I read this morning the ACC with 14 teams is going to a 3-5-5 model: 3 permanent rivals (home/away rotate each season), then 5 of the others one year and the other 5 the next year (or maybe it's two-year rotations). Goal is to have at least one home/away game against each conference team in a four-year period... You know, like it was in the Big 12 when there were 12 teams.
Protected rivals
- Thread starter Redmich
- Start date
B1G will be doing the same for the CCG..
The question needs to be answered is how many permanent rivalry games will there be?
Provided we get two I'd be good with Iowa and Penn State. Iowa for the regional rivalry and the hate that's been developing over the past several years. Penn State as a fellow blue blood that we have some history with - we can always argue about 1982 and 1994. Maybe I'm biased living in PA with Nits fans but I think it'd be fun
Damn redmich has been on top of this but didn’t think one team would have 3 protected rivals and one program would have just one..
Everyone should have at least two..
Because we haven’t been to a bowl game in over 6 years?
Would be fine with that, guaranteed trip to LA every other year....hopefully they send UCLA to us in Nov...
I think this shows the B10 learned is lesson last time it forced “rivals” on teams.
It doesn’t make sense to force a rivalry when one doesn’t exist. If one naturally develops then they can probably start scheduling it annually. For now, protected schedule probably only includes games that BOTH fanbases want to see each year.
IMO Nebraska will only have Iowa as a protected rival and maybe Minnesota (but doubtful). Iowa will have Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
U have to admit Nittney didn’t even get Maryland or Sparty is a little unusual..
Disagree with U on Penn St and Sparty when it comes to football related..
What ever was decided for Nittney they may end up benefiting from the decision..
Maybe. It sounds like OSU is the game PSU wanted to keep. Although I can’t actually remember them beating OSU recently.
Better accept it, Minnesota is knocking on the door as the next closest rival in this conference. Regional rivalries that fanbases care about aren’t a bad thing to have. Also nice when you are traditionally stronger than a team you are guaranteed to play annually.
Completely disagree. If your biggest rivals are spare programs that nobody outside of those schools gives a crap about, they drag you down to their level and you become spare with them.
our protected rivals should be
1. the refs
2. national media
1. the refs
2. national media
Fair opinion. At the same time strong regional rivalries that boost local competition and bolster a regions national reputation is really the only path to relevance that I see. Alabama, LSU and Georgia aren’t special because they play national brands across the country.
The reality is the novelty of playing Nebraska has worn off for many teams and teams like Michigan, OSU and PSU have nothing to gain by considering Nebraska a rival. A stronger Minnesota is good for Nebraska and vice versa.
I don’t think the move to the B10 is going to help UCLA so I’m not sure how Nebraska stand to benefit with them as a rival. Minnesota will probably be a stronger program going forward. Does USC and Ohio State sound like a rivalry? Because that is how Nebraska vs PSU (or OSU or Michigan) sounds to any outsider.
Not sure if it benefits Penn State or not by having no protected rivals. Ohio State and Michigan are rivals and while PSU wants to be OSU's rival OSU will never feel the same way. As for MSU no one around here (central PA) really cares about the land grant trophy or whatever it is. PSU beating the hell out of Maryland or Rutgers isn't a rivalry either at least from the Nits perspective.
So the trade off for not having to play OSU every year is not getting a usually free win against Rutgers or Maryland. I'll say it before and I'll say it again - Penn State's rival is Pitt. But unfortunately they don't play every year anymore and Penn State would block Pitt joining the Big 10 for obvious reasons. Just from a football perspective and a Pennsylvanian I wish it was a yearly thing again. Oh well.
So the trade off for not having to play OSU every year is not getting a usually free win against Rutgers or Maryland. I'll say it before and I'll say it again - Penn State's rival is Pitt. But unfortunately they don't play every year anymore and Penn State would block Pitt joining the Big 10 for obvious reasons. Just from a football perspective and a Pennsylvanian I wish it was a yearly thing again. Oh well.
Love it. I'm a Chiefs fan who loves the Chargers powder blue uniforms lol
2016 I believe. Weird ending with field goal blocked taken back for 6 if I remember correctly. Could be way off too
Tuned in for the 4th quarter when I saw the score was close. Saw the blocked field goal. In hindsight that game really changed the trajectory of Penn State football after the scandal.
Perhaps it's too much to hope for in year 1 but on September 30th Michigan comes to town. Maybe that game can adjust the trajectory of Nebraska football?! Would be huge to pull off an upset.
i agree, just because the big ten calls it our rival, does not make it so.
does anyone actually get excited for the big ten "trophy games"?
Trev Alberts calls them our rival in addition to lobbying that Minnesota and Wisconsin are also our rivals
Huge rivalry game in week one for us this year!
there aren't a lot of things more embarrassing than submitting Minnesota and Wisconsin as rivals and neither one of them having you even in their top 3
Last edited:
Jeez @trev, that's embarrassing.
yippee, minnesnowda coming to town, or we going there (I'm not even sure, not an exciting matchup).
The original University of California was at Berkeley. The Los Angeles Aqueduct was completed around 1913 and SoCal started to grow fast. UCLA was opened as the University of California, Southern Branch in 1919. Since it was a satellite campus (essentially) to Cal Berkeley, they adapted blue and gold jerseys (but a lighter shade of blue), a cursive script logo of the same font as Cal Berkeley, and their fight songs are virtually identical.
The only reason to have rivals in the big ten for Nebraska is to get them in hotbeds of recruiting.
The closest thing Nebraska ever had to rivals were in the Big 8/12. And they're now gone.
Just pick UCLA and Penn State so we can get exposure on both coasts with large populations of athletes so we can benefit.
I wish we'd wake the F up.
The closest thing Nebraska ever had to rivals were in the Big 8/12. And they're now gone.
Just pick UCLA and Penn State so we can get exposure on both coasts with large populations of athletes so we can benefit.
I wish we'd wake the F up.
It's a pragmatic and not an emotional idea. There is zero pageantry about it. I honestly don't think Nebraska should be worried about pageantry. Nebraska left that all behind when it changed conferences.
The move was a reach towards a more secure future, theoretically. I don't think Nebraska should stop moving. Trev Alberts should have been on the phone with USC, UCLA, and Penn State trying to secure a protected rivalry that would draw a large audience. Nebraska, unfortunately at present, presents an easier win for those teams over a brand name, which is good for them and which actually should benefit Nebraska in negotiations getting that done. Nebraska benefits by having exposure to larger pools of talent.
Playing Iowa doesn't do *^^&* for Nebraska especially if we lose.
I agree with all this - but I think the ship has sailed and we just have to move forward and not be a dumpster fire … the rest will take care of itself.
My understanding is that this exercise will take place again before the 2026-2027 season, or may have already taken place and a different set of protected opponents will be established. Some schools may have the same, others will be different, or have additional protected games.
