Big Ten/Pac-12 to enter regular season scheduling agreement in 2017

[HuskerBCS]

I'm no statistics guru but 1 of 5 or 6 teams being rematched with 1 of about 4 teams in the Rose Bowl, when your chances of meeting them regular season is 1 in 12, is hardly an eventuality to worry about.

I heard that they are going to try and protect the competitve equity in these games. Meaning that they are going to try and match up the top teams from each conference. Meaning B1G #1 vs Pac #1. This makes a Rose Bowl rematch scenario even more likely.

 

[HuskerBCS]

The problem that I have with this agreement (aside from the financial/national exposure aspect) is that the B1G already has the Rose Bowl, which ties these 2 conferences together already. What I don't like is that you are going to run into a situation where a team from the B1G plays a team from the Pac12 in the regular season and then they win their conferences and face each other in the Rose Bowl.

You know what this means? As fans of those 2 teams, we watch it. For the rest of the country, their view is, "Why waste my time watching that game when I saw them play already this year.

Examples:

Last year: Nebraska and Washington

This year: LSU and Alabama

Both of these games were total drags the first time they were played, so why tune in to watch the rematch in the bowl game when it wasn't a good game to watch in the first place? I guess that's really my only reason to dislike this agreement. I guess if we were to make this type of agreement with anyone, make it with the SEC or Big12. There's my 2 cents.

You should try reading a little. LOL

 

[Nexus]

@HuskerBCS,

Another thing I should've mentioned in my last post. Bowl reps are interested in traditional powers with big travelling fanbases. They're all about $$ first. Since Nebraska fits both of those definitions, bowl reps wouldn't think twice about a rematch if the other opponent also fits that definition. It's business for them.

With that in mind, who is to say that Nebraska and Tennessee won't play twice in 2017? Both fit the definition highlighted above. And if circumstances allowed (even if they're not playing in the national title game against each other), you can bet any of those bowl games would love to have Nebraska vs Tennessee, rematch be damned.

Just doesn't happen very often. Business or not, the bowls try to avoid regular season rematches. In the business aspect of it, they are afraid fans won't travel and buy tickets because it's a rematch. Most fans aren't gonna wanna watch a second game unless the 1st game as an amazing game.

That's the thing though, it's already happened before, and not just in recent times either. Nebraska/Oklahoma in 1978 is just one of several examples. It's not all that uncommon. Like I said, depending on the circumstances, bowl reps would likely take two tradition rich programs over the alternative 9 out of 10 times.

 

[Husker John]

I think this is a great opportunity to beat the Buffs like a rented mule again :horns2

 

[2ndNnine]

Next year Pac-12 is starting their own network. This will give both conferences roughly 43% of the national market from what I was reading. That's pretty damn good exposure for just two conferences. That and the green of course.

This

This blows the LHN gay porn network right out of the water

Man, this would be a great decade to not suck

 

[Excel]

I wonder if they'll reseed every year or make them fixed like the SEC does with its permanent inter-divisional opponents.

 

[jsneb83]

IMO this is a bad idea.

What you are effectively doing is making it more difficult to schedule OOC games against Big Name non Pac 12 BCS teams as you're already locked into an OOC away game each other year. Which will have a negative effect on recruiting the south and south east regions for the conference.

Plus the Big Ten is already regarded as too much of a mid-west centric conference why make that stereotype even more engrained? - Expecially if it makes it tougher for certain teams to continue playing other traditional OOC opponents, IE Notre Dame, Pitt etc.

Also probably inflames the whole Penn State resentments of not being Eastern leaning enough.

Not to mention the timezone issues and the fact that noone cares about Pac 12 football outside of the Pac 12 aside from the Rose Bowl game.

FAR too many negatives and not anywhere near enough positives IMO. If Big Ten teams want to schedule series with Pac 12 teams they can do that without the league mandating they do it.

I don't see it as a bad thing, having Colorado (the most likely choice for NU) replace South Dakota State (and the like) is a good thing. He's also saying that they may not go to a 9 game conference schedule so NU would still get to play to creampuffs. Colorado will just replace the lower division teams like Wake Forest and then we keep the Tennessee's, Miami's, and Oklahoma's (ok, I'm dreaming there) as our marque OOC game. But even if they go to the 9 game schedule, NU will be ok if we are as good as we all hope we will be by that time. I have no problem with a cream puff, CU and a OU type OOC every year.

The problem with your post is that the Pac 12 game in many years would most likely replace the Tennesee's and Miami's not the South Dakota States because of scheduling issues.

For financial stability Nebraska's athletic department requires a MINIMUM of 7 home games a year. As does pretty much every other program.

With an 8 game conference slate that means you are guaranteed 4 conference home games with 4 conference road games each year.

So Nebraska schedules one big OOC game every year and can be flexible with when that road game takes place because one OOC game still lets them have 7 home games every year and up to 8 home games every other year.

If you add a Pac 12 team to the mix you've now got 5 guaranteed road games every other season. (4 conference and 1 OOC)

That severely limits your other big name OOC potential matchups because now you are no longer flexible on when that road game takes place.

Put it this way -

This starts in 2017. We have 3 OOC home games scheduled that year and already are scheduled to visit Tennesee in 2018. That means we MUST host the first Pac 12 game in 2017 to maintain the 7 home game financial need in 2018.

Then whatever 2019 OOC game we schedule if we were to schedule a home/home series with another BCS team would also have to be played in that team's stadium because the 2nd game in 2020 can't be on the road because we have to go to Boulder again (or whatever Pac 12 team it is).

11 other Pac 12/Big Ten teams will also be in the same predicament. So that is a lot of teams all needing to have very specific scheduling dates and that doesn't count the fact that those other leagues need home/away dates filled too.

So now you're setting up a system where the demand for BCS opponents with the right home/away setup starts to outweigh the supply and you'll be seeing a lot more of what we just saw last year with a P12 team and 3 cupcakes OOC.

And that's IF they do home/home series with the Big 10 and Pac 12 games. If they do the proposed neutral site matchups then count on never playing other BCS OOC games because now you're guaranteed to always be playing 3 cupcake OOC games to hit that 7 home game mark and have no possibility of the ocassional 8th game of extra revenue.

Actually the B1G was gonna go to a 9 game conference schedule starting in 2017 before they made this agreement, so we would still have had the 5 away games every other year anyway. So it wouldn't change anything for scheduling OOC games they it would have if they didn't have this agreement.

 

[HSKR]

Next year Pac-12 is starting their own network. This will give both conferences roughly 43% of the national market from what I was reading. That's pretty damn good exposure for just two conferences. That and the green of course.

This

This blows the LHN gay porn network right out of the water

Man, this would be a great decade to not suck

This may be the million dollar question that nobody is asking yet....what does this mean for Texas? To me it would be another step making it more appealing for Texas to joined either the PAC or the BIG and either one would like to add Texas TV sets as well. The other scenario I could see coming out of this is Texas going independent, keeping their own network and then agreeing to fill part of their football and basketball schedule with PAC and BIG teams and playing their Olympic sports with these two conferences. I don't think Texas wants anything to do with the SEC and will leave that market alone but I could see the Horns wanting to expand TV sets in PAC and BIG country and work some kind of agreement with the two.

 

[irafreak]

Nice...except for the thought of playing against Mike Leach...he seems to have our number after we fired FS...