Big Ten and 9 games.

Jim Delaney is speaking at the Big Ten Football Media day. The one thing that suprises me the most is he seems to really like the 9 Big Ten game schedule. Jim Tressel hates it because they might lose 1 home game every other year. I have to say I love the idea of 9 games in the regular season. What do the rest of you think? I hate the idea of not having an even number of home games but I think its something that makes sense.

I would love an additional B10 game per year from a fan perspective.

I like it too. It worked great for the Pac 10, but mostly because everyone had to play everyone. Now they are in the same boat as us, 12 teams. This means you'd play your 5 games in your half of the conference and 4 of the 6 teams in the other half. In other words, you'd still skip 2 teams every 2 years like we do now, but you'd get a group of 5 teams that you would play every single year. Sure OSU and Michigan will whine because they like to play 11 of 12 games at home. But too bad. If you don't like it, go independent.

I have decided that 9 games is a bad thing for OSU, Michigan and PSU.

It is good for Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan State and Nebraska.

It is bad for Illinois, Indiana, and Purdue.

It is good for Northwestern and is very, very bad for Minnesota.

And this list all has to do with the number of likely home/away games, the ability to secure decent OOC games, stadium revenue and capacity, and ability to sell tickets to the extra (free) game.

Remember: for Minnesota the game this would be replacing is the OOC home-and home (i.e. California, North Carolina, USC, etc.). Do you like the U's odds of selling tickets for another game against Indiana better than USC?

This is a terrible idea.

For one thing it guarantees the conference 6 additional losses every year. That hurts us in the bowl pecking order. For another, it will hurt the quality of OOC competition. This is one area where the Gophers are being aggressive and there's no question that it is a boon for recruiting.

Also, it's not fair for some teams to have 4 home games and others to have 5 in conference.

Don't go to 9 conference games.

More conference games a good thing for players and fans. Would love it. Ditto for Big Ten basketball. ... either stay at 18 or increase to 20 when Nebraska arrives.

For the Gophers this is great.

It is bad for everyone in the term of losing a home game every other year. It also isnt great that over half your schedule could be on the road.

As far as looking at the Gophers I dont think its is a bad thing. I am pretty sure we would all agree having another game garaunteed to be against a BCS opponent is a good thing which this would be. We would still have 3 non conference games to schedule and at this point we seem happy to add big name schools that we are or not ready to compete with home and home which I dont think we would have many problems keeping them on the schedule. The Big Ten season would run later into the year opening up new dates which could actually open up more possible additions to the schedule long term.

Less games to schedule would mean fewer meaningless games against teams fans dont care about. If it would help provide the chance to play Michigan more often or a Michigan State who we would lose on the schedule in a division system I am for that.

I don't think it necessarily means we lose our marquee matchup with UNC or whomever... although it does make it a bit trickier to do so.

Remember also that many think the NCAA is gearing up for a 13 game regular-season schedule. That certainly would relieve some of the tension on the ooc scheduling front.

I do, think it provides schools with a permanent ooc rival (MSU, Mich, Pur, Iowa, Ill) with a severe scheduling conundrum. All of a sudden, they have wiggle room to decide two games a year. Plus... lets say MSU plays 5 road bigten games a particular year, they would have to work it out with ND that their game be played at MSU that year. What if Mich and Pur also have 5 road games that year? Is ND going to want all of those to be road games?? Hells no!

If nine bigten games is going to happen, i think it should wait until (if ever) there are 13 regular season games.

On the other hand, as a fan, it would be sweet to have more meaningful games.

Delaney's voicing what probably has been discussed by Big Ten AD's for some time now. Oh, and here also.

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?t=18285

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?t=17785

and there are probably a lot more!

I don't understand...

...why people believe we will lose a home game.

In years when we have 5 conf home games...we could have 2 home and 1 road OOC. total of 8
In years when we have 4 conf home games...we can schedule 3 home and 1 road OOC games. total of 8.

I think this means we drop Northern IL not drop USC. Or so I hope.

I do fear this means a bad season and miss a bowl game when there is an average team....but you know what...I'm sick and tired of being average....I'd rather go 6-6 with a 9 game conf schedule than the Mason years of 6-6.

GM

gophermartin said:

In years when we have 4 conf home games...we can schedule 3 home and 1 road OOC games. total of 8.

Click to expand...

If you are playing 9 conference games, and only four of those are at home, you are playing 5 conference road games. In a schedule with 7 at home and 5 away this would leave room for zero OOC road games every other year.

As a result, all of your OOC games will be bought home games against New Mexico State, San Jose State and FCS-Opponents and 2-for1's against Sunbelt and MAC Opponents.

What is likely to happen over time is that Minnesota would have to go with a 6 home/ 6 away schedule in order to secure better OOC opponents and keep people in the Metro interested. Meanwhile Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska will schedule similar to the above (Wisconsin and Nebraska pretty much already do) and maintain a 7 home, 5 away schedule.

Or you could schedule the Home/Home like this.

Years where you play 4 home conf games.....2 scrub non conf home, 1 home BCS non conf
Years where you play 5 home conf games.....2 scrub non conf home, 1 road BCS non conf
You just have to schedule the home and homes so that your home game is a year in which you have 4 conf home games, and your road is a year in which you have 5 conf home games.

Rosemountian said:

Or you could schedule the Home/Home like this.

Years where you play 4 home conf games.....2 scrub non conf home, 1 home BCS non conf
Years where you play 5 home conf games.....2 scrub non conf home, 1 road BCS non conf
You just have to schedule the home and homes so that your home game is a year in which you have 4 conf home games, and your road is a year in which you have 5 conf home games.

Click to expand...

That's a good theory. But the reality is that if every team in the Big Ten (and probably other BCS conferences in the future) needs to buy 2 home games every season then the demand increases for those games and the price will also increase.

The way it is now, Minnesota schedules 2-for-1's with a lot of non-conference opponents (Bowling Green, Miami-OH, Florida Atlantic, Troy). But if all your OOC road games have to be against a BCS opponent, you no longer have that return trip to offer in exchange for 2 home games. And everyone else can no longer offer a return trip in exchange for 2 at the same time.

The result will be that only the teams in BCS conferences that can offer a huge guarantee (big stadiums) will be able to keep the 7 home/5 away schedule. Others will be priced-out of the market for buy-in games and will need to go with a 6 home/ 6 away schedule or eliminate OOC games against BCS opponents and play only 2-for1's.

We need seven home games each year to pay for non revenue and/or Title IX games. If we have fewer games we can not pay the bills. If we drop a Title IX team we must, by law, drop a male team as well. Goldmember is correct on the OC dilemma. If we play any MAC teams we must over an away game for two home games. Thus, BCS teams must go or MAC teams must go.

Goldmember said:

That's a good theory. But the reality is that if every team in the Big Ten (and probably other BCS conferences in the future) needs to buy 2 home games every season then the demand increases for those games and the price will also increase.

The way it is now, Minnesota schedules 2-for-1's with a lot of non-conference opponents (Bowling Green, Miami-OH, Florida Atlantic, Troy). But if all your OOC road games have to be against a BCS opponent, you no longer have that return trip to offer in exchange for 2 home games. And everyone else can no longer offer a return trip in exchange for 2 at the same time.

The result will be that only the teams in BCS conferences that can offer a huge guarantee (big stadiums) will be able to keep the 7 home/5 away schedule. Others will be priced-out of the market for buy-in games and will need to go with a 6 home/ 6 away schedule or eliminate OOC games against BCS opponents and play only 2-for1's.

Click to expand...

If you are doing 2 for 1's against some teams do it like this.

4 home conf 5 road conf 1 home BCS non conf 2 home non-BCS non conf
5 home conf 4 road conf 1 road BCS non conf 2 home non BCS non conf
4 home conf 5 road conf 1 road non BCS non conf 2 home non BCS non conf
Then start a new home/home against a BCS opponent. The difference would be you would only get the non-conf vs a BCS 2 out of 3 years....and you would have less variety out of the other non conference teams (likely playing a non-BCS school 3 years in a row). Buying games vs. FCS schools will continue to be easy and cheap as long as that level keeps expanding. One game vs and FBS team can pay for a school like USD's entire year. It is doable. Many schools are not scheduling BCS opponents anyways.

Many of the Pac Ten schools play multiple quality non-conference opponents but have resorted to going 6-6 one year and 7-5 in the other year. Even with 5 conference road games in some year, there will never be a time where in order to schedule a quality non-conference opponent you are forced to go 6-6 every year.

Lets set up a 13 year cycle for the gophers
4 conf Road, 5 conf home, 1 BCS road, 1 MAC Home, 1 FBS Home (7 home games) (10 BCS Level teams)
5 Conf Road, 4 Conf Home, 1 BCS home, 1 MAC home, 1 FBS Home (7 home games) (10)
4 Conf Road, 5 Conf Home, 1 MAC Road, 1 MAC2 Home, 1 FBS Home (7) (9)
5 Conf Road, 4 Conf Home, 1 BCS2 Home, 1 MAC2 Home, 1 FBS Home (7) (10)
4 Conf Road, 5 Conf Home, 1 MAC2 Road, 1 MAC3 Home, 1 FBS Home (7) (9)
5 Conf Road, 4 Conf Home, 1 BCS3 Home, 1 MAC3 Home, 1 FBS Home (7) (10)
4 Conf Road, 5 Conf Home, 1 BCS2 Road, 1 MAC3 Road, 1 FBS Home (6) (10)
5 Conf Road, 4 Conf Home, 1 BCS3 Road, 1 MAC4 Home, 1 FBS Home (6) (10)
4 Conf Road, 5 Conf Home, 1 BCS4 Home, 1 MAC4 Road, 1 FBS Home (7) (10)
5 Conf Road, 4 Conf Home, 1 BCS5 Home, 1 MAC4 home, 1 FBS Home (7) (10)
4 Conf Road, 5 Conf Home, 1 BCS 4 Road, 1 MAC5 Home, 1 FBS Home (7) (10)
5 Conf Road, 4 Conf Home, 1 BCS 5 Road, 1 MAC 5 Home, 1 FBS Home (6) (10)
4 Conf Road, 5 Conf Home, 1 MAC 5 Road, 1 MAC 6 Home, 1 FBS Home (7) (9)

So in those 13 years, the gophers would have played 7 home games 10 times.
In those 13 years, the gophers would have played a BCS level non-conference opponent 10 times.
The gophers would have lost 3 home games.
In an 8 game conference schedule, the gophers would have played 9 BCS level opponents per year or 117 in 13 years. In the 9 game schedule, the gophers would play 127 BCS level opponents in 13 years.
In an 8 game conference schedule, the gophers would host 58 or 59 home games against BCS level opponents in 13 years. In a 9 game conference schedule, they would host 63 or 64 games against BCS level opponents. So it is just a matter if the revenue lost from those 3 missing home games is more than the increase in revenue that 10 extra games (5 at home) against higher level opponents would bring. If you have three seasons in the 13 where you play 2 FBS instead of 1 FBS and 1 MAC, then you could get it down to playing BCS level non-conf opponents 10/13 years and playing 7 home games in all 12 years. Granted, you could only count 1 of the 2 wins towards bowl eligibility. Bringing in more conference games would also up the value of the next TV deal, making the lost 3 games seem less painful to the budget.

BCS1 = 1/1
BCS 2 = 1/1
BCS 3 = 1/1
BCS 4 = 1/1
BCS 5 = 1/1
MAC 1 = 2/1
MAC 2 = 2/1
MAC 3 = 2/1
MAC 4 = 2/1
MAC 5 = 2/1
MAC 6 = 1/-

Those FBS guarantee games each year are going to be hard to be expensive. Those are likely to be FCS games, not FBS. It used to be that it was easy to get a low level I-A team to come in for just a paycheck. Now they want at least a 2-1 or even a 1-1, unless you write a big check. I-AA games are going to be part of the schedule most years, it's just how the game works. And the price on those has gone up too.

Goldmember said:

Remember: for Minnesota the game this would be replacing is the OOC home-and home (i.e. California, North Carolina, USC, etc.). Do you like the U's odds of selling tickets for another game against Indiana better than USC?

Click to expand...

We don't know that it will replace the home and home game, we don't know that our non-conference schedule will revert to all patsies. We will know the Big Ten schedule in advance, so we can, when the Big Ten home schedule looks weak, we could then schedule a more attractive game in the non-conference. In years where the home Big Ten schedule looks strong, then we can have a less-appealing nonconference opponent come in.

Maybe I'm just dumb, but...

Why don't we just play 8 conference games to keep it an even 4 home and 4 away and to keep scheduling open and flexible. But if teams are unsatisfied with missing a big ten team on their schedule, they can set up "non-conference" games with those schools.

Rivalries can be maintained, trophies passed back and forth without missing a beat. For example, I'm tremendously excited about having SC here this year, but I would rather play Michigan.... and not just because Michigan is going to suck this year.

Sure, it has no bearing on the standings, but who really cares about the standings when you play an arch-rival anyway? And having a game with no bearing on the standings is often better than missing the game entirely.

AhliBobwa said:

This is a terrible idea.

For one thing it guarantees the conference 6 additional losses every year. That hurts us in the bowl pecking order. For another, it will hurt the quality of OOC competition. This is one area where the Gophers are being aggressive and there's no question that it is a boon for recruiting.

Also, it's not fair for some teams to have 4 home games and others to have 5 in conference.

Don't go to 9 conference games.

Click to expand...

how does it hurt the bowl pecking order? The only bowl game not predetermined is the national championship/BCS game. The Big 10 is still in GREAT shape to get a 2nd BCS game every year.

RodentRampage said:

Those FBS guarantee games each year are going to be hard to be expensive. Those are likely to be FCS games, not FBS. It used to be that it was easy to get a low level I-A team to come in for just a paycheck. Now they want at least a 2-1 or even a 1-1, unless you write a big check. I-AA games are going to be part of the schedule most years, it's just how the game works. And the price on those has gone up too.

Click to expand...

I meant FCS....Can we go back to calling them 1-AA yet?

RodentRampage said:

Those FBS guarantee games each year are going to be hard to be expensive. Those are likely to be FCS games, not FBS. It used to be that it was easy to get a low level I-A team to come in for just a paycheck. Now they want at least a 2-1 or even a 1-1, unless you write a big check. I-AA games are going to be part of the schedule most years, it's just how the game works. And the price on those has gone up too.

Click to expand...

If we played nine big ten games and played one home and home with a bcs team every year (the away game in a year where you play five big ten home games), I would have no problem with the other two home games being against two of SD, SDST, and NDST every year. Those are fun games with a great atmosphere and I strongly prefer them to MAC games.

Ther are two big problems with this. One is that it hurts bowl qualification. The other is that it hurts Brew's goal of playing road games in locales we'd like to recruit.

badgergopher said:

If we played nine big ten games and played one home and home with a bcs team every year (the away game in a year where you play five big ten home games), I would have no problem with the other two home games being against two of SD, SDST, and NDST every year. Those are fun games with a great atmosphere and I strongly prefer them to MAC games.

Ther are two big problems with this. One is that it hurts bowl qualification. The other is that it hurts Brew's goal of playing road games in locales we'd like to recruit.

Click to expand...

I don't think playing a game against a I-AA opponent hurts bowl qualification, the landscape has really changed. I remember the days when scheduling a game against a I-AA opponent raised a lot of eyebrows: "What? You're playing a I-AA team???" For a time, you were allowed to count a win against a I-AA team against the number you need for bowl elligibility only once every four years. Now, you can count a win against a I-AA team toward bowl elligibility each year. I remember LSU winning a national title, and no one even blinked that they had played a I-AA team. Hawaii went to a BCS bowl having played TWO games against I-AA opponents.

There are benefits to playing road games where it might influence potential recruits, but that's an issue of which teams to play on the road, not whether to play games at home or on the road. Hardly anyone would play on the road if they didn't have to.

RodentRampage said:

I don't think playing a game against a I-AA opponent hurts bowl qualification, the landscape has really changed. I remember the days when scheduling a game against a I-AA opponent raised a lot of eyebrows: "What? You're playing a I-AA team???" For a time, you were allowed to count a win against a I-AA team against the number you need for bowl elligibility only once every four years. Now, you can count a win against a I-AA team toward bowl elligibility each year. I remember LSU winning a national title, and no one even blinked that they had played a I-AA team. Hawaii went to a BCS bowl having played TWO games against I-AA opponents.

There are benefits to playing road games where it might influence potential recruits, but that's an issue of which teams to play on the road, not whether to play games at home or on the road. Hardly anyone would play on the road if they didn't have to.

Click to expand...

If that's true I say let's do it. Let's keep the USC, UNC, Navy, etc. And let's add the Dakotas as early home games. I like the fact that we'd be playing more BCS games. Lamenting bowl games lost because you finished 5-7 by playing a stronger schedule is a waste of time. Those bowl games aren't well travelled, don't end well, and in our case are grounds for firing if they happen too often / consistently. Let's not set the bar that low.

RodentRampage said:

I don't think playing a game against a I-AA opponent hurts bowl qualification...For a time, you were allowed to count a win against a I-AA team against the number you need for bowl elligibility only once every four years. Now, you can count a win against a I-AA team toward bowl elligibility each year.

Click to expand...

That's exactly why it does hurt bowl qualification. You can count one (1) I-AA victory annually toward the six wins needed for bowl eligibility. In other words, a six-win Minnesota team that beat both NDSU and Louisiana-Lafayette (for example) would be bowl-eligible; a six-win Minnesota team that beat both SDSU and Western Illinois would not.

Even 2-1 games are getting hard to come by these days. FCS/I-AA games are guarantee games (I've never heard of a I-A team playing a I-AA team on the road) of course. Still, 1 I-AA game, and 2 1-1 games gives you 6 or 7 home games, depending on whether you get 4 or 5 home Big Ten games. That isn't bad. It used to be that a MAC team would be happy to get a 2-1 deal, now those 2-1 deals are expensive.

dpodoll68 said:

That's exactly why it does hurt bowl qualification. You can count one (1) I-AA victory annually toward the six wins needed for bowl eligibility. In other words, a six-win Minnesota team that beat both NDSU and Louisiana-Lafayette (for example) would be bowl-eligible; a six-win Minnesota team that beat both SDSU and Western Illinois would not.

Click to expand...

Important to distinguish between bowl qualification and playing for the national championship... A 12 win Minnesota team would be in the discussion and hunt for the national championship just like LSU, whether it played one or two of those teams ....

Let's Go Gophers!

dpodoll68 said:

That's exactly why it does hurt bowl qualification. You can count one (1) I-AA victory annually toward the six wins needed for bowl eligibility. In other words, a six-win Minnesota team that beat both NDSU and Louisiana-Lafayette (for example) would be bowl-eligible; a six-win Minnesota team that beat both SDSU and Western Illinois would not.

Click to expand...

I hadn't read that closely, I hadn't realized the post was talking about playing 2 I-AA teams in a season. These days, playing a I-AA team is a norm. Two, not so much. Duke played 2 last year, people were saying that Duke needed 7 wins for a bowl game. Which wasn't quite true, that was based on the assumption that they would win both of them, but they lost one. One game against a I-A opponent is enough.

Maverick said:

Important to distinguish between bowl qualification and playing for the national championship... A 12 win Minnesota team would be in the discussion and hunt for the national championship just like LSU, whether it played one or two of those teams ....

Let's Go Gophers!

Click to expand...

Considering that the Gophers have won six games 24 times in their history (11 times in the 11/12 game era, far more than any other outcome), and have won twelve games 0 times, I would be far more concerned with the former than the latter.

dpodoll68 said:

Considering that the Gophers have won six games 24 times in their history (11 times in the 11/12 game era, far more than any other outcome), and have won twelve games 0 times, I would be far more concerned with the former than the latter.

Click to expand...

No doubt. I would be as well, but since the topic was whether or not they counted toward bowl elibility and LSU's championship as mentioned by another poster, not what has happened in the past or is likely to happen in the future, I didn't think you or anyone else would be that interested in what I would be concerned about....

All this schedule talk will be moot when the NCAA goes to 13 games.