BigTen Protected Opponents - PSU has none?
Protected Rivals starting in 2024:
Teams with 3
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin
Teams with 2
Illinois: Northwestern and Purdue
Michigan: Michigan State and Ohio State
Minnesota: Iowa and Wisconsin
Purdue: Illinois and Indiana
Wisconsin: Iowa and Minnesota
Teams with 1
Indiana: Purdue
Maryland: Rutgers
Michigan State: Michigan
Nebraska: Iowa
Northwestern: Illinois
Ohio State: Michigan
Rutgers: Maryland
UCLA: USC
USC: UCLA
Teams with 0
Penn State
How on earth did Penn State get away with zero protected rivalries? OSU vs PSU has been a great match up the past decade or so. Seems like it lets both OSU and especially PSU off the hook.
I get the PSU vs MSU rivalry never really took hold well, but OSU and PSU seems like a legit rivalry and gets big TV viewership year after year after year.
Is it fair to Iowa that they have 3 rivalries to get up for while PSU might have none in a year?
None. This was talked about in depth once the new schedules came out
And what about Keith Jackson? How is he doing these days?
Whoa Nellie… you had to bring him up…
Rumor has it… he expects several barn burners in B1G conference play in the first year with USC and UCLA.
They're called "Unrivaled" for a reason. It's a gimmick but it's cool to have weird lore in the conference.
Not sure I would brag that no one cared enough about my team to try to keep the game protected.
They do have a historic rival (Pitt) but they aren't in the conference and they don't want to play them for whatever reason.
Could be worse for the rest of us. They could have Rutger and Maryland as protected rivals, thus nearly guaranteeing them two in the W column every season.
Both sides had to choose each other in order to be a protected rivalry. So OSU probably said no thanks to playing them yearly.
Same with Michigan, I imagine. Wonder what kind of horse trading went on there when the ADs were voting on this. You think those 3 west division teams colluded on signed up for mutually agreeable 'rivalry' games? They get at least one sellout a year without having to take a pounding from UM/OSU/PSU.
If that's the case then is the implication psu listed no team they want as a protected rival?
Or that no team listed them?
Hard to believe rutger &/or MD wouldn't want them 🤷♂️
From a logistical POV, not having OSU/PSU annually helps even out schedules (otherwise, OSU is going to play all of U-M, PSU and USC at least 50% of all seasons).
Presuming the conference stays at 16 (which, we'll see about that), the below schedule cycle seems plausible and logical to me (also fairly TV-friendly):
2024-25: PSU plays USC & Rutgers both years, USC plays U-M 1 year, OSU the other.
2026-27: PSU plays OSU & Maryland both years, USC plays U-M both years and OSU 1 year.
2028-29: PSU plays U-M & Rutgers both years, USC plays OSU both years and U-M 1 year.
2030-31: PSU plays USC & Maryland both years, USC plays U-M 1 year, OSU the other.
2032-33: PSU plays OSU & Rutgers both years, USC plays U-M both years and OSU 1 year.
2034-35: PSU plays U-M & Maryland both years, USC plays OSU both years and U-M 1 year.
---------------
In the above:
- PSU gets each of Rutgers & Maryland 9 times out of 12 (75%), and gets each of USC, U-M and OSU 8 times out of 12 (66.7%) - every year they are playing 2 of the 3.
- USC gets each of U-M, PSU and OSU 8 times out of 12 (66.7%) - every year they are playing 2 of the 3.
- There are only 4 years out of 12 where U-M plays all of PSU, OSU and USC. Likewise for OSU as regards PSU, U-M and USC.
- PSU would have NO years where they play all of U-M, OSU and USC, but the league could schedule PSU's 3rd annual opponent accordingly (one of the tougher other teams).
- USC gets each of U-M, PSU and OSU 8 times out of 12 (66.7%) - every year they are playing 2 of the 3.
- There are only 4 years out of 12 where U-M plays all of PSU, OSU and USC. Likewise for OSU as regards PSU, U-M and USC.
It's likely academic since nobody seems to think the 16 team Big Ten is going to stay at 16, but I don't see why U-M and OSU should have any season where they play both USC and PSU. It seems unfair to each and unnecessary - just keep the 24-25 rotation going, where the top 4 play only 2 of the other 3.
I guess having M-USC, OSU-PSU, and the vice versa matchups only 50% of the time is probably not enough to keep the TV execs happy and maybe that's what you were thinking. But it still seems like overly challenging to have 3 huge programs on the conference schedule and I see why it's avoided in the first two years in this format.
TV and keeping the check-writers happy was my logic --- I also think both USC and PSU would want to play OSU/U-M more than 50% of the time.
USC joined the B1G to get the marquee match-ups, and PSU views Ohio and (to a lesser degree) Michigan as very important states to recruit in.
We'll see, as you said it's likely academic anyway.
Have to disagree with you there. USC joined the big ten for the giant pile of money. I'm guessing they would take the 9 worst big ten teams and an essential autobid to the playoffs very happily, and will play the marquee games because they have to.
Who would you rank as PSU's biggest rivals? Does the fan base agree with you? I'm guessing it's generational. Does anybody miss playing Cuse, Pitt, WVU, VT, Temple and the U?
The over-50 crowd thinks PSU's primary rivals are Pitt, Alabama (they played for the 1978 MNC and also had a 10-year series throughout the 1980s) and ND (also played annually from 1981-1992), then maybe OSU & U-M. WVU, Syracuse, BC, et al a couple tiers below that.
The under-40 crowd would say OSU a clear #1, then U-M #2, then nobody else in the B1G really stands out.
I'm in-between those 2 crowds, in both age & sentiment. PSU played Pitt from 2016-2019, they all felt flat to me. I'm fine with "unrivaled" being a thing. PSU has very important games, but they don't really have rivals. Besides, you don't have to force a rivalry --- if there are enough big games and back-and-forth, games will organically become rivalries.
I think U-M fans generally take PSU seriously, but a lot of OSU fans don't (and laugh when PSU calls them a rival) --- a large reason for that is because PSU has never won back-to-back games against OSU since joining the B1G (ugh, flashbacks of 2017). PSU hasn't given OSU a reason to truly truly think of them as a rival/long-term threat.
-----------
For the record, PSU has never played VT. Not even once. They were supposed to in 2020.
Huh, that last part surprises me. I knew VT really didn't get rolling until the Big East, but i figured they were close enough to have had some sorta hate with PSU.
Also the unrivaled thing is different for me - not just as a CFB fan, but even playing in HS every school in our county had a rival, and even the NFL i feel like each division is just rivalries. Not anything wrong with not having a rival, but it is just different from how I've lived my football life haha.
There surprisingly aren't a ton of PSU/Virginia games either. Twice in the 50s, twice in the 80s, three more times in the B1G era.
VT was playing Richmond, VMI and William & Mary annually through the mid-80s. PSU just likely wasn't on VT's radar (or vice versa) then ----- VT was a D-1A Independent in name but played a schedule that didn't look entirely unlike that of a D-1AA SoCon or CAA team. The Big East invite was absolutely huge for VT's trajectory.
Huh, i never realized VT in the '90s was what Rutgers wanted to be. Kinda makes me respect that program even more. And it will never not be confounding that Rutgers found their way into the Big Ten
Yep, 80s era Rutgers and 80s era VT is a good comparison.
Here's a couple HUGE "what ifs" as regards Rutgers:
- In 1979, when the Big East basketball conference formed, Rutgers had an invite. Rutgers hoops was legitimately good at this time (Final 4 in 1976, Sweet 16 in 1979). But they turned the invite down!!!! RU was in the Atlantic-8 with PSU at the time, and the Rutgers AD had a good relationship with JoePa (who at the time was trying to figure out his own way to cobble together an Eastern football conference) --- Rutgers no vote was primarily because they didn't want to disassociate with PSU. Dumb decision. And then Seton Hall from the Big East becomes the Jersey-based team in the 1989 Final Four while Rutgers hoops fell off significantly.
- Come 1982, Paterno is now also PSU AD (he was AD from 1980-1982) and PSU formally asks to join the Big East. He has (a bit begrudgingly) realized the Big East presents the best path toward an Eastern football conference. But PSU fails by 1 to get enough "yes" votes --- all the no votes come from basketball-only schools. If PSU does get in, Rutgers likely soon gets another Big East invite and presumably won't be dumb enough to say "no" again. Big East football likely becomes a thing much earlier than it did (in this "what if", it's now possible VT does not get a Big East invite in the late 1980s - a different potential history for them too).
I know this thread is dead, but I was thinking about this further. The wildest "what if" is that Rutgers had a brief high point when the best of the Big East left for the ACC, and leveraged that into a Big Ten invite. Especially when they'll no longer have PSU, UM and OSU on the schedule annually, their FB team could become a part of the Big Ten's middle class. Their finances surely have improved. They've seen their soccer and field hockey teams win big ten titles of late, and have a historically successful WBB team and a decent enough MBB team. They're as likely as any other big ten team to be competitive on the diamond. Ironically, their lack of success in the '90s probably helped them compared to VT (and for that matter, BC and even maybe the U). Heck, their lack of prestige sorta helped them out by not joining the ACC or Big 12 when the rest of their old Big East mates left in 2011. Not in terms of prestige or success on the football field - but in terms of finances and non-revenue sports, and in future access to championships as a member of the middle class.
I've remarked that Maryland sorta lost prestige by joining the Big Ten with Rutgers - going from a solid ACC also-ran to, well, Rutgers' twin. But again, for finances it's a no-brainer, and they've been very competitive in non-revenue sports.
My guess is that this falls in the same category as OSU - ND. Despite the proximity and mutually strong teams, Woody Hayes' 28 years at the helm had zero games against ND. He had no interest in playing ND for several reasons, including tarnishing his record, making recruiting more difficult if he lost, as well as having the Catholics in the state root against his team to name a few.
There have been 2 bowl games but only 5 regular season games with next year being number 6.
I'm surprised Illinois, Wisconsin and Rutger didn't insist on having us as a protected rival.
EDIT: While Wisconsin thinks we are a rival, they only want to play cupcakes.
*Looks up schedule and sees Wisconsin playing a home & home series with Alabama in 24 & 25 also gets USC BOTH years.
Your point stands historically, but their 24 & 25 schedules are absolutely brutal. I would not trade with them.
Their biggest rival is James Franklin
If your enemy is making mistakes don't interrupt them.
It kind of looks like the entire big ten is trying to find the best way to not play Rutgers and Maryland.
Iowa got three nearby rivals, so limited their other games.
Penn State could have easily been handed both as protected games but forewent.
Everyone else from the east left them off.
And Maryland and Rutgers got individually stuck with each other annually when no one else did.
Bravo all around
I'll play 'em & club 'em (Rutgers & Maryland)...every goddamn year.
It's the football recruiting hotbed of the NE. It's significantly more talent advantageous than adding Minnesota for a wooden trophy.
Seems like PSU will play MSU nearly every year as the leftovers when the rest of the conference pairs up with primary rivals. So it may not be officially "protected" but it might as well be.
My question is what is the history of Purdue-Illinois and why are they protected? Each has their own in-state rivalry game so why is this added as a second protected game?
Geographically, West Lafayette and Champaign-Urbana are closer than West Lafayette and Bloomington.
Yep. There are 3 pairs of Big Ten teams less than 100 miles from each other: USC-UCLA, M-MSU, and Purdue-Illinois.
It’s not hard to google things in 2023 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%E2%80%93Purdue_football_rivalry
I never realized this was a thing either. The all-time series is 47-45-6? Interesting.
I don’t see a reason why they don’t have sparty as a protected rival. They play on the last weekend of the season every year and have the land grant trophy.
my ideal (pipedream) scenario would be a four pod situation.
pod 1:
- Michigan
-msu
-Penn St.
-osu
Pod 2:
- UCLA
- USC
- Cal (expel rutgers)
- Stanford ( expel Nebraska)
Pod 3:
- Maryland
- Wisconsin
- Indiana
- Purdue
Pod 4:
- Illinois
- Northwestern
- Minnesota
- Iowa
Those pods are way too unbalanced to even be considered. You have 3/4 top teams in the same pod
I know. This hypothetical put a priority on rivalries and geography. There’s a few ways to skin the cat though. Competitive balance is tough when the top two programs share the greatest rivalry in sports. That gets tougher when you have the same situation with usc and ucla.
Adding a school like UVA or Pitt gives you a pod with Pitt/uva, Maryland, Rutgers, Penn st.
Then you could have a 4 team combination of michigan, msu, osu, Illinois, and Northwestern then work from there
I'm not sure PSU ever asked to have MSU as its last game of the season. The Big Ten just gave it to them.
"unrivaled"
When they joined the Conference they were without rival, they were just going to come in and own the conference. Today they are just unrivaled.
It's what they teach in health class: don't have unprotected opponents.
I know that Minnesota hasn’t gotten tons of wins in the rivalry lately (ever), but I still would have protected the yearly fight for the Little Brown Jug.
Unraveled.
OSU didn’t want to play us and PSU every year, and PSU was tired of losing to OSU (10 of the last 11). This way they will likely have one big name on their home schedule every year and will have a manageable schedule in which they have a good chance at getting to 10-2 and the first round of a 12-team playoff.
They should play Pitt every year.
Because they joined the conference relatively recently and haven’t had the time to build a historical rivalry that’s necessary to preserve in the scheduling?
edit: the only other matchups are just recently added schools playing each other
Penn St. has plenty of rivals, half them with the ACC. They just decided not to accept any in the B1G conference.
Penn St. is an elite CFB program, but they are an odd bird by being an independent for 100 years plus and they made their own schedules that likely limited the decision to produce a permanent one.
When I think of a PSU rivalry it will always be Pitt. Two major programs a couple hours away from each other. It's a travesty they don't play every year.
Making PSU and OSU protected would be good for the conference, make lots of money, and be good for the sport, but it'd be bad for OSU, so the B1G didn't do it
Every school except MSU & PSU have a protected rivalry for the last week of the season. Hence why they both play each other in 2024 & 2025. It becomes a defacto protected rivalry for both. Like Seth and Sam mentioned, this schedule is just a placeholder. No reason to react so aggressively to it.
Really there is no reason Maryland v Rutgers needs to be the last week of the season. I'm sure there will be seasons moving forward where PSU ends the season with Maryland or Rutgers or even UCLA (when USC is playing Notre Dame).
After all, Maryland is the closest thing Penn State has to a rival in the conference. They played 32 times in 34 years from 1960 to 1993. Maryland even won 1 of those 32 games.
Penn State was the biggest winner in the scheduling revamp. They’re the team most capable of turning a reduction in OSU matchups into additional victories and playoff appearances.
We speak of PSU/USC/OSU/U-M as equivalents in terms of being marquee programs, but on the field, they’re not equivalent. Playing USC is a 50-50 proposition for Penn State—maybe better than 50-50. Playing Ohio State, generally speaking, is far from that.