http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-baskbl/sp...17aab.html

Starting in 2018-19, Big Ten men's basketball will go to 20 confetence games.

Only 3 protected rivals. Mich-MSU, Indy-Pur, ILL-NW

The three in-state rivalries – Illinois/Northwestern, Indiana/Purdue and Michigan/Michigan State – will be played twice annually, while the new schedule will also include a regional component to increase the frequency of games among teams in similar areas. Over the course of a six-year cycle (12 playing opportunities), in-state rivals will play each other 12 times, regional opponents will play 10 times, and all other teams will play nine times.

I'm torn on this. Yes I agree that the B1G should go to 20 conference games and I understand completely the protected in-state rivalries. Not sure about the overall "regional component." This will help some/most in the conference with strength of schedule, BUT for UMD this means more games vs Penn St and Rutgers in a sport that will do nothing but hurt our S.O.S. most seasons.

It makes me laugh when the B1G thinks they'll drum up more interest by playing more conference games.

It will have the exact opposite effect. Fan will be even more bored than what they were before with the same old conference names.

Marquee non-conference games energize the base. Important games of the week on national TV and relevant to the Top 25 polls.

(10-21-2017 12:22 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It makes me laugh when the B1G thinks they'll drum up more interest by playing more conference games.

It will have the exact opposite effect. Fan will be even more bored than what they were before with the same old conference names.

Marquee non-conference games energize the base. Important games of the week on national TV and relevant to the Top 25 polls.

It's real simple. They keep more of the revenue by increasing conference games and more importantly it gives them more T3 property to air on the BTN.

That's pretty much the end of the story.

Their price for doing this is that they will have to split those losses among conference teams and that will probably bite those who might have been on the bubble with a few more cupcakes.

But they likely decided to do this when they signed their last contracts.

But if it chaffs you that they might play fewer G5 games then that's another matter. Don't blame the Big 10, blame the networks. The want more games on the tube between schools with larger alumni backing.

(10-20-2017 02:06 PM)Terp_stuck_in_NC Wrote:  I'm torn on this. Yes I agree that the B1G should go to 20 conference games and I understand completely the protected in-state rivalries. Not sure about the overall "regional component." This will help some/most in the conference with strength of schedule, BUT for UMD this means more games vs Penn St and Rutgers in a sport that will do nothing but hurt our S.O.S. most seasons.

While this does seem to stink for the Terps I think this is a good thing over all. I think it's completely stupid for Mich-MSU, Indy-Pur, ILL-NW not to be playing a H/H every year. It is also reasonable to play "regional" teams more. It seems pretty obvious we'll play Rutgers & Penn State more but we might get Ohio State a little more also. I think they'll improve and that should be a fun game. I think most Terps fans would like to play Michigan State more but it doesn't seem likely to happen. So to conclude, it is about actions and consequences. We like playing "regional" teams more for football but not basketball. But for the good of everyone in the conference, this is something the Big Ten should do even if it may not be in be in the best interest of our team. I'd also like to wait and see what exactly comes out for the "regional component". It could be better than expected.

(10-21-2017 01:25 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 12:22 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  It makes me laugh when the B1G thinks they'll drum up more interest by playing more conference games.

It will have the exact opposite effect. Fan will be even more bored than what they were before with the same old conference names.

Marquee non-conference games energize the base. Important games of the week on national TV and relevant to the Top 25 polls.

It's real simple. They keep more of the revenue by increasing conference games and more importantly it gives them more T3 property to air on the BTN.

That's pretty much the end of the story.

Their price for doing this is that they will have to split those losses among conference teams and that will probably bite those who might have been on the bubble with a few more cupcakes.

But they likely decided to do this when they signed their last contracts.

But if it chaffs you that they might play fewer G5 games then that's another matter. Don't blame the Big 10, blame the networks. The want more games on the tube between schools with larger alumni backing.

While I'm not saying your wrong, but wouldn't the two home games against random weak RPI teams that these extra conference games will replace also be tier 3 content for the BTN, just higher quality than the blood baths that those games usually are?

I think that within the Big Ten there was some real outcry that 14 teams in basketball really diluted the frequency of some traditional match ups and more conference games was a way to rectify it while also making a few extra bucks in the process.

I'm interested to see how this will effect bubble teams. Do they get a boost in SOS and RPI and have better odds of getting in or will overall record kill their chances to dance?

This is why I remain bullish (even cheering for Randy) on UConn's goal for a Big Ten invite.

What does this press release mean by "regional opponents"? Are the "regions" the two football divisions?