Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Nerdlinger · 07-20-2019 07:50 PM

(07-20-2019 07:48 PM)goofus Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:09 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 06:33 PM)goofus Wrote: With 5 protected crossovers, the goal should be everybody gets 2 or 3 traditional powers but it does not always work out. How about this?

Proposed 5 protected crossovers:

Neb - Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, PSU
Iowa - Neb, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL
Minn - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, Indy
Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minn, NW, MSU

NW - ILL, Pur, Neb, Iowa, Wisc
ILL - NW, Pur, Indy, Iowa, OSU
Pur - Indy, NW, ILL, Mich, Rut
Indy - Pur, ILL, MSU, Minn, MD

MSU - Mich, PSU, Indy, Wisc, MD
Mich - OSU, MSU, Minn, Pur, Rut
OSU - Mich, PSU, Rut, MD, ILL

PSU - OSU, MSU, MD, Rut, Neb
MD - PSU, Rut, OSU, MSU, Indy
Rut - PSU, MD, OSU, Mich, Pur

Rutgers and Maryland have tougher schedules than OSU and Michigan. Given that you have the whole conference to play with, a set of 3-5 protected opponents can be arranged such that each's team schedule is closer in strength to that of the team itself.

As posted earlier, here's my divisionless setup for the Big Ten, from this thread, which anyone is more than welcome to reply to:

(08-18-2017 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Big Ten

Code:

ILLINOIS Northwestern Purdue Rutgers | Indiana | Minnesota INDIANA Purdue Rutgers Northwestern | Illinois | Maryland IOWA Nebraska Wisconsin Minnesota | Ohio State | Michigan MARYLAND Rutgers Penn State Purdue | Minnesota | Indiana MICHIGAN Michigan State Ohio State Penn State | Wisconsin | Iowa MICHIGAN STATE Michigan Northwestern Ohio State | Nebraska | Penn State MINNESOTA Wisconsin Nebraska Iowa | Maryland | Illinois NEBRASKA Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin | Michigan State | Northwestern NORTHWESTERN Illinois Michigan State Indiana | Purdue | Nebraska OHIO STATE Penn State Michigan Michigan State | Iowa | Wisconsin PENN STATE Ohio State Maryland Michigan | Rutgers | Michigan State PURDUE Indiana Illinois Maryland | Northwestern | Rutgers RUTGERS Maryland Indiana Illinois | Penn State | Purdue WISCONSIN Minnesota Iowa Nebraska | Michigan | Ohio State

Sorry, I can't read whatever you embedded into your post. It just looks like jibberish to me. But I guess the point is that we both believe it is feasible to pick 5 protected crossovers for each team. Personally I would prefer this type of schedule over a divisional setup.

Sorry, it's spaced out in table form -- I realize this site doesn't render that well when reading it on mobile. Here's list form:

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

IWokeUpLikeThis · 07-20-2019 07:56 PM

(07-20-2019 07:48 PM)goofus Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:09 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 06:33 PM)goofus Wrote: With 5 protected crossovers, the goal should be everybody gets 2 or 3 traditional powers but it does not always work out. How about this?

Proposed 5 protected crossovers:

Neb - Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, PSU
Iowa - Neb, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL
Minn - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, Indy
Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minn, NW, MSU

NW - ILL, Pur, Neb, Iowa, Wisc
ILL - NW, Pur, Indy, Iowa, OSU
Pur - Indy, NW, ILL, Mich, Rut
Indy - Pur, ILL, MSU, Minn, MD

MSU - Mich, PSU, Indy, Wisc, MD
Mich - OSU, MSU, Minn, Pur, Rut
OSU - Mich, PSU, Rut, MD, ILL

PSU - OSU, MSU, MD, Rut, Neb
MD - PSU, Rut, OSU, MSU, Indy
Rut - PSU, MD, OSU, Mich, Pur

Rutgers and Maryland have tougher schedules than OSU and Michigan. Given that you have the whole conference to play with, a set of 3-5 protected opponents can be arranged such that each's team schedule is closer in strength to that of the team itself.

As posted earlier, here's my divisionless setup for the Big Ten, from this thread, which anyone is more than welcome to reply to:

(08-18-2017 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Big Ten

Code:

ILLINOIS Northwestern Purdue Rutgers | Indiana | Minnesota INDIANA Purdue Rutgers Northwestern | Illinois | Maryland IOWA Nebraska Wisconsin Minnesota | Ohio State | Michigan MARYLAND Rutgers Penn State Purdue | Minnesota | Indiana MICHIGAN Michigan State Ohio State Penn State | Wisconsin | Iowa MICHIGAN STATE Michigan Northwestern Ohio State | Nebraska | Penn State MINNESOTA Wisconsin Nebraska Iowa | Maryland | Illinois NEBRASKA Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin | Michigan State | Northwestern NORTHWESTERN Illinois Michigan State Indiana | Purdue | Nebraska OHIO STATE Penn State Michigan Michigan State | Iowa | Wisconsin PENN STATE Ohio State Maryland Michigan | Rutgers | Michigan State PURDUE Indiana Illinois Maryland | Northwestern | Rutgers RUTGERS Maryland Indiana Illinois | Penn State | Purdue WISCONSIN Minnesota Iowa Nebraska | Michigan | Ohio State

Sorry, I can't read whatever you embedded into your post. It just looks like jibberish to me. But I guess the point is that we both believe it is feasible to pick 5 protected crossovers for each team. Personally I would prefer this type of schedule over a divisional setup.

Is he copy/pasting from one of the documents at the B1G’s office in Rosemont so all the formatting’s messed up?

Nerdlinger · 07-20-2019 07:59 PM

(07-20-2019 07:56 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:48 PM)goofus Wrote: Sorry, I can't read whatever you embedded into your post. It just looks like jibberish to me. But I guess the point is that we both believe it is feasible to pick 5 protected crossovers for each team. Personally I would prefer this type of schedule over a divisional setup.

Is he copy/pasting from one of the documents at the B1G’s office in Rosemont so all the formatting’s messed up?

Hmm, if I were a Big Ten insider, I wouldn't be motivated to reveal their plans for a divisionless schedule prematurely. However, if I were a spy.... How dare you accuse me of espionage.... 03-wink

goofus · 07-20-2019 10:26 PM

(07-20-2019 07:50 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:48 PM)goofus Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:09 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 06:33 PM)goofus Wrote: With 5 protected crossovers, the goal should be everybody gets 2 or 3 traditional powers but it does not always work out. How about this?

Proposed 5 protected crossovers:

Neb - Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, PSU
Iowa - Neb, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL
Minn - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, Indy
Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minn, NW, MSU

NW - ILL, Pur, Neb, Iowa, Wisc
ILL - NW, Pur, Indy, Iowa, OSU
Pur - Indy, NW, ILL, Mich, Rut
Indy - Pur, ILL, MSU, Minn, MD

MSU - Mich, PSU, Indy, Wisc, MD
Mich - OSU, MSU, Minn, Pur, Rut
OSU - Mich, PSU, Rut, MD, ILL

PSU - OSU, MSU, MD, Rut, Neb
MD - PSU, Rut, OSU, MSU, Indy
Rut - PSU, MD, OSU, Mich, Pur

Rutgers and Maryland have tougher schedules than OSU and Michigan. Given that you have the whole conference to play with, a set of 3-5 protected opponents can be arranged such that each's team schedule is closer in strength to that of the team itself.

As posted earlier, here's my divisionless setup for the Big Ten, from this thread, which anyone is more than welcome to reply to:

(08-18-2017 09:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Big Ten

Code:

ILLINOIS Northwestern Purdue Rutgers | Indiana | Minnesota INDIANA Purdue Rutgers Northwestern | Illinois | Maryland IOWA Nebraska Wisconsin Minnesota | Ohio State | Michigan MARYLAND Rutgers Penn State Purdue | Minnesota | Indiana MICHIGAN Michigan State Ohio State Penn State | Wisconsin | Iowa MICHIGAN STATE Michigan Northwestern Ohio State | Nebraska | Penn State MINNESOTA Wisconsin Nebraska Iowa | Maryland | Illinois NEBRASKA Iowa Minnesota Wisconsin | Michigan State | Northwestern NORTHWESTERN Illinois Michigan State Indiana | Purdue | Nebraska OHIO STATE Penn State Michigan Michigan State | Iowa | Wisconsin PENN STATE Ohio State Maryland Michigan | Rutgers | Michigan State PURDUE Indiana Illinois Maryland | Northwestern | Rutgers RUTGERS Maryland Indiana Illinois | Penn State | Purdue WISCONSIN Minnesota Iowa Nebraska | Michigan | Ohio State

Sorry, I can't read whatever you embedded into your post. It just looks like jibberish to me. But I guess the point is that we both believe it is feasible to pick 5 protected crossovers for each team. Personally I would prefer this type of schedule over a divisional setup.

Sorry, it's spaced out in table form -- I realize this site doesn't render that well when reading it on mobile. Here's list form:

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

Some thoughts
Illinois should play at least 1 traditional power. Since they have a trophy game with OSU, you might as well make OSU one of its protected crossovers

Indiana should play somebody who is traditionally decent, and since they have a trophy game with MSU, you might as well make MSU one of Indiana's protected crossovers.

Iowa would like to play Mich and OSU more often but not every year. It would work better to play Mich and OSU in alternating years. Also Iowa has accepted that NW wants to play Iowa every year, regardless of whether Iowa considers NW a rival or not.

Minnesota has a trophy game with Michigan and technically they share a border, so it probably makes sense to make Michigan one of Minny's protected rivals.

Michigan would want to play OSU and MSU every year, but I am not sure they would want to also play PSU and Wiscy every year. Plus I think Mich has more alumni from out east than other schools, so it might make more sense to make Rutgers one of Mich's protected crossovers.

I am guessing Nebraska would want to play PSU every year because they have a history from before they were in the Big Ten.

Finally I am guessing NW would want to play Iowa every year. If you ask Pat Fitzgerald who he hates most, its Iowa. It goes back to the Hayden Fry days when Iowa would routinely blow out NW. Then when Gary Barnett turned NW around, his #1 goal was to beat Iowa. When NW finally did beat Iowa and went to the Rose Bowl in 1995, Pat Fitzgerald was the starting LB and MVP on the team, but missed playing in the Rose Bowl, because he broke his leg against Iowa. Pat Fitzgerald hates Iowa. For a long time Iowa fans did not understand it, but they accept it now.

https://www.insidenu.com/2018/11/7/18070...ry-barnett

Nerdlinger · 07-20-2019 11:21 PM

(07-20-2019 10:26 PM)goofus Wrote: Some thoughts
Illinois should play at least 1 traditional power. Since they have a trophy game with OSU, you might as well make OSU one of its protected crossovers

Indiana should play somebody who is traditionally decent, and since they have a trophy game with MSU, you might as well make MSU one of Indiana's protected crossovers.

Iowa would like to play Mich and OSU more often but not every year. It would work better to play Mich and OSU in alternating years. Also Iowa has accepted that NW wants to play Iowa every year, regardless of whether Iowa considers NW a rival or not.

Minnesota has a trophy game with Michigan and technically they share a border, so it probably makes sense to make Michigan one of Minny's protected rivals.

Michigan would want to play OSU and MSU every year, but I am not sure they would want to also play PSU and Wiscy every year. Plus I think Mich has more alumni from out east than other schools, so it might make more sense to make Rutgers one of Mich's protected crossovers.

I am guessing Nebraska would want to play PSU every year because they have a history from before they were in the Big Ten.

Finally I am guessing NW would want to play Iowa every year. If you ask Pat Fitzgerald who he hates most, its Iowa. It goes back to the Hayden Fry days when Iowa would routinely blow out NW. Then when Gary Barnett turned NW around, his #1 goal was to beat Iowa. When NW finally did beat Iowa and went to the Rose Bowl in 1995, Pat Fitzgerald was the starting LB and MVP on the team, but missed playing in the Rose Bowl, because he broke his leg against Iowa. Pat Fitzgerald hates Iowa. For a long time Iowa fans did not understand it, but they accept it now.

https://www.insidenu.com/2018/11/7/18070...ry-barnett

OK, I made a few changes, though after giving Michigan a cupcake like Minnesota, I couldn't give them another in Rutgers. So I kept Iowa and Wisconsin as opponents of Michigan. I did break up the Michigan/PSU game in favor of Nebraska/PSU, as suggested.

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

Mav · 07-20-2019 11:48 PM

Boy oh boy, can't wait to see Ohio State play Michigan on back-to-back weekends every other year. 07-coffee3

I guess I'll throw my hat in the crossover ring.

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

I wanted to try to keep Ohio State and Michigan playing the same protected opponents to a minimum. It's very hard to schedule around Maryland and Rutgers, though, since they have no real connections to the conference apart from themselves and Penn State.

Nerdlinger · 07-20-2019 11:54 PM

(07-20-2019 11:48 PM)Mav Wrote: Boy oh boy, can't wait to see Ohio State play Michigan on back-to-back weekends every other year.

I guess I'll throw my hat in the crossover ring.

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

I wanted to try to keep Ohio State and Michigan playing the same protected opponents to a minimum. It's very hard to schedule around Maryland and Rutgers, though, since they have no real connections to the conference apart from themselves and Penn State.

Agreed about the difficulty of scheduling Rutgers and Maryland. However, here, as in Goofus's setup, OSU and Michigan have easier schedules than Rutgers does. To me, that doesn't really seem fair to any of them.

solohawks · 07-21-2019 12:19 AM

Here is how i would do the ACC.
3 permanent with 5 rotating. This would give everyone every team at least every other year. You could also do 4 permanent 4 rotating and that would allow for 12 out of 13 every other year. 4th team in Parentheses below

Miami - FSU, Clemson, Va Tech, (Ga Tech)
FSU - Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson (Louisville)
Ga Tech - Clemson, FSU, UVA, (Miami)
Clemson - Ga Tech, Miami, FSU, (NC State)
Wake - NC State, Va Tech, Duke, (UNC)
Duke - UNC, NC State, Wake, (Syracuse)
UNC - Duke, UVA, NC State (Wake)
NC State - Wake, Duke, UNC, (Clemson)
UVA - Va Tech, UNC, Ga Tech, (Pitt)
VA Tech - UVA, Wake, Miami, (BC)
Pitt - Louisvile, Syracuse, BC, (UVA)
Louisville - Pitt, BC, Syracuse, (FSU)
Syracuse - BC, Pitt, Lousiville, (Duke)
BC - Syracuse, Lousville, Pitt, (Va Tech)

BruceMcF · 07-21-2019 02:47 AM

(07-20-2019 11:48 PM)Mav Wrote: I wanted to try to keep Ohio State and Michigan playing the same protected opponents to a minimum. It's very hard to schedule around Maryland and Rutgers, though, since they have no real connections to the conference apart from themselves and Penn State.

The Big Ten plays 9 conference games, so 13 opponents, 5 protected opponents leaves 4 games against 8 unlocked opponents, to H/H two years, two year skip, which is very much like the "Big 11" scheduling back in the 80s.

EVERYONE will want either OSU or That School Up North or both, and several have long time series and historical, at-one-time hot rivalry contests to back up their claims. But on the other hand, OSU will want Rutgers and That School Up North will want Maryland, for their east coast alumni (where there is tilt of Buckeye alumni toward New York and a modest tile of Wolverine alumni toward DC).

So I would start with:

OSU: TSUN, Rutgers, ...
TSUN: OSU, MD, ...

and build from there.

The Western schools play each other plus two more.
Whiskey: MN, Iowa, Nebraska, ...
MN: Whiskey, Iowa, Nebraska, ...
Iowa: Whiskey, MN, Nebraska, ...
Nebraska: MN, Iowa, Whiskey, ...

Penn State will want OSU, Rutgers and Maryland, and MSU will demand TSUN, who will reciprocate. NW will insist on Illinois and visa versa. Indiana and Purdue.

Penn State: OSU, Rutgers, Maryland, ..., ...
OSU: TSUN, Rutgers, PSU, ..., ...
TSUN: OSU, MD, MSU, ..., ...
MSU: TSUN, ..., ..., ..., ...
Rutgers: OSU, PSU, ..., ..., ...
MD: TSUN, PSU, ..., ..., ..., ...
Illini: NWU, ..., ..., ..., ..., ...
NWU: Illini, ..., ..., ..., ...
Indiana: Purdue, ..., ..., ..., ...
Purdue: Indiana, ..., ..., ..., ...
Whiskey: MN, Iowa, Nebraska, ..., ...
MN: Whiskey, Iowa, Nebraska, ..., ...
Iowa: Whiskey, MN, Nebraska, ..., ...
Nebraska: MN, Iowa, Whiskey, ..., ...

The Illini will call Illibuck on OSU, Indiana will call the longest running series in the Big Ten on OSU, and etc., but those are more ambit claims ... partly because OSU is not likely to reciprocate.

Adjust the balance as you wish, but that is at least part of the backbone of a five locked school layout.

Mav · 07-21-2019 08:04 AM

(07-20-2019 11:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:48 PM)Mav Wrote: Boy oh boy, can't wait to see Ohio State play Michigan on back-to-back weekends every other year.

I guess I'll throw my hat in the crossover ring.

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

I wanted to try to keep Ohio State and Michigan playing the same protected opponents to a minimum. It's very hard to schedule around Maryland and Rutgers, though, since they have no real connections to the conference apart from themselves and Penn State.

Agreed about the difficulty of scheduling Rutgers and Maryland. However, here, as in Goofus's setup, OSU and Michigan have easier schedules than Rutgers does. To me, that doesn't really seem fair to any of them.

Well, you can't exactly get Ohio State or Rutgers to play themselves to even out the schedule. I guess you can swap them and Maryland's games with the Northwoods schools there, but Minnesota's been recruiting awfully well, so I can see them being a better team than Wisconsin soon.

IWokeUpLikeThis · 07-21-2019 08:13 AM

(07-21-2019 02:47 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:48 PM)Mav Wrote: I wanted to try to keep Ohio State and Michigan playing the same protected opponents to a minimum. It's very hard to schedule around Maryland and Rutgers, though, since they have no real connections to the conference apart from themselves and Penn State.

The Big Ten plays 9 conference games, so 13 opponents, 5 protected opponents leaves 4 games against 8 unlocked opponents, to H/H two years, two year skip, which is very much like the "Big 11" scheduling back in the 80s.

EVERYONE will want either OSU or That School Up North or both, and several have long time series and historical, at-one-time hot rivalry contests to back up their claims. But on the other hand, OSU will want Rutgers and That School Up North will want Maryland, for their east coast alumni (where there is tilt of Buckeye alumni toward New York and a modest tile of Wolverine alumni toward DC).

So I would start with:

OSU: TSUN, Rutgers, ...
TSUN: OSU, MD, ...

and build from there.

The Western schools play each other plus two more.
Whiskey: MN, Iowa, Nebraska, ...
MN: Whiskey, Iowa, Nebraska, ...
Iowa: Whiskey, MN, Nebraska, ...
Nebraska: MN, Iowa, Whiskey, ...

Penn State will want OSU, Rutgers and Maryland, and MSU will demand TSUN, who will reciprocate. NW will insist on Illinois and visa versa. Indiana and Purdue.

Penn State: OSU, Rutgers, Maryland, ..., ...
OSU: TSUN, Rutgers, PSU, ..., ...
TSUN: OSU, MD, MSU, ..., ...
MSU: TSUN, ..., ..., ..., ...
Rutgers: OSU, PSU, ..., ..., ...
MD: TSUN, PSU, ..., ..., ..., ...
Illini: NWU, ..., ..., ..., ..., ...
NWU: Illini, ..., ..., ..., ...
Indiana: Purdue, ..., ..., ..., ...
Purdue: Indiana, ..., ..., ..., ...
Whiskey: MN, Iowa, Nebraska, ..., ...
MN: Whiskey, Iowa, Nebraska, ..., ...
Iowa: Whiskey, MN, Nebraska, ..., ...
Nebraska: MN, Iowa, Whiskey, ..., ...

The Illini will call Illibuck on OSU, Indiana will call the longest running series in the Big Ten on OSU, and etc., but those are more ambit claims ... partly because OSU is not likely to reciprocate.

Adjust the balance as you wish, but that is at least part of the backbone of a five locked school layout.

David, you’ve misleagued Nebraska Wesleyan.

Nerdlinger · 07-21-2019 09:55 AM

(07-21-2019 02:47 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:48 PM)Mav Wrote: I wanted to try to keep Ohio State and Michigan playing the same protected opponents to a minimum. It's very hard to schedule around Maryland and Rutgers, though, since they have no real connections to the conference apart from themselves and Penn State.

The Big Ten plays 9 conference games, so 13 opponents, 5 protected opponents leaves 4 games against 8 unlocked opponents, to H/H two years, two year skip, which is very much like the "Big 11" scheduling back in the 80s.

EVERYONE will want either OSU or That School Up North or both, and several have long time series and historical, at-one-time hot rivalry contests to back up their claims. But on the other hand, OSU will want Rutgers and That School Up North will want Maryland, for their east coast alumni (where there is tilt of Buckeye alumni toward New York and a modest tile of Wolverine alumni toward DC).

So I would start with:

OSU: TSUN, Rutgers, ...
TSUN: OSU, MD, ...

and build from there.

The Western schools play each other plus two more.
Whiskey: MN, Iowa, Nebraska, ...
MN: Whiskey, Iowa, Nebraska, ...
Iowa: Whiskey, MN, Nebraska, ...
Nebraska: MN, Iowa, Whiskey, ...

Penn State will want OSU, Rutgers and Maryland, and MSU will demand TSUN, who will reciprocate. NW will insist on Illinois and visa versa. Indiana and Purdue.

Penn State: OSU, Rutgers, Maryland, ..., ...
OSU: TSUN, Rutgers, PSU, ..., ...
TSUN: OSU, MD, MSU, ..., ...
MSU: TSUN, ..., ..., ..., ...
Rutgers: OSU, PSU, ..., ..., ...
MD: TSUN, PSU, ..., ..., ..., ...
Illini: NWU, ..., ..., ..., ..., ...
NWU: Illini, ..., ..., ..., ...
Indiana: Purdue, ..., ..., ..., ...
Purdue: Indiana, ..., ..., ..., ...
Whiskey: MN, Iowa, Nebraska, ..., ...
MN: Whiskey, Iowa, Nebraska, ..., ...
Iowa: Whiskey, MN, Nebraska, ..., ...
Nebraska: MN, Iowa, Whiskey, ..., ...

The Illini will call Illibuck on OSU, Indiana will call the longest running series in the Big Ten on OSU, and etc., but those are more ambit claims ... partly because OSU is not likely to reciprocate.

Adjust the balance as you wish, but that is at least part of the backbone of a five locked school layout.

Tweaked my last setup to replace OSU/Illinois with OSU/Rutgers and Michigan/Minnesota with Michigan/Maryland. OSU/Illinois and Michigan/Minnesota have trophies, but currently neither are protected crossovers, so their rivalries can't really be all that important. Also made some further changes for parity purposes.

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

goofus · 07-21-2019 10:47 AM

(07-21-2019 08:04 AM)Mav Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Agreed about the difficulty of scheduling Rutgers and Maryland. However, here, as in Goofus's setup, OSU and Michigan have easier schedules than Rutgers does. To me, that doesn't really seem fair to any of them.
Well, you can't exactly get Ohio State or Rutgers to play themselves to even out the schedule. I guess you can swap them and Maryland's games with the Northwoods schools there, but Minnesota's been recruiting awfully well, so I can see them being a better team than Wisconsin soon.

I agree, If you try to set up balanced schedules, Rutgers ends up with the hardest schedule because Rutgers does not get to play Rutgers. Just like in a Round Robin setup like the Big 12, Kansas will have the hardest schedule.

Also keep in mind, with this schedule you still play everybody at least 50% of the time. So even if Mich does not have PSU and Wiscy as protected rivals, they will still play them in alternating years.

ColumbusCard · 07-21-2019 11:08 AM

(07-19-2019 09:06 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: So lets say every team has three protected games every year.

The western teams are easy.

Purdue, Illinois, NW and Indiana
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska

In the eastern part it's a little bit different.

Rutgers - UMD, PSU and OSU

PSU - UMD, Rutgers and MSU

Maryland - Rutgers, PSU and Michigan

OSU - Michigan, MSU and Rutgers

Michigan - OSU, MSU and Maryland

MSU - OSU, Michigan and PSU

Rutgers isnt going to be OSU's protected game. It would be MSU, Michigan, and Penn State.

Penn State and OSU have played every year since the B10 expanded to 11, that is going to change so that OSU can hang 50 on a 4 win team every year

Nerdlinger · 07-21-2019 11:37 AM

(07-21-2019 10:47 AM)goofus Wrote:
(07-21-2019 08:04 AM)Mav Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Agreed about the difficulty of scheduling Rutgers and Maryland. However, here, as in Goofus's setup, OSU and Michigan have easier schedules than Rutgers does. To me, that doesn't really seem fair to any of them.
Well, you can't exactly get Ohio State or Rutgers to play themselves to even out the schedule. I guess you can swap them and Maryland's games with the Northwoods schools there, but Minnesota's been recruiting awfully well, so I can see them being a better team than Wisconsin soon.

I agree, If you try to set up balanced schedules, Rutgers ends up with the hardest schedule because Rutgers does not get to play Rutgers. Just like in a Round Robin setup like the Big 12, Kansas will have the hardest schedule.

Also keep in mind, with this schedule you still play everybody at least 50% of the time. So even if Mich does not have PSU and Wiscy as protected rivals, they will stay play them in alternating years.

No, because it's not a round robin and there are several more teams in the conference than there are protected opponents per team, you can engineer it such that weak teams like Rutgers have easier schedules than strong teams like OSU. I've already demonstrated that.

Your second point is good to reinforce, although I imagine they would alternate every two years rather than every year so there can be a home and away before switching off.

Wedge · 07-21-2019 12:58 PM

(07-20-2019 07:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:
(07-20-2019 04:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: see danger in opening up realignment moves of single team grabs -- OU to B1G for example

Never thought of that angle, but it's an interesting one. If a conference is concerned that it might get poached at some point, CCG deregulation eliminates the need for even numbers.

What if CCGs had been fully deregulated from the beginning, and no one was motivated by wanting or needing even numbers for a CCG?

Maybe the ACC, after its compromise addition of Miami and Virginia Tech, holds at 11 members and never adds Boston College. Maybe the Pac-10 adds only Colorado. Maybe the Big Ten doesn't add Nebraska, and just sticks with 11 teams until Maryland becomes available. Maybe the ACC doesn't replace Maryland. Maybe the SEC adds only Texas A&M and not Missouri.

Would the ACC be compelled to add Miami and VT in the first place though? Granted, it's a smart move, but the ACC is not smart. If they were, they'd have added WVU instead of BC.

Even numbers ease scheduling, so there's still merit in maintaining even numbers in the case of CCG deregulation.

The ACC was going to add Miami anyway at that point, and they ended up with VT because of state politics.

Assuming that move happens but no one else feels they "have to" have an even number just for the sake of having an even number...

When the Big Ten starts hitting on half the ACC, the ACC adds Syracuse for a little more security, but not Pittsburgh. When Maryland goes to the Big Ten, the ACC adds no one because they can't reach a consensus and aren't desperate to get to an even number.
Boston College, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Louisville are still in what is now the AAC. Thus several of the former CUSA teams now in the AAC would still be in CUSA.
Colorado joins the Pac, and Texas A&M joins the SEC, but Nebraska and Missouri stay in the Big 12, which has no need to add anyone else.
Because Utah is still in the MWC, BYU doesn't leave the MWC. TCU is still there as well. Boise State would still have joined.
For that matter, with BYU (as well as Utah and TCU) still in the MWC, the MWC doesn't raid the WAC (other than for Boise State). The WAC still has Hawai'i, Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, and Utah State. Idaho and NMSU are still there as well. The WAC never makes desperate grabs for Chicago State, UTRGV, or anyone from Division II.

goofus · 07-21-2019 02:05 PM

(07-21-2019 11:37 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-21-2019 10:47 AM)goofus Wrote:
(07-21-2019 08:04 AM)Mav Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Agreed about the difficulty of scheduling Rutgers and Maryland. However, here, as in Goofus's setup, OSU and Michigan have easier schedules than Rutgers does. To me, that doesn't really seem fair to any of them.
Well, you can't exactly get Ohio State or Rutgers to play themselves to even out the schedule. I guess you can swap them and Maryland's games with the Northwoods schools there, but Minnesota's been recruiting awfully well, so I can see them being a better team than Wisconsin soon.

I agree, If you try to set up balanced schedules, Rutgers ends up with the hardest schedule because Rutgers does not get to play Rutgers. Just like in a Round Robin setup like the Big 12, Kansas will have the hardest schedule.

Also keep in mind, with this schedule you still play everybody at least 50% of the time. So even if Mich does not have PSU and Wiscy as protected rivals, they will stay play them in alternating years.

No, because it's not a round robin and there are several more teams in the conference than there are protected opponents per team, you can engineer it such that weak teams like Rutgers have easier schedules than strong teams like OSU. I've already demonstrated that.

Your second point is good to reinforce, although I imagine they would alternate every two years rather than every year so there can be a home and away before switching off.

Maybe, but the Big Ten is currently doing a 6 year rotation where 2 of the cross-divisions teams they play actually change every year so that you play everybody in 3 years. Then they play the same rotation the following 3 years with the home teams reversed.

So it's hard to say what they would do with a 4 year rotation. They could alternate it so that everybody plays everybody once every two years, and then reverse the home teams the following two years. or they could have 2 teams play twice in 2 years and then not play at all the following 2 years. It is not certain what they would do.

Nerdlinger · 07-21-2019 02:35 PM

(07-21-2019 02:05 PM)goofus Wrote:
(07-21-2019 11:37 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-21-2019 10:47 AM)goofus Wrote:
(07-21-2019 08:04 AM)Mav Wrote:
(07-20-2019 11:54 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: Agreed about the difficulty of scheduling Rutgers and Maryland. However, here, as in Goofus's setup, OSU and Michigan have easier schedules than Rutgers does. To me, that doesn't really seem fair to any of them.
Well, you can't exactly get Ohio State or Rutgers to play themselves to even out the schedule. I guess you can swap them and Maryland's games with the Northwoods schools there, but Minnesota's been recruiting awfully well, so I can see them being a better team than Wisconsin soon.

I agree, If you try to set up balanced schedules, Rutgers ends up with the hardest schedule because Rutgers does not get to play Rutgers. Just like in a Round Robin setup like the Big 12, Kansas will have the hardest schedule.

Also keep in mind, with this schedule you still play everybody at least 50% of the time. So even if Mich does not have PSU and Wiscy as protected rivals, they will stay play them in alternating years.

No, because it's not a round robin and there are several more teams in the conference than there are protected opponents per team, you can engineer it such that weak teams like Rutgers have easier schedules than strong teams like OSU. I've already demonstrated that.

Your second point is good to reinforce, although I imagine they would alternate every two years rather than every year so there can be a home and away before switching off.

Maybe, but the Big Ten is currently doing a 6 year rotation where 2 of the cross-divisions teams they play actually change every year so that you play everybody in 3 years. Then they play the same rotation the following 3 years with the home teams reversed.

So it's hard to say what they would do with a 4 year rotation. They could alternate it so that everybody plays everybody once every two years, and then reverse the home teams the following two years. or they could have 2 teams play twice in 2 years and then not play at all the following 2 years. It is not certain what they would do.

True enough. I'd actually prefer alternating every year. More variety.

**Fighting Muskie** · 07-21-2019 03:06 PM

If the 14 member leagues go divisionless, it would make the most sense to protect 3 rivalries so that each school would play the other 10 at a minimum of every other year.

Nerdlinger · 07-21-2019 03:40 PM

(07-21-2019 12:58 PM)Wedge Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:10 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:
(07-20-2019 07:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:
(07-20-2019 04:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: see danger in opening up realignment moves of single team grabs -- OU to B1G for example

Never thought of that angle, but it's an interesting one. If a conference is concerned that it might get poached at some point, CCG deregulation eliminates the need for even numbers.

What if CCGs had been fully deregulated from the beginning, and no one was motivated by wanting or needing even numbers for a CCG?

Maybe the ACC, after its compromise addition of Miami and Virginia Tech, holds at 11 members and never adds Boston College. Maybe the Pac-10 adds only Colorado. Maybe the Big Ten doesn't add Nebraska, and just sticks with 11 teams until Maryland becomes available. Maybe the ACC doesn't replace Maryland. Maybe the SEC adds only Texas A&M and not Missouri.

Would the ACC be compelled to add Miami and VT in the first place though? Granted, it's a smart move, but the ACC is not smart. If they were, they'd have added WVU instead of BC.

Even numbers ease scheduling, so there's still merit in maintaining even numbers in the case of CCG deregulation.

The ACC was going to add Miami anyway at that point, and they ended up with VT because of state politics.

Assuming that move happens but no one else feels they "have to" have an even number just for the sake of having an even number...

When the Big Ten starts hitting on half the ACC, the ACC adds Syracuse for a little more security, but not Pittsburgh. When Maryland goes to the Big Ten, the ACC adds no one because they can't reach a consensus and aren't desperate to get to an even number.
Boston College, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Louisville are still in what is now the AAC. Thus several of the former CUSA teams now in the AAC would still be in CUSA.
Colorado joins the Pac, and Texas A&M joins the SEC, but Nebraska and Missouri stay in the Big 12, which has no need to add anyone else.
Because Utah is still in the MWC, BYU doesn't leave the MWC. TCU is still there as well. Boise State would still have joined.
For that matter, with BYU (as well as Utah and TCU) still in the MWC, the MWC doesn't raid the WAC (other than for Boise State). The WAC still has Hawai'i, Fresno State, Nevada, San Jose State, and Utah State. Idaho and NMSU are still there as well. The WAC never makes desperate grabs for Chicago State, UTRGV, or anyone from Division II.

OK, so if CCGs were deregulated from the start, I still think the SEC would expand with Arkansas and South Carolina. A conference likely won't stay at an odd number for football if there are palatable adds (with mutual interest) to make it even. Penn State and FSU join the Big Ten and ACC, respectively, and Big East football forms up as in our timeline. With the breakup of the SWC, Baylor and Texas Tech probably still tag along to make the Big 12 due to state politics.

The first major difference from our timeline is likely the ACC sticking at 11, as you described. With Boston College still in the Big East, USF doesn't get a full membership invite. However, my guess is that the desire of the football schools to recruit Florida means USF gets a FB-only invite, bringing the Big East to 9 FB schools.

The Big Ten will still add Nebraska, since that was an add for content, not just to get to 12. Similarly, the Big Ten will add Rutgers and Maryland for markets/recruiting.

Colorado goes to the Pac, which I think would also add Utah when they find they can't draw anyone else from the Big 12. It's not ideal to stay at 11, and Utah was a perfectly suitable add. This means BYU does go indy.

The SEC might indeed stand pat at 13 when A&M joins. Missouri wasn't exactly an ideal add, just a #14. This leaves the Big 12 with 9 members, and they add TCU not merely to reach an even number but primarily to get another Texas school to replace A&M.

I agree with ACC's addition of Syracuse for security, but I think that Maryland would be replaced by Pitt. To not replace them could have been seen as a further sign of weakness.

ACC
Atlantic: Clemson, Florida State, Maryland/Pittsburgh, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia
Coastal: Georgia Tech, Miami, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Duke, Virginia Tech

The Big East makes USF a full member to maintain 8 full FB-playing members, and so Temple does not get invited back right away. Even with BC (and WVU) still in the Big East, I think the split of the FB and BB schools was going to happen anyway. Thus the AAC evolves like so:

2013
East: Boston College, Central Florida, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, South Florida
West: Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, SMU, West Virginia

2014
East: Boston College, Central Florida, Connecticut, South Florida, West Virginia
West: Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, SMU

2015
East: Boston College, Central Florida, Connecticut, South Florida, Temple, West Virginia
West: Cincinnati, Houston, Louisville, Memphis, Navy (FB only), SMU

Temple ends up being invited anyway to make an even number of FB members.

The P5 are the same as in our timeline, except the ACC is short BC and Louisville, while Missouri is still in the Big 12 instead of the SEC, leaving WVU out of luck in the AAC.

Threaded Mode \| Linear Mode No divisions soon?
Author	Message