With the Big Ten set to become 16 members strong in the near future, it is clear that the method for determining a team's schedule will have to change. It also seems clear that the idea of conferences will become a thing of the past, but will that impact how often the rivalries you know and love will be played? My question is: in the future, how much weight should be given to protected rivalries vs ensuring that everyone in the conference plays everyone else on a semi-regular basis? What is the right balance between keeping some of the traditions alive vs making a 16-member conference actually feel like a conference?
For example, with 16 teams, the Big Ten could adopt any of the following models.
- Maximum Tradition: 7x2 model - 7 protected rivals with two non-rival games, giving you seven teams you can really grow to hate while playing the other eight teams twice every eight years. This basically smells like the current scheduling model while allowing each team to have its own unique set of rivals.
- Lean toward Tradition: 6x3 model - 6 protected rivalries with three non-rival games, giving you six teams you can really grow to hate while playing the other nine teams twice every six years.
- Less is More: 3x6 model - 3 protected rivalries are enough to maintain everyone's favorite matchups on a yearly basis while also allowing you to play everyone else as often as possible - twice every four years.
- Minimal Tradition: 0x9 model - Screw protected rivalries. See everyone else in the conference as often as possible and get a fresh slate of nine teams every year.
Obviously, I don't think the Big Ten is done expanding, and I'm also aware that they could/are likely to move to a ten-game schedule because looks at the pile of media money and shrugs. But each of these options would be relatively easy to recycle for a ten-game slate or an 18 to 20-member conference. I'm not looking for a prediction of what you think will happen, I'm simply curious about what you all believe the proper balance in scheduling would be.
