You Have No Rival

That's essentially the message the Big Ten gave to Penn State when they released their football schedule for 2024, the first year UCLA and USC will be members of the conference.  Preserving rivalries was important, but they also didn't want teams playing the same opponents every year, so they took a mix-and-match approach.  Some teams have multiple permanent rivalry games (Michigan has both Michigan State and Ohio State).  Others, like Penn State, have none.

According to Big Ten officials, that's actually a good thing.  Since Penn State won't have any permanent opponents (let alone multiple ones), they'll theoretically play everybody more often.  Which, if you think about it, they will.  A nine-game schedule against 15 opponents means they can play three games against everyone in a five-year period (and they can probably make the trip to LA an annual thing).  It'll take everybody else at least six years to play each non-permanent opponent a third time.

Still, though, college football is built on rivalries, so you've got to feel for Penn State on some level.  Especially since they've been playing both Michigan and Ohio State annually ever since they joined the Big Ten.  Now, they're not guaranteed to face either of the conference's marquee programs.

I get and appreciate what the Big Ten is trying to do.  They didn't want teams to lose their rivalries, but also wanted to make sure they weren't playing the same schedule every year.  Most importantly, they wanted to make sure everybody goes to everybody else's stadium at least once in a four-year period.  Not having divisions gives them the flexibility to do just that.

So, they came up with a compromise.  They preserved 11 rivalry games: Michigan-Ohio State, Michigan-Michigan State, Illinois-Northwestern, Purdue-Indiana, Wisconsin-Minnesota, Minnesota-Iowa, Wisconsin-Iowa, Illinois-Purdue, Nebraska-Iowa, Rutgers-Maryland, and UCLA-USC.  Everything else will rotate every year.  Which means everyone has different number of rotating opponents.  Iowa will have six.  Penn State has all nine.

To me, there's a very simple solution that would also achieve both goals.  I've been a big advocate of the 3-6-6 model for the SEC.  It would work just as easily in the Big Ten.  And they're already playing the nine-game conference schedule, so it would be very easy to implement.  With the 3-6-6 model, you'd have your six permanent opponents, then the others would be six on, six off in a two-year cycle, then they switch.

For the Big Ten, here's how it might look:

Indiana: Maryland, Northwestern, Purdue
Illinois: Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue
Iowa: Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Maryland: Indiana, Ohio State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Michigan State: Michigan, Penn State, Purdue
Minnesota: Iowa, UCLA, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Illinois, Iowa, USC
Northwestern: Indiana, Illinois, UCLA
Ohio State: Maryland, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State
Rutgers: Maryland, Michigan, Penn State
UCLA: Minnesota, Northwestern, USC
USC: Nebraska, UCLA, Wisconsin
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, USC

Over in the SEC, meanwhile, they're sticking with the eight-game conference schedule for 2024, in part because of the schools' existing non-conference commitments.  And I thought the way they made the 2024 schedule was just funny.  The headline is "every SEC team will play either Texas or Oklahoma," when really all they did was take the 14 existing SEC teams and split them between the two new members, with half playing Texas and the other half playing Oklahoma.  Texas and Oklahoma's eighth game, of course, will be their annual matchup in Dallas.

Because of the SEC's division structure, teams went a LONG time between matchups against opponents from the opposite division.  A lot was made about Georgia's first visit to Texas A&M (the Aggies joined the conference in 2012), and the Bulldogs' 2024 game at Alabama will be just their fifth regular season meeting in 20 years (most of the recent Georgia-Alabama meetings have been in either the SEC Championship Game or College Football Playoff).

What the SEC did that was clever was take advantage of the fact that there will no longer be divisions.  They preserved some of the matchups that were important to schools (LSU-Alabama, Florida-Tennessee, Georgia-Auburn), as well as the untouchable annual games (Florida-Georgia, Auburn-Alabama, Texas-Oklahoma, etc.).  But, otherwise, they're mixing and matching.  Alabama, for example, is playing five teams from the current East Division in 2024. 

Meanwhile, they're bringing back the Texas-Texas A&M game, which hasn't been played since the Aggies joined the SEC, and figures to be one of THE marquee matchups of the 2024 season.  So will Alabama-Oklahoma.  And Florida-LSU.  And Georgia-Texas.  Games that simply weren't played that often (or at all) under the divisional structure.

As of now, this is a one-year bridge schedule while they come up with a more permanent solution.  SEC teams are required to play at least one non-conference game against an opponent from another Power 5 league or Notre Dame, so some are hesitant to drop a non-conference game (aka. an easy win) for a conference game against an opponent that will be significantly better.  I do think they'll eventually go to the nine-game schedule, though.

Part of that is figuring out who the permanent opponents for every team will be.  As I've been saying, I think the SEC would be wise to adopt the 3-6-6 model moving forward.  The tough part with that is getting the teams to agree on who their permanent opponents will be.  Which will be tough.  Since they'll want to preserve rivalries, but also want to make sure they get marquee games and still have a chance to win.

Here's what I would go with when and if the SEC goes to a nine-game conference schedule and 3-6-6 model (everybody has one obvious permanent opponent, which makes it a little easier than the Big Ten):

Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Texas A&M
Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
Florida: Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee
Georgia: Auburn, Florida, Tennessee
Kentucky: LSU, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
LSU: Alabama, Kentucky, Texas A&M
Mississippi: Auburn, Mississippi State, Missouri
Mississippi State: Mississippi, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
Missouri: Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma
Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
South Carolina: Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi State
Tennessee: Florida, Georgia, Vanderbilt
Texas: Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
Texas A&M: Alabama, LSU, Texas
Vanderbilt: Kentucky, Mississippi State, Tennessee