Football Iowa AD Confirms B1G schools may not have same number of protected rivals
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
Welcome to our protected rivalry with Rutgers.
they chant **** Penn state at every game. Some things are worth protecting.
Of course. Realistically, Rutgers and Maryland are both going to have PSU and each other as protected games. No other schools have any history with either to warrant linking them though they may get other protected game depending on the format (I could see Indiana being protected for at least one of them as the Hoosiers have a decent number of students from the east coast).
I think the biggest question is whether PSU will have MSU as a protected game. If we don't, that means we are likely to end up with Rutgers or Maryland as our final game every year. Personally, I'd prefer to lock in MSU instead of one of them and end the season with the Spartans regularly.
PSU/tOSU is on average the second highest rated Big Ten broadcast every year after UM/tOSU. If nothing else, I'm sure the TV networks want to keep that game annually.
I've seen scenarios where PSU is not a protected rival for UM. If they still maintain divisions doesn't seem fair that OSU would play PSU every year but UM doesn't. "The Big 3" along with USC should be playing each other every year to insure fairness. Let's face it, those 4 teams will be the best 4 teams in the B1G probably forever.
Bingo on the TV ratings, which sells this whole thing. The Big ultimately wants to procure as many big or marquee games as possible. Which drives ratings, which drives future TV contracts. PSU won’t get screwed here.
UM is in a weird spot because they have 2 rivalry games that are pretty much non-negotiable, tOSU and MSU. I don't see any scenario where either of those games are discontinued. Much of the rest of the Big 10 could probably get by with only one protected game. In PSU's case I don't think we have any that MUST continue, but in all likelihood we'll play tOSU annually because they will want the top programs to play each other and it pulls in ratings. If we have a 2nd protected game I'd imagine it would be either UMD, Rutgers or MSU and I think UMD would be the most likely. If we get a 3rd then maybe MSU is back on the table but the new schedule could mean the end of the annual Land Grant trophy game.
The championship game is another issue. Would the "top 2" be selected using rules that are similar to breaking division ties in the current system? It would seem that, perhaps more often than not, a tie-breaker would need to be applied most years. This could lead to similar problems that we see with the NC format.
If selection goes by record and the Big 4 from the current East Division always play each other, then a weaker team could easily sneak ahead for the championship game just like we see today.
If selection goes by record and the Big 4 from the current East Division always play each other, then a weaker team could easily sneak ahead for the championship game just like we see today.
The bigger concern for me is scheduling. If divisions are eliminated and you have too many teams to play a proper round-robin schedule, now you are forced to compare teams with unequal and likely unbalanced schedules. What happens when you end up with a 1-2 loss team that played mostly bottom feeders and all of the better teams have an extra loss or 2 because their schedules were significantly more difficult? Now you're in a position where the team with the benefit of an easy schedule only needs to catch lightning in a bottle for one game to become your conference champ and a possible playoff representative for the conference.
Setting the schedule only 1 year in advance helps, but teams can already make big leaps up or down in only one season and that is amplified with the transfer portal. I have little confidence that the Big 10 will be good enough at setting schedules to even things out competitively, which is why I'd still prefer to have some sort of division or pod system.
The Cornhuskers are coming back and are going to roll over this league soon. They just need the right coach. And a ton of NIL.
The protected rivalries are what unfairly taint the scheduling
There's going to be potential for "unfair" results, but how is the current system any better? The #2 team in the East is almost always better than the best from the West, but the West representative gets to go.
College football has a lot of flaws, scheduling perhaps being one of the least. The biggest flaw is that there is really no natural balancing in team makeup. The best teams get to choose from all of the players in the "first round of the draft." This has taken most of the allure out of the post season playoff.
Before the BCS a greater number of teams played for a good post-season invite, a winter holiday at some warm weather spot. That used to be the thinking all season. Would the record be good enough for Miami, New Orleans, Pasadena, etc.? That still exists, but the thought of not "playing for it all" has detracted from what was once seen as a big positive. Back then one loss kind of meant you would not be #1, so that did not matter so much. It was the holiday season reward that mattered.
Before the BCS a greater number of teams played for a good post-season invite, a winter holiday at some warm weather spot. That used to be the thinking all season. Would the record be good enough for Miami, New Orleans, Pasadena, etc.? That still exists, but the thought of not "playing for it all" has detracted from what was once seen as a big positive. Back then one loss kind of meant you would not be #1, so that did not matter so much. It was the holiday season reward that mattered.
If they go to a 12 or 16 team playoff conference championships luckily will mean next to nothing.
The "playoffs" should be comprised of conference winners. I think there should be 4 super conferences. Any school not in one of those conferences would be relegated to a lower division of college football.
This would reduce conference shenanigans, like officiating to protect a team that is most likely to get the conference represented within the playoffs.
Even in a fantasy, dream-world that still wouldn't work. The top 2 teams could easily be in the same conference. If we get to the point we have 4 super conferences of 16 (we can only dream). Then the top 4 teams in each conference make the playoffs.
Again, there is no sport that only has division/conference winners.
If OSU gets to say they want PSU and UM and Michigan gets to say they want OSU and MSU, then Penn State should say they want OSU and UCLA. Start a rivalry with UCLA (or SC) so they don’t get stuck with Rutgers or Maryland every year.
Come on now. We can't even ask for our conference opening game not to be on the road 13 of 14 years without being seen as whining.
And if we are asking, shoot for the moon and take USC. Whiners be damned.
So let me understand, the same folks complaining about always opening conference play on the road because it’s too difficult also are complaining that instead of playing Rutgers or Maryland every year we should play USC or UCLA. Um, okay. Do you want an easier path to the championship or not?
Certainly there’s the potential for unfair schedules between teams being compared. This is particularly true for teams that have tougher locked in rivals (which is likely to be the worst for tOSU if they have UM and us).
But I think the worst aspect is actually that with 9 conference games, half the teams will play 5 home/4 away in any given year and half 4 home/5 away. That’s actually one problem that divisions solves because they have it set up so that each division rotates the 5 home games in alternating years (West gets the 5 home odd years, East the 5 home even years). That’s going to be an issue but I don’t see them going to 10 conference games to solve this for a while.
Sorry, but I’m on record as saying opening on the road is not the biggest issue in terms of scheduling. Just that opening road games 13 out of 14 years (or whatever it is), doesn’t just happen by chance.
I’d much rather see PSU play UCLA every year than Rutgers. There’s plenty of Rutgers level teams throughout the big ten to play in other weeks. (Take a look at Penn State’s schedule and the record of their opponents this year).
If they are going to remove Michigan as a yearly game then, yes- ask for UCLA to fill that gap. It creates another game of interest and gets PSU as a constant presence in California which can only help in recruiting.
I've never said it was too difficult. I simply said it's bullshít that happens to our team and nobody else's. I'd gladly swap out any of our 3 remaining games to play Illinois or Iowa and get a better opponent.
We want to play UMD and Rutgres every year for the recruiting base. Getting kids from DMV & NJ is easier to sell when we play them every year. PA isn't the hotbed that DMV is.
Protect umd and Rutgers every season and deal with osu in the title game.
They should. UM and OSU is a big game every year. This year it is huge. OSU vs. PSU has become the annual 2nd best game for OSU. Always very competitive.
Didn’t the Land Grant trophy game already get relegated to non-annual status once before, in the days of Legends and Leaders divisions? We were playing Wisconsin as our end-of-season game at that time.
Nobody cares about the lameass Land Grant trophy itself, but I like playing MSU as the last game if that can somehow be preserved. That matchup has produced some wild and memorable games over the years.
For you and Michigan fans maybe. It's been a mediocre matchup more often than not this century.
From a logistics standpoint it makes sense to have both on the schedule every year, but those aren't rivalries for us. Maybe for them. I'd like to see OSU, UM, MSU and at least one of Iowa, Wisconsin or Nebraska (maybe 2 of 3) plus one of USC/UCLA (USC more often) every year. As far as competitive match-ups, Iowa under Ferentz has probably been our best opponent outside of OSU, UM, MSU. Wisconsin has also been good as well. Nebraska has usually faced us when we are down in the Big Ten (we're 1-4), but has been a great historical opponent.
From a "maximize the number of wins every season and make the playoff" standpoint it makes sense. Locking in OSU would mean having to beat them twice per year to win the conference as things currently stand. Sorry F that. Wanting the most difficult/competitive schedule imaginable as you're proposing is fools errand. The system in no way rewards it.
Clemson has gotten by just fine without having to beat multiple top ten teams every regular season.
A schedule of OSU/UM/MSU/Iowa/USC/Wisconsin is brutal.
Last edited:
Right. The B1G is going to do what is best for the B1G. So Rutgers and MD have to have a rival to breathe life into their programs. Everyone is going to want us to be an annual game. They'll also want their annual game to be UM and tOSU. So what does the B1G do? PSU, UM and tOSU can't be everybody's rivalry game.
I suspect that those three teams will have at least two rivalry games. Who is ours? We'll want tOSU. Will see get it knowing everyone else will want that too? IDK.
My guess is that they come up with three tiers: Realy rivalry in the UM/tOSU mode. There will be a tier two of rotating rivalries where they are played every other year or so (two years on, home and away, two years off). Then there will be a third tier of games that rotate in and out. So we may see a Nebraska or Illinois, once every six years or so.
Clemson has to go undefeated or have one close loss to make the playoff. They are done this year unless something really strange happens. In future scenarios with 12 to 16 teams, two losses won't necessarily be a deal-breaker. We've had some 2-loss teams in the past that probably would have won or gone very far in a playoff because they had played great competition and gotten better as the season wore on. I'd rather be 10-2 and playoff-ready than 12-0 and get smoked when the competition level steps up.
clemson would have been done this year anyway if they’d played two top 5 teams so net net same result.
You’re also ignoring the fatigue/health component. I’d rather roll into the playoff with a healthy team that didn’t go through 6+ exhausting slug fests to get there. Going 12-0 in the new big ten is still going to mean at least one top ten opponent in the ccg. You’re not going to skate through facing nobody.
UM dominated in the 90's, OSU more recently. This year should be one of the best games. Keep in mind both have been in the B1G far longer than PSU. I do think Penn State was a great addition. Rutgers not so much.
