(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

Yes, but at least there’s a few more constant variables with divisions. Then you can just use the CFB Playoff ranking which is generally accurate.

(01-27-2022 02:58 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

Yes, but at least there’s a few more constant variables with divisions. Then you can just use the CFB Playoff ranking which is generally accurate.

That is a BS way to break a tie. The team with the biggest brand just sways more voters who probably didn't watch the games between the tied teams anyway. Might as well just write it into the rules that Ohio State wins every 3-team tie in the Big Ten east, Alabama wins every 3-team tie in the SEC west, etc.

Any two team tie is settled with the head to head result, whether or not the conference uses divisions. A three team tie is, as I said above, likely to be messy and possibly unfair, whether or not the conference uses divisions.

Protected regional rivals make the most sense in the SEC and the B1G as well. However, OSU, MSU, PSU and UM are still likely to play each other every year so the imbalance will still be there. It’s a very top heavy conference whether or not you have divisions. However, since CCG could go away in an expanded playoff, maybe they do not fear an OSU UM rematch the following week, because that’s exactly what would have happened a good fraction of the past 30 years.

(01-27-2022 03:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 02:58 AM)AuzGrams Wrote:  

(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

Yes, but at least there’s a few more constant variables with divisions. Then you can just use the CFB Playoff ranking which is generally accurate.

That is a BS way to break a tie. The team with the biggest brand just sways more voters who probably didn't watch the games between the tied teams anyway. Might as well just write it into the rules that Ohio State wins every 3-team tie in the Big Ten east, Alabama wins every 3-team tie in the SEC west, etc.

Any two team tie is settled with the head to head result, whether or not the conference uses divisions. A three team tie is, as I said above, likely to be messy and possibly unfair, whether or not the conference uses divisions.

Has there ever been a 3 way tie situation under the CFB Playoff format? Unfortunately college football is full of a lot of BS.

1. Head-to-head record
2. Division record
3. Conference Point Differential (???) OR CFB Playoff ranking

If the Big Ten goes to 8 conference games, I could see it set up separate scheduling agreements with all P5 conferences and ND. Simething like this.

8 games a year against the ACC (includes annual PSU-Pitt game)
6 games against PAC
6 games against Big 12 (includes annual Iowa-ISU game)
6 games against SEC
2 games against ND

Total: 28 games a year. 2 games per team.

(01-26-2022 10:53 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 07:55 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

You guys are both wrong. They will have a championship game and still decide it on the field. If you think at the end of the regular season three teams could represent the conference, then you’re doing something wrong.

How are you going to decide it on the field when you have 4 schools go 7-2 in conference play and they didn’t all play each other?

Riddle me that because since the advent of CCGs and divisions there are a wealth of example of awkward end of season standings and now with conferences getting even bigger the chances of teams tying and not playing are even greater.

Like others have mentioned, it happens with divisions as well. Complain all you want, we’re finally headed to a divisionless college football. I’m all for it. Having divisions was a stupid rule to begin with.

I am in favor of scrapping divisions simply because of the flexibility in scheduling it creates. Plus it actually makes things more equal and predictable cause you play everybody at least 50% of time.

The way it is set up right now is Iowa will play Rutgers 6 years in a row from 2022-2027. Meanwhile it only plays OSU, Mich, PSU and MSU 2 times each in 6 years. Missing PSU is not such a big deal because Iowa just got done with a 6 year cycle playing PSU 6 years in a row, but I like the idea of playing them about 50% of the time.

In fact, in this divisionless format where you have 3 permanent rivals you play every year, I like the idea of playing everybody else 50% of the time, even Rutgers.

I will also concede that the Big Ten CCG should be between the 2 best teams in the conference. But if you are worried about teams never getting trophies, you could set up little divisions based on 3 permanent rivals, just in the end, who wins these divisions has nothing to do with who goes to the CCG.

WEST
Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc

Central
NW, ILL, Pur, Ind

East
Rut, MD, PSU, OSU, Mich, MSU

Sure, that's not exactly even and sure, the East will only play 4 out of the other 5 teams every year, but since it means nothing in the CCG race, that's not that big of deal. Its just a little trophy for local bragging rights.

(01-27-2022 02:22 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:44 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

Having divisions does nothing to eliminate the possibility of messy or even unfair tiebreakers. The Big 12 once had a 3-way division tie.

But having divisions cleans up most of the ties since in a 2-way tie for division champ you have a 100% guarantee of a H2H result to break the tie and in tie between 3 or more teams you also have round robin play among the tied teams as a starting point for breaking the tie.

I work in data and analytics. I’ve gone back and looked at every season since CCGs and divisional play began and about a third of the time the result is chaos when you take away the divisions and this problem will only increase now that we have 14 and 16 team conferences as opposed to 12.

I believe with the expanded playoffs, the tie-breakers to determine who goes to the CCG are less important for a conference like the Big Ten

To be honest, I will not have much sympathy for teams that finish 6-2 and lose a 3-way tiebreaker for 2nd place. Anybody with 2 losses had their chances. Just win all your games and you don't have to worry about the tie-breaker. Its like teams complaining about OT rules after having 60 minutes of regulation time to win the game.

Now I do care a little when 3 teams all finish 7-1 in a tie for first. There is no good way to break those ties. But as been pointed out, you can have the same problem with divisions. But with an expanded playoff to 12 teams, odds are good any Big Ten team with a 7-1 record will probably get into the a 12-team playoff, with the occasional exception, like when 2018 NW finished 8-1 in conference but 8-4 overall.

This is a proposal I did for 3 protected rivals, but expanded on it for 5 protected rivals (in parentheses) to ensure all rivalries (well except Minnesota-Penn St., I won't be that cruel to Minnesota) are included. Also tried to keep things as balanced with 5 protected rivalries (Purdue got off easy) as I could. It's not perfect, but I think it satisfies most teams. Both 3 and 5 protected rivals work in a 9 game conference schedule (play rivals annually, everyone else either 6 times in 10 years with 3 PRs or 6 times in 12 years with 5 PRs).

Illinois- Northwestern, Ohio St. Purdue (Wisconsin, Indiana)

Indiana- Purdue, Michigan St., Maryland (Ohio St., Illinois)

Iowa- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska (Ohio St., Purdue)

Maryland- Rutgers, Penn St., Indiana (Michigan, Nebraska)

Michigan- Michigan St., Northwestern, Ohio St. (Minnesota, Maryland)

Michigan State- Indiana, Michigan, Penn St. (Wisconsin, Rutgers)

Minnesota- Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin (Michigan, Northwestern)

Nebraska- Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin (Penn St., Maryland)

Northwestern- Illinois, Michigan, Rutgers (Purdue, Minnesota)

Ohio State- Michigan, Penn St., Illinois (Indiana, Iowa)

Penn State- Ohio St., Michigan St., Maryland (Nebraska, Rutgers)

Purdue- Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers (Northwestern, Iowa)

Rutgers- Maryland, Northwestern, Purdue (Michigan St., Penn St.)

Wisconsin- Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska (Illinois, Michigan St.)

For the SeC deregulation makes sense. Division less would work at 5-5, and in a pod model I would use the NFL system. You play everyone in your pod (3), plus one other pod (4), plus the two teams that finished in the same place as you last season. Or, if need be, one more protected rival and one team from another division that finished the same place as you (on a rotating basis, if that team is already your protected rival, you switch).

I think the Big 10 is best moving, say, Ohio St & Michigan St to the West. You could still have the rivalry games every year, just have it be the protected games. I don't understand the obsession w/ having rivals be in the same division as long as the game is played every year.

(01-27-2022 09:48 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I think the Big 10 is best moving, say, Ohio St & Michigan St to the West. You could still have the rivalry games every year, just have it be the protected games. I don't understand the obsession w/ having rivals be in the same division as long as the game is played every year.

The potential benefits of an 11-1 Michigan-Ohio State regular season loser getting the B1G a 2nd CFP bid, along with a 13-0 or 12-1 B1G champion Ohio State-Michigan regular season winner far outweigh the risk of having the loser of the rivalry weekend tilt, this year’s tOSU, turn around and defeat the rivalry weekend winner (UM this year) the following Saturday in the B1G CCG. I don’t see an 11-2 B1G Champ Ohio State getting in, even if they beat an 11-2 Michigan in the CCG the week after getting waxed in Ann Arbor, over a one loss Notre Dame, for example.

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

My guess...
(1) They will eventually decide that a no-division format is best for the 12-team playoff that 9 of the 10 FBS conferences are already willing to vote for.
(2) They will stick with 9 conference games. Any games with Pac-12 or ACC opponents will be marketed as such, but they won't require each Big Ten team to schedule a Pac-12 or ACC opponent in every season. Also: A few years ago, the Big Ten considered playing 10 conference games a year just because teams in their west division want more games against the big brands in the east. They will probably never play 10, but it seems very unlikely they'll have enough votes to drop from 9 to 8 for any reason whatsoever.

https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-dis...D4tO9pYmP/

Quote:The future College Football Playoff format could have a major impact on whether the Big Ten eliminates divisions or changes the number of its annual conference games, Iowa athletics director Gary Barta told The Athletic.

The Big Ten currently has East and West divisions and plays a nine-game conference schedule that includes three cross-divisional games. Big Ten administrators have discussed dropping to eight games beginning in 2023 so it can create matchups with teams from the Pac-12 and ACC conferences, with which the trio has a working arrangement called The Alliance.

There also are serious discussions about the Big Ten ending divisional play with schools playing three opponents annually and cycling through the other 10 teams either every other year or two years on, two years off.

"We've had several conversations," Barta said. "One of the things that we're watching is whether it's related to The Alliance, which we're talking through and/or, what gives us the best opportunity to have the most success in the College Football Playoff format?

"We’re wondering if we're going to know what the format is before we have to make that decision. So, we're kind of waiting to see where that lands. But we have had active conversations about the schedule beyond 2022."

If you are unsure why someone or some organization is doing something, odds are they are doing it to make (more) money. Television contracts are being renegotiated soon. This is all about maximizing that.

When the Big Ten moved to a 9-game schedule six years ago, it was because "We want to play the schools in our conference more, not less." ESPN/FOX loved having the extra Big Ten match up instead of the Big Ten vs. little school game.

The TV networks got:
Michigan and Wisconsin for six straight years.
Penn State and Iowa for six straight years.
Ohio State and Nebraska for six straight years.

FOX/ESPN loved this because it draws more eyeballs.

"To make scheduling fair over time," they set up this grand 36-year scheduling system. It was a BS way of getting the big brands from the East to play the big brands from the West more often. Thus, the "six-year protected crossover game" was created.

Now the first six year cycle is over, and the television networks will get Iowa-Rutgers and Northwestern-Penn State for the next six years. Wisconsin/Nebraska swap with Michigan/Ohio State to keep some marquee matchups, but after this six year cycle, you'll have 24 years of generally dud football cross overs. The networks won't like that, and thus, won't pay out for that.

So...we need to come up with a plan to make sure that the big brands can play more often, because that's where the money is. That amazing and competitively balanced 36-year schedule will be going away soon to make way for more attractive match ups. If this was about the playoffs and getting more Big Ten teams in, then they would keep this scheduling format as all the big name-brand schools will be missing each other most years. That likely leads to more of the top schools having better records at the end of the year.

Enter the ideas to allow us to scrape that scheduling format and start over. "Move to an 8-game schedule." "Play our beloved ACC and PAC-12 friends more often." "Scrap divisions." All of this allows the Big Ten to keep the networks happy and the money rolling in. It's not about the playoff and enhancing the chances for Big Ten teams to make the playoffs. It's about the TV contract.

I've learned this over the past 10 years of watching conference realignment. It's one of the many tools that conferences use to get the best TV deal. Adding the right schools helps the TV deal. Changing the scheduling format does this. Changing the division (or lack of division) structure does this. Coming up with this alliance to play other conferences more often does this. It's keeps fans interested and engaged.

Reasons we used 5-10 years ago for scheduling no longer apply today, and the reasons we use to create schedules today will not apply 5-10 years from now. Changing how scheduling is done every 5-10 years will be the new norm because that's what the TV networks want.

2014: "We want to play our conference members more often."
2022: "We want to play our conference members less so that we can play ACC/PAC12 schools."

Seems fairly straightforward:

Penn State - UMD, RU, OSU
Maryland - PSU, RU, MSU
Rutgers - PSU, UMD, UM

Ohio St. - UM, PSU, MSU
Michigan - OSU, MSU, RU
MSU - UM, UMD, OSU

Like others have mentioned Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, and Illinois make a nice round robin as does Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa.

Either Ohio State or Michigan State will get stuck with three heavyweights, but them's the breaks.

(01-26-2022 04:29 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

A 7-5 team winning a division is almost impossible, even more so with 9 conference games, because it would pretty much require a team that lost 3 non-conference games to win its division.

A 9-3 team winning a division and pulling off a CCG upset is very possible, though. And a no-division format only slightly reduces that possibility. In 2021, the SEC was the only P conference in which both CCG teams had only one loss, and the other 4 still would have had at least one team in the CCG with multiple losses even if all of them, and not just the Big 12, used a no-division.

The no-division format helps a CCG upset loser's chances of getting an at large playoff place, in that the loss isn't as bad on paper if they can only lose to the best or 2nd best team in the conference, as opposed to being knocked off by the winner of an inferior division. But even then there's no guarantee that the CCG loss won't knock them out.

Not playing a CCG is the only sure way to solidify your top team's place in a playoff, and to not hurt the playoff chances of a potential CCG loser. But apparently there's no conference willing to leave CCG money on the table to do that.

7-5 Wisconsin won the 2012 B1G Championship Game, with the top two teams in the division being ineligible
8-4 Northwestern lost in the 2018 B1G Championship Game, losing all three non-conference games. They were ranked #21 going into the game. Had they won, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Washington all would have been ranked higher, and would not have been the highest B1G team. Fresno State was #19 in the post-CCG poll.

Yeah, IMO these conferences do not want a big upset in the CCG to upend their playoff chances, and they are not likely to be swayed by arguments about probability. We've seen real-life examples already, IMO that is enough to scare them out of divisions. Plus, you want the boost of beating a good team to give your CCG winner an impressive last-win too. You can do both by ending divisions.

As for obscure tie-breakers, well, there's really no good way to ever break a tie. Even head to head isn't a good way, because it ignores the fact that the H2H winner had to have lost to someone else that the H2H loser didn't lose to. H2H does have the advantage of being an *accepted* way to break a tie, we all pretty much acknowledge it as reasonable, but that doesn't actually make it good.

And once you have a three-way tie, then H2H goes out the window. And that can happen in divisions as well as with no divisions.

(01-27-2022 10:49 AM)esayem Wrote:  Seems fairly straightforward:

Penn State - UMD, RU, OSU
Maryland - PSU, RU, MSU
Rutgers - PSU, UMD, UM

Ohio St. - UM, PSU, MSU
Michigan - OSU, MSU, RU
MSU - UM, UMD, OSU

Like others have mentioned Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, and Illinois make a nice round robin as does Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa.

Either Ohio State or Michigan State will get stuck with three heavyweights, but them's the breaks.

Honestly, if that's how the protected rivals ended up, I could accept that as an Ohio State fan. Maybe give Michigan a rivalry with Maryland and Michigan St. with Rutgers, but that's minor and obviously not a dealbreaker.

(01-27-2022 10:22 AM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

My guess...
(1) They will eventually decide that a no-division format is best for the 12-team playoff that 9 of the 10 FBS conferences are already willing to vote for.
(2) They will stick with 9 conference games. Any games with Pac-12 or ACC opponents will be marketed as such, but they won't require each Big Ten team to schedule a Pac-12 or ACC opponent in every season. Also: A few years ago, the Big Ten considered playing 10 conference games a year just because teams in their west division want more games against the big brands in the east. They will probably never play 10, but it seems very unlikely they'll have enough votes to drop from 9 to 8 for any reason whatsoever.

https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-dis...D4tO9pYmP/

Quote:The future College Football Playoff format could have a major impact on whether the Big Ten eliminates divisions or changes the number of its annual conference games, Iowa athletics director Gary Barta told The Athletic.

The Big Ten currently has East and West divisions and plays a nine-game conference schedule that includes three cross-divisional games. Big Ten administrators have discussed dropping to eight games beginning in 2023 so it can create matchups with teams from the Pac-12 and ACC conferences, with which the trio has a working arrangement called The Alliance.

There also are serious discussions about the Big Ten ending divisional play with schools playing three opponents annually and cycling through the other 10 teams either every other year or two years on, two years off.

"We've had several conversations," Barta said. "One of the things that we're watching is whether it's related to The Alliance, which we're talking through and/or, what gives us the best opportunity to have the most success in the College Football Playoff format?

"We’re wondering if we're going to know what the format is before we have to make that decision. So, we're kind of waiting to see where that lands. But we have had active conversations about the schedule beyond 2022."

If you are unsure why someone or some organization is doing something, odds are they are doing it to make (more) money. Television contracts are being renegotiated soon. This is all about maximizing that.

When the Big Ten moved to a 9-game schedule six years ago, it was because "We want to play the schools in our conference more, not less." ESPN/FOX loved having the extra Big Ten match up instead of the Big Ten vs. little school game.

The TV networks got:
Michigan and Wisconsin for six straight years.
Penn State and Iowa for six straight years.
Ohio State and Nebraska for six straight years.

FOX/ESPN loved this because it draws more eyeballs.

"To make scheduling fair over time," they set up this grand 36-year scheduling system. It was a BS way of getting the big brands from the East to play the big brands from the West more often. Thus, the "six-year protected crossover game" was created.

Now the first six year cycle is over, and the television networks will get Iowa-Rutgers and Northwestern-Penn State for the next six years. Wisconsin/Nebraska swap with Michigan/Ohio State to keep some marquee matchups, but after this six year cycle, you'll have 24 years of generally dud football cross overs. The networks won't like that, and thus, won't pay out for that.

So...we need to come up with a plan to make sure that the big brands can play more often, because that's where the money is. That amazing and competitively balanced 36-year schedule will be going away soon to make way for more attractive match ups. If this was about the playoffs and getting more Big Ten teams in, then they would keep this scheduling format as all the big name-brand schools will be missing each other most years. That likely leads to more of the top schools having better records at the end of the year.

Enter the ideas to allow us to scrape that scheduling format and start over. "Move to an 8-game schedule." "Play our beloved ACC and PAC-12 friends more often." "Scrap divisions." All of this allows the Big Ten to keep the networks happy and the money rolling in. It's not about the playoff and enhancing the chances for Big Ten teams to make the playoffs. It's about the TV contract.

I've learned this over the past 10 years of watching conference realignment. It's one of the many tools that conferences use to get the best TV deal. Adding the right schools helps the TV deal. Changing the scheduling format does this. Changing the division (or lack of division) structure does this. Coming up with this alliance to play other conferences more often does this. It's keeps fans interested and engaged.

Reasons we used 5-10 years ago for scheduling no longer apply today, and the reasons we use to create schedules today will not apply 5-10 years from now. Changing how scheduling is done every 5-10 years will be the new norm because that's what the TV networks want.

2014: "We want to play our conference members more often."
2022: "We want to play our conference members less so that we can play ACC/PAC12 schools."

I agree that this is all about the TV contract, although that continues to be where my skepticism is regarding the Big Ten reducing the number of conference games (particularly when the SEC is almost certainly going to take the opposite action and increase its conference games).

There's no doubt that games such as Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State vs. Clemson/USC/Notre Dame are highly valuable and, to the extent that the Alliance is going to move forward, those types of games should absolutely be scheduled.

As the OP article points out, though, does this really make sense once you get deeper into the leagues, especially for the Big Ten? For instance, Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska playing Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State/Michigan State more frequently is likely more valuable for the Big Ten TV package than it is for Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska to be playing the #4/5/6 teams from the Pac-12 or ACC.

That's what I hope fans understand because they're often way too focused on the very top marquee games involving OSU/Clemson/USC/etc. when it comes to non-conference games.

The reason why the Big Ten has been the most valuable league off-the-field for many years (even more than the SEC) is that its next tier still consists of brand names with massive fan bases (e.g. Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State) and even its lowest tier consists of all huge flagship/flagship-equivalent schools (with the only exception being uber-elite Northwestern located directly in the Chicago market) that bring in large states and markets. Let's put it this way: both the ACC and Pac-12 would take *any* of the Big Ten schools as a member in a way that's not true in the reverse, which shows the depth of the membership and brand value lineup of the Big Ten compared to the ACC and Pac-12.

So, the Big Ten is the one bringing much more of the value to the Alliance. Once again, don't think about Ohio State/Michigan vs. Clemson/USC. Instead, is it more valuable for the Big Ten to have Wisconsin playing more games against OSU/Michigan/PSU (or even Michigan State) or is it more valuable for Wisconsin to be playing the ACC/Pac-12 schools below the Clemson/USC-tier (e.g. Arizona or Georgia Tech)? My belief is that more Big Ten conference games are valuable in the same way that the SEC appears to making the same determination for its own conference schedule, but we shall see.