Big Ten’s 9-game proposal to spur discussion, could balance league schedules

Big Ten officials will discuss the merits of a nine-game league football schedule next week in Chicago. It’s undetermined if it will pass, or even come to a vote.

“I think more discussion at this point,” Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta said. “I’m not aware that there’s going to be a specific vote. I could be suprised. Certainly more discussion.

“One of the things that I’ve made it clear and I think that every athletic director has made it clear is whenever that occurs, if it’s going to occur if it becomes inevitable, one of the principles we all need to have seven home games. Asssuming that principle is adhered to, then I’m generally supportive of the concept.”

It seems likely the nine-game schedule will pass at some point. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany made it a focus even before the league split into football divisions last summer at Big Ten Media Days. Delany has said multiple times the league’s teams should play more often rather than less often. A nine-game league schedule allows for stronger television inventory and no more late September snoozefests like in 2010 and this fall.

It also allows the league to balance its schedule. When the league invited Nebraska and split into divisions, Delany said competitive balance was the first guiding principle. Rivalries were a close second and geography a distant third.

The Big Ten use criteria based on results over a 17-year-period. It split Ohio State from Michigan, Penn State from Nebraska and Wisconsin from Iowa into separate — but equal — divisions. The league also sliced its bottom six football programs in half with geography and rivalries seemingly playing a larger role such as linking the Indiana-Purdue-Illinois triangle together.

The divisional alignment exuded balance. But the league’s creation of permanent cross-divisional opponents did not. Based on the current eight-game league schedule, some teams have obvious advantages over others. For instance, Michigan State will play Indiana — which had the most losses over the 17-year period — every year and Ohio State four times over 10 years. Michigan, however, will play Ohio State — which had the most wins over the 17-year period — every year and Indiana four times over 10 years. Wisconsin’s cross-divisional rival (Minnesota) hasn’t even tied for a Big Ten title since 1967, while Penn State’s cross-divisional rival (Nebraska) has won three national titles in the last 17.

Iowa and Wisconsin play for the Heartland Trophy

This fall, Legends Division members Iowa and Nebraska will play five divisional opponents and one common non-divisional opponent, Penn State. Among uncommon opponents, Iowa plays Indiana and Purdue — teams with losing records last year — while Nebraska plays 2010 Big Ten co-champs and BCS qualifiers Ohio State and Wisconsin. Future divisional titles, Big Ten title appearances and BCS bowl berths could be decided about which teams a program plays on a permanent or rotational basis.

But the ninth game could avoid those scenarios if the league adds a second permanent rival to each school’s annual schedule. All the league has to do is apply the same tenet it used to form its divisions: competitive balance. In permanent non-divisional play, each program should play one traditional upper division and one traditional lower division opponent. On a rotational basis, the league should couple opponents by upper and lower division status.

Iowa plays six league schools annually: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska and Northwestern within the division and Purdue as its permanent cross-divisional rival. If long-time rival Wisconsin was tabbed as Iowa’s second permanent cross-divisional rival, the Hawkeyes would play a traditional upper division foe (1 as listed below) and lower division foe (2) ever year. Then among Iowa’s four non-divisional, non-permanent opponents, the schedule should be grouped as Ohio State-Illinois for two years, then Penn State-Indiana for two years. That would achieve almost perfect balance between playing traditional and non-traditional powers annually.

Additionally, a second rivalry restores Iowa-Wisconsin and Michigan State-Penn State on an annual basis. Both games were highly anticipated trophy games among the fan bases. Ohio State-Northwestern dates nearly 100 years, and Michigan-Illinois has been played 92 times. Minnesota-Purdue and Nebraska-Indiana are no more silly than the current permanent rivalry between Iowa and Purdue.

The league has a chance to restore its rivalries and balance its schedule. Here’s how the Big Ten’s scheduling could look if the league implements a second permanent rivalry if it goes to nine annual games:

LEGENDS DIVISION

IOWA

Divisional opponents: Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Purdue (2)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Wisconsin (1)
First cycle: Ohio State (1), Illinois (2)
Second cycle: Penn State (1), Indiana (2)

MINNESOTA

Divisional opponents: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Nebraska, Northwestern
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Wisconsin (1)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Purdue (2)
First cycle: Ohio State (1), Illinois (2)
Second cycle: Penn State (1), Indiana (2)

MICHIGAN

Divisional opponents: Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Ohio State (1)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Illinois (2)
First cycle: Penn State (1), Indiana (2)
Second cycle: Wisconsin (1), Purdue (2)

NORTHWESTERN

Divisional opponents: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Illinois (2)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Ohio State (1)
First cycle: Penn State (1), Indiana (2)
Second cycle: Wisconsin (1), Purdue (2)

MICHIGAN STATE

Divisional opponents: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Indiana (2)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Penn State (1)
First cycle: Wisconsin (1), Purdue (2)
Second cycle: Ohio State (1), Illinois (2)

NEBRASKA

Divisional opponents: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Penn State (1)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Indiana (2)
First cycle: Wisconsin (1), Purdue (2)
Second cycle: Ohio State (1), Illinois (2)

LEADERS DIVISION

WISCONSIN

Divisional opponents: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Minnesota (2)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Iowa (1)
First cycle: Michigan (1), Northwestern (2)
Second cycle: Nebraska (1), Michigan State (2)

PURDUE

Divisional opponents: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Iowa (1)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Minnesota (2)
First cycle: Michigan (1), Northwestern (2)
Second cycle: Nebraska (1), Michigan State (2)

OHIO STATE

Divisional opponents: Illinois, Indiana, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Michigan (1)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Northwestern (2)
First cycle: Iowa (1), Minnesota (2)
Second cycle: Nebraska (1), Michigan State (2)

ILLINOIS

Divisional opponents: Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Northwestern (2)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Michigan (1)
First cycle: Iowa (1), Minnesota (2)
Second cycle: Nebraska (1), Michigan State (2)

PENN STATE

Divisional opponents: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Nebraska (1)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Michigan State (2)
First cycle: Michigan (1), Northwestern (2)
Second cycle: Iowa (1), Minnesota (2)

INDIANA

Divisional opponents: Illinois, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Permanent cross-divisional opponent: Michigan State (2)
Second permanent cross-divisional opponent: Nebraska (1)
First cycle: Michigan (1), Northwestern (2)
Second cycle: Iowa (1), Minnesota (2)

Big Ten’s 9-game proposal to spur discussion, could balance league schedules

Beau hudson said: On May 14, 2011
doc, more than a few like your idea on the ESPN blogs. Good work!
Tom Christensen said: On May 14, 2011
Great work Doc; this really lays out the case for a 9 game Big Ten season, something fans would enjoy.
Paul Davis said: On May 14, 2011
I say bring on the nine-game league schedule. Too many UNI, Tennessee Tech, Louisiana-Monroe and Pennsylvania College of Plumbing and Upholstery games in the early going will make for lousy tie-breakers if we have a 12-0 or 11-1 record, and go head to head for a BCS bowl berth with someone whose non-conference schedule included TCU, LSU, Notre Dame or Boise State.
- Josh Hargrafen said: On May 16, 2011
  The problem is that the former IAA schools will stay on the schedule and the traditional cross-sectional game (Pitt, ASU, Arizona, Syracuse) will be the game that gets tossed. There is no way Iowa can play a home and home with another team as long as ISU is on the schedule annually.
- Mike Miller said: On May 16, 2011
  Paul:
  My nephew graduated from the Double-U = Upholstery University. How dare you!
Nick Jay said: On May 14, 2011
Interesting possibility, Doc, but I’m not sure it’s the best way.
The Big Ten’s “seeding” plan for the two divisions was based primarily on competitive balance, which it determined using each team’s winning % since 1993. If we rank the teams based on that, it would look like this:
1. Ohio State
2. Nebraska
3. Penn State
4. Michigan
5. Wisconsin
6. Iowa
7. Purdue
8. Michigan State
9. Northwestern
10. Minnesota
11. Illinois
12. Indiana
For the current 2011 season, that gives Nebraska the toughest schedule, with an average opponent ranking of 5.75, and Northwestern the easiest, with an average rank of 7. That’s a range of 1.25.
Your proposed 4-year cycle gives Indiana the overall toughest schedule, with an average opponent rank of 5.67, and Nebraska the easiest, with an AOR of 7.11. That’s a range of 1.44, which is slightly more skewed than the current schedule.
Not only is this proposed schedule less balanced, it is also biased toward the more established powers. The five teams with the easiest schedules are Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio State and Nebraska. The five teams with the toughest schedules are Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern and Michigan State.
If you’re looking for a more equitable scheduling method, Doc, this isn’t it.
- Garth Algar said: On May 16, 2011
  Good analysis. Without looking too deeply, part of the problem is the weak teams, like Indiana, can’t play themselves, likewise for the good teams; thus it partially skews their ‘difficulty’.
  Personally, I think its moot because there is no real good way to rank the teams. Just because Penn St., for instance, was 3rd historically, doesn’t mean that’s where they’ll be in 2011 or 2015. So the schedules will end up tougher or easier than originally intended no matter what you do. But that being said, I think Doc has as good a proposal as I’ve seen.
  - Nick Jay said: On May 16, 2011
    Garth: I agree with your point that teams like OSU and Nebraska benefit from not having to play themselves, while Indiana and Illinois are hurt because they can’t play themselves. The pool of potential opponents is less challenging for top teams than lower teams (The average opponent rank for OSU is 7, while for Indiana it’s 6). A bit of built-in advantage.
    Now, I agree that this ranking system isn’t perfect, since team strength varies from season to season (ex: the decline of Michigan, the rise of last year’s MSU team). And even over long stretches of time, some prominent programs may wane entirely, as Minnesota did over the last 50 years. Who knows which team will be dominating the Big Ten 20 years from now (please let it be Iowa). But the fact remains that this was the method the Delany & Co. used last year to divvy up the teams, and so it must stand as the basis for future scheduling decisions.
    Year to year, some programs will be up and some down. But the idea behind the ranking system was to show where each program stands over a long period of time. Will the conference stack up this way in 2011? 2011? Probably not. But will they start to fall into place over a 10-20 year stretch? Chances are good they will. At least, the Big Ten thinks so.
    - Nick Jay said: On May 16, 2011
      Sorry. That should be “2011? 2012?”
- Scott Dochterman said: On May 16, 2011
  Good points, definitely. There’s no perfect solution to scheduling, obviously. I think first you have to take out the divisional opponents from scheduling. Without revamping the league, those will never change.
  My point deals largely with non-divisional opponents. The difference in permanent opponents for Michigan and Michigan State is extreme. One plays the best team (Ohio State) historically on an annual basis; the other plays the worst (Indiana). That could mean the difference between a Big Ten title berth/BCS bowl bid and a second-tier bowl game.
  If you were to allow each school to play an upper- and lower-division opponent (based on winning percentage over 17 years) annually, it allows for more balance, right? Then in your rotational games, each school would play an upper/lower division opponent. That means each school would play 2 upper-division, non-divisional opponents and 2 lower-division, non-divisional opponents every year to go along with 5 regular division games.
  There’s also the argument than some divisional schools will have 4 home league games while others will have 5. That’s also a legitimate argument against the 9-game slate.
  Of course we’re forgetting that games are won/lost each year, not based on history. Any school could be the 2007 Illinois version for one season.
  I appreciate the responses. You can break this down any way you want to. Interesting discussion.
  - Nick Jay said: On May 16, 2011
    I totally see where you’re coming from, Doc. And I have to say that my initial reaction to your article was, “Yeah, this seems pretty fair to me.” But while I wouldn’t be opposed to this solution if we went to 9 games, in my opinion it does favor the stronger teams.
    If we’re only talking about cross-divisional opponents, then yes, it could seem a bit unfair that Nebraska is required to play PSU, usually a tough game, while Michigan State gets lowly Indiana. But again, I think you have to look at the relative strength of each program. Of the 6 current “rivalry games”, each pits two teams that are within 5 ranks of each other. The biggest disparity is #5 Wisconsin vs. #10 Minnesota, but that was a traditional rivalry game that had to be preserved. (Unlike, apparently, Iowa-Wisconsin. C’est la vie.)
    I don’t think you can look at expansion without taking divisional opponents into account. With the current setup, each team has to play two–and only two–of the top 4 teams every year, including protected rivalries. Your second set of protected rivals would require Illinois to play OSU, PSU and Michigan (3 of the top 4). Indiana would have to play OSU, PSU and Nebraska. In most years, that’s a pretty formidable schedule, and I have a hard time believing a typical Indiana or Illinois team could do well against that competition.
    I’m not advocating a kid gloves approach to scheduling for the lower teams. But I do think the conference as a whole benefits when the greatest number of teams have a shot at winning the championship. With their favorable schedule this season Northwestern has a great shot to make some noise, and I think that makes the conference race that much more interesting. If the scales are tilted in favor of the Big 4 every year, chances are good that those are the teams we’ll see in the title game. And that’s the path to a stale conference.
    In my opinion, the fairest way to schedule a team’s remaining cross-division opponents is via random selection. Drawing teams out of a hat, so to speak, gives everyone an equal shot at a favorable schedule, instead of trying to manufacture a balanced slate by hand-picking “upper division” and “lower division” opponents.
    - Garth Algar said: On May 16, 2011
      It’ll never happen but the Big Ten could do away with protected rivalries and 2-yr series and go to the NFL model where at least some of the games are based on how you finished in your division the previous season. That does two things: better teams have more difficult schedules, and creates better TV games.
terry mccauley said: On May 15, 2011
Iowa fans wouldn’t want to be in the same division as OSU. why give OSU a guaranteed win every year. of course, that’s what Iowa does now when they play them…..
“one of the principles we all need to have seven home games”…. no, you don’t. since we’re talking ‘revenue’ so what the university does when they need more money – just raise the prices (like they raise tuition)! Seems to work for the U…holding students hostage, so why not the fans…? Hey, these are tough economic times for everyone (except KF), so go ahead…raise the prices! Keep KF gainfully employed to go 7-5, 8-4 on a regular basis, just don’t expect national championships or rose bowls for that kind of money….this isn’t ND, OSU, Florida, Texas, etc….This is Iowa – where 4 mil gets you a 0.58 winning percentage…good return on investment. Wasn’t it P.T. Barnum crediting with saying “there is a su.ck.er born every minute?”
- Jeff Klinzman said: On May 16, 2011
  Uh, Terry, how’s Notre Dame been doing lately? And Texas, one year after playing for a national title, goes 5-7 and loses to ISU AT HOME.
  I watched a special about the 1969 Big Ten footbal season on the BTN. It was fascinating: Bump Elliott went 8-1 in his last season, 1968, which ended with a 50-14 beatdown by Ohio State. When I noodled around, I learned that USC, after winning a national title in ’63, muddled along, losing 3 or 4 games a year playing a ten-game schedule, until they won the title again in ’72.
  THAT was when schools had 100+ scholarships, and some teams like OSU and Michigan would stockpile players. Can’t you just admit that there is competitive balance in the game today, and it is a pipe dream to expect Iowa to dominate the Big Ten like OSU and Michigan once did?
  Lay off Ferentz. I remember what Hawk football was like under Frank Lauterbur and Bob Commings. Be thankful that you can gripe about “only” eight wins per season.
- Adam Nathan said: On May 16, 2011
  So, since you know SO MUCH Terry, let’s get a recommendation from you on a coach that we can pay $200,000 a year? HMM?
  How many three, four and five star kids will want to play for this no name… OK, so now lets say this no name some how gets some success. How long will he stay at Iowa if we don’t raise his salary?
  So it’s a great idea to change coaches every 3 years, have no stability, have no recruiting base, just to save a few bucks? How long before donors get sick of it and stop giving money to the athletic dept?
  Bottom line, you’re a moron, and your either a Jealous Cyclone fan or an art major at U of I that’s mad because your “Contemporary art of the 18th century” masters program is getting cut.
  Get a clue, U of I football brings in more money/publicity to the University than any other program.
Garth Algar said: On May 16, 2011
The biggest reason in my mind for the 9-game schedule, which isn’t getting mentioned much, is that it allows a player to get to experience playing at every Big 10 stadium at least once in their career. Can you imagine a freshman at Minnesota will likely not even get the chance to play against Ohio St. even once, home or away, during his career? The new coach at Indiana may not even last long enough to get to play Nebraska (he’d have to be there until 2015). But adding a ninth game would ensure a team to play at each Big Ten stadium at least once every four years, and play against said team at least twice.
- Nick Jay said: On May 16, 2011
  Interesting point. That would be useful in recruiting, too.
Paul Davis said: On May 17, 2011
McCauley’s off his meds.
- Jeff Klinzman said: On May 17, 2011
  terry has either forgotten, or is not old enough to remember, the 1961 to 1981 drought: 20 consecutive non-winning seasons, 21-year losing streak to Purdue, Jerry Burns, Ray Nagel, Frank Lauterbur, and Bob Commings as coaches, and 5-6 and 4-7 campaigns in Hayden Fry’s first two years.
  terry could do us all a favor by rooting for Ohio State or Michigan…