BIG Schedules - what is the smart approach for the league?

[blion72]

looking at how the 12 team expanded playoff will work, it will still be hard for a 2 loss at large team to get into the system. Once they went to the model of including teams who will be ranked outside the top 12, you could be 10-2 and ranked #11 and not make the playoffs. I don't like that model, but that is what has been decided, so what is best for BIG in that setting?

It would seem that the BIG scheduling approach should be to do what it can to ensure we always have 2 and some years get 3 in the playoff. To do that, I would think they need to do the following:

• Every team should play only OOC games (at least two of whom would auto wins at half effort) for the first 3 games, and all at home. Teams should avoid like the plague playing any OOC team that would be in the top 25, or some type of G5 team that is dangerous. That means league play starts game 4.
• Be careful how the "home" years work with what teams. Right now we alternate so that one year we have 5 and the next year 4 home league games. BIG can watch how that works to avoid accidental super difficult schedules for the teams in the top half of the league.
• Eliminate divisions - I think that is already the plan for 2024
• Regularly assess the top teams, and avoid having them all playing each other in the same year. So this year you would not have had USC, Utah, Oregon, tOSU, UMich and Penn State all playing each other. That would be 1/3 of the conference, so to make that happen, you might have 2-3 games for each one from that group, but not 4-5 games. We don't want to see Penn State playing USC, UMich, tOSU and say Utah all in the same season. That would be crazy and make the path to playoff almost impossible.

If the BIG handles this right, then they will ensure that typically they will have 5-6 teams every year in the top 25 and in the conversation. If they do it wrong, we will have teams who are clearly top 12 in strength, but sitting home with 2-3 losses.

 

[Wow]

looking at how the 12 team expanded playoff will work, it will still be hard for a 2 loss at large team to get into the system. Once they went to the model of including teams who will be ranked outside the top 12, you could be 10-2 and ranked #11 and not make the playoffs. I don't like that model, but that is what has been decided, so what is best for BIG in that setting?

It would seem that the BIG scheduling approach should be to do what it can to ensure we always have 2 and some years get 3 in the playoff. To do that, I would think they need to do the following:

• Every team should play only OOC games (at least two of whom would auto wins at half effort) for the first 3 games, and all at home. Teams should avoid like the plague playing any OOC team that would be in the top 25, or some type of G5 team that is dangerous. That means league play starts game 4.
• Be careful how the "home" years work with what teams. Right now we alternate so that one year we have 5 and the next year 4 home league games. BIG can watch how that works to avoid accidental super difficult schedules for the teams in the top half of the league.
• Eliminate divisions - I think that is already the plan for 2024
• Regularly assess the top teams, and avoid having them all playing each other in the same year. So this year you would not have had USC, Utah, Oregon, tOSU, UMich and Penn State all playing each other. That would be 1/3 of the conference, so to make that happen, you might have 2-3 games for each one from that group, but not 4-5 games. We don't want to see Penn State playing USC, UMich, tOSU and say Utah all in the same season. That would be crazy and make the path to playoff almost impossible.

If the BIG handles this right, then they will ensure that typically they will have 5-6 teams every year in the top 25 and in the conversation. If they do it wrong, we will have teams who are clearly top 12 in strength, but sitting home with 2-3 losses.

You could start by not playing more conference games than the SEC.

 

[Corner Room Breakfast]

Why do i sense most non conference games will be MAC teams.

I believe Big games should be prior strength for 2 years , no reason for Michigan, or OSU the top 2 should be playing Rutgers, Indiana, and Northwestern in the same year.

No reason to play the same team 4 years in a row, unless it's the guaranteed cross over.

OSU could play Michigan and PSU etc.

 

[ManxomeLion]

You also have to work in other BIG considerations....
1)PSU has its BIG opener on the road (always)
2)Michigan and OSU must play THE GAME as last game of the regular season (always)
3) any ancillary scheduling to help make #2 above THE GAME are paramount.

 

[Ludd]

Why do i sense most non conference games will be MAC teams.

I believe Big games should be prior strength for 2 years , no reason for Michigan, or OSU the top 2 should be playing Rutgers, Indiana, and Northwestern in the same year.

No reason to play the same team 4 years in a row, unless it's the guaranteed cross over.

OSU could play Michigan and PSU etc.

Seems like you’re missing the point. The conference should try to get its best teams to have the easiest path to winning 10 or 11 games to get as many conference teams into the playoffs. You don’t do that by having OSU, Michigan and PSU playing each other every year in crossover games nor does it make sense to not have teams like OSU, Michigan and OSU playing Rutgers, Indiana and NW in the same year. If you have your top five or six teams playing the toughest schedules every year, the conference won’t have any teams in the playoff.

 

[BobPSU92]

The b1g laughs at smart.

 

[PSUFBFAN]

Seems like you’re missing the point. The conference should try to get its best teams to have the easiest path to winning 10 or 11 games to get as many conference teams into the playoffs. You don’t do that by having OSU, Michigan and PSU playing each other every year in crossover games nor does it make sense to not have teams like OSU, Michigan and OSU playing Rutgers, Indiana and NW in the same year. If you have your top five or six teams playing the toughest schedules every year, the conference won’t have any teams in the playoff.

You can be damn sure the SEC is going to schedule in an attempt to get as many teams into the playoff as possible. Unlikely Georgia and Alabama will see each other in the regular season.

 

[leinbacker]

The BIG needs to follow the path of the Roman Empire and split in two

 

[Charlie1978]

The BIG needs to have two divisions, the BIGEast and BIGWest consisting of PSU, OSU, MSU, UW, UM and Notre Dame, then USC, UCLA, OU, WU, UU, and Stanford. Give the rest away to the ACC and the Big Sky.

 

[Bones80]

They will do whatever benefits OSU and UM

 

[razpsu]

Need to have same number of conf games as sec.
Need to make sure that psu osu mich does not play each other more than every third or 4th year.

Can’t let pac schools play each other all the time and not come east in November. It would be like a pac big 10 school gets in auto.
Sec never schedules their hardest games at the end so why would mich and osu keep that arrangement. It may hurt there chances of getting in.

 

[kgilbert78]

When I saw the thread title, my first thought was that whatever the smart thing to do is, they won't do it.

 

[blion72]

Need to have same number of conf games as sec.
Need to make sure that psu osu mich does not play each other more than every third or 4th year.

Can’t let pac schools play each other all the time and not come east in November. It would be like a pac big 10 school gets in auto.
Sec never schedules their hardest games at the end so why would mich and osu keep that arrangement. It may hurt there chances of getting in.

even number games = likely 8, so 4 OOC games. in a conference like this, that makes sense. 10 conf games would be suicide and cannibalize the conference. look at how UMich schedule really helped them get rolling this year. Imagine if they had to play say Bama in a neutral site opening day. My guess that is a different season for them.