Recently on the FishDuck Forum there was a thread started by iubhounds titled “Having To Fly East For Games”. In the thread, I poked the bear and said, in effect, “there’s no evidence that travel and unbalanced schedules with random bye weeks impact the results of the games. OBD wins regardless of travel.” Jon Joseph wrote an outstanding reply that ...

Is ‘Flexible Symmetry’ the Answer to Big-10 Scheduling?

Love this article and thanks for the velvet hammer. My great reply did not get a pass from you, Professor. I get it; been there and velvet-hammered before. For the most part, all hammering was well deserved.

Chancing a deserved critique, might I suggest the following B1G add-ons, with the understanding that the next media deal will see B1G teams keeping the majority of money they earn in the postseason, and media revenue will be shared by eyes on the prize; how many people are watching you play ball.

Cal, Stanford, CU, Utah, UNC, and Duke. (Notre Dame, if amenable, would take the place of one of these six teams. If ND agreed to go B1G, perhaps add UVA with ND.)

Three eight-team divisions. Twenty-four-team playoff. Flex schedule the last two weeks of the regular season for playoff play-in games.

Seven division games. Four cross-over games. One OOC game.

PS - Two trips to the Eastern time zone in November of 2026 is cruel and unusual, but usual for OBD.

I love what Mike Whitty is proposing, as sometimes you try things, (like removing divisions) and then realize things were better the way they used to be. His proposed movement of teams every two years is quite interesting as well.

And WHO would be the final two teams added to the Big-10? Great stuff...

Predictably, Jon Joseph presents some enticing arguments that provoked my mind to consider different directions for reply.  That’s a good thing.  It is exactly what I hoped for while writing the article, and more.

Jon does not really ATFQ of which two schools the B1G should consider for expansion because he gives us six!  And not two divisions, but three.

I struggle to understand how three divisions with four cross-over games can ever be symmetrical.  Of necessity, there is no way the teams will be playing comparable opponents in the cross-over games. 

The Socratic question to you, Jon, is: “How is that symmetrical?”  Hence, is it fair?

I have considered the flex schedule at the end of the regular season before, but Jon gave me a new twist that I will address in the next article.  Hint, maybe there is a way for the B1G to achieve symmetry with only 18 teams and not expand.  Thanks for that.

Notre Dame is an obvious candidate for expansion.  Charles and I have discussed this possibility and he believes that the Irish broadcasting deal with CBS will keep them independent.  More to discuss there.

If expansion and a new alignment means only 2 schools are to be taken (without ND being a possibility) I say Stanford and Cal. This seems like a no-brainer to me. They are among THE finest private and public, respectively, schools in this land. I believe that their fan support will skyrocket with membership in the Big-10 after their few years of purgatory traveling to Clemson, SC. Gross.

If ND is in the mix? ND and Stanford.

Go thoughts, Feather. I miss playing Cal and Stanford. I wonder whether the experience that schools in the B1G before bringing in OBD, fuskies, UCLA and USC are having with the expanded conference as is would cause them to object to two more from the west coast.

Jon Joseph explained it well to me why the two bay area schools will not be added to the Big Ten. They do not add to the revenue stream, and in fact, everybody would have to take a haircut in the conference, if they joined.

I agree that scholastically they fit the Conference perfectly, but if everybody has to take less money?

This goes back quite a ways, but it was announced by the B1G that they have passed on those two schools permanently.

2 hours ago, Grandpa Duck said:

Predictably, Jon Joseph presents some enticing arguments that provoked my mind to consider different directions for reply.  That’s a good thing.  It is exactly what I hoped for while writing the article, and more.

Jon does not really ATFQ of which two schools the B1G should consider for expansion because he gives us six!  And not two divisions, but three.

I struggle to understand how three divisions with four cross-over games can ever be symmetrical.  Of necessity, there is no way the teams will be playing comparable opponents in the cross-over games. 

The Socratic question to you, Jon, is: “How is that symmetrical?”  Hence, is it fair?

I have considered the flex schedule at the end of the regular season before, but Jon gave me a new twist that I will address in the next article.  Hint, maybe there is a way for the B1G to achieve symmetry with only 18 teams and not expand.  Thanks for that.

Notre Dame is an obvious candidate for expansion.  Charles and I have discussed this possibility and he believes that the Irish broadcasting deal with CBS will keep them independent.  More to discuss there.

Thanks again for the great article to ponder. I don't believe in a conference with 16 or more teams that in-conference scheduling can be 'fair.'

In 2023, I don't believe any human or any computer programmed to make in-conference scheduling equal could have predicted that the college football program with the most losses in the history of the sport would qualify for the playoff in 2024 and win the whole darn thing in 2025.

The NFL does all it can to achieve parity among the 32 teams. Besides Bo being injured and a new head coach with a clue, the Pats were in the Super Bowl because New England stunk the prior four seasons, and accordingly, played the easiest NFL schedule in 2025.

It just so happens that Ohio State plays the most difficult conference schedule in 2026, plus a game at Texas. But do you want your top brands and the two teams that played for a conference championship the year before to have the most difficult schedules the next season? Such scheduling would be putting multi-million dollar bullets in your gun and shooting your conference in the foot.

There is a solution, and it's a solution that reflects the state of today's game, including the teams that have qualified for a 12-team playoff the last two years.

Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti's 16-team, 4-4-2-2-1-3 automatic qualifier format in 2025-26 would have had one fewer G5 team, but one more B1G, SEC, ACC, B12 team, and Notre Dame would also have been in the field.

Playoff play-in games would help with scheduling symmetry. Wisconsin had a brutal schedule last season. A sixth-place Badgers team may well have been better than a third-place team that had a lightweight schedule; settle it on the field.

1st and 2nd place are in the playoff field, 3rd and fourth place teams are rewarded with flex scheduled home game in the final week of the regular season. The 5th and 6th-place teams have a shot at the playoffs, and more fans would be involved and invested in the entire season.

The price of attendance for Oregon home games next season, and for home games coast-to-coast increase significantly in 2026.

Flex-scheduled playoff play-in games would bring in more media dollars. And with an AQ playoff format, a B1G/SEC out-of-conference football challenge could be played every season for bigger B1G/$EC media money.

Much of the PO Committee's subjectivity would be eliminated. More money for the ACC and the B12 helps stave off further consolidation and keeps millions of ACC and B12 football fans invested in the great game of college football. No need to further shuffle the CFB conference deck.

Your Honor (if you are still awake), I rest my case.😁

[Oops - If and as I expect will happen in 2030, B1G teams keep the playoff money they earn, and media revenue is based at least in part on the number of folks watching the games, adding Cal and Stanford, with a floor for annual investment in athletics for all conference teams, might make sense.]

3 hours ago, Charles Fischer said:

This goes back quite a ways, but it was announced by the B1G that they have passed on those two schools permanently.

Well crap. Those two, I think, should be the only possibilities in the west. Maybe Colorado, but Utah? No way.

OK, ND and UNC it is I guess.

Two things, conference expansion and playoff scheduling.

Maybe it makes sense for the B1G to announce that in 2030 the conference will expand to 20 teams and thereafter there will be no further consideration of expanding. They could even name teams they are considering and include Notre Dame along with five or six others. Then the Irish will be presented with a now or never decision.

To me, allowing the playoff committee and the bowls to impact matters beyond their primary objective, like scheduling, is nonsense. The conferences could just tell them: "We are available to begin playoff games on January 1, 2025, a Friday and you, playoff committees and bowl committees, arrange your schedules accordingly with games on that day and the next. No games more than eight days apart." As it is now, the tail is wagging the dog.

Speaking of travel, on a separate basketball note, so far this season, games in Central/Eastern zone:

1-4 Oregon, with 2 to play

1-4 uW, with 2 to play

1-5 UCLA, with 1 to play

3-4 USC - final trip was Feb. 11

By the way, those 3 USC wins were by a combined 5 points total, and 1 loss was by 1 point.

Cronin is a very unhappy guy at UCLA this season. Both UCLA and USC lost road games at UM & MSU "bigly."

The B1G is a tough basketball conference. Most often, fans are fully invested in basketball especially if their football teams are semi-mediocre at the same school.

If the B1G needs to expand to 20, bring in Stanford and California.

Most of the men at Berkeley need a haircut, anyway.

1 hour ago, Grandpa Duck said:

Two things, conference expansion and playoff scheduling.

Maybe it makes sense for the B1G to announce that in 2030 the conference will expand to 20 teams and thereafter there will be no further consideration of expanding. They could even name teams they are considering and include Notre Dame along with five or six others. Then the Irish will be presented with a now or never decision.

To me, allowing the playoff committee and the bowls to impact matters beyond their primary objective, like scheduling, is nonsense. The conferences could just tell them: "We are available to begin playoff games on January 1, 2025, a Friday and you, playoff committees and bowl committees, arrange your schedules accordingly with games on that day and the next. No games more than eight days apart." As it is now, the tail is wagging the dog.

Amen, but CFB sold the right to make playoff and bowl decisions to Disney/ESPN.

I would have responded sooner but my dog ate Mike's article/homework assignment.

If two teams are added, I think they should be "western" schools to help balance scheduling/travel.

Cal, they will never have the money or Alumni support.

Stanford, just use their endowment to subsidize athletics and have their admission standards mirror Stanford's pass/fail or drop the class if-you-don't-like-the-grade-you're-getting grading system with high schools grading systems.

Utah, might be a good choice with their ?forward thinking? private equity deal and commitment.

If Nebraska was the eastern most western school, then another midwestern school would be added.

ND is a clucking egg layer when it comes to scheduling and would never join a power 2 conference.

Texas Tech is a fit. They are certainly dedicated to being big time and a BIG presence in Texas would make the SEC and BIG 12 heads spin off.

P.S. Mike, your idea makes tooooo much sense to ever be taken seriously.

Having been "away" for nearly a month, I would like to add how much I will miss 30Duck. I was blessed to have chatted with him several times. It was great "knowing" him for the short time we talked.

That being said. Grandpa Duck, what a thriller article. You presented us with the FishDuck version "what can the B1G do better"!

I would prefer an 18 team with no expansion and some type of Divisions with competitive balance to allow the best opportunity to slot four teams in the CFP. I would hope Play In Games would be included as that would certainly boost TV Ratings. Especially if you had two weeks of the most watched teams in the Conference battling it out for the title game (with the losers playing a consolation game to feature their prowess even more for the At Large spots (of course the coaches wouldn't want that, but what's a conference to do to raise its profile even more?).

Who knows? There have been so many changes to the game that it just might turn off more fans in the end.

I like Grandpa Duck's idea and have a thought on how to possibly make it work with the current 18 members.

1. As stated in the article - two divisions based on geography but keeping major rivalries.

2. Play all eight other teams in your division.

3. The 9th conference game would be set up as inter-division play based on conference rankings (may be difficult to do). 1 in West Division plays 1 in East Division. 2 in each division play each other and so forth. The higher ranking of the two teams has home field. Maybe some other version of this system would work better.

4. This in lieu of conference championship game.

My thought is this would help in final rankings for the CFB playoffs. Anyway, a slightly different version.

Canvasback, you and I are on the same track for a workable two-Division structure without expanding the conference. Upon reading Jon Joseph's first response, #2 above, I had the same idea when he spoke of a flex-schedule at the end of the season. With nine teams in a Division, after the eight game round-robin, the ninth game would be against a team from the other Division, with the opponent based on standings after the eight games.

I have a different take on home field. In the next article I willl propose that for the final game, in odd years. the home field is in the east and even years the home field is in the west. That will allow for schools to plan and sell tickets in advance for the final game. They will know the day and place, and the opponent will be determined the on the standings after eight conference games. Teams will know that they are going to travel, they just will not know for sure where.

Ties within the Division would be broken in the usual way, with head to head deciding. A three way tie would be broken by comparison of results with other teams in the Division. For example if one of the three beat #1, that team would win the top place in the tie, and so forth.

And, the conference champion will be the winner of #1 in the east vs. #1 in the west.

This is a change that could be put in place for 2027, without waiting for a conference expansion.

And, Jon, you underestimate us humans when you say that in-conference scheduling cannot be fair. I agree that computers are not the answer. Computers are no better than the humans that invented them, and in many respects not as good. We are getting closer to fair scheduling just by making proposals and discussing them.

On 2/19/2026 at 9:07 AM, Grandpa Duck said:

Predictably, Jon Joseph presents some enticing arguments that provoked my mind to consider different directions for reply.  That’s a good thing.  It is exactly what I hoped for while writing the article, and more.

Jon does not really ATFQ of which two schools the B1G should consider for expansion because he gives us six!  And not two divisions, but three.

I struggle to understand how three divisions with four cross-over games can ever be symmetrical.  Of necessity, there is no way the teams will be playing comparable opponents in the cross-over games. 

The Socratic question to you, Jon, is: “How is that symmetrical?”  Hence, is it fair?

I have considered the flex schedule at the end of the regular season before, but Jon gave me a new twist that I will address in the next article.  Hint, maybe there is a way for the B1G to achieve symmetry with only 18 teams and not expand.  Thanks for that.

Notre Dame is an obvious candidate for expansion.  Charles and I have discussed this possibility and he believes that the Irish broadcasting deal with CBS will keep them independent.  More to discuss there.

I can tell you as a resident of Indiana, hell will freeze over before Notre Dame joins the B1G. They have had plenty of chances to do so and have turned the B1G down every time. Yet their hockey team plays in the B1G because there is nowhere else for them to play. They don't want to share any of their tv money, no matter which network wins their contract.

Now that they have a written guarantee of being in the CFP every year as long as they are on the CFP's Top 12, the odds joining the B1G get longer. That's good. Anything I say about Notre Dame would be very vulgar and not politically correct here, so I will do what my mother use to always tell me "keep your mouth shut."

Don't think the B1G can logically make two even divisions with any number of teams. They tried that before, then used different names, leading to the East and West Divisions. They were so even that a bad Indiana team was stuck playing Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State (when they were good) and Penn State every year in the East Division ... some times 3 games in a row.

While the PUkes just a little west of the line drawn down the middle of the conference, kept their rival game with Indiana but played powerhouses like Northwestern, Wisconsin, Nebraska, a bad Illinois team while playing one or two of the big dogs in the East.

I don't like 20 teams. I don't like 18 teams and never liked 12 teams in the B1G. TV does and I am not the B1G commissioner so my likes don't mean much. I would/will get my drawing board out to see the possibilities of splitting the conference in two but I can see already if they would do it by location, the East already has more better teams than the 10 teams west of what I assume would be the Indiana/Illinois state line. That line would be just a little west of their original line down the center of Indiana, extending straight up into Michigan.

IMO the B1G will never get it right in scheduling because they haven't since they expanded the conference multiple times. I will say though by the next tv contract the B1G will have two new teams ... probably from the ACC. Those teams will be based only on their tv market so take your pick.

Thanks Grandpa Duck for scrambling my braincells today ... that is always a good thing. Now, it's time to enjoy some "teasing" nice Indiana weather.

Edited February 20Feb 20 by iubhounds

20 hours ago, HDuck said:

Speaking of travel, on a separate basketball note, so far this season, games in Central/Eastern zone:

1-4 Oregon, with 2 to play

1-4 uW, with 2 to play

1-5 UCLA, with 1 to play

3-4 USC - final trip was Feb. 11

By the way, those 3 USC wins were by a combined 5 points total, and 1 loss was by 1 point.

Cronin is a very unhappy guy at UCLA this season. Both UCLA and USC lost road games at UM & MSU "bigly."

The B1G is a tough basketball conference. Most often, fans are fully invested in basketball especially if their football teams are semi-mediocre at the same school.

Do that same thing with B1G that play in those four West Coast stadiums. I like what Cignetti said in 2024 about playing at UCLA and what Underwood said a few days ago after Illinois killed USC in LA ... traveling makes no difference to them.

Edited February 20Feb 20 by iubhounds

Big-10 Commissioner Tony Petitti should see Mike's article and this thread. Thank you Mike Whitty!

2 hours ago, Canvasback said:

I like Grandpa Duck's idea and have a thought on how to possibly make it work with the current 18 members.

1. As stated in the article - two divisions based on geography but keeping major rivalries.

2. Play all eight other teams in your division.

3. The 9th conference game would be set up as inter-division play based on conference rankings (may be difficult to do). 1 in West Division plays 1 in East Division. 2 in each division play each other and so forth. The higher ranking of the two teams has home field. Maybe some other version of this system would work better.

4. This in lieu of conference championship game.

My thought is this would help in final rankings for the CFB playoffs. Anyway, a slightly different version.

The only change I would make to the Cross division games in Canvasbacks scenario is instead of 1st place playing 1st place have 1 play 2 in the cross division game. This way if the 2 best teams happen to be in the same division they can proof it and go out of the league as the 1 & 2 seeds.

1 hour ago, Duckman60 said:

The only change I would make to the Cross division games in Canvasbacks scenario is instead of 1st place playing 1st place have 1 play 2 in the cross division game. This way if the 2 best teams happen to be in the same division they can proof it and go out of the league as the 1 & 2 seeds.

I think that makes good sense.

I need to better understand what you are saying, Duckman60 and Canvasback. Does your cross-division 1 plays two determine a Conference Champion?

If yes, please explain who is the champion if both the #1 teams win.

2 minutes ago, Grandpa Duck said:

I need to better understand what you are saying, Duckman60 and Canvasback. Does your cross-division 1 plays two determine a Conference Champion?

If yes, please explain who is the champion if both the #1 teams win.

I guess I was not focused on a Conference champsionship, I was mostly concerned about getting the 2 best teams into the playoffs for sure. With the large conferences I am not a big fan of conference champsionships, getting the best seeds to the playoffs is what I was focused on. I never liked when PSU, OSU & Michigan were in one division and the other division was a bunch of average teams.

I'm not wild about Conference Championships either, now that OBD have one. But my actual purpose here is to appeal to the powers of the conference to schedule fairly, and those powers are accustomed to having a Conference Champion. It may be that giving them an easy route to retain that historic honor will make it simpler to schedule fairly.

3 hours ago, Grandpa Duck said:

I need to better understand what you are saying, Duckman60 and Canvasback. Does your cross-division 1 plays two determine a Conference Champion?

If yes, please explain who is the champion if both the #1 teams win.

If 1 plays 1 than you have a conference champion. If you are more focused on seeding for the CFB playoff, then go with what Duckman60 wrote. I think either way would work, but I think I prefer Duckman20's approach.

Grandpa, I enjoyed this and your other articles, and I admire your quest for 'Fairness in Scheduling.'

The NFL does everything it can to ensure that one team does not have more Jimmy's and Joe's than another NFL team. But there is no accounting for Joe Montana and Tom Brady.

If CFB were a collective of 138 teams, or, more likely, 68 Power 4 teams, would conference schedules be 'in synch' if there was a high school draft with draft choices based on the reverse order of the prior season's results, restrictions on transfers, a salary cap on direct payment, but not on a player's unrestricted NIL deals, penalties for improper contact with players and coaches, and a conference schedule that gave the prior season successful teams the most difficult schedules and the worst teams the easiest schedules?

Doing all it can, the NFL cannot come up with 'equitable scheduling?'

Oregon State's rules of the CFB road are no different than Oregon's rules of the road. The rules were the same for Bear Bryant's and Nick Saban's Alabama teams as for the other members of the SEC.

Oregon men John McKay and John Robinson had success at USC. Clay Helton had the same resources and ...

Perhaps, in a perfectly balanced CFB world, 34 of 68 teams could finish 6-6. But you and I know that this isn't happening on this plane of existence. When the Big Ten had 14 teams with two divisions, the East Division dominated.

Regardless of travel and traditional issues, swap Ohio State and Penn State with Minnesota and Iowa, and there would have been a material difference? Most likely, Ohio State and, on occasion, Penn State, would have played East champ Michigan for the conference title season after season.

Again, I very much enjoyed the article and the discussion it engendered, but at least from my experience, you can legislate, in part, moves toward societal equality, but equality in sports?

The wheel turns. Not so long ago, Drew Brees and Bob Griese led Purdue to B1G titles. We just witnessed Purdue's rival, Indiana, make the greatest Phoenix-like flight in the history of the sport.

IMO, there is no way you can make any conference in football or any sport at whatever level, grade school through the NFL, equal. Because humans in every respect are not equal. And this is why Indiana's champ game meant, sorry SEC, so much more.

Add ASU and Arizona, CU and Utah, or Notre Dame and ? to the B1G, and have 10 teams in a West and East conference? Such a great article and fun to discuss.

However, the cream, or more in synch with today's game, the dough, will rise.

Jon,

I started with two threads from a couple of weeks ago where posters were complaining about unfairness of next year's BiG schedule. That's all I am addressing. I have no purpose whatsoever to make college football teams equal, or even equitable. I know the playoff format is all screwed up and there is nothing we fans can do about that. I'm not even going to try.

All I want to do is have the football teams in the B1G all begin the season from the same starting line. I have made a list of B1G teams as they finished, first through eighteenth, over the last two seasons. That whole list will be in the next article I write on this topic. Here are the top eight from the list and the teams from that top eight they are scheduled to play this year:

1.        Indiana Ohio State, Michigan and USC

2.        Oregon USC, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan,

3.        Ohio State Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, USC, Oregon, Michigan

4.        Iowa Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois

5.        Michigan Iowa, Penn State, Indiana, Oregon, Ohio State

6.        Illinois Ohio State, Oregon, Iowa

7.        USC Oregon, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana

8.        Penn State USC, Michigan

(Note: in making the above list I'm working with a difficult block schedule that has only the team logos, and I'm very human.)

I doubt that any serious fan of the B1G would argue that those eight are, at least, among the top ten teams going into the 2026 season. You tell me, Jon, would two Divisions playing round-robin be more fair than Ohio State playing six of the top eight teams in the conference?

As things are in College football, I would not change a thing about recruiting, the portal, or NIL. With Dan Lanning as our coach, the Duck facilities and Division Street providing the money, OBD are near the top in opportunity to make the playoffs. But if I were a coach in the B1G, I would much rather be Penn State playing two teams from the top eight than the schedule of Ohio State playing six teams from the top eight. Or do you want to be Michigan playing teams 1-4 plus Penn State? All I want is scheduling fairness, and next year's B1G schedule doesn't make the cut.

4 hours ago, Grandpa Duck said:

Jon,

I started with two threads from a couple of weeks ago where posters were complaining about unfairness of next year's BiG schedule. That's all I am addressing. I have no purpose whatsoever to make college football teams equal, or even equitable. I know the playoff format is all screwed up and there is nothing we fans can do about that. I'm not even going to try.

All I want to do is have the football teams in the B1G all begin the season from the same starting line. I have made a list of B1G teams as they finished, first through eighteenth, over the last two seasons. That whole list will be in the next article I write on this topic. Here are the top eight from the list and the teams from that top eight they are scheduled to play this year:

1.        Indiana Ohio State, Michigan and USC

2.        Oregon USC, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan,

3.        Ohio State Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, USC, Oregon, Michigan

4.        Iowa Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois

5.        Michigan Iowa, Penn State, Indiana, Oregon, Ohio State

6.        Illinois Ohio State, Oregon, Iowa

7.        USC Oregon, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana

8.        Penn State USC, Michigan

(Note: in making the above list I'm working with a difficult block schedule that has only the team logos, and I'm very human.)

I doubt that any serious fan of the B1G would argue that those eight are, at least, among the top ten teams going into the 2026 season. You tell me, Jon, would two Divisions playing round-robin be more fair than Ohio State playing six of the top eight teams in the conference?

As things are in College football, I would not change a thing about recruiting, the portal, or NIL. With Dan Lanning as our coach, the Duck facilities and Division Street providing the money, OBD are near the top in opportunity to make the playoffs. But if I were a coach in the B1G, I would much rather be Penn State playing two teams from the top eight than the schedule of Ohio State playing six teams from the top eight. Or do you want to be Michigan playing teams 1-4 plus Penn State? All I want is scheduling fairness, and next year's B1G schedule doesn't make the cut.

This season, it is Ohio State's turn to have the most difficult B1G football schedule. OBD's and Indiana's schedules are also more difficult than last season. Wisconsin goes from the most difficult conference schedule last season to one of, if not the easiest, conference schedules this season. So it goes.

This is what the B1G HQ aimed for when it came up with the football schedules through 2028. Balance as much as possible over five seasons.

With the vagaries in roster talent and the money invested in football, what we have in the B1G today is the best we can hope for.

Am I happy Oregon's schedule in 2026 is more difficult than in 2025? No. When the schedules through 2028 came out, I think Dan Lanning and Ryan Day highlighted games against one another, but not games against Indiana.

Just like the SEC teams three years back were not worried about Vanderbilt.

When putting the schedule together, no one knew that Indiana would be a playoff team in 2024 and win a title in 2025, or that Ohio State would lose two games in 2024 and win a title, that Wisconsin's QBs would be injured in the first game of the last three seasons, or that Michigan's head coach would be fired.

Try as you might, there are too many variables in CFB, as is the case in life, to come up with 'equitable' conference schedules every season.

Would two more B1G teams and divisions make things more equal? I don't think so. Adding two more teams that are not bottom-line accretive will not help the bottom line, and will not bring in more media dollars or make a material difference in the teams that win titles.

Thanks again for a terrific ponder point article.

5 hours ago, Grandpa Duck said:

Jon,

I started with two threads from a couple of weeks ago where posters were complaining about unfairness of next year's BiG schedule. That's all I am addressing. I have no purpose whatsoever to make college football teams equal, or even equitable. I know the playoff format is all screwed up and there is nothing we fans can do about that. I'm not even going to try.

All I want to do is have the football teams in the B1G all begin the season from the same starting line. I have made a list of B1G teams as they finished, first through eighteenth, over the last two seasons. That whole list will be in the next article I write on this topic. Here are the top eight from the list and the teams from that top eight they are scheduled to play this year:

1.        Indiana Ohio State, Michigan and USC

2.        Oregon USC, Illinois, Ohio State, Michigan,

3.        Ohio State Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, USC, Oregon, Michigan

4.        Iowa Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois

5.        Michigan Iowa, Penn State, Indiana, Oregon, Ohio State

6.        Illinois Ohio State, Oregon, Iowa

7.        USC Oregon, Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana

8.        Penn State USC, Michigan

(Note: in making the above list I'm working with a difficult block schedule that has only the team logos, and I'm very human.)

I doubt that any serious fan of the B1G would argue that those eight are, at least, among the top ten teams going into the 2026 season. You tell me, Jon, would two Divisions playing round-robin be more fair than Ohio State playing six of the top eight teams in the conference?

As things are in College football, I would not change a thing about recruiting, the portal, or NIL. With Dan Lanning as our coach, the Duck facilities and Division Street providing the money, OBD are near the top in opportunity to make the playoffs. But if I were a coach in the B1G, I would much rather be Penn State playing two teams from the top eight than the schedule of Ohio State playing six teams from the top eight. Or do you want to be Michigan playing teams 1-4 plus Penn State? All I want is scheduling fairness, and next year's B1G schedule doesn't make the cut.

Fairness? A good goal. But there is no accounting for a Cig lead Indiana or a Penn State bust.

I think B1G HQ in 2023 put together schedules from 2024 through 2028 that, considering 'permanent' opponents, were as equitable over five seasons as could be.

Looking back to 2023, OBD had a cakewalk conference schedule in 2025, including a home game vs. the pathetic Indiana Hoosiers.

In theory, I love your scheduling matrix idea. It kind of works in the NFL, which is dedicated to parity, but the NFL has nowhere near the yearly roster turnover of today's CFB. And the NFL also has restraints on the number of terrific players a team can buy every year.

I think forecasting schedules for five seasons, as we have in the B1G, or three seasons like the SEC, is as close to equitable as today's CFB format can allow.

My biggest beef with Oregon's schedule this season is not with the opponents but with eight P4 games without a break and traveling to the Eastern time zone twice in November.

Thanks again for the great article.

Jon, I take the "Cig lead" and Penn State "bust" into account by adjusting the Divisions every two years. What bothers me most about Divisions is that one of the primary benefits of belonging to a Conference like the B1G is playing against the best teams in the country like Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana. My current thinking about the first two years of Divisions in the B1G puts those three teams in the East. May have to reconsider that.

14 minutes ago, Grandpa Duck said:

Jon, I take the "Cig lead" and Penn State "bust" into account by adjusting the Divisions every two years. What bothers me most about Divisions is that one of the primary benefits of belonging to a Conference like the B1G is playing against the best teams in the country like Ohio State, Michigan and Indiana. My current thinking about the first two years of Divisions in the B1G puts those three teams in the East. May have to reconsider that.

That is exactly what happened as I have posted before, when the B1G "tried" division. It didn't matter if the split line was horizontal for a north south division or vertical for an east west division, the three best teams were in the same division. That did not include Indiana because at the time MSU was very legit as was PSU. Of course that might change a little adding the four west coat teams.

Honestly I am not sure there is any answer for a conference with 18 teams. I like the idea of moving it back to scheduling every three years instead of five years.

I was thinking yesterday that the least travel a west coast B1G team could do, would have those four teams play each other every year. What would leave five B1G games where alternating years west coast teams would travel east twice and three times in a season because dome of those team would also travel west for games.

Yet that is not fair either, with the four west coast teams playing each other every year and only traveling up and down the coast highway. Yet it wouldn't be any different than those teams in the Midwest and East play a lot of the same teams every year.

As mentioned in posts above, there are a lot of intangibles that can throw a monkey wrench into scheduling. Cignetti, PSU easy schedule, a better coach at Michigan, injuries ...

All I can do is sit back and continue watching 14 hours of college football on Saturdays, some during the week (especially that new SacState vs BallState game 🥳). Schedules will not affect me but I will still complain about those with the "easy route" to the CFP. I guess that is where the focus is now, the CFP and only 10 slots open for the best teams.

I probably need to spend more time researching robots. Not just the vacuum kind but one that can serve food to me during those long Saturdays, feed the dogs, let the dogs in and out of the house and even walk them. After all I don't want to miss a minute seeing Oregon playing in a driving snow storm some November at Rutgers, Maryland, or up north at Wisconsin, MSU or Michigan.

OK here's the map. Geographically there's a natural break at Lake Michigan, 10 teams west and 8 teams east. Take your pick of Wisconsin, Northwestern or Illinois and move them to the east side and you have 9 on each side. Easy geography.

HOWEVER, this in no way works competively with Indiana, Michigan, OSU and PSU all on the east side. You can swap some border teams around to try and get some competitive parity, but it's a real problem because Michigan, OSU and PSU sit in the center of the east side. It's hard to split Michigan and OSU, but it could be done with a rivalry guaranty. I just think it's a hard sell. Similarly that applies to Michigan/MSU. That said, I think the best split would be:

West East

fuskies Minnesota

OBD Northwestern

USC Illinois

UCLA Indiana

Nebraska Purdue

Iowa OSU

Wisconsin PSU

Michigan Rutgers

MSU Maryland

Not sure why my columns didn't work, this is a little cluttered but you get the picture.

Edited February 21Feb 21 by noDucknewby