Sid Hartman: Big Ten football schedule to grow?

[BleedGopher]

"Well, yeah, of course budgets are very important, and there has been talk of going to nine or 10 games,'' said Gophers athletic director Norwood Teague. ''But in that process we'll be protected financially as far as home games are concerned. I think it will be [a decision] that will be well thought out. But with expansion it begs the question more than it ever has.

"We have a couple of good [nonconference] games and then games that aren't as attractive to TV. That's an issue and something we're talking about. I've been really pleased with the discussions we're having, and those will continue in the next six months."

Teague was asked about rumors that the Big Ten might expand with two more schools after adding Maryland and Rutgers.

"What you hear is what I probably hear because [Big Ten Commissioner] Jim Delany does a lot of talking behind the scenes to different constituents," Teague said. "Anything you hear right now is conjecture, but I know Jim will make good decisions. And when he gets to the point, if we would ever do that, he brings the athletic directors into the loop and brings presidents into the loop as well. Again he doesn't have the sole authority to do it -- he has to consult with us -- but he's always thinking progressively."

http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/190618171.html?page=1&c=y

Go Gophers!!

 

[westcoastgopher11]

10 games please.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

10 games please.

No way, unless the schedule expands to 13 games.

That would mean 2 buy games in the non-conference every year. You need 7 home games for the bottom line.

 

[Tim Riggins]

It will go to 9 for now and then once realignment is over, 18-20 team conferences, it'll go to 10.

 

[bleedsmaroonandgold]

I'd love to see 10 games. It would mean two less garbage games against teams so bad that we cannot possibly exceed expectations but can miserably embarrass ourselves. If we don't expand the conference schedule, I wish the NCAA would take over out of conference scheduling, because the race to the bottom has just gotten disgusting.

 

[westcoastgopher11]

No way, unless the schedule expands to 13 games.

That would mean 2 buy games in the non-conference every year. You need 7 home games for the bottom line.

Definitely don't need 7 home games when every power conference team is going to be able to print money for itself from playoff money and new television contracts.

10 conference games would be great, we need to be able to play everyone in the conference home/home every 4 or so years otherwise things have gotten ridiculous.

 

[MaxyJR1]

I like 10 games and 13 total. I like the odd number and you have to be 7-6 to be eligible for a bowl game. This all hinges on the power conferences coming up with their own plan which I think will include about 64-80 teams.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

I like 10 games and 13 total. I like the odd number and you have to be 7-6 to be eligible for a bowl game. This all hinges on the power conferences coming up with their own plan which I think will include about 64-80 teams.

My guess is that if they do go to 13 game seasons they will expand the exceptions for 6-7 teams to be bowl eligible. I forget what the exceptions are today, but they'd probably do something where you'd have to have a minimum APR and not be on probation. I just don't see them forcing the 7-6 because it would cut the number of bowl eligible teams significantly. Nobody involved with college football wants that. There's just too much upside to having teams go to bowl games.

 

[BleedGopher]

@ESPN_BigTen: Jim Delany said ADs and coaches only discussing 9- and 10-game league schedule models. No support to stay at 8 games.

Go Gophers!!

 

[short ornery norwegian]

From a fan's viewpoint, I'd love to see 10 conf games.

But, that means teams like the Gophers will NEVER play a non-conf game against a quality opponent.

If the season stays at 12gms, I would rather see 9 conf and 3 non-conf games. (with the understanding that at least 1 non-conf game has to be against a BCS conf school.)

And, off the point - when did "non-conference" games become "out of conference" games? When I started lurking here, I would see Wren talking about OOC games, and I had no idea what he was talking about. Of course, I never had any idea what Wren was talking about.............

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Definitely don't need 7 home games when every power conference team is going to be able to print money for itself from playoff money and new television contracts.

10 conference games would be great, we need to be able to play everyone in the conference home/home every 4 or so years otherwise things have gotten ridiculous.

Problem statement: We need to play every team in our conference at least 2x in a 4 year time span:

Solution 1: Continue adding teams outside our geographic footprint and with little to no ties to our history as a conference. Then expand to more conference games with said teams of little history or geographic relation at the expense of fans seeing an extra home game.

Solution 2: Stick with the teams you have that already allow playing everyone in a 4-year window. Schedule 1 quality non-conference opponent each year similar to the teams you would otherwise add to the conference, and treat home fans to an extra home game.

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Create 4 power conferences, play 9 or 10 games, and allow the conference champ from each to play for national championship (F' ND and any other independents). This way non-conference games become meaningless and all that matters is winning your conference no matter the record.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

Create 4 power conferences, play 9 or 10 games, and allow the conference champ from each to play for national championship (F' ND and any other independents). This way non-conference games become meaningless and all that matters is winning your conference no matter the record.

Great idea! And, while they're at it, the NCAA can change its name to the NFLite, we can be in the NFLite North(ish). And with that system, we won't need to worry about having an exciting or meaningful regular season because you could lose up to 3 games and likely still be in a national title hunt!

 

[MaxyJR1]

Great idea! And, while they're at it, the NCAA can change its name to the NFLite, we can be in the NFLite North(ish). And with that system, we won't need to worry about having an exciting or meaningful regular season because you could lose up to 3 games and likely still be in a national title hunt!

How dare anyone copy anything from the most successful league in the world. So you still won't be excited for trophy games? We would still play for bowl games. I really think this is the way it will eventually end up. Four super conferences with champs being in a playoff with 18-20 teams in these conferences. As long as the Gophers play Wis. IA. and NE. on a regular basis and there are still bowl games I am all for it.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

And, off the point - when did "non-conference" games become "out of conference" games? When I started lurking here, I would see Wren talking about OOC games, and I had no idea what he was talking about. Of course, I never had any idea what Wren was talking about.............

That differentiates NCG (non conference games) and the NCG (National Championship game)

 

[GophersInIowa]

I would hate for the Big Ten to jump right to 10 conference games without other power conferences at least going to nine.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

How dare anyone copy anything from the most successful league in the world. So you still won't be excited for trophy games? We would still play for bowl games. I really think this is the way it will eventually end up. Four super conferences with champs being in a playoff with 18-20 teams in these conferences. As long as the Gophers play Wis. IA. and NE. on a regular basis and there are still bowl games I am all for it.

Because what makes college football so enjoyable to me (and many others) is that it is NOT the NFL - it is fundamentally different. I love that a single loss in college football could easily mean not making the national championship game (even in a 4-team playoff scenario). I love that we have primary rivals (ex Iowa and Wisconsin, Michigan depending on who you talk to or now I guess it's Nebraska even though we have a much longer history with MI), and then secondary rivals that spur up based on recent good games and the fact that we HAVE played them quite frequently over the past 50-100 years (ex Northwestern, MSU, etc). I also like that we have the ability to choose some interesting non-conference games. Playing USC, Cal, etc home/home provides some great home games and fun road trips. That goes away with a 10 game schedule and 2 NC teams, 1 low-level FBS and one FCS (most likely).

Yes, we'd likely still play our top rivals, just like the Vikings play the Bears and Packers every year. That doesn't make for as fun of a full-season and takes some of the thrill out of upsetting a team ranked in the top 5 (for anyone, not just us).

Also, the NFL may be the most profitable league in the world, but that doesn't necessarily equate to success. Not in my book. We know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Will adding these teams make the games MORE enjoyable? Will it make road trips MORE accessible to the average fan? Will it make the sport of NCAA football MORE equitable for smaller schools or ones not in power conferences? I would also question how great the NFL is compared to the English Premier League which has 12 fewer teams, ~2/3 the net profits of the NFL, and a viewer base of 1/5 the United States' population.

 

[dpodoll68]

Michigan depending on who you talk to or now I guess it's Nebraska even though we have a much longer history with MI

We first played Michigan in 1892. We first played Nebraska in 1900.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

We first played Michigan in 1892. We first played Nebraska in 1900.

And how many times since? DO we have a trophy with Nebraska? I'm not saying Nebraska isn't a good substitution - in fact I've said all along that the Big Ten did VERY well with that addition to the conference from a geographic, cultural, brand, and even history perspective (they've played a few BT teams a decent number of times). But if I had to pick Michigan or Nebraska to be on my schedule, I'd pick Michigan. It's not like one is easier than the other on a given year...

 

[GoldenHerbs]

Doggie tweeted that the B1G has agreed to no longer play FCS teams!!

 

[MNGoldenGophers1]

Great idea! And, while they're at it, the NCAA can change its name to the NFLite, we can be in the NFLite North(ish). And with that system, we won't need to worry about having an exciting or meaningful regular season because you could lose up to 3 games and likely still be in a national title hunt!

You can cling to the past and live in denial. Or, you join the 21st Century and help shape the new world of college football. Do I like all the changes? No. But I also know disco ain't coming back.

 

[e.bigelow]

You can cling to the past and live in denial. Or, you join the 21st Century and help shape the new world of college football. Do I like all the changes? No. But I also know disco ain't coming back.

+1.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

You can cling to the past and live in denial. Or, you join the 21st Century and help shape the new world of college football. Do I like all the changes? No. But I also know disco ain't coming back.

If you can honestly describe to me how this change is for the better from my standpoint as a fan, we can have that discussion. I'm not clinging to things of the past irrationally. I like watching my team play Indiana, OSU, MSU, Michigan, Purdue, etc as often as possible. It's not surprising to me that PSU has the least meaning to me of any Big Ten team (Nebraska being #2 behind them and I only get excited to play them because they are a nationally recognized program, not because they're a conference member). I like that I actually get excited about watching games involving the #1 team in the country because an upset means something. I like that when I talk to a Big Ten fan I feel like they have a similar culture to mine being mainly from the midwest (whereas Maryland and Rutgers fans, to say nothing of the next 2 teams, are quite different from me). I like that I can go to nearly every Big Ten school for an away game by car, despite being on the westernmost fringe of the conference (and yes, PSU is the lone exception for me - Maryland and Rutgers will likely never be visited by me). I like that in the past game times were much more favorable to the fan. I like that NCAA football isn't the NFL - we aren't threatened by our team to pay $550M for a stadium else they'll move to Los Angeles.

I can't help shape the world of college football any more than I can stop it. For you to think otherwise is ludicrous. We are completely reactive. We all predict things we 'think' Delany will do for more additions based on HIS OWN actions and statements. Do you think the AD, let alone Delany or anyone from the Big Ten, comes on this board and takes anything we say seriously?

Also, what bothers me the most is that we act as though these changes will be better for our own football program. Does anyone honestly believe that more schools entering the conference and therefore higher TV revenues will help us do any better relative to our Big Ten peers when they are receiving the exact same benefits as us and already outperforming and outspending us? If the dust settles as everyone predicts with 4 super conferences, will we as a conference be any better off than before? Will the extra revenue go toward adding more sports or reducing the amount the U funds the athletic department? Or will it go toward higher coach salaries and facilities used by roughly 300 of the 38,000 undergrads at our university? Give me a break.

I'm not in denial - I clearly recognize that these changes ARE happening. I'm questioning their value to us as fans and our school's ability to compete and win.