Football Big Ten releases 2024 and 2025 schedules

[Wallace Breen]

If Bama left the SEC for the Big Ten and never played Auburn again the only people who would truly care are Auburn fans. When Nebraska (or Colorado for example) left the Big 8 life went on. The only issue for both was the quality of play dropped.

I'm sure some people are happy Penn State is playing West Virginia this year but I'd drop that "rivalry" game for countless other games. The loss of tradition honestly doesn't hurt the overall perception.

I have nothing against Pitt but I don't want to play them because those game matter 40 years ago. Just being honest.

I just want the super league to happen...its about 30 years overdue

You really need to focus on the NFL. You are not a college football fan at all.

 

[LandoComando]

You really need to focus on the NFL. You are not a college football fan at all.

Pretending you have to want it to still be the 80s doesn't make you a better college football fan. You just don't want to accept what college football is and truly has always been.

 

[Marylovesthelions]

Not playing OSU & UM every year will improve our ability to get to the championship game, victory and into the plasyoffd.

 

[fastlax16]

UGA isn’t clamoring to play Bama every regular season, nor vice versa.

 

[rrdd2021]

Not playing OSU & UM every year will improve our ability to get to the championship game, victory and into the plasyoffd.

Yep, not that hard to figure out

 

[Wallace Breen]

Yep, not that hard to figure out

That is the SEC model right there. Assemble the best team money can buy, soften the schedule to the point the regular season is mostly meaningless, get to the post season and see what happens. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

 

[sdwcpa]

With a 12 team playoff, winning the games that you are supposed to win and even splitting the marquee games should get a team like PSU into the playoffs

 

[PSUSignore]

Not playing OSU & UM every year will improve our ability to get to the championship game, victory and into the plasyoffd.

It looks like we'll be playing 2 of OSU, UM and USC every year so it won't be all that different.

 

[lazydave841]

It looks like we'll be playing 2 of OSU, UM and USC every year so it won't be all that different.

USC should rotate off for 2 years in '26 and '27. Buckeyes in '26, Michigan in '27 unless scheduling reverses them because of the home/away dynamic.

 

[doctornick]

USC should rotate off for 2 years in '26 and '27. Buckeyes in '26, Michigan in '27 unless scheduling reverses them because of the home/away dynamic.

No. Every team is played at least once every two seasons. PSU will play USC one of the years in 2026 or 2027. PSU will play UM and OSU each at least once in 2026/27 but could play either of them twice.

Because we don’t have any fixed opponents, we should play 6 different teams 3 times in 2024-27 and all the other 9 teams exactly twice.

That is of course assuming that 2026/27 is done under the same rules as 2024/25.

 

[lazydave841]

No. Every team is played at least once every two seasons. PSU will play USC one of the years in 2026 or 2027. PSU will play UM and OSU each at least once in 2026/27 but could play either of them twice.

That is of course assuming that 2026/27 is done under the same rules as 2024/25.

So we are going to play USC 3 out of 4 years?

That's essentially protected.

 

[LandoComando]

So we are going to play USC 3 out of 4 years?

That's essentially protected.

That's why people freaking out about this are being ridiculous

 

[lazydave841]

That's why people freaking out about this are being ridiculous

Yep. As long as we don't have a bye during the final week of the year, it's literally not a big deal. Would I prefer to have a rival? Yes, if it was OSU or Michigan. And that's primarily because the conference has run through them. If missing one of them keeps us winning more, so be it.

Nobody sh*t talks Bama or UGA because they only play a scheduled game once every 8 years do they?

Nope.

 

[LandoComando]

Yep. As long as we don't have a bye during the final week of the year, it's literally not a big deal. Would I prefer to have a rival? Yes, if it was OSU or Michigan. And that's primarily because the conference has run through them. If missing one of them keeps us winning more, so be it.

Nobody sh*t talks Bama or UGA because they only play a scheduled game once every 8 years do they?

Nope.

Exactly...I'd love to have a protected rivalry with Ohio State or Michigan but we knew that wasn't happening. I would have been happy with USC but thrilled it's not Rutgers or Maryland.

I do the SEC will eventually go to 9 but it all depends on how conference realignment goes. Hell the 2025 schedule may change lol

 

[doctornick]

So we are going to play USC 3 out of 4 years?

That's essentially protected.

Well, in theory it would be 3 out of 4 years this cycle but only 2 out of 4 years the next cycle.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we get either tOSU or Michigan in both of 2026/27 and the other one plays USC both years.

 

[Wallace Breen]

That's why people freaking out about this are being ridiculous

I like and dislike the scheduling arrangement. While I hated the divisions, I want some semblance of normalcy to the schedule. We don't need to play the same 6 teams every single year but having a consistent 2 or 3 is not too much to ask, even if we don't like the pairing. Living in DC, I love knowing that I can go to a local game every other year and I can jump on the bus to go to Rutgers.

 

[doctornick]

I like and dislike the scheduling arrangement. While I hated the divisions, I want some semblance of normalcy to the schedule. We don't need to play the same 6 teams every single year but having a consistent 2 or 3 is not too much to ask, even if we don't like the pairing. Living in DC, I love knowing that I can go to a local game every other year and I can jump on the bus to go to Rutgers.

There are six different teams we’ll play 3 times over 2024-27 and we’ll play the other 9 teams home and away over those 4 years. Whether that’s “better” than previously is in the eye of the beholder but it’s still a good bit of regularity.

Personally I’d rather have had tOSU every year and then I don’t care about the rest. I would have been okay to play Maryland every year as they are decently competitive but prefer not playing Rutgers annually.

 

[WoadBlue]

UGA isn’t clamoring to play Bama every regular season, nor vice versa.

That is because UGA has never played Bama annually, or even semi-annually. In the old SEC, UGA's two main rivals were GT and Auburn, and then by the 1960s Florida also mattered about as much as those 2.

 

[fastlax16]

That is because UGA has never played Bama annually, or even semi-annually. In the old SEC, UGA's two main rivals were GT and Auburn, and then by the 1960s Florida also mattered about as much as those 2.

And it’s worked out well for them.

 

[LandoComando]

I like and dislike the scheduling arrangement. While I hated the divisions, I want some semblance of normalcy to the schedule. We don't need to play the same 6 teams every single year but having a consistent 2 or 3 is not too much to ask, even if we don't like the pairing. Living in DC, I love knowing that I can go to a local game every other year and I can jump on the bus to go to Rutgers.

Fair enough--I have zero interest in playing Rutgers (or Maryland) any year. I'm all for the diversity in the schedule. It's also the main reason I'm looking forward to a 20+ team conference.

 

[LandoComando]

That is because UGA has never played Bama annually, or even semi-annually. In the old SEC, UGA's two main rivals were GT and Auburn, and then by the 1960s Florida also mattered about as much as those 2.

But Georgia wouldn't be upset about not playing any SEC team yearly.

 

[WoadBlue]

But Georgia wouldn't be upset about not playing any SEC team yearly.

What? I assume that you simply are truly ignorant about rivalries down south and perhaps especially UGA. UGA would never agree to give up Auburn or Florida as annual rivalries just to play Bama or LSU or Texas or anybody more often.

The midwestern heart of the Big Ten may have lost that old college spirit about such matters, making it much more northeastern in attitude, but I assure you that they all remain in the South as they were 25 and 50 and 75 years ago: fiercely fought and heated no matter the records.

 

[WoadBlue]

And it’s worked out well for them.

By not playing Bama much? Or by playing Auburn more than any game in the Deep South?

Do you know that UGA has played Auburn many more times than Bama has played Auburn?

 

[LandoComando]

What? I assume that you simply are truly ignorant about rivalries down south and perhaps especially UGA. UGA would never agree to give up Auburn or Florida as annual rivalries just to play Bama or LSU or Texas or anybody more often.

The midwestern heart of the Big Ten may have lost that old college spirit about such matters, making it much more northeastern in attitude, but I assure you that they all remain in the South as they were 25 and 50 and 75 years ago: fiercely fought and heated no matter the records.

Georgia absolutely would. Georgia is now focused on winning titles. Skipping Auburn or Florida occasionally wouldn't be what you think it would be for them. It's as long you're unaware of how many rivalries have died and everything went on just fine.

 

[fastlax16]

By not playing Bama much? Or by playing Auburn more than any game in the Deep South?

Do you know that UGA has played Auburn many more times than Bama has played Auburn?

I guess I missed the part where Auburn and alabama were interchangeable… I mean we are 2-0 against Auburn the last two years.

 

[doctornick]

From what I can tell, I think Georgia fans would be extremely upset at not playing Florida or Auburn every year. Not to the "we are cancelling season tickets" type of reaction but complaining on talk radio and grumbling on message boards. I don't think they'd be bothered by not having yearly games with any other particular SEC teams.

 

[africamurphy]

Don't think that would work if we played both duhO$U and scUM as that would mean USC misses all three (i.e., PSU, duhO$U and scUM will have already played 2 of 3 in all playing each other).... OR if USC plays duhO$U and scUM, USC and PSU have a slight advantage only playing 2 of 3 and duhO$U and scUM both play 3 of 3. Just don't see this league doing that to duhO$U and scUM.

I take back the USC vs. Michigan "two play". That would give them USC, OSU, and MSU. That's too unfair.

I bet they would make it USC vs. MSU as a two-play for 26-27. And Nebraska.

USC--UCLA, MSU, Nebraska (three good eyeball games for the TV networks, but not overly challenging)
UM--OSU, MSU, and X
OSU--PSU, UM, and X
PSU--OSU, UCLA, and Maryland
MSU--USC, UM, and X
UCLA--USC, PSU, and Maryland

(X equals traditional rival who is usually inferior)

That seems fair and appealing for TV.

 

[LandoComando]

I take back the USC vs. Michigan "two play". That would give them USC, OSU, and MSU. That's too unfair.

I bet they would make it USC vs. MSU as a two-play for 26-27. And Nebraska.

USC--UCLA, MSU, Nebraska (three good eyeball games for the TV networks, but not overly challenging)
UM--OSU, MSU, and X
OSU--PSU, UM, and X
PSU--OSU, UCLA, and Maryland
MSU--USC, UM, and X
UCLA--USC, PSU, and Maryland

(X equals traditional rival who is usually inferior)

That seems fair and appealing for TV.

Why not just have Penn State-USC instead of Ohio State? I don't understand why you think this would be fair for Ohio State or USC. I would want Penn State to have USC, Michigan State and Nebraska in this set up but greatly prefer what the Big Ten did.

 

[africamurphy]

Why not just have Penn State-USC instead of Ohio State? I don't understand why you think this would be fair for Ohio State or USC. I would want Penn State to have USC, Michigan State and Nebraska in this set up but greatly prefer what the Big Ten did.

They might just do that. But I think they'd want to A) spread out the new teams a bit more and B) renew OSU/PSU a bit.

I think they could load us up with UCLA (accomplishes A...while only giving us a good, not great foe) and OSU (and accomplishes B, and doesn't overload us).

I'd rather have USC every year to be honest. I just don't know why the Big Ten would go all in for that match-up. Same with USC/Wisconsin. It's a good one to get them eyeballs...while not overloading USC.