What's the guess as to when the revised 2024 schedule will be released with the addition of USC and UCLA?
2024 Football Schedule
- Thread starter JerseyRon
- Start date
First they have to decide the format - likely 9 conference games but that might change, plus if they are using divisions or not (likely no) and how many games are locked each year (3?) and which teams are locked for each other. Once they have the format, they will come with a schedule and I would expect the TV networks to get involved to try to increase and spread out the more bankable games.
My guess is we’ll see it released in late summer.
My guess is we’ll see it released in late summer.
Last edited:
my guess is that our opener for that year will be on the west coast
.Works for me…much better than making that trip on the middle of the seasonmy guess is that our opener for that year will be on the west coast
OSU and Michigan each will probably get home games the first time.my guess is that our opener for that year will be on the west coast
Depends on how long it takes for Suckeyes and chicken to work out the new B2G commissioner, the new format, and schedules.
I expect the B2G to follow NIL and just make it all above board and name Gene Smith the new commissioner. He will stay Tosu's AD and do both/same job. I'm sure he will be more than fair to the little 12 or 14 or whatever number Ohio State and Michigan wants.
That works too…but it’s a long trip in the middle of the season (especially if sandwiched around some other tough games)…if it was the opener, we make that trip then play a cream puff the following week.
I would rather go west in October / November to play in better weather more supportive of our high powered offense run by Allar.
What are the Vegas odds that our conference opener will be on the road?
When this news broke, there was a lot of discussion about how to integrate them into the conference while still maintaining a "Big Ten' feel for every one else.
The best model I saw was divisionless. Take the top 2 teams at the end of a 9-game schedule and have them play in your championship game.
Three protected rivals keeps the most important games in tact. Then by rotating the other 6 games evenly...you play every other conference team as frequently as possible. And you don't even need to feel bound to the home-away in consecutive season stuff. The NFL doesn't. I'd rather see--for example--USC on our schedule in 2024 and then finish the home-away in 2027...rather than have to play Minnesota home-away in 2024 and 2025 and not get USC home-away until 2026 and 2027.
OSU--Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
PSU--Michigan State, Maryland, Ohio State
UM--OSU, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State--UM, Indiana, Penn State
Illinois--OSU, NW, Purdue
Indiana--MSU, Purdue, Nebraska
Purdue--Indiana, Illinois, NW
Minnesota--Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
NW--Illinois, Rutgers Purdue
Maryland--PSU, Rutgers, USC,
Rutgers--Maryland, UCLA, NW
Iowa--Minny, Nebraska, Wiscy
UCLA--USC, Rutgers, Nebraska
USC--UCLA, Wisconsin, Maryland
Wisconsin--USC, Iowa, Minny
Nebraska--UCLA, Iowa, Indiana
(Making Michigan/UCLA or USC/Ohio State a game every year would make their schedule difficulty too great...so I think they give them a midwest "power" each [Wiscy/Nebraska] and an east coast trip for various fans to see them frequently [DC/Baltimore fans and NY/NJ fans])
The best model I saw was divisionless. Take the top 2 teams at the end of a 9-game schedule and have them play in your championship game.
Three protected rivals keeps the most important games in tact. Then by rotating the other 6 games evenly...you play every other conference team as frequently as possible. And you don't even need to feel bound to the home-away in consecutive season stuff. The NFL doesn't. I'd rather see--for example--USC on our schedule in 2024 and then finish the home-away in 2027...rather than have to play Minnesota home-away in 2024 and 2025 and not get USC home-away until 2026 and 2027.
OSU--Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
PSU--Michigan State, Maryland, Ohio State
UM--OSU, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State--UM, Indiana, Penn State
Illinois--OSU, NW, Purdue
Indiana--MSU, Purdue, Nebraska
Purdue--Indiana, Illinois, NW
Minnesota--Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin
NW--Illinois, Rutgers Purdue
Maryland--PSU, Rutgers, USC,
Rutgers--Maryland, UCLA, NW
Iowa--Minny, Nebraska, Wiscy
UCLA--USC, Rutgers, Nebraska
USC--UCLA, Wisconsin, Maryland
Wisconsin--USC, Iowa, Minny
Nebraska--UCLA, Iowa, Indiana
(Making Michigan/UCLA or USC/Ohio State a game every year would make their schedule difficulty too great...so I think they give them a midwest "power" each [Wiscy/Nebraska] and an east coast trip for various fans to see them frequently [DC/Baltimore fans and NY/NJ fans])
Hypothetical PSU schedule...(not in order of games played on the schedule...just listed as the total opponents played)...Broken up by groups of...
3--the protected rivals
2--the big TV draws
4--the other regular Big Ten games
Year 1
at MSU
at UMD
OSU
Michigan
at UCLA
at Indiana
Northwestern
at Iowa
Minnesota
Year 2
MSU
UMD
at OSU
at Nebraska
USC
Purdue
at Illinois
Rutgers
at Wisconsin
Year 3
Flip "year 1" home-away
Year 4
Flip "year 2" home-away
So...in two years, Penn State would play all other 15 Big Ten teams. And in 4 years, every player would visit every Big Ten stadium.
(I doubt the Big Ten will end up with a system that works this well though...)
3--the protected rivals
2--the big TV draws
4--the other regular Big Ten games
Year 1
at MSU
at UMD
OSU
Michigan
at UCLA
at Indiana
Northwestern
at Iowa
Minnesota
Year 2
MSU
UMD
at OSU
at Nebraska
USC
Purdue
at Illinois
Rutgers
at Wisconsin
Year 3
Flip "year 1" home-away
Year 4
Flip "year 2" home-away
So...in two years, Penn State would play all other 15 Big Ten teams. And in 4 years, every player would visit every Big Ten stadium.
(I doubt the Big Ten will end up with a system that works this well though...)
There's no way USC doesn't get a yearly game with Penn State in that scenario. They need Ohio State, USC, Michigan and Penn State to play as often as possible.
USC and OSU as our protected rivals? Ouch...I can hear our fans complaining about that competitive imbalance now...
Can we have UCLA instead?
They have divisions. Also, this is about TV matchups not about "elite" teams. The SEC will have Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Tennessee, Texas A&M....the Big Ten needs each of their big 4 to play 2 others. Why wouldn't you want to play at least 2 of them a year? This "I'm afraid of competition" is ridiculous.
Well done! I was sold on divisions or pods and your system has now convinced me otherwise. I am convinced the conference expands and with a few tweaks your model is still very intriguing.
They likely won't have divisions once their new toys are added to the toy chest.
Has nothing to do with fear of competition. In the current setup, we have to go through Michigan and OSU to get into the CCG. That's 2 of 2 every year for all 3 schools.
The SEC TV matchups have been fine without UGA playing Bama, LSU, and A&M more than every 5 or 6 year cycle. At the end of the day, I think they are more concerned with having their biggest 4 be able to headline the new TV slots rather than a yearly face off attrition. USC brings more eyes to the non-Big 3 games than Northwestern vs Rutgers types. You just reap the benefits when you set them up vs, say Michigan late October and both have healthy records.
I am not terribly interested in 2024's schedule because what ever alignment they use will only hold for a year or two. Long term, the wheels that are currently in motion are anything but predicable, especially if the outrageous bill that a former SDSU player turned politician is pushing becomes law forcing revenue sharing with schools/players. This has the potential to disrupt everything and will take years to work through the courts given the Title IX impacts and California's desire to export their toxic politics outside the state with no regard to the actual consequences. Bottom line, everything is at risk, including USC and UCLA joining the Big Ten if the bill makes it into law.
The SEC has more programs that bring viewers regardless of the opponent and are adding 2 more. We'll see. I'd be shocked if the set up doesn't have USC Penn State Michigan and Ohio State playing 2 of the other 3 yearly.
Your year 1 game stretch of Ohio State and Michigan back-to-back followed immediately by a trip to the west coast sounds like something the Big Ten would do to us. Also starting us with 2 road conference games is probable as well. But it seems like fantasy land to think that year 2 we start with 2 home games in a row.
Year 1 in my plan...we have OSU and UM as elite foes, UCLA and MSU and Iowa as next level. Year 2...it's OSU and USC as elite foes, MSU Wisconsin and Nebraska as next level. (Year 3 and 4 mirror those same patterns...)
I think that accounts for your concern, Lando. The Big Ten does want those big TV viewership games as much as possible. But they also don't want to have a league where some teams only place once a decade.
I think that accounts for your concern, Lando. The Big Ten does want those big TV viewership games as much as possible. But they also don't want to have a league where some teams only place once a decade.
I mentioned that it wasn't a chronological schedule that I was creating....just a list in groups of the teams we would be scheduled with in every given year.
Although...your point about the Big Ten schedule makers making it hard is well noted...
Ahh, missed that point
I mentioned that it wasn't a chronological schedule that I was creating....just a list in groups of the teams we would be scheduled with in every given year.
Although...your point about the Big Ten schedule makers making it hard is well noted...
I'm fine with any format that has all of Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Penn State playing 2 of the other 3 teams a year. Other than that I truly don't believe it works. And by works I mean for the networks that are paying an insane amount of money
I originally thought UCLA and USC were just the dike in the dam...with a flood of PAC-12 schools to follow. But now I think that the BIg Ten will stick at 16 for the time being.
The league has plenty of money. It's positioned as 1a or 1b with the SEC for the next decade. The new playoff format is going to take at least 8 years to get used to ... and in 2032 or so, the ACC's GOR will expire and the Big Ten can either add UW/Oregon/Cal/Stanford/Colorado/Arizona OR they can add UNC/GaTech/FSU/Virginia in a step towards further consolidating power.
These changes are seismic--each one. And they do reflect conference affiliations that often last many decades, if not centuries. To see them slowly take shape is more likely than large, sweeping changes.
Agreed.
It will be interesting to see if the 12-team playoff changes the attitude towards the "number in the loss column" in college football.
The CFP changed the BCS mindset slightly. In the BCS, if you lost a game, you were in SERIOUS danger of not making the top 2 for the BCS title game. It would take a lot of luck to still make it in. And we saw 1-loss teams ranked 3 or 4 or 5 or lower...not get a shot at the title because of one blemish (like our 2005 team which was robbed at Ann Arbor).
With the CFP, many teams shrugged off one loss. They knew if they still won their CCG, they'd be in. Losing a game meant your road was tougher, but not impossible by any means.
What will the prospect of 2 and 3 loss teams making the field do to scheduling, especially in conferences like the Big Ten and SEC where the competition is markedly greater than the ACC and Big 12 and Pac-X?
Hypothetical 2024 schedule for PSU in chronological order using my breakdown using Year 2 above...(I'm using year 2 because we have our OOC away in 2024...so we need 5 Big Ten home games)
Aug 31--at WVU
Sept 7--Bowling Green
Sept 14--USC
Sept 21--Kent State
Sept 28--at Nebraska
Oct 5--Maryland
Oct 12--at Illinois
Oct 19--at Ohio State
Oct 26--Bye
Nov 2--Rutgers
Nov 9--at Wisconsin
Nov 16--Purdue
Nov 23--MSU
Aug 31--at WVU
Sept 7--Bowling Green
Sept 14--USC
Sept 21--Kent State
Sept 28--at Nebraska
Oct 5--Maryland
Oct 12--at Illinois
Oct 19--at Ohio State
Oct 26--Bye
Nov 2--Rutgers
Nov 9--at Wisconsin
Nov 16--Purdue
Nov 23--MSU
I think OOC schedules will tend to get weaker save for those kickoff classic type games until something happens to a major team. The SEC is a meat grinder as is, and they are adding 2 traditional powers. If they go to 9 conference games, they definitely aren't going to want to make the schedule any harder than it already will be.
I wouldn't be shocked if the Big 10 didn't consider 10 conference games because they have more rivalries to protect (in their minds). Particularly if they aren't done adding teams.
1) The SEC understood that only 8 conference games and rarely having Alabama play Georgia (as an example) meant that they would dominate the rankings. They even give their teams creme puff Div 2 or some other school no one has heard of the week prior to that last weekend of rivalry games to keep their best teams fresh.
2) The Big 10 on the other hand has already gone to 9 games and often gives PSU and other marquee teams Ohio State and Michigan in back-to-back weeks or separated by one of the top teams of the other division like when those 2 teams sandwiched Minnesota this past year. That's a 3-game stretch that no one in the country would have gotten through without a loss.
3) The TV contracts don't seem to be pushing the SEC to 9 games. They seem to be happy with having the top rated teams every week even if they play an extra patsy. Unless SEC's TV deal forces their hand, I don't see 9 conference games for them.
4) The Big 10 seemed focused on maximizing TV revenue which meant always having the marquee teams play each other every year and mostly all in the same division plus an extra conference game. That really hurt the Big 10 in terms of teams getting beat up by others in the conference and less break in between marquee matchups. But they made money as their teams look second tier to the SEC. Will they press for more TV money with 10 conference games at the expense of degrading their top teams in the polls? Maybe, they appear to be tone deaf on how to setup schedules to maximize the rankings of their programs and solely focused on TV money.
As per your last paragraph, perhaps the new playoff format will convince them to copy the SEC system to get as many in the playoffs as possible. So far, they seemed to be focused on getting just one in and lucked into two this year. Getting three or even four in a twelve team tournament would be far better than one.
The SEC is not the meatgrinder most think it is. Traditionally, that is the Big Ten. The numbers bear this out. Most years, the SEC has the easier path to the playoffs only having to survive one or two challenges while padding stats and building depth by way of blowing out 6 seriously over-rated SEC teams and getting to the post season healthy.
The problem with 10 games is the home game economy for the Big Programs. 10 conference games (5 home/5 away) would mean that the big programs would never be able to schedule home aways without losing 7 home games that season and the payday that comes with 7 instead of 6 home games. Yes, they are making more money than ever with TV deals...but the home game profits are huge for schools.
The current system of 9 is perfect to me. And if you look at the above scheduling model, you still protect a few rivals while also getting everyone in the 16-team Big Ten to play home-aways with everyone every four years.
Losing home games is critical for local businesses, especially for schools with small cities like State College. They suffered terribly under the Wuhan restrictions and many went out of business. Only five home games would close more.
Yup. And it's not necessarily the "concern" of PSU...but it's on their radar.
A healthy local economy that makes SC attractive for employees and students should be a concern of the university.
