Did Big Ten nail it? Big wins, potential pitfalls in new schedule format

The Big Ten football schedule was released with much fanfare last week, as the conference laid out how things would look in 2024 and 2025 once USC and UCLA enter the mix.

Among the key takeaways? The league isn't going to duck the fact that the schedule will be loaded and travel will be a major factor. Furthermore, the key rivalries will be (largely) protected and the road to the Big Ten championship will be much more of a meritocracy with the elimination of divisions.

[Why Big Ten is ditching divisions, protecting rivalries]

Still, nothing's perfect when undertaking a shift of this magnitude. What was done right? Could some things have been done better? And what are some potential pitfalls to look for?

FOX Sports college football writers RJ Young, Michael Cohen and Bryan Fischer are here to weigh in on all of it.

What was your overarching impression of the Big Ten's new scheduling model?

Michael Cohen: The model seemed to strike the right balance of preserving and respecting the league's storied history while also granting the powers that be enough wiggle room to tweak the format as life with 16 teams takes shape. Earmarking rivalries that will be protected and played annually was a critical step toward entering a division-less world. Without the geographic divides of the Big Ten East and the Big Ten West, the only way to ensure that some of the conference's most exciting regional battles will continue was to devise a format that honored them. The decision to do away with divisions also forges a more meritocratic path toward the Big Ten Championship at a time when an imbalance between East and West rendered the league's title game somewhat trivial. Not once since the league transitioned to its current format in 2014 had a representative from the West hoisted the trophy. Moving forward, the Big Ten's two best teams will be guaranteed to meet every year for the conference championship.

But that doesn't mean the model is perfect. There's a strange unevenness to the distribution of protected rivalry games with schools playing anywhere from zero to three guaranteed opponents each year. That kind of variance can lead to scheduling imbalances depending on the caliber of a program's rivals. Iowa, for example, has protected rivalries against two traditionally weaker teams in Minnesota (one 10-win season since 2003) and Nebraska (one 10-win season since 2012) in addition to its rivalry with Wisconsin (a legitimate contender). The other significant issue is the travel imbalance. Based on the lists of opponents for 2024, incoming members USC and UCLA will each fly an average of more than 2,000 miles per road game in the Big Ten. That kind of travel can take significant mental and physical tolls on athletes in conjunction with academic ramifications.

Bryan Fischer: My initial takeaway was largely that they nailed it.

Unlike the constant debate in the SEC that has been going on for ages, there is no waffling at playing stronger competition in the form of nine conference games. And there’s not this content-generating yapping over which rivalries matter. It just makes sense.

That said … if I have one gripe, it might be centered on Penn State. I get that the Nittany Lions are among the recent-ish crop of additions to the historic league, but it doesn’t make sense to me that they do not get any of the protected rivalries. 

I know I can’t be alone among neutrals in wanting an Ohio State-Penn State game every season given the classics those two have staged over the years. Same with Michigan State-Penn State, which is among the most unique trophy games in the Big Ten and always appears to have something uniquely college football take place.

But of all the models the league office could have gone with, it’s honestly the best you could do outside of a round-robin.

RJ Young: As I wrote earlier this week, this is how a super-conference is supposed to schedule. While the SEC has its members ducking each other, the Big Ten has its members playing each other at least once every other year with matchups as delicious as thick-cut bacon on Texas toast.

With the Flex Protect Plus Framework — which feels like a line of products the late great Billy Mays would've pitched to me in an infomercial as I came down from the high of late night and flinty Pac-12 football — you can see the conference is keenly interested in not just protecting existing rivalries but in getting its most popular and widely compelling programs to tilt a lance — a lot.

The B1G dropped divisions. It kept the rivalries that matter: Ohio State-Michigan, Michigan-Michigan State and Maryland-Rutgers. (You're meant to laugh here.)

For the most part, each program will have three permanent opponents. Some have just one, and some are Penn State, which has none.

Everybody is gonna get their turn to run the Midwest Mordor Corridor, though.

The league's 11 protected rivalry games can be reassessed down the road as certain programs ebb and flow in terms of overall competitiveness. Which matchup would you like to see added to the protected list in the future? 

Bryan: See my answer above regarding Penn State, but I’m mildly surprised that a lifeline to the recent Los Angeles additions wasn’t given with an annual series with Nebraska. Call it a bit of personal bias, but having seen USC make a fascinating non-conference trip to Lincoln and the Huskers paint the Rose Bowl red during a BCS title game, maybe something could come together in the future.

We’ve all seen so much chatter about the additional travel burdens which result in recent Westward expansion, but having Nebraska play in L.A. once a year while hosting the other new B1G program just seems to make sense to me.

RJ: As noted above, Penn State is the only Big Ten school without a single permanent opponent, but the Lions should have one against Ohio State every year. Ohio State might not like that, but I doubt they will try to duck the Nittany Lions either.

Michael: One of the more eyebrow-raising omissions from the list of protected rivalries was Penn State vs. Ohio State, a pulsating Big Ten East showdown that always served as one of the league's marquee games each year. Perhaps it was the relative infancy of a series that only became annual in 1993 — the year Penn State joined the Big Ten — that deterred school administrators and league officials from keeping it. But there's no denying the level of intrigue and influence this matchup has had: six of the last 12 games were decided by single digits, and the Buckeyes hold a relatively modest 23-14 lead in the all-time series, with six of those wins coming in the last six years. It would be nice to see this rivalry restored down the road. 

As for the creation of new rivalries, it stands to reason that eventually pairing USC with either Michigan or Ohio State would fuse some of the league's strongest brands. The Trojans and Wolverines have met just 10 times in their illustrious histories, with the Californians holding a narrow 6-4 edge. The last matchup was a 32-18 USC victory in the 2007 Rose Bowl. The Trojans and Buckeyes, meanwhile, have played 24 times with USC maintaining a 13-10-1 advantage. The two schools last faced each other in the Cotton Bowl on Dec. 29, 2017, with Ohio State earning a 24-7 win. One of those two series should become an annual staple of the expanded Big Ten.

Looking at the 2024 league opponents, which school received a favorable draw from the Big Ten? Which program might stumble in Year 1 of the 16-team format based on the strength of schedule?

RJ: I don't think any program received a "favorable" draw. I think all 16 teams have matchups home and away that annoy them, which is great. That means fans of Big Ten teams are gonna get the chance to see the best possible games the league can offer with a nod toward eventual playoff expansion.

However, USC and Michigan have 2024 schedules that are bound to make Trojans and Wolverines holler louder than a sleep-deprived toddler.

As I wrote earlier this week, In 2024, Michigan, an OG in the B1G, will play at Ohio State, at USC, and perhaps give UCLA the coldest welcome to Midwest at the Big House. This is in addition to playing Fresno State, Arkansas State and Texas out of conference.

Meanwhile, USC, an infant in the conference but a Made Man in the sport, has inadvertently put together a schedule that's about as soft as a two-ton hammer dropped on a rotting wood floor.

In 2024, USC's dance card doubles as a four-month-long Kumite: LSU in Las Vegas, San Jose State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, at Maryland, at Northwestern, at Penn State, at Purdue and at UCLA. Now the order laid out here will change, but the difficulty is stuck at All-Madden.

Michael: It looks like Ohio State will have a fairly navigable schedule in 2024, something head coach Ryan Day and his staff will surely welcome after what many expect to be a significant roster overhaul following next year's NFL Draft. That the Buckeyes could have upwards of 13 players drafted speaks to how many new faces will be gracing the Ohio Stadium turf when USC and UCLA join the league. A breezy non-conference slate featuring Southern Miss, Western Michigan and Marshall should pose the Buckeyes few problems, just as they'll be significant favorites in four of their five Big Ten home games against Illinois, Iowa, Northwestern and Rutgers — a date with Michigan being the only outlier. The road schedule is also reasonably friendly with trips to Michigan State, Minnesota, Penn State and UCLA. Just one of those environments — Happy Valley — would be considered overly hostile.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, UCLA could have an unsavory debut in its new conference due largely to a hellish road slate. Not only will the Bruins make four cross-country trips for Big Ten games against Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Rutgers, but they also travel to Hawaii and LSU in the non-conference portion of their schedule. That's a staggering amount of flight time for a team unaccustomed to long journeys. And if that wasn't bad enough, UCLA also hosts two of the league's best teams in Ohio State and USC for home games. It's hard to envision the Bruins finishing that season in great shape.

Bryan: The debate garnered from this question confirms that this move to 16 teams in 2024 is going to reinforce that better teams will be playing other brand names and result in fantastic games every single season in the Big Ten. You may think you have a week or two of breaks, but when you start to factor in travel and recent coaching hires, that's not really the case. It’s good games for all and a schedule coaches and fans need to start evaluating in terms of best path to a CFP bid above all else.

I agree with Michael that Ohio State gets things about as well as you could hope — they get only one of the two L.A. schools on the road and have a very manageable home slate that includes their most bitter rivals coming to Columbus. It’s not easy, but it’s not egregious.

If I had to go with someone to stumble, I might focus on the state of Illinois. Both Northwestern and the Illini have to play Ohio State in the ‘Shoe, make a trip west to Los Angeles, plus face either Michigan/Penn State. Each also faces a slew of teams that could make a big jump in 2024 in Michigan State or Nebraska, while Bret Bielema’s crew gets tricky tests against Purdue and Iowa.

Seems fun for us without a rooting interest, but I know the coaches do not think alike when looking at the names on the docket a year from now.

A byproduct of the Big Ten's decision to remove divisions is the potential for more than one — and as many as three — showdowns between Ohio State and Michigan in a given season, including the possibility of the Buckeyes and Wolverines facing each other in consecutive weeks. How will you feel if the rivalry game occurs more frequently? 

Michael: It's tempting to think about the possibility of more frequent matchups between Ohio State and Michigan as nothing but a positive for college football. Any time two of the sport's most historic and most accomplished programs face each other must be great for college football, right? The stakes will be high, the television ratings should soar and the talent on both rosters introduces fans to players they'll eventually watch in the NFL on Sundays. To some, watching Ohio State and Michigan face each other in the regular season finale, then seven days later in the Big Ten title game, and potentially, a week or two later in the College Football Playoff likely sounds rather idyllic. The more, the better. 

But any football fans who also follow soccer will understand that one of the aptest comparisons for this scenario isn't necessarily positive. The rivalry between Real Madrid and Barcelona in Spain is revered as one of the fiercest in sports, and for decades they played each other twice a season — once at each team's venue as part of the regular La Liga schedule. Few matchups in world football were more anticipated than El Clásico. But the advent of additional in-season tournaments has drastically increased the frequency of games between the two sides, and with that uptick has come a decline in intensity. Real Madrid and Barcelona met five times across three separate competitions during the 2010-11 campaign alone, including a ridiculous stretch in which they faced each other on April 16, April 20, April 27 and May 3. By the end of that three-week run in 2011, rivalry fatigue had set in for players and fans alike. That's the kind of risk the Big Ten is running by revising the league's format and schedule. 

Bryan: I will say it simply: More, please.

Just think back to the most recent season, when Ohio State and Michigan came close to seeing each other again, but with the added pressure of it being in the CFP, had the committee moved teams around. 

I get how it seems like it will devalue ‘The Game,’ but guess what? The Buckeyes will always hate the Wolverines. Michigan will always hate Ohio State. No matter where or how many times, that will always be the case. The more classics we get in this rivalry and the more fan angst it creates, I’m all for it.

RJ: Isn't that what we've wanted from the jump? I find it remarkable that we've gone this long without the possibility of the two biggest brands in the Big Ten — Ohio State and Michigan — fit to fight not once (regular season), not twice (Big Ten title game) but possibly three times each year (national title game). Hell, the SEC loves nothing more than to see their conference title game replayed as the national title game. Why wouldn't the Big Ten want to triple dip its potato chop given half a chance?

And if both should survive the Midwest Mordor Corridor, then I say hand them their knives. Hang their sigils aloft. Bless them in primetime. Let the stronger arise anointed as those chosen to defend their league's honor against whoever is left to beat in pursuit of their legend.

Bryan Fischer is a college football writer for FOX Sports. He has been covering college athletics for nearly two decades at outlets such as NBC Sports, CBS Sports, Yahoo! Sports and NFL.com among others. Follow him on Twitter at @BryanDFischer.

RJ Young is a national college football writer and analyst for FOX Sports and the host of the podcast "The Number One College Football Show." Follow him on Twitter at @RJ_Young and subscribe to "The Number One College Football Show" on YouTube.

Michael Cohen covers college football and basketball for FOX Sports with an emphasis on the Big Ten. Follow him on Twitter at @Michael_Cohen13.