Big Ten Schedule React II: The Morning After
Yesterday's post came out in a rush, so I wanted to clarify a few things that I missed. Thank you to readers who pointed some of these out.
There are no more divisions. This was evident but I should have at least said the format is divisionless, with only the most important protected rivalries. There's a helpful graphic that shows the protected games and the two-plays for 2024-'25:
The Big Ten is probably not bringing them back either, because they stated they want every four-year player to get a chance to play in every Big Ten stadium during their careers. Or at least 15/16 Big Ten stadiums and Ford Field, since MSU is giving away its home games now.
The Championship Game will be one game between the top two schools. This is obviously very dumb and will lead to replays and controversies when there are multiple 1-loss teams deserving at the end of the season. In a press release last night the Big Ten clarified that they are still figuring out the tiebreaker rules for that. I cannot express the level of contempt I have for the direction they're going with this. Please somebody with any kind of sense, tell them to go to a Showcase model instead of a championship game. Three good games we haven't played yet and champions determined by best record >>>>>> replays and controversial champions.
Michigan has just six homes in 2025. They're probably talking to Oklahoma about flipping that series, that but my guess is they end up sticking with what they've got. Whatever they charged for the 2018 home schedule of Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maryland, Indiana, WMU, and SMU they can charge for a 2025 home schedule of Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Northwestern, CMU, and New Mexico.
The 2024 dates might be pushed back. I have not seen it confirmed yet that the schedule will be pushed back a week to accommodate the 12-team playoff. As of last November it was under discussion according to Nicole Auerbach:
Commissioners have also sorted out the general calendar issues. Down the road, they may propose moving the entire college football season up a week to begin a full schedule the weekend before Labor Day, a stretch currently colloquially referred to as Week 0.
Moving the whole season back was not in the press release when they announced the 12-team playoff for 2024-'25. If that has been updated since please let me know and I'll note it here.
Warde fought to keep the MSU game and was absolutely correct to do so. Via Austin Meek at The Athletic (HT to reader Communist Football on the message board):
“Michigan is unique in having two games that even if, preference comes into mind, it’s really common sense that they need to be on their schedule every year,” Big Ten chief operation officer Kerry Kenny said. “Ohio State from a historical and competitive perspective, Michigan State from an in-state and historical perspective as well, and (athletic director) Warde (Manuel) was very forthright and vocal during the process that those two games needed to stay on their schedule every year.”
I hammered this point on WTKA yesterday and I'll hammer it again: Michigan is not canceling Michigan State over the tunnel incident. I agree that fan sentiment among the super-paying-attention shifted, but what hasn't shifted is that game makes big money at the gate and on television. It is an important game to most of the fanbase, an important game to the state, an important game to the players, and the only important game to Michigan State, who has just as much of a say in this as Michigan. One of Warde's major accomplishments as AD was to use the COVID season as an opportunity to get the home/road schedule with MSU moved back opposite OSU's so that there's a big rival home game to anchor the schedule every year.
I can put this into numbers because I know that they price the season tickets (seat licenses included) based on the maximum get-in price of the secondary ticket market, and I track that market. Nothing matches OSU--that was in the $450 range in 2021--but the only other game that tends to match MSU's $250 get-in maximum is Notre Dame. PSU/Wisconsin are more like $180. We'll see what Texas/Oklahoma/USC bring in the coming years, but if you can get Texas/Oklahoma/USC/Notre Dame kind of interest for a middle-of-the-pack Power 5 program every other year, a little bad behavior on their part is a small fee.
UCLA-USC is not Thanksgiving Weekend on ND@USC years. So technically UCLA could be available to play PSU or MSU that weekend.
That is all.
Why the Nebraska / Iowa protected game, is this a Corn Trophy???
I can give some insight as I lived in the middle of corn country for a while. Iowa absolutely despises Nebraska - at least many of the fans do. Nebraska has this sort of entitled and superior attitude, in general, but specifically towards Iowa. They view Iowa as a quaint little program that thinks it's big-time, but really is nothing. Reason as best I can tell is due to proximity of the respective fans, the success of Nebraska in the 90's, the jealously of Iowa fans as a result, and then the inexplicable perceived arrogance of Nebraska fans despite the fact that Iowa has been a better program for nearly two decades. TL;DR: DISRESPEKT (basically)!! So Iowa wants to destroy Nebraska every single year, and they're not going to give up that opportunity.
Gotta respect Farmageddon, amirite?
Besides, Nebraska only borders one state in the entire B1G footprint.
I was kind of surprised they didn't protect the rivalry between Rutgers and PSU or MSU and PSU, given PSU has none. I know the Rutgers fans view PSU as one and fight over recruits, much like MSU does with us, just to a much lesser degree.
So PSU has no protected rivalry, hmm, what does that say about how the B1G feels about them???
Penn State: "Come on! SOMEONE dislike me. Anyone?"
They should create a Nebraska Ucla and PSU USC rivalry.
This would be a nice new addition for all teams involved.
Rivalries come about organically over time. I don't think you can create one on paper.
I feel like PSU sorta looks at Iowa as a rival. Really all their rivals went to the Big East , and the only Big East school that joined the Big Ten was never a rival. And now PSU just mostly looks at all their '80s rivals as if they're mid majors. Which kinda checks out over the last 20 years.
Like parents introducing their toddlers at a play date.
OTOH, as my older sister (a rising junior at UM) and I were driving to AA for my late freshman orientation, she said that her friend's younger brother was also going to late orientation and for us to be friends. I was like whatever. He ended up being best man at my wedding. So sometimes playdates do work out.
Of course!
Good for your sister. Good for your friend. Good for you.
I don't think it's a statement about the B1G's feelings; having no protected rivalries allows Penn State to almost be an independent within the conference and an easier path to a top 2 finish.
My thought too.
That's another reason I didn't love it. Of course locking in Rutgers, Maryland or MSU is kind of doing the same thing and not making their schedule harder per se.
Forgive me for being dense. What is a showcase model?
Isn't that the lovely young lady on the Price is Right who waves her hand around the prize in the showcase???
"Isn't that the lovely young lady on the Price is Right who waves her hand around the prize in the showcase???"
And the entire point of this post was to "go to a showcase model."
It is going to take me a few minutes to process this...
Showcase means the top ranked team would play the highest ranked team they've yet to play in lieu of a traditional "championship" game.
The showcase concept is akin to bringing back bowl games but with clear (and different) criteria for establishing the matchups. Having bowl games take place before a formal playoff is a nice combination of the old system with the new. And the matchups become more interesting with a bigger conference.
One of Warde's major accomplishments as AD was to use the COVID season as an opportunity to get the home/road schedule with MSU moved back opposite OSU's so that there's a big rival home game to anchor the schedule every year.
Damn what a resume, build him a statue
There is already one built. It sits at his desk.
"Or at least 15/16 Big Ten stadiums and Ford Field, since MSU is giving away its home games now."
Har! I chuckled...
Man, when Illinois finds out that their biggest rivalry (us) isn't protected they're gonna flip.
"Man, when Illinois finds out that their biggest rivalry (us) isn't protected they're gonna flip."
Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I lived just outside of Urbana for a few years about 20 years back and local radio definitely considered M the biggest game of the year.
That 2000 Michigan-Illinois game still pisses off my Illini friends to this day.
I have cited the '99 Illinois game many times when telling people how I knew TB12 would be great when he was still at Michigan (OK, maybe not as great as he turned out!)
That game basically fucked our season! So they can cry in their Champaign about 2000!
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I know they'll be absolutely livid about this, and I'm glad for it.
Serious question:
Which B10 team doesn't consider Michigan their biggest game?!
Not many but there are a few and mostly based on proximity and not limited to football...Indiana-Purdue, Nebraska-Iowa, USC-UCLA.
I lived in IL for for a couple of years in the 90’s. When I mentioned that I was surprised that the Illini fans were cheering Seton Hall in the ‘89 basketball finals, after a narrow M win over IL in the semifinals, I quickly learned the depth of the hatred of the Wolves. I was clear I would have cheering IL had they beat M.
For the rest of my stay in IL, I made a point of reminding them that OSU and MSU were our real rivals, with ND in football and Duke and UNC in basketball also far ahead of Illinois. Basically, Illinois was just a game on the schedule. Drove ‘em nuts.
Who are the Wolves?
The showcase model is looking more sensible by the day Seth which means it probably ends up on the cutting room floor. Agreed that divisions are gone for good unless some major expansion happens.
If they do expand again, they can go back to divisions, and then appeal the NCAA for 8-years of eligibility so every player has the opportunity to visit every other school during their eligibility.
(...do I really need to '/s'?)
Hey, I'm in Chuck as long as Stroud gets his eligibility back retroactively.
JK pal and no /s needed!
Seth and Warde are wrong and I don't know why Michigan should care what tickets sell for on the secondary market which seemed to be Seth's main point yesterday. Michigan is a draw no matter what and any Big10 team that's good that year can be an easy stand-in for MSU. Having them every year is fine but pretending it also wouldn't have been fine to not have them is silly.
I'm sure it would be "fine", but the University wants to make as much money as they can off football, which makes sense when you have a bunch of sports that make negative dollars.
And so how exactly would not playing MSU every year negatively impact the bottom line? It's not changing TV revenue, it's not changing ticket sales on our end, the AD doesn't see that secondary market revenue, so where's the negative? If we could drop Sparty so we could play Wisconsin more than twice a decade I'd make that move in a heartbeat.
The idea that it HAD to be protected and Warde deserves some sort of accolade for going that direction is asinine. Seth has a complete blind spot when it comes to MSU, it is what it is. U of M owes no debt to them or "the state" to keep that game on a yearly basis. One team derives markedly more benefit than the other by playing it year in and year out.
Ultimately it just means money overrules everything in this country. We don’t do what’s right; we do what pays and Manuel is part of that and people call that wisdom. It makes us a bunch of sociopaths, but Americans take far less issue with being soulless than being reminded of it.
So what your saying to me is a conference with OSU UM and Penn state brought a shit program like Rutger in because of money? That sound nonsensical but somehow its the the truth?
Don't get TV game ratings/revenue confused with conference revenue. Rutgers and Maryland were added due to the cable subscribers that the NY and DC area markets would bring to BTN -- not the quality of play of the football teams. USC (and UCLA) were added for the exact same reason - CA folks interested in the flagship football program(s) will have to upgrade their cable or streaming package to include BTN starting in 2024.
Once the deal is set the networks try to squeeze as much juice as they can from the available matchups i.e. PSU-USC or OSU/M versus anybody... To get those games you will eventually also have to air Rutgers - Indiana on a Friday night.
EDIT - To add--- the above is why Washington and Oregon are currently NOT high on the list for B1G expansion. They will not add enough viewers/subscribers to add to the per-team share of conference revenue. Yes they would bring more revenue than Rutgers, Indiana etc. do today --- but those folks are already on the train, the B1G won't be kicking anyone out in the foreseeable future, and teams aren't interested in bringing on more competition AND reducing revenue.
That is why ND, FSU, and Miami are the top teams listed for potential expansion - bringing Florida and the national following of ND that would drive the per-team contract even higher.
Yes you are 100% correct.
Absolutely agree. Rutger and Maryland worth isn't because of their quality athletic programs. It was about footprint and recruiting, and that in itself is well worth it. If the B1G can get to the South all the bases are covered.
Ultimately, my prediction is fsu & Clemson to the $EC, Miami & nd to the B10.
When completely depends on how long nd can keep nursing their grudge & fooling themselves they can go it alone.
So a few more years. But Clemson & fsu will abandon the ACC asap!
I’ll take that over the psychopathy behind the Great Leap Forward.
Assuming actions done for something other than money is good is…..uh…..
Seriously, more money is not always better. I could take a promotion for more money but it means more work and more stress, no thanks. Michigan is already one of the richest programs in the country and all the rich programs have to invent ways to spend that money...and never on the right things like players and keeping Bakich. And to boot, if we swapped MSU for Minnesota we'd probably get upset and injured by a chippy team of criminals less often and thus win more games and have better seasons which should also lead to more money. Similarly we should stop worshiping the dollar and improve the stadium (and basketball arena experience) which would drive more fandom and more success which leads to...more money.
I may be all alone on this, but my preference is to eliminate the conference championship game completely. That will never happen because of money, but we’re now looking at the possibility of a team playing 12 regular season games, a conference championship and 4 playoff games. At that point, just declare CFB the NFL’s minor league and get rid of the “student-athlete” facade. Going to 17 games reduces the importance of any one single game. Is OSU-UofM really “The Game” anymore if we end up playing it 3 times in a season?
8 games and a showcase would be excellent. You are only making that 9th game 1000x better with no downside. If we lost to OSU we shouldnt get to play them again and vice versa. Obviously with a 12 team playoff this cant be avoided but the Big Ten can make their own rules in conference. Id say play that showcase out for the entire league.
Comments