An alternative to the 3-6 football scheduling format
If this has been suggested in the past, please excuse me in advance.
Like many people, I hate the 3-6 scheduling format. I don’t think teams should really have more than 1 permanent rival and I think UM will get screwed on their 3. Since TV drives it, I would guess we will see OSU, MSU and either USC/UCLA.
instead of this, what about a 1-6-8 format? Here is how it works:
1 game against permanent rival (OSU)
4 games against 6 teams they would play twice every 3 years. Essentially a combination of a pause and a home and hole. I would guess UM would get something like:
MSU, USC, UCLA, Minnesota and 2 others (probably Penn State and 1 traditional Big 10 rival, maybe Northwestern)
4 games against the remaining 8 teams, making sure we see each every 2 years
This would allow for more frequent games between secondary rivals, make sure the TV partners get more “big games” (yes, they are driving the scheduling process) and makes sure UM doesn’t get hosed with the toughest combination of 3 permanent rivals. These 6 teams could be changed as needed going forward.
MSU wouldn’t get played every year, but still 2 out of 3. Maybe that would be for the best, as it might cool down some of the bad things that have happened.
people can debate the 6 teams, but what does everyone think of the idea? I think it beats the 3-6 format as well as pods.
I've read Michigan's going to get 3 locked in games being Osu, Msu and Usc. And Osu will get Michigan, Penn st and UCLA.. Don't know who USC and UCLA's other locked in games would be or Penn st's.
That said, I don't think it is viable for the conference to have the top teams locked into playing each other like that. JMO. I lean towards two locked in rivals for each team and a rotating schedule after. I would hate to see our schedule lock in on the proposed three leave us a schedule with Osu, Msu, Usc locked in and then have Penn st, nebraska, Ucla, Wisconsin, Maryland and Iowa. As that could be a very realistic schedule..
I also don't like that they would overload the power teams in the conference while the sec is trying to make it easy for their top teams and always have. It's unbalanced for the bad teams for easier scheduling and loading up good teams making it harder for them to go undefeated or with one loss heading to a conference title game or cfp bid.
It's a little suspicious they are trying to lock Michigan into USC when USC is better than UCLA. Just like they did when they gave Michigan Wisconsin for 6 years when they were at the their peak while OSU got Nebraska for 6 years while they were awful, then switched at the time Wisconsin started to regress.
A colleague that is somewhat involved in these discussions told me that the 3-6 is not a done deal and that every proposed schedule has had a sunset provision. So if UM gets OSU, MSU, and USC, it will be locked for 4 years and then evaluated again. Also, ND is still out there, and if/when ND joins BIG, the whole schedule has to be revised.
Personally, I do not mind the proposed 3-6. Compared to OSU, UM will benefit more from it because its recruiting footprint will expand. On the other hand, I cannot imagine MSU being too happy about this.
It's not suspicious, it's logical. If OSU gets PSU, well PSU >> MSU, then OSU getting USC which is also >> UCLA wouldn't exactly be fair to them.
I welcome USC as a rival. Just like OSU gave us a standard to beat, so will USC.
I'm not sure how you lock in USC/Michigan & OSU/UCLA as rivals.
If this is all TV driven (it is) then just be blatant about what tiers of teams exist:
Tops teams (performance and recognition):
Michigan, OSU, USC, PSU
Teams which have had their ups & downs:
UCLA, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin Nebraska
Teams which periodically have a good season:
Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue
Rutgers:
Rutgers
Schedule:
The Top teams play the three teams in their tier every year and three teams from each of the lower tiers every year.
Everything against other tiers are set up as Home/Away rotating every two years.
No one plays Rutgers....fine...bump Purdue & Rutgers up a tier and it is all balanced.
The top teams play each other every year. You play everyone within a four year cycle. There are limited advantageous matchups locked in for more than 2 years across tiers.
UCLA has a lot of advantages. With a competent coach, they could match USC. Just imagine Uran at UCLA. Not that it is going to happen.
Sure, there are countless programs you could say, if they just had...
Based on the short and long term history of UCLA's program, they are not a top tier team and probably will not become one.
Agreed. Not sure why we have to pretend that the top teams need to be treated the same as the not top teams. This isn't the NFL. The conferences aren't being blown up so USC and Rutgers can play each other once every 3 years.
The one thing that might give me just a bit of pause here is that this will likely cause the top teams in the BIG to have losses where a more "balanced" schedule would allow for an undefeated team out of the top tier. But with the expanded playoff there shouldn't be much issue with all or most of the top 4 teams making the playoff and so we are mostly thinking about seeding.
I would rather michigan play a tough schedule every year and play more quality teams. Michigan has more resources than the vast majority of programs in college football. Should play programs with similar resources. If anything, I think there should be divisions in college sports based on athletic department budgets.
I like big matchups as much as anyone, but my concern is that having our three permanent opponents as OSU/MSU/USC puts us at a real competitive disadvantage to making the Big Ten championship game, especially with divisions going away.
Right now, our game against OSU basically determines if we advance to the title game. But with additional annual matchups against MSU and USC, and Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa all lurking in the background, this schedule makes it a real possibility that we miss out on the Big Ten championship game even with a win against Ohio State and a conventionally "successful" season.
Frankly, having MSU as one of them probably helps.
I thought 3-6 in OP was just referring to MSU’s expected conference record going forward.
I suppose it depends on how you view MSU. They've definitely regressed over the past 5-7 years, but I still consider them to be in the second tier of the conference, right about the level of Wisconsin/Iowa and just a shade behind Penn State. They're tied for the 2nd most Big Ten titles in the past ten years, and they always seem to be a threat to have a surprise 10+ win season (ex: 2017, 2021). And Tucker has significantly improved their recruiting.
Hopefully Tucker turns out to be a Hoke and his mega contract dooms them to a prolonged period of mediocrity, but for now, I still consider MSU to count as a tough game.
They are often a tough game for us, but that is primarily due to their tunnel vision.
I think the idea of adding USC and UCLA is completely nuts and I still have an admittedly faint hope that somebody important throws a monkey wrench into the works at the last minute to prevent it.
I want to see Michigan play OSU, ND and MSU every year. I hate them in that order.
Mega conferences are dumb. When it was 8 to 10 schools you played most everyone most every year so you didn't have to worry about uneven scheduling. That's sort of the point of a conference. (TV is not the point.)
Seems like we should annex most of the PAC10 (and ND) and the conference championship game is the winner of each conference. (ND doesn't get to play.)
Football is going to be more like basketball after next season. If you have a hard enough schedule which we will then we will be able to get into the playoff with 2 or 3 losses.
I agree with 2 L's beginning in 2024, but not 3. Too many teams with 2 Ls (with non-power conf AQ to boot) to get a 3 L team in a 12-total team tourney format. With some combination of USC/UCLA along with OSU, PSU, MSU, etc, a 10-2 should absolutely be a top-12 (albeit on the road as a 9-12), and a 12-1 B1G champ would get a bye/ host quarters.
Depends really. In 2014 there were four 3-loss teams in the final CFP rankings top 12. In 2018 there were 3. 2016 had 5. Quite a few of them became 3 loss teams because they lost their conference championship games which the committee tends to not punish as much.
Obviously with the AQ going to top 6 conference champions, you would really need help to get in the field with 3 losses by not having a lot of lower ranked conference champs. But in a cursory glance there seems to be room for 1-2 in 2 out of every 3 years.
Other years like 2019 & 2017 had 3 loss teams in the top 8 (Wisconsin in 2019 and Auburn in 2017) ranked well ahead of quite a few 2 loss teams in both years. Again these were teams that had 2 losses going into conference championship weekend and lost and weren't punished heavily for it.
I don't get why it has to be complex like this. Just add the two new teams to the West move either Northwestern (for balance) or Purdue (for their rivalry with Indiana) into the East, and add one more conference game a year.
Because the TV execs want the L.A. schools to go up against the big boys from the East on a more regular basis than they would in the East/West format.
In a perfect world, it would be this easy
TV $s are based upon USC and UCLA playing OSU, UM and Penn State as much as possible, so you have to get creative
The next round of realignment is going to see UM-OSU-PSU-USC band with UT-OU-LSU-UT-UGA-UF-Bama, along FSU-Clemson and Notre Dame. Last two slots for Oregon-Washington maybe, or Auburn, Nebraska, UNC and Ole Miss get in. Or maybe all of them. TV$s would be happy. They'd split into two 10-team "conferences" and play a "major CFB championship" on NYD alternating between the Rose and the Sugar, and piss us all off but keep us happy enough that we'd still watch.
ugh. I am sure they already have this idea but ugh.
If that's how it's going to be, we really might as well go to a two tier promotion/relegation system. That way all the top teams play each year. If revenue sharing stayed equal for all, maybe the lesser programs wouldn't even object.
This sentence was my favorite out of context:
"Essentially a combination of a pause and a home and hole"
Sounds like a good little Saturday right there.
Haha. Should have checked my spelling
+1 for you
We need all those big matchups so we can get more Dr. Pepper commercials. Its all about the student athletes and Fansville.
My preferred alternative to the 3-6 schedule is to fire our rivals from Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Michigan State directly into the (metaphorical) sun, thereby eliminating the need to ever play them in a conference game ever again.
Boom, problem solved.
I'd prefer permanent matchups with OSU, MSU (I'd be ok if this game skipped a year), and Minny. I mean, the brown jug is one of the coolest trophy games, even if Minny isn't always a challenge.
Alternate years with USC/UCLA and PSU/Wiscy, then fill in with the rest. One thing is certain though - regardless of the ideas we all toss out, UM will get screwed the hardest.
this is the correct way to do it
I like it, especially because I'm eager to get out of the regular sinkhole of playing Michigan State.
I like it too. Also, I found it interesting that this be the first comment on the suggestion.
Are we getting USC for nostalgia reasons since we played them so many times in the Rose Bowl?
I think USC requested the matchup after reviewing game tape of the 2004 and 2007 editions.
well, gosh, a whole lot has happened since then
Home and hole! I like it.
This isn't a bad scheme - but at heart it is just another way of dealing with a wonky conference configuration in a world of wonky conference configurations. Give me 12 10 team conferences (they all play each opponent every year). Conference winners and 20 at large bids to a 32 team playoff. Every traditional power can easily afford a marquee non-conference game every year, and away we go. If the broadcasters have enough power to cause these crazy conference shifts, surely they have enough power to see the advantages of this sort of set up - and they take power away from the conference commissioners (which is in no way heartbreaking).
I was very young, but I'm old enough to remember in the '90s when a "super conference" was 12 teams
MSU would go ballistic if they don't get to play us every year. It is the only game on their schedule that counts for them. Everything else is an exhibition.
Personally I would be OK if MSU left the B1G and we never played them again.
Wait.... we are not going to have Green Outs anymore?
Just on their teeth.
As much as I dont like the idea of Michigan getting stuck playing USC anually while OSU gets UCLA there is a non-zero portion of my heart that absolutely longs for those pricks to have to come out and play us in early November, maybe when a nice freezing rain is failling.
Let's see how the dude on the horse likes them apples.
I imagine they'll be in LA for most of November. At most 5 Big Ten road games, right? And 4 weeks in November - one will be against UCLA. When they host ND, it's usually in November. So in even years, that's 2 Big Ten games in November not against UCLA - guessing they'll be home games. In odd years, ND is an October trip. UCLA will be at home, there's 3 games there. Guessing they'll get 2 at home still, their road game will be RU/MD in November, and one of their home games will be "Big Ten After Dark" to make up for it. Or they'll change it so they have a series against Stanford that takes place in November.
Either way, USC heading East is going to be a mostly early season thing is my guess.
The 3-6 is somewhat reasonable to me - you'd rotate thru the conference in 4 years - but my main dislike is the likelihood of rematches in the title game and comparisons of records among unequal schedules. I'd prefer pods with rotating divisions for that reason, and hope that with 3-6 they use something like seth's showcase/no rematches for championship game
Showcases would mean a change of the bylaws by the NCAA…teams only play an extra game unless they qualify for the championship game. Rematches are going to happen but will probably be very rare.
I think UM/OSU both with 1 and 0 losses could be pretty common, honestly. I think you could modify seth's showcase and just declare a regular season champ based on record and give yourself leeway to select their challenger as any team with a suitable record who the champ hasn't beaten.
Also - adorable avatar pic
Thanks…she’s way bigger than that now lol
Split in to two nine-team groupings (this can rotate with or without locked in rival), play all eight in your group ending week before thanksgiving, then have one v one, two v two, etc the week after thanksgiving.
I don't mind a 3-6 model if it's OSU, USC and Northwestern or Rutgers. If you're going to force two traditional power programs on our schedule, then give us a break on the third team.
The incoming teams shouldn't impact traditional rivalry game scheduling in the league. Michigan should always play Ohio State and Michigan State before prioritizing rotating matchups with USC and UCLA.