Big 10 FB Scheduling: Do away with divisions, play three rivals every year, and rotate the rest. What do you think?

So what if there were only the rivalries — three per school — and then the remaining conference games rotated? That’s the idea Connelly, et al. forwarded yesterday for the Big Ten.

For Nebraska, it would look like this: The three rivals Nebraska would play each year would be Iowa, Michigan State and Wisconsin. I’ve got no arguments with those selections. Iowa and Wisconsin are the most natural seeming rivals based on geography (sorry Minnesota) and the Huskers-Spartans series, to this point, has been great.

The Huskers would then face the remaining 10 teams in the conference at least once in every two-year cycle and twice in every five-year cycle. That fixes another problem with a division-based schedule — big gaps between games against certain opponents. A member of Nebraska’s 2014 recruiting class who didn’t redshirt — Drew Brown, for example — isn’t scheduled to face Michigan, home or away, during his career. Under the proposed system he’d get to face the Wolverines, or any other team, at least once during his career.

Floyd Robertson wrote:I read that yesterday and some of the logic makes sense, but I like having the divisions.  I'd like having more balanced divisions even more.

Turtleneck wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:I read that yesterday and some of the logic makes sense, but I like having the divisions.  I'd like having more balanced divisions even more.

I hate unbalanced divisions. If you are going to have division they need to be balanced.

I actually wish conferences were no larger than 10 teams with no divisions. But I know that is a thing of the past.

InTenSity wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I hate unbalanced divisions. If you are going to have division they need to be balanced.

I actually wish conferences were no larger than 10 teams with no divisions. But I know that is a thing of the past.

Soon conferences will have 20 teams with 2 ten team divisions.

tGreenWay wrote:Get UND into the B1G and that's something I could abide, but without it, it's dead to me. And if you keep it up, you'll be dead to me, too, Turtleneck.  

Turtleneck wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:I read that yesterday and some of the logic makes sense, but I like having the divisions.  I'd like having more balanced divisions even more.

I hate unbalanced divisions. If you are going to have division they need to be balanced.

I actually wish conferences were no larger than 10 teams with no divisions. But I know that is a thing of the past.

tGreenWay wrote:Since my quote button has disappeared, I'm just going to reply:
Turtleneck, don't be such an obtuse twatwaddle. You know goddamn well who UND is.
I doubt you're the only one who doesn't want them in the league, but they've been our long-hated second-most arch enemy for decades. It's a clear second to umich, but it's still second. I fucking hate manufactured rivals.  

tGreenWay wrote:Since my quote button has disappeared, I'm just going to reply:
Turtleneck, don't be such an obtuse twatwaddle. You know goddamn well who UND is.
I doubt you're the only one who doesn't want them in the league, but they've been our long-hated second-most arch enemy for decades. It's a clear second to umich, but it's still second. I fucking hate manufactured rivals.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:Since my quote button has disappeared, I'm just going to reply:
Turtleneck, don't be such an obtuse twatwaddle. You know goddamn well who UND is.
I doubt you're the only one who doesn't want them in the league, but they've been our long-hated second-most arch enemy for decades. It's a clear second to umich, but it's still second. I fucking hate manufactured rivals.  

I hate them. I do not want them around. I hope one day that program finally goes sideways and they come begging - because they can't afford to continue to be arrogant pricks - and they get told to fuck off.

Turtleneck wrote:http://hailvarsity.com/news/hot-reads-college-footballs-fix-it-season/2016/06/

So what if there were only the rivalries — three per school — and then the remaining conference games rotated? That’s the idea Connelly, et al. forwarded yesterday for the Big Ten.

For Nebraska, it would look like this: The three rivals Nebraska would play each year would be Iowa, Michigan State and Wisconsin. I’ve got no arguments with those selections. Iowa and Wisconsin are the most natural seeming rivals based on geography (sorry Minnesota) and the Huskers-Spartans series, to this point, has been great.

The Huskers would then face the remaining 10 teams in the conference at least once in every two-year cycle and twice in every five-year cycle. That fixes another problem with a division-based schedule — big gaps between games against certain opponents. A member of Nebraska’s 2014 recruiting class who didn’t redshirt — Drew Brown, for example — isn’t scheduled to face Michigan, home or away, during his career. Under the proposed system he’d get to face the Wolverines, or any other team, at least once during his career.

For MSU, it would be UM, MSU, and who else? Probably that renegade program from Bloomington and their psycho fans. Maybe those stinkin' Badgers.

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:Since my quote button has disappeared, I'm just going to reply:
Turtleneck, don't be such an obtuse twatwaddle. You know goddamn well who UND is.
I doubt you're the only one who doesn't want them in the league, but they've been our long-hated second-most arch enemy for decades. It's a clear second to umich, but it's still second. I fucking hate manufactured rivals.  

tGreenWay wrote:

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Twatwaddle!

DWags wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:http://hailvarsity.com/news/hot-reads-college-footballs-fix-it-season/2016/06/



For MSU, it would be UM, MSU, and who else? Probably that renegade program from Bloomington and their psycho fans. Maybe those stinkin' Badgers.

When we played ourselves could the spring game count?

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

Twatwaddle!

tGreenWay wrote:

DWags wrote:

When we played ourselves could the spring game count?

That will depend on all the stats Bob wrote down. I trust his work more than an NCAA-assigned scorekeeper.

Turtleneck wrote:
I hate unbalanced divisions. If you are going to have division they need to be balanced.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:
I hate unbalanced divisions. If you are going to have division they need to be balanced.

This, the current structure is horrible, but after the Iowa fluke last year I bet Darth Delaney has been patting himself on the back for such a brilliant scheme.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

That will depend on all the stats Bob wrote down. I trust his work more than an NCAA-assigned scorekeeper.

in between various interviews with MSU sports higher-ups, I was keeping copious notes.

So copious, in fact, that I had to define the word "copious" to Hondo during the press conference.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:
I hate unbalanced divisions. If you are going to have division they need to be balanced.

This, the current structure is horrible, but after the Iowa fluke last year I bet Darth Delaney has been patting himself on the back for such a brilliant scheme.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

I.B. Fine wrote:
This, the current structure is horrible, but after the Iowa fluke last year I bet Darth Delaney has been patting himself on the back for such a brilliant scheme.

It can't be a brilliant scheme if both St. Jimmy and Meyer aren't involved.

I.B. Fine wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

It can't be a brilliant scheme if both St. Jimmy and Meyer aren't involved.

It is interesting they chose regular season match ups for those teams over a potential CG rivalry.