Big Ten 2023 football schedule is still TDB - ADs still in discussion on next years schedule and beyond
Overall nice article from The Athletic - $PAYWALLED$ - by Scott Dochterman. It has a BIG TEN west flavor in it as he is a sports writer covering Iowa for the Athletic.
However, he does have some nice content (and 1 big omission)
Bullets -
> BIG TEN still in deliberations on how to schedule the football season for '23 as well as '24 and beyond when our new friends USC and UCLA join
> Warren and the ADs have 2 overriding considerations (in no particular order)
1 - Setting a schedule that optimizes getting teams into the expanded CFP playoffs (and CFP home games)
2 - Protecting rivalries (how many protected games?)
> For '23 they are considering doing away with divisions
> PSU's AD wants to do away with divisions because he is tired of finishing 3rd in the East yet finished 4 times (2016-2019) in the Top 12 of the CFP rankings
> Iowa's AD wants to protect as many rivalries yet understands the need for CFP flavored scheduling
> 2 main proposals (for now) for scheduling '24 and beyond
1 - 2 protected games (rivals) and rotating the other 11 teams. His math states that we would see the other 11 teams 7 times over a 11 year cycle
2 - 3 protected games (rivals) and rotating the other 10 teams. Here he has the math messed up but we would see the other 10 teams more often, in theory.
> Last point, Scott listed his proposed 3 "rival" games, this is where is BIG TEN West viewpoint came in as he had Michigan's rivals as OSU - DUH, MSU - man what a tag along, and............... Rutgers (DOH!). His entire article talks about preserving trophy games including several of the BIG TEN west games, but no mention of the Little Brown Jug or any acknowledgement of the Michigan v Minnesota game. FYI he put Nebraska as Minnesota's 3rd rival LOL...
My question to the Board, which schedule model do you prefer? 2 protected games? or 3 protected games? and which teams would you like to see protected?
I lean towards 3 protected games and they would be OSU, Minnesota, and Sparty (I guess we would have to keep them in there)
October 14th, 2022 at 10:16 AM ^
When Sam Webb mentioned the B1G is considering a year by year scheduling to maximize TV viewership, that is basically, UM will get scheduled against all the best teams each year. Which sucks of UM. But it also means OSU will likely get locked into the same type of schedules, and also likely USC when they come in. It is great for the lower tier programs that are still in a good spot. Like UW, MSU, UCLA, maybe PSU will end up with more advantageous schedules. If this happens, then UM and OSU are going to have to demand a bigger chunk of the money pie. The conference can't deliberatly give certain teams more difficult schedules and then give everyone the same money.
October 14th, 2022 at 11:32 AM ^
But here's the thing I don't understand from your argument. If OSU is the toughest opponent every year, doesn't Michigan have to go through OSU to win the Big Ten anyways, even if they aren't on UM's schedule? And are you really making an argument to ditch the UM vs. OSU protected rivalry?
October 14th, 2022 at 2:34 PM ^
Anything can happen in one single game. A team such as UM is far more likely to win a conference championship if they play an easy schedule with one game at the end. If you give UM like three easily losable games elsewhere in the schedule the odds in any one year they will win the conference are must less. And if your peer teams don't have to play that same type of schedule, they will more likely win the conference. Look that one MSU in 2013...lost ND in the non-con, but played a pretty soft B1G schedule (UM was probably the toughest team they played and that was with Hoke on the way down), then had a one game season in the B1G championship game...that they won. Yes, that was a good MSU team no doubt, but if they had to play like two other top-25 teams during that schedule what's the likelihood they finish the conference undefeated?
October 14th, 2022 at 10:17 AM ^
None of it really matters until we know where Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal fall into the mix.
October 14th, 2022 at 10:22 AM ^
I think they should go with two divisions, one with USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, minnesota. The other with NW, PU, Ill, IU, UM, MSU, PSU, OSU, rutgers, Maryland. Play each of your division, get two cross overs with home-and-home rotation with other division. One non-conference game. Then championship game. That would make too much rational sense and wouldn't get enough TV viewership however which is the whole point of this thing. I think they'll end up doing some sort of pods with rivals then arranging all the rest of the games based on who they think will get most TV viewship on a year by year basis.
October 14th, 2022 at 10:25 AM ^
If divisions are killed, I'd prefer just 2 protected games. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you wrote, but there's no way 3 protected rivalries would result in more games against non-protected teams. It's mathematically impossible. I love playing Minnesota, but there's no guarantee we'd even have them as our 3rd game (they have so many rivals). Playing them 7/11 years is sufficient, and a fine tradeoff for variety of conference opponent.
I say "if divisions are killed" because I still think it's an absurd mistake to have no divisions in a 16 team conference. It's inevitable that 3+ teams finish tied atop the standings, and someone will get screwed on a stupid, gimmicky tiebreaker. People underrate divisions for avoiding dumb tiebreakers -- ties are relatively rare, and can usually be broken on head-to-head records. With no divisions, tied teams will more often have no head-to-head result. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that tied teams won't have played as many common opponents. I'd prefer to have to have 4, 4-team pods and rotating the pods annually to create one-year divisions. So, in Year 1, Pods 1 and 2 would be one division and Pods 3 and 4 would be the other division. Year 2 would be Pods 1+3 and 2+4, and so on. The challenge would be assigning teams to pods, but for in-season logistics, this option is much more practical than no divisions.
October 14th, 2022 at 10:36 AM ^
This is the system I like moving forward:
https://www.bannersociety.com/2019/8/15/20734585/college-football-divisions-pod-system
October 14th, 2022 at 10:38 AM ^
No Divisions, Have 3 protected games (for us, that's OSU, MSU, and Minn), No Conference Champ Game, and Play 10 Conference games.
October 14th, 2022 at 11:46 AM ^
Now that the conference championship genie ($$$$$) is out of the bottle, I think it’s here to stay.
October 14th, 2022 at 12:06 PM ^
Not if it knocks one of your teams out of the CFP
October 14th, 2022 at 10:50 AM ^
Solution: add Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal. Now you have a B1G East and West that each have 10 teams, so the name makes sense again.
the West is the six PAC 12 teams plus Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa.
play 8 of the 9 teams in your division every year, two against the other division. So you still get 7 home games with 5 against P5 competition, even if one of them is Rutgers.
October 14th, 2022 at 10:52 AM ^
Too much logic in all these proposals. Just make it a random draw. CHAOS!
Oh, and especially if the conference expands to the right number to make it work, play 10 conference games so each team gets 5 home, 5 away.
October 14th, 2022 at 10:54 AM ^
Or do a draft. "As the defending B1G champions, with the first overall pick the University of Michigan selects their rival Rutgers, to be played in Piscataway as one of their road games."
October 14th, 2022 at 10:53 AM ^
No good choices:
1. All play all round robin - not enough time.
2. Swiss pairing method - uncertain travel and TV schedules limits this to leagues within one city or state.
3. Divisions - we've experienced this already - teams don't play the same cross over teams, and the 2nd and 3rd team in the division don't get their due and others in weaker division have a pass (e.g. Iowa last year)
4. Maybe have to abandon rivalry and tradition games - which the alumni and older fans will hate.
In this situation, be willing to give up locked in rivalry games to preserve CFP opportunities.
October 14th, 2022 at 11:10 AM ^
You left out the part where he didn't seem committed to campus sites for the expanded playoff. That was the scariest part to me.
October 14th, 2022 at 12:40 PM ^
agreed, i don't get why they are too cheap to winterize their stadiums with all that damn money. My ideal playoff is start the season week 0 so that you can play that game on campus early December. Also move the BTCG to on campus. Keep college football on college campuses. Sojourns to NFL stadiums is nothing compared to visiting a college town.
October 14th, 2022 at 11:31 AM ^
I say no protected rivalries so we play as many teams as possible as often as possible in rotation, 10 conference games 2 non conference.
If we do have protected rivalries make them be in the first half of the season. I'm ready to play OSU early instead of on the last week so that whichever team loses still has a chance to claw back to the title game and a potential re-match won't be back to back.
None if this will actually happen. :)
October 14th, 2022 at 11:34 AM ^
Don't worry .. Whatever the Big ten decides. It will be horrible, and it will screw Michigan
October 14th, 2022 at 12:00 PM ^
Here’s how you deal with protected rivalries and the problem of having a potential rematch in the championship game (the Michigan-Ohio State problem). Have the last weekend of the season be rivalry week.
M-OSU, R-Md, MSU-PSU, IU-PU
ILL-NW, W-Mn, Iowa-Neb, SC-UCLA
If any one of those would have a championship game rematch, for example, M-OSU both roll into the game 8-0 in conference, and have already won their respective divisions, you delay that game by a week and it becomes the conference championship. You have Akron and Eastern Michigan on call. They are scheduled to play that week. If the rivalry problem occurs, you drop a million bucks on each of them to play Michigan and OSU instead. Call it the SEC solution, whereby the conference powers get a tune-up game prior to playing the biggest game in Big10 history. We know Michigan vs. Ohio State is The Game. Now add a conference championship week environment on top of that. Gus Johnson’s head would literally explode.
October 14th, 2022 at 12:01 PM ^
As long as Michigan plays Ohio State every year, as we have come to expect in life.
Pods and parity are pluses in a world where playoffs exist. Parity is impossible in college without ending recruiting. Pods are difficult to arrange in a fair manner.
Just more awkwardness as college football transitions into a professional sport with a CBA and leadership outside of the NCAA.
I was really hoping to see, from the title of this thread, a discussion of why college football can't take a hint from the NFL and see the value in games that end in less than three hours - just jack up the price of commercials and let a shorter supply interact with demand. It's not like there's so much variety in advertisers out there that if we see 12 stupid Honda commercials instead of 15 during a game, anything is going to be affected in the slightest.
October 14th, 2022 at 12:02 PM ^
when we go to 16, we should absolutely have 3 rivals and rotate 6 other teams every year or two years - we'd see every campus once in four years. You can switch out M's 3rd rival every 4 years, no issue.
We're only going to be at 14 for 2023, so...who cares? Let M play OSU and MSU, and then start by giving us Purdue since we haven't seen them since the Speight game, and then I'd like to have the Jug with fans in attendance for the first time since 2017 as well. And then whomever, fill it out.
EDIT: for the championship, just take Seth's showcase idea - the #1 team at the end of the regular season plays the best team they haven't played yet.
October 14th, 2022 at 1:10 PM ^
I do find it remarkably stupid the B1G has no plan on the 2023 schedule. As you said, it's just one year. We already had a 2023 schedule at one point anyway! The fix is easy:
- Keep the divisions, we've been using them for 9 years now anyway. If we go non-division, we can do that when the new folks join.
- Use that old 2023 schedule (U-M did play at Minnesota and host Purdue on that schedule, FWIW --- that would be Purdue's first visit in 12 years!).
- switch up the sites of the MSU/U-M/Indiana games, which is what was done to re-jigger the 2022 schedule, (there's some other triplet in the West where sites were moved too)
- move games around dates as necessary to get rid of home-road streaks (e.g., U-M not starting with 3 in a row on the road, and ending with 3 at home),
- move the F on!
The real challenge is in scheduling 2024 and beyond. It's a bit concerning --- it does appear like the B1G just invited USC and UCLA without even having a semblance of a scheduling formula. Which, I suppose, isn't surprising.
October 14th, 2022 at 2:21 PM ^
Yeah. Even factoring in that the non-con is set, the start of the 2023 conference schedule is less than a year away. It would be really nice, for everyone, to know who's playing where when. Hell, even if we don't know the opponents yet, it'd be nice to know when we're home and away...
October 14th, 2022 at 1:01 PM ^
I see the problems for Michigan as two-fold:
1. The conference will want as many "big games" as possible, so I could see Michigan getting disproportionally scheduled against the big draw -- and also better -- teams. This would result in Michigan -- and to be fair, OSU as well -- having the hardest schedules year after year. This wouldn't matter as much if SOS will be considered strongly in the 12-team playoff format, but it probably won't be.
2. Warde doesn't strike me as someone who will fight the conference that hard for what will benefit Michigan. He seems to be very passive and accepts what happens too easily. Whereas the OSU AD has no problem pushing back against the conference, Warde seems a bit soft in that respect.
These two combine for what might be a tougher road ahead for Michigan football.
October 14th, 2022 at 1:52 PM ^
If we do away with divisions, I'd favor keeping staee and Minnesota as our two yearly rivals and play osu twice every 3 seasons rather than yearly.
I know it's going to be considered sacrilegious to cut back on the buckeye rivalry, but then again (with the 12-team CFB playoff) there will potentially be seasons we face them in our playoff bracket.
Besides (as others have mentioned), why should other teams have the scheduling advantage of frequently ducking the bucks while we beat each other up in the final game each season?
October 14th, 2022 at 2:23 PM ^
I can't see any scenario where the TV folks accept no Michigan-OSU game. That is why they are paying the $$$.
October 14th, 2022 at 2:34 PM ^
While that may be true, why then should Penn State (generally considered to be one of the current 'big 3" of the B1G) be able to avoid being locked in to such a tough yearly game? And what about USC once they join the B1G?
Even if it means a slightly reduction in TV money, scheduling equity should be the top priority, especially when most years I would expect no more than 2 B1G teams to reach the 12-team CFB playoff.
October 14th, 2022 at 3:14 PM ^
Top priority is $. There is ZERO chance of not having the UM-OSU matchup each year.
October 14th, 2022 at 3:02 PM ^
Two protected games: MSU and OSU
Rotate everyone else.
No shenanigans with "strength of schedule" like in the current deal.
Championship Game with two highest-ranked teams UNLESS they played each other the previous week.
That means we play OSU every year, but only once, and our Championship Game opponent is highly-ranked enough to get us into the playoff but not a talent death star.
October 14th, 2022 at 3:16 PM ^
One protected rivalry.
10 b1g games.
A 3 game Seth's showcase at the end of the year.
If the conference is going to expand, I would rather actually get to see those teams. Take a trip to LA once in awhile, maybe develop a rivalry with one of those teams. maybe see Nebraska often enough to have a rivalry there. Get to play for the Jug more often.