2022 B1G Season Thread

[Hawkinole]

I have to think the 42-3 shellacking Michigan doled out to Iowa this year factors into whether the Big Ten eliminates divisions; simply put, the West Division champions have not won the BTCG. Iowa needs to eliminate OC Brian Ferentz, and get a QBs coach who was an actual QB, too. I blame this discussion on Iowa football, in part.
I am not in favor of reducing conference games to eight. I am opposed to eliminating divisions. It's not much of a conference when there are 13-opponents and only eight conference games.
When you eliminate divisions, from Iowa's perspective, it eliminates a rivalry game. Iowahas three natural rivals, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and hmmm this is difficult to admit, Nebraska. The Big Ten may protect one or two rivals, but not three.
With Nebraska being Black Friday, Iowa's most geographically closest rival, the fact the Minnesota-Iowa game is Floyd of Rosedale and I believe the 2nd most played rivalry game in the Big Ten, Iowa-Wisconsin, ends up in the dust bin of rivalries, to be played three years out of five or something of that nature.
A.D. Barta probably thinks if you go to eight games it protects the Iowa State series. Iowa-Iowa State is not more important than Iowa-Wisconsin.
Currently, Iowa schedules Iowa State yearly, UNI every 3-4 years or other top FCS school, and two or three G-5 teams. The nonconference schedule is boring. Scheduling P-5 nonconference teams helps eliminate nonconference scheduling boredom, but reducing the conference schedule to 8 leaves just as many MAC or equivalents on the schedule. Why take a Big Ten team off the schedule to add a P-5 team from another conference?  Keep 9-conference games and force Iowa (and others) to take a MAC or MAC-equivalent team off the schedule. If the conference is going to eliminate divisions, upgrade schedules, don't downgrade. Generally speaking, with some exceptions, the PAC-12 and ACC conference teams, are not equivalent in quality to Big Ten teams. Overall this proposal downgrades the quality of schedules for Big Ten teams.

[847badgerfan]

Jim Delany says hi. Now he can finally get his M-OSU rematch in the CCG. 

Maybe.

[Temp430]

How about we keep the divisions as is and schedule non-conference games with the Pac12 and tell the ACC to hit the road?

[Honestbuckeye]

Jim Delany says hi. Now he can finally get his M-OSU rematch in the CCG.

Maybe.

I am not in favor of this- but if they do it they need to move OSU v UM to earlier in the year. 

[847badgerfan]

How about we keep the divisions as is and schedule non-conference games with the Pac12 and tell the ACC to hit the road?

Done. You can be the commish now.

[bayareabadger]

Done. You can be the commish now.

Jim, you’re not the commissioner anymore. You can’t just hire the next one. (looks at the current one, thanks about walking that back)

[847badgerfan]

Yeah, that guy is a boob.

[betarhoalphadelta]

How about we keep the divisions as is and schedule non-conference games with the Pac12 and tell the ACC to hit the road?

Because you can hardly freeze out the SEC with only the B1G and the PAC. The last thing the B1G and PAC want is for the two conferences with definitive ESPN affiliations for their networks to team up together when the B1G/PAC have some little alliance... 

[medinabuckeye1]

When you eliminate divisions, from Iowa's perspective, it eliminates a rivalry game. Iowahas three natural rivals, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and hmmm this is difficult to admit, Nebraska. The Big Ten may protect one or two rivals, but not three.

I actually think that you can.  I can't find it right now but we were toying around with this in another thread a while back and here is what I came up with:

My method was as follows:

• The four western teams all play each other every year (UW, IA, MN, UNL)
• The four IN/IL teams all play each other every year (IU, PU, IL, NU)
• RU/UMD play each other every year
• tOSU/M play each other every year
• M/MSU play each other every year
• tOSU/PSU play each other every year
• PSU/MSU play each other every year
• PSU/UMD play each other every year

Once you do all of that you are left with:

• Rutgers needs two more rivals
• Maryland needs one more rival
• Ohio State needs one more rival
• Michigan needs one more rival
• Michigan State needs one more rival

I just assigned those willy/nilly.  Rutgers' last two rivals could be the two Michigan schools instead of tOSU and MSU I don't really care.  

If we do this and drop down to eight league games your annual schedule would be:

• Your three permanent rivals, and
• Five of the 10 other teams in the league.  

In a four year cycle you would always play your three permanent rivals four times each and the other 10 teams in the league twice each.  That isn't too bad IMHO.  

I'd also go a step further and tie it to Basketball.  In Basketball your annual schedule would be:

• Your three permanent rivals twice each (six games), and
• The other 10 teams in the league once each (10 games, 16 cumulative)
• Four of #2 a second time (four games, 20 cumulative).  

Taking your school as an example, Iowa's BB schedule would be (by year):

• UW, MN, UNL, IU, PU, IL, NU twice each (14 games); RU, UMD, PSU, tOSU, M, MSU once each (6 games, 20 cumulative)
• UW, MN, UNL, IL, NU, RU, UMD twice each (14 games); IU, PU, PSU, tOSU, M, MSU once each (6 games, 20 cumulative)
• UW, MN, UNL, RU, UMD PSU, tOSU twice each (14 games); IU, PU, IL, NU, M, MSU once each (6 games, 20 cumulative)
• UW, MN, UNL, PSU, tOSU, M, MSU twice each (14 games); IU, PU, IL, NU, RU, UMD once each (6 games, 20 cumulative)
• UW, MN, UNL, M, MSU, IU, PU twice each (14 games); IL, NU, RU, UMD, PSU, tOSU once each (6 games, 20 cumulative)

So in a five year cycle in BB Iowa would play their three permanent rivals (UW, MN, UNL) 10 times each and the other 10 league teams seven times each.  That adds up to 100 games in five years or 20 games a year.  

[medinabuckeye1]

I am not in favor of this- but if they do it they need to move OSU v UM to earlier in the year.

I said this upthread and I was afraid that nobody would agree with me so I'm happy to see that I am not alone.  

I'm not a fan of rematches but at least they aren't too bad if the games are separated by a month or two and a bunch of other games.  Playing twice in two weeks would do nothing but to make game #1 completely irrelevant.  

Worst-case-scenario:
Imagine a situation in which tOSU and Michigan have already clinched berths in the B1GCG BEFORE their game.  The logical thing to do would be to rest your starters and not show your opponent anything in game #1 then go all out to win game #2 which is for the league title and, presumably, a CFP spot.  

[medinabuckeye1]

Generally speaking, with some exceptions, the PAC-12 and ACC conference teams, are not equivalent in quality to Big Ten teams. Overall this proposal downgrades the quality of schedules for Big Ten teams.

Yes and no.  

It depends on how the PAC/ACC teams are assigned to the B1G teams.  If it is just at random then yes, it would probably be a slight overall downgrade for the average B1G team but not for all B1G teams.  

If the PAC/ACC teams are assigned based on expected performance or recent performance then it wouldn't upgrade every teams' schedule but it would give each team two somewhat equivalent games.  That is what I would like to see.  

Suppose my school (Ohio State) is expected to be a NC contender while your school (Iowa) is expected to have some dropoff from last year and be middling in the B1G while another school is expected to struggle to attain bowl eligibility.  Here is what I would do:

• Schedule tOSU to play one of the best ACC teams and one of the best PAC teams.  
• Schedule Iowa to play a middling ACC team and a middling PAC team.  
• Schedule the B1G bottom-feeder to play bottom feeders from the ACC and PAC.  

All three get two somewhat evenly matched games.  

This will obviously NOT always work out.  Ohio State might end up having an off year when they were expected to be in the NC race and have two way-too-difficult games.  Iowa might have a great year and have two way-too-easy games.  The bottom feeder might end up middling and have two easy games.  Overall, however, I think this would improve the quality of games.  

[847badgerfan]

Not a good look for James Franklin.

Bryce Mostella on Twitter: "This thread will detail my last two years with PSU with an emphasis on the past few months. This is NOT a criticism of the university or any of its employees, I’m not promoting a positive or negative view of either. I’m simply stating what has happened in the past two years" / Twitter
Bryce Mostella on Twitter: "This thread will detail my last two years with PSU with an emphasis on the past few months. This is NOT a criticism of the university or any of its employees, I’m not promoting a positive or negative view of either. I’m simply stating what has happened in the past two years" / Twitter

[ELA]

I'm not attempting to bury any individual or institution, I'm just looking for Twitter clout, and this is the only way to do so

[Hawkinole]

Yes and no. 

It depends on how the PAC/ACC teams are assigned to the B1G teams.  If it is just at random then yes, it would probably be a slight overall downgrade for the average B1G team but not for all B1G teams. 

If the PAC/ACC teams are assigned based on expected performance or recent performance then it wouldn't upgrade every teams' schedule but it would give each team two somewhat equivalent games.  That is what I would like to see. 

Suppose my school (Ohio State) is expected to be a NC contender while your school (Iowa) is expected to have some dropoff from last year and be middling in the B1G while another school is expected to struggle to attain bowl eligibility.  Here is what I would do:

• Schedule tOSU to play one of the best ACC teams and one of the best PAC teams. 
• Schedule Iowa to play a middling ACC team and a middling PAC team. 
• Schedule the B1G bottom-feeder to play bottom feeders from the ACC and PAC. 

All three get two somewhat evenly matched games. 

This will obviously NOT always work out.  Ohio State might end up having an off year when they were expected to be in the NC race and have two way-too-difficult games.  Iowa might have a great year and have two way-too-easy games.  The bottom feeder might end up middling and have two easy games.  Overall, however, I think this would improve the quality of games. 

This is an interesting way to schedule, but if you look at it from the standpoint of Illinois, Rutgers, or Maryland, who would rotate between playing Oregon State, Duke, and Wake Forest, it adversely affects their programs. It affects their fan interest, attendance, and maybe not revenues. It continues homeostasis for the Buckeyes, and everyone else in the Big Ten. The big TV games will bring in more shared revenues, but it promotes fan disinterest at the lesser football programs. 
I lived through 19-seasons of nonwinning Iowa football during the 1960s and 70s. But, during this time I enjoyed watching Iowa play home games against USC, Penn State (when it was independent), and UCLA.
I don't care a rip about watching Iowa play at home against Arkansas State, Northern Illinois and some of the other nonconference teams they schedule now. If Iowa were scheduled to play Duke, or Wake, most years I wouldn't care anymore about seeing those games than I do watching Arkansas State and Northern Illinois or directional Michigan schools.
I prefer Iowa having a chance to knock off USC at night in Iowa City maybe once in 30-years, than watching Iowa have a chance to knock off North Carolina State, or North Carolina at 11:00 a.m. every other year.
This is very much an Ohio State proposal that sustains the Buckeyes at the expense of others.