Many of you are doing your homework this week: crafting ideal future schedule models for your favorite Big Ten team. We posted several submissions Thursday afternoon, and here are some more for you to pore over.
Enjoy!
Matt from L.A.
Affiliation: Wisconsin
Big Ten games: Nine. Six division, three crossovers, including protected crossover with Michigan State. Other protected crossovers: Indiana-Purdue, Michigan-Minnesota, Ohio State-Illinois, Penn State-Iowa, Maryland-Nebraska, Rutgers-Northwestern (Nebraska and Northwestern fans will complain. Deal with it.)
Nonleague plan: Two games vs. other Big 5 schools (one at a neutral site, one as part of a home-and-home in back-to-back years, preferably with a Pac-12 school). Both games take place in the first four weeks. One home game vs. MAC team. I think that it is productive for both sides to play MAC teams.
FCS opponents: No. Does more harm than good, no matter what.
Neutral-site games: I'm a big fan of neutral-site games for recruiting purposes especially, but also for exposure in general. They can also be a welcome chance to see the team in person for fans living in other areas of the country, or for those who want an excuse to travel. I would love to see Wisconsin vs. Arkansas in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, or New Orleans for obvious Bielema-related reasons.
Vince from Santa Barbara, Calif.
Affiliation: Iowa
Big Ten games: Eight. Six in the division and two rotating crossover games in which we play all seven teams over the course of three and a half years.
Nonleague plan: One against each school from the Pac-12, SEC, ACC and Big 12. How awesome would that be?! My initial choices would be teams that mirror the athletic history, recent game history and recent (last decade) success that Iowa has had in the following desired order -- Pac-12: UCLA, Washington, Arizona -- SEC: Ole Miss, Tennessee, South Carolina -- ACC: Georgia Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech -- Big 12: Texas, Kansas State, Missouri.
FCS opponents: None (sorry, Northern Iowa)
Neutral-site games: I love the idea. Fits best with teams from the Big 12 and SEC. Iowa vs Kansas State or Missouri (they owe us a game) in Kansas City, or Iowa vs. Tennessee in St Louis.
Lachian from Winnipeg
Affiliation: Penn State
Big Ten games: Nine. I have no problem watching PSU play nine games with some of the more historical brands (i.e Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, etc.).
Nonleague plan: Make it an even four of four [against Power-5 conference teams]. You just don't get the sense that the stadium atmosphere is up there with an FCS team as it would be with an OOC rival like Pitt or even teams like Notre Dame, Alabama, which jump out to fans and get them excited about the season heading into conference games.
FCS opponents: No, unless PSU is constantly scheduling the top-tier FCS teams. I don't feel people are interested in seeing them play, especially as PSU gradually gets the scholarships back from the ban and the depth comes back.
Neutral-site games: I thought watching PSU-Syracuse at MetLife (Stadium) last year was pretty neat, and of course the game in Dublin is cool, though waking up at 7 a.m. won't be particularly fun. As long as it's with a respectable opponent in a stadium outside of the college football world with some history to it you can't really go wrong.
Tony from Auburn
Affiliation: Purdue
Big Ten games: Nine. Ten games is out of the question due to budget issues, and we might as well not even be a conference with only eight.
Nonleague plan: There should be a minimum of one game per season against other Power-Five teams, if for no other reason than giving a more exciting game to the fans. It wouldn't be an Auburn or a Stanford, but it would still be better than our usual full slate of MAC teams.
FCS opponents: I don't think there needs to be a hard rule against FCS opponents. All any school should really be after is scheduling teams of a similar level of play. The Ohio States and Wisconsins should definitely not be scheduling any FCS teams, but after Purdue's pitiful 2013 season, beating any FCS team is still better than losing to a bad FBS team.
Neutral-site games: Really aren't on my radar. Without a LSU-Wisconsin at Lambeau Field-level of hype, I don't know if neutral-site games would pay out enough to be worth it. Notre Dame is the only opponent that could possibly generate enough excitement for most fans to travel for a Purdue game, so I guess we'll see how this year's contest in Indianapolis goes.
Jerome from Toronto
Affiliation: Nebraska
Big Ten games: Nine. I would take out the divisions. Every team plays five natural conference rivals EVERY year, then rotates the remaining eight teams through a four-year cycle so they play four teams for a home-and-home, and then the next four teams for a home-and-home.
Nonleague plan: Play a major Power-Five school (home/home). Play either a lower Power-Five school or a good non-Power-Five school. Play any FBS school you can get to visit Lincoln that won't require a home-and-home series.
FCS opponents: No. I hate seeing FCS games on the schedule so I'm glad the B1G is eliminating these games completely.
Neutral-site games: Should be left for the bowls, and playoff games.
Nick from Washington, D.C.
Affiliation: Ohio State
Big Ten games: Ten. It's worth it for more Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska games.
Nonleague plan: One game against a big-name program, presumably from a Power-Five conference (USC, Texas, Alabama, FSU, Oregon, Georgia, Stanford). One game against a respectable team from a Power-Five conference (Tennessee, UNC, Washington, Texas Tech, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Boston College). One tune-up game against the Little Sisters of the Poor or similar programs (Akron, Bowling Green, Kent State, Arkansas, Connecticut).
FCS opponents: No. They don't need to go down a division for a tune-up game. Also, losing would be horribly embarrassing.
Neutral-site games: No. And especially not in the south. The SEC is just using these "neutral-site" games as a way to avoid a home and home. MAKE. THEM. COME. NORTH.
