This is copied over from a conference realignment board thread, given that it doesn't, in fact, actually require conference realignment so much as raises the question of how the Big Ten digests the conference realignment it has already done.

It was spurred by someone proposing a three locked rivals system. However, from my perspective, nine conference games allow five fixed games over a four year cycle ... numbering the 13 possible Big Ten opponents as appropriate for any given school, its:

Year1: 1, @2, 3, @4, 5, @6, 8, @10, 12
Year2: @1, 2, @3, 4, @5, 6, @8, 10, @12
Year3: 1, @2, 3, @4, 5, @7, 9, @11, 13
Year4: @1, 2, @3, 4, @5, 7, @9, 11, @13

And five fixed games with a guarantee of playing every Big Ten school twice in four years allows anywhere from one to five fixed rivals, since you can always swap schools at the end of a four year schedule ... so some schools could be "half locked", where you see them 75% of the time over an eight year period.

Anyway, I started from the idea that the Western schools would all like to play each other, Minnesota would like to keep the game with TSUN, and that while Northwestern doesn't have any "must have" rivalries other than Illinois, given their choice they'd probably prefer to play their western neighbors Wisconsin and Iowa ... and from there it sorted out like this:

(05-11-2014 12:23 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-10-2014 11:58 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  You could well switch that. I put the Indiana/Illinois schools against each other unless there was another match-up, but you just as easily have Northwestern/Michigan State and Indiana/(Maryland/Rutgers).

Ah ... I think of NW and MSU having more history than NW and Indiana. After Illinois I'd think the strongest current rivalries for Northwestern are with Wisconsin & Iowa, but in the three locked rivals system those schools are full up.

If it was four, for the five western most schools, I'd say:

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State

Which would spill over (including established or historic rivalries & Penn St. versus the newbies):

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana
Purdue: Indiana,
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State

... after which point it starts to get a bit arbitrary.

Of course, arbitrary "rivalries" are themselves a recent tradition of the Big Ten, including the Land Grant trophy and the Our Most Hate Rival match up between Iowa and Purdue. Purdue's second strongest rivalry from Purdue's side (a number of the the opponent's fans will say how they scorn the series) is out of conference, leaving them a bit at loose ends. On geography you'd say Illinois and Michigan State, which rounds both of those out at four, and then with the Indiana schools at three, they could be slated against the newbies, North to North and South to South:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota,
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue,
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana

This leaves Michigan and Ohio State to do their duty to the conference bringing their brand names to the East Coast. Due to the number of Michigan grads in DC, I figure Michigan for Maryland and Ohio State for Rutgers:

Northwestern: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Northwestern
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Michigan
Iowa: Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Nebraska: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Penn State
Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State, Rutgers
Indiana: Purdue, Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland
Michigan State: Michigan, Northwestern, Indiana, Purdue
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Maryland
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, Rutgers
Penn State: Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Ohio State
Maryland: Rutgers, Penn State, Indiana, Michigan

... so putting that out there for comment.

Not only could the Big Ten go division free, they should go division free. Do 3 locked rivalries as has been suggested by Ohio and others. Rotate the other 6 games around. You could go to 4 games locked as well and it might even be easier to do that as you do 5 opponents so you play everyone at least twice in four years.

(05-11-2014 02:42 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Not only could the Big Ten go division free, they should go division free. Do 3 locked rivalries as has been suggested by Ohio and others. Rotate the other 6 games around.

The simple arithmetic of doing some games fixed and the rest two years on, two years off ~ as the Big Ten did from the adoption of eight games in the 80's through to the start of that Leaders and Legends nonsense ~ is:

13 - 1 fixed = 12 alternating, 6 per year. 1+6 = 7 conference games.
13 - 3 fixed = 10 alternating, 5 per year. 3+5 = 8 conference games.
13 - 5 fixed = 8 alternating, 4 per year. 5+4 = 9 conference games.
13 - 7 fixed = 6 alternating, 3 per year. 7+3 = 10 conference games.

So 5 fixed is working backwards from a 9 game conference schedule, just as the long standing 3 fixed game proposals were working back from an 8 game conference schedule.

5 fixed games in a four year cycle doesn't imply 5 locked rivals, because you can always swap out one or more of the fixed teams at the end of the four years.

So once you go to 9 conference games, if you schedule four year blocks with five fixed schools and eight schools two years on / two years off, you can just as easily have three, four or five locked rivals.

If the ACC proposal passes so that it becomes an option to take the top two schools without a divisional split, one of the political issues in getting a division free system put in place are that some of the schools would prefer a three fixed rival system if they get their choice of three rivals, but won't necessarily prefer any given three rival alternative over the East/West divisions.

So for Minnesota, the four rival system gives them games with the other three western schools AND preserves the Michigan rivalry. For the two newbies, it gives them the big brand name game at home every year, either Penn State or one of the Old Firm, but also allows them to have a better prospect of going bowling than the Big Ten East seems likely to do. For Northwestern, it lets them keep the most appealing games to them in the Western Division set up. And so on.

Obviously those lines for the Buckeyes and That School Up North involve the foundation rivalry, a rivalry that may be more highly prized by the opponent, an old historical rivalry that is more nostalgia value than anything else and a sacrifice to Big Ten marketing on the east cost ... but with a guarantee to play every traditional Big Ten school twice every four years, its still an upgrade on the current East Division.

The b10 would be the best served conference if there was a no divisions setup. they have had the largest emphasis on true round robin scheduling over the years and would prefer to keep that.

plus there is no b10 team that has a 4th major in conference rival, in fact only a few b10 teams even have 3.

(05-11-2014 09:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  The b10 would be the best served conference if there was a no divisions setup. they have had the largest emphasis on true round robin scheduling over the years and would prefer to keep that.

plus there is no b10 team that has a 4th major in conference rival, in fact only a few b10 teams even have 3.

The main thing to me is being able to play actual Big Ten schools on regular basis.

Since the Big Ten is going to nine conference games anyway, though, there's no reason not to go beyond the big rivalry games and accommodate "like to have" games as well. As far as I can tell, four fixed games is plenty to accommodate not only every real strong rivalry but also all the dusty old historic rivalries as well as the "if we get to pick, we'd rather play" games as well.

And if there are some political logrolls that can make sure that pretty much every school is better off under the single round robin system and will vote for it over the division system already in place, then them too.