actually reading something and you're sarcastically calling me out for my addition to the forum?

 

[Nate]

Yes, I don't personally attack others. While I might have been wrong, I didn't feel the need to attack you in your classless response. Chill out a little.

 

[Too Long in the Wasteland]

As others have pointed out, teams can't play themselves, and teams have to play the other teams in their division. A better analysis might be the rankings of the two cross-division teams each team is playing. That's where you see a big bias between UW (11.5 avg), tOSU (9.5), MSU (9), and us (4.5). SCum is a 8. Numbers are the average of the rankings of the cross division opponents.

I think there's also some skank going on with the home games, even within the division. So MSU gets their 3 toughest games at home. My theory is that Delaney (being an evil devious schemer) decided which 3 or 4 teams have the best chance of winning the BT in 2014, and decided to pitch to them underhand with the schedule. His overarching goal is to get two BT teams into the new playoffs to set a precedent. That won't happen if either team playing in the BT championship game already has two losses. So he doesn't want MSU hanging an L on Wisconsin in October.

 

[Lil Richard 69]

Doesn't this flip back against those teams in 2016?