Parity Based Scheduling - What will it mean?

[mplsbadger]

"In the first 18 years, you're going to see a lot of competition between teams at the top of either division," Delany said. "We call that a bit of parity-based scheduling, so you'll see Wisconsin, Nebraska and Iowa playing a lot of competition against Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan. But it will rotate. Early on, we feel this gives the fans what they want."

What might this mean?

If each team is guaranteed a game against every team in the opposing division every four years then, at a minimum seven of the 12 non-divisional games in four year span are required to meet this goal with a nine game schedule and seven team divsions (6 division games, 3 non-division games).

Has anyone done the math to try to figure out what this means in practical terms?

Iowa could really get screwed by this approach. Imagine a schedule where every year 2 out of 3 of Iowa's x-division games are against one of OSU/MI/PSU and only one of the Gophers games is against one of those 3.

The Gophers have essentially picked up two games on Iowa because of this. Under the present system, MN had an annual cross-over with a top 3 team and Iowa had an annual crossover with a bottom 3 team. This is a two game flip. Iowa in most seasons should have one additional game against a top 3, while MN on average will have one less.

They may be returning soon to the pre-1980 days.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Also, how do they determine parity? Is it a moving average over a window of years? Like the previous 5 or 3 year average place? Just the previous year?

If it's just looking at the previous year (much like the B10/ACC Challenge was set up) then it won't sink a team for a while or give others competitive advantages for a while either. But, let's say it's the previous 3 year moving average. A team like MN could get lucky and skip OSU/PSU/UM for a couple years while improving while schleps like Wisconsin or Iowa are forced to play a tougher schedule.

I also wonder what the reason behind doing this is. Like, what's the advantage? Not to complain, but I feel like this is just another way to benefit the top teams. If we miss playing UM/OSU/PSU more frequently, that's just that much less compelling of a home schedule (on average), and that much better for ticket revenue for the big boys. I also feel like they're doing it in hopes that a strong team plays a slightly tougher schedule in hopes of having 1, maybe 2 losses but still being able to make the playoff with a tougher SOS. Just some thoughts.

 

[mplsbadger]

The flip side is that an easy schedule is a boring schedule. Hopefully they fix the problem of Iowa, Nebraska, and UW as home games in the same year.

 

[wait!what?]

Football welfare. expect this be about as effective and culture crushing as welfare in America. 25 yrs from now it'll create such large have / have not gaps that the only 'logical' choice will be to parse the haves from the have nots. hope you enjoyed the BT golden age.

 

[FreakyDeke]

Football welfare. expect this be about as effective and culture crushing as welfare in America. 25 yrs from now it'll create such large have / have not gaps that the only 'logical' choice will be to parse the haves from the have nots. hope you enjoyed the BT golden age.

Lol

 

[Gophers09]

Delany's quote in the OP is the extent of my knowledge of this idea, but based on that, this sounds really dumb.