Backers of the Big Ten like to talk about tradition, stats, academics, and history.
Yes, the Big Ten has good academics. Yes, it's true that two of the seven programs that have more than 800 wins all-time come from the Big Ten. Yes, Michigan is the winningest program in all of football.
But recently, there has been a problem competing on the big stage for the Big Ten and this year is no different. And that is no more apparent than in bowl season.
While I am among the overwhelming majority that would love to see a playoff, the bowls do at least give us a chance to see what teams from a conference do when not lined up against cupcakes and/or conference brethren.
Every conference beats up on each other during conference play. Since most teams play cupcakes for non-conference games, most teams take their losses in conference.
So, while one conference might have the same number of one-loss teams and the same number of four-loss teams as another conference, there could still be quite a difference in competition that led to those records.
Thus, a four-loss team in conference A might be better than a two-loss team from conference B.
That bears itself out when intersectional games get scheduled during bowl season.
ESPN is conducting a bowl challenge among the conferences. To everyone's surprise, the Pac-10 went 5-0. This means the teams other than USC stepped it up for bowl season.
There are no other conferences that haven't taken a loss, so no one else will end perfectly like the Pac-10 did. But some others could come close when all is said and done.
At this point, the only remaining game for the Big Ten is the Fiesta Bowl, and Texas is a better team than Ohio State. The Buckeyes have trouble against the heavy hitters.
So, if one is a fan of the Big Ten, it can't give you much hope that they help the league. If they don't, the Big Ten will have won one game: Iowa over South Carolina.
At this point, depending on whether Ohio State wins or loses, the Big Ten will end with either a record of 1-6 or 2-5 in bowl games this season. That's uglier than last year's dismal 3-5 record.
What's wrong here?
Penn State got humiliated in the Rose Bowl. Yes, they came back to score some points after USC took their foot off the proverbial gas pedal but, let's face it, the entire second half after the missed secondary coverage pass that made it 38 for USC was pretty much "garbage time." Up until that point, Penn State was manhandled.
And this was the team out of the Big Ten that, had Iowa missed a field goal, everyone would have had in the national title game to take the Big Ten sacrificial lamb spot away from Ohio State. We are an Iowa missed field goal away from having to endure another boring rout of a Big Ten team in the national title game.
Fortunately, the football gods prevailed that day.
There are numerous reasons for the downfall of the Big Ten and I have had some comment section discussions with numerous Big Ten fans as to why these structural changes have occurred.
The problem for the Big Ten is that they are indeed structural changes that are deep and lasting and, in most cases, beyond anyone's control.
The Big Ten may have tradition and history, but they are no longer a conference of powers. Given the seismic nature of some of these population trends and other "structural" changes, this is most likely permanent.
I believe that the powers-that-be in the Big Ten know that the conference is in decline as well as they are the most vehement objectors of a playoff system. With a playoff system, the deck is stacked against the Big Ten because they don't fare well against other conferences in intersectional matchups.
But, with the current system, we could be one missed Iowa field goal away from another Big Ten representative in the national title game and it would have been the third straight time.
And this from a conference that went 3-5 last year and can do no better than 2-5 this year. Jim Delaney is no dummy. He doesn't want a playoff because the Big Ten would not do well in it.
72 comments Last one added 6 months ago — Leave a Comment
Lisa Horne 6 months ago
I think the biggest problem for the Big Ten is the continual patsy non-conference scheduling. Except for Mich St, who doesn't schedule FCS teams, the entire conference is padding their resume. They are usually 4-0 and then the poop hits the fan in conference play.
I will say this- most of the Pac-10 DOES schedule decent non-conference games, and in fact, three haven't had an FCS team on their schedule in a long time. Does it make a difference? NO.
The Pac-10 gets ripped for a weak conference by "other networks." It stinks.
The future of the Big Ten is Michigan State. They have the right coach, and aren't afraid to play anyone. They'll come around. In the meantime, unless those other boys get more speed, they will keep losing.
USC was much faster than PSU on both sides of the ball. It's really that simple.
Good luck to Ohio State. I have them getting smoked by Texas, and I feel bad for the fans. They Bucks have great fans. But this is not going to look good if they lose by double digits. Not good at all.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Thanks for the read and the comment Lisa
Edit Comment Cancel
Darnell Burton 6 months ago
That's a pretty ridiculous comment. MSU is hardcore because they played CAL? Meanwhile, Ohio State has/had contracts to play home-and-homes with Texas, USC, VT, Oklahoma, Cal, Miami, and Tennessee? I agree that 75% of our non-conference games are pretty weak - but so is 75% of Michigan State's OOC schedule - and I never want to see an FCS opponent on OSU's schedule ever again...but Ohio State still takes the biggest non-conference risk of any Big Ten team on an almost annual basis. Don't talk to me about Michigan freakin' State because they had the "balls" to schedule California. Give me a break. Ohio State is the present and the future of the Big Ten. Dantonio's team made strides, but the gap between them and the Big Ten elite is still wide - just look at their final scores this year against PSU and OSU.
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
Michigan vs Utah???
Edit Comment Cancel
HD Handshoe -- BlockONation.com 6 months ago
I agree with Darnell on this one Lisa.
Ohio State always tries to schedule at least 1 good OOC opponent every season and we aren't afraid to go on the road against said opponents either....
Show me the SEC, Big 12, Big East, ACC and Pac 10 teams that continually do that.....
The Buckeyes might lose many of these "BIG GAMES" (especially on the road away from The Shoe) but kudos to them for having the balls to play good teams home and home.
Georgia declined our request for a home and home 2-game series....They did however offer a 1 game series with Ohio State playing them in Georgia.....
PANSIES!
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Elias 6 months ago
Well.
As a well-meaning PSU fan, as hard as that can be after such a tough loss...now I shall emphasize the cyclical conference theory.
When Ohio State beat Miami for the title?
When Penn State beat Florida State in the 2005 Orange Bowl?
When Ohio State beat Notre Dame in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl?
When unranked Penn State beat ranked Tennessee in the 2006 Outback Bowl?
When unranked Wisconsin beat ranked Auburn in the 2006 Capital One Bowl?
Were people talking about the SEC and their speed against the Big Ten? Or the Big Ten's in ability to play on a big stage. Just a couple years ago, Ohio State was manhandling everyone at the Fiesta Bowl with 3 straight wins, Penn State has won their past three bowl games since that Orange Bowl win with the exception of yesterday, and Michigan beat Florida last year. Everyone's favorite Tim Tebow, who got beat by lowly lowly Michigan.
Everyone loves to magnify the losses. But believe me the Big Ten has had their shares of wins, and decent ones at that lately. I know I look to the past (last year and beyond).
But we can play football with anyone.
The Big Ten was on top for so long............
It was about time someone caught up.
And in a couple of years things will be different.
I don't know if I made sense, but conferences cycle out strength. Come on, West Virginia beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl a couple of years ago....and where is the Big Least now?
Edit Comment Cancel
Bing Wang 6 months ago
You mention 5 wins, good wins true. But that does not excuse the possible (if Texas beats Ohio St.) 6-16 record in bowl games these past three years highlighted by two national championship manhandlings and three! stompings in the Rose Bowl (the 5 biggest bowls that the "elite" big 10 teams have faced.)
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Elias 6 months ago
Bing,
I don't mean it should excuse it. I'm just trying to pick up what's left of the pieces man. Its bad man. The Big Ten is getting a shitload of flack. How come the sky is falling? We can't give up.
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
We were not lowly,lowly Michigan...beat PSU with a freshman QB that wasn't realy that good.Completed less than 50% of his passes in that game.Not too lowly.Anyway i agree with ur point but i woudn't mention OSU over ND.Not a great win for a BCS game...it was ND afterall.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Mason 6 months ago
and when Michigan shoved Tebows heisman up his a s s last year?
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Sowa 6 months ago
Has anyone noticed that a lot of the Big Ten teams in bowls this year are overachiving teams that were believed to be average at best before the season started, and many of them are playing teams that were thought to be good or great before the season started and underachived this year?
Here are the matchups, and their preseason rankings:
Minnesota (ur) v. Kansas (14)
Northwestern (ur) v. Missouri (6)
Iowa (ur) v. South Caronlina (ur, but first out of the polls so effectively 26)
Michigan State (ur) v. Georgia (1)
Penn State (22) v. USC (3)
And the only Outlier:
Ohio State (2) v. Texas (11) which hasn't been played yet.
Lets also note that Northwestern played a hell of a game against Mizzou and took them to overtime. Iowa won of course, and Minnesota was just outclassed. Michigan State took a lead to halftime, and was boned by a poor spot late in the second half that would have probably made this game a lot closer, but the talent differential between MSU and Georgia is staggering and they still made a game out of it.
Also lets note: Big Ten v. SEC 1-1.
Edit Comment Cancel
C.W. O'Brien 6 months ago
What we know about preseason rankings is that they are a fashion show...it is who looks the prettiest. That is it. You can't use that as an excuse for the Big Ten's lackluster performance in bowls.
Here are the facts...Minnesota played another 7-5 team...and got waxed in a game that wasn't even as close as the final score.
Northwestern was an overachieved all year, Missouri underachieved and has one of the worst pass defenses in the country. Northwestern passed all over Mizzou...and it still didn't matter.
All of Georgia's losses were in blow-outs. Michigan State came in after being competitve in almost every single game. They had equal records going in and it didn't matter because Michigan State couldn't do anything offensively or defensively against the Bulldogs.
Penn State was a darling all year. USC is always a media darling. Statistically they were almost even in every major catagory on both sides of the ball. And USC made it look like an early season scrimmage. USC backed off in the middle of the third...and Penn State still barely got the score to look almost respectable.
Iowa had 4 losses by 12 points. They were a very underrated team. They took on an over-rated SEC team and had their way with them. Iowa performed when the spotlight was on them.
Edit Comment Cancel
Dan Sowa 6 months ago
First of all, the only competitive game that the Spartans lost were to Cal. They were manhandled by Ohio State and Penn State and it wasn't even close. Georgia's loss to GA Tech was close, and also got blown out by the class of the SEC, the same way MSU did in the Big Ten. These two teams had a basically identical season, the only difference being that Georgia had all of the weapons it needed talent-wise to be playing in the National Championship game, or at least a BCS bowl and came up short. The Spartans came off a 7-6 season last year, its first bowl berth in years, and is still working with the very poor recruiting classes of John L. Smith, aside from Javon Ringer, Otis Wiley and the Receiving corps. Georgia is stacked with talent, and have more than a half-dozen players who will be going to the NFL next year. MSU probably has 1. The talent differential between these two is enormous. To say that MSU couldn't do anything offensively or defensively is ridiculous. Defensively, they held the dawgs to 3 points in the first half and forced several turnovers. Offensively, they did struggle.
Penn State was not a darling all year. They earned their rank of 8 overall. They won their games. What do you do, not rank an undefeated team in the top 10 when nearly every other BCS school has losses? Especially to the likes of Oregon State? With 1 loss to an Iowa team who was better than their record, Penn State was ranked below 6 other teams with 1 loss, and a 0 loss non-BCS team. Especially since Penn State beat the same Oregon State team that USC had trouble with, and blew them out. Penn State's ranking was very fair. Nobody ranked below them has an arguement that they should be above Penn State.
And media darling or not, I have a hard time believing that USC would have been beaten by anyone in the National Championship game. USC are a VERY good team, and play their best ball in big games.
Maybe Minnesota should have been more competitive. Look where Kansas was last year, and where Minnesota was. Were these teams really equal? We all know that Kansas was overrated last year and played a weak schedule, but they were still good enough to not lose against any of those weaklings. Minnesota went 1-11 last year, Kansas went 12-1 and won a BCS game. Were they really that close this year? Kansas probably has a better 7-5 record than Minnesota when they lose to Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech Nebraska and South Florida and beat #13 Mizzou than Minnesota does with four losses to unranked teams and one to Ohio State, and going into the bowl with four straight losses. Compare the records all you want, this was not an even matchup.
Face it. The Big 12 is strong this year. If the SEC had matchups with some of these "lower level" teams in the conference, they would have been destroyed as well. Lets say Vanderbilt v. Mizzou and Kentucky v. Kansas. Would the SEC have felt secure in Vandy v. Northwestern and Kentucky v. Minnesota? Surely these would be far more favorable matchups for the Big Ten.
Edit Comment Cancel
HD Handshoe -- BlockONation.com 6 months ago
EXCELLENT post and points Dan!
BRAVO!
Edit Comment Cancel
Kurt Spencer 6 months ago
Big Ten is also 4-4 versus SEC in the last 3 years.......Think about this if Oregon State beats Oregon in their last game of the Season the bowl schedule would have been changed to this...
PSU versus Oregon State in Rose
USC would have gotten Ohio States spot against Texas.
OSU would play Georgia
MSU would have played South Caralina
Iowa would have gotten Mizzu
etc, etc.
Bowl season would have turned out much diferent and we would all be sitting around talking how well the Big 10 is and that PSU should have gotten to play for the NC, etc.
It is all about Match Ups
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Kurt,
You have a point here. Matchups are important. But I'm not just talking about this year. This year, there is a strong chance at a 1-6 bowl record but last year the Big 10 was 3-5. The Big Ten hasn't had a winning bowl record in a few years. Surely, over time, matchups (like other things) will average out. But the Big Ten keeps losing. I think a strong Big Ten is great for college football. I just don't see it being the case anymore for reasons another poster pointed to below.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Pate 6 months ago
Donald,
You say that "matchups are important" but that "matchups... will average out." That's unfortunately not the case until we get something like a playoff. In the bowl system, matchups are made on the basis of a lot of factors, chief among them the economic realities of the participating programs' fanbases and the perceived strength of the participating teams. If a conference's teams consistently underperform in a bowl system, then what we really learn is that teams from that conference have a large and devoted fan base and/or are consistently overrated.
While Big Ten programs obviously do have large fan bases, that factor alone probably doesn't explain the conference's poor performance (especially since the SEC, whose programs also have very large fan bases, has been doing better in the postseason). So what the Big Ten's poor performance really seems to show is that Big Ten teams are consistently over-rated.
A playoff system fixes this by decreasing the importance of hand-picked matchups. Since perceived strength only seeds a team rather then determine the only game it can play, as the tournament continues the matchups are increasingly based on the team's actual strength. Under this analysis, a play-off system would actually _help_ the Big Ten by preventing its teams from being consistently put up against stronger teams.
And this from an Ohio State senior (studying statistical pattern finding ;) what I've described is the fact that matchups are probably correlated with both team strength and perceived team strength in a systematic way). Go Bucks!
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Langia 6 months ago
Dan, good point about the BIG TEN bowl matchup discrepancies. But that just points to the fact that the BIG TEN is not a significant conference anymore, except in the minds of its fans and therefore the media who want to sell airtime to that massive group of people. Delany's power seems largely tied to the size of that fan base. If the BIG TEN teams continue to stink it up (the last time they had a winning bowl record collectively was 2002-2003), and those fans begin to lose interest in the bowls, THEN we'll suddenly see everyone on board for a playoff.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
I agree. The fans and the dollars will finally have to force a playoff on the Big Ten. They are the 800 pound gorilla in the room because the SEC, Big 12, and ACC all want a playoff (for obvious reasons in the case of the SEC and Big 12). The Big East doesn't seem to have a preference although they hate their bowl locations and tie-ins so they would go along. The Pac-10 has historically resisted a playoff but, by itself, wouldn't have enough power to block it if the Big Ten also got on board with one.
Edit Comment Cancel
William Smith 6 months ago
I am so sicj of the Big 10. It is what it is. The big 10 is the 4th best conference. It all comes down to recruiting and no one wants to play in Iowa when you can play at Texas or USC. The girls are also ugly in the big 10. In the 80's and 90's you had to go to Michigan or O State to be on TV. Now you can be on TV playing at South Florida. the Bif 10 will always be a good conference but next again elite.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
William,
You make some great points. I almost made some of the same ones but my article was long enough and I've written about it before. Back in the 70's and 80's, there was an ABC national game of the week and about 3 regional games and if a kid didn't go to one of those big schools, they weren't on tv. Now, with internet highlights and streaming game broadcasts, Youtube, and nearly every game on tv, kids can go to any school and get exposure. Free long distance, instant messaging, etc. has also made the world seem like a small place and it's not such a stretch for a kid these days to consider going to a school far away where before it was like going to another country. That means rust belt kids can go where it's warm most of the year and the girls are in shorts and tank tops 10 months out of the year. And no one should deny the reality that girls are the single most important thing to college age males. I will disagree on Big Ten girls being ugly. I spot "hotties" wherever I go. But back to the subject... Population keeps shifting south too meaning that just more of the top recruits are going to be from the southern areas and fewer from areas that are losing population. That's just numbers. Things like the onward march of technology and population shifts are examples of the seismic structural events I was talking about that are beyond anyone's control but nonetheless deep and lasting. The result is, as you so succinctly mentioned, that the Big Ten is somewhere in the middle of the pack now as far as conference pecking order and will never be "elite" again.
Edit Comment Cancel
William Smith 6 months ago
Excuse the spelling of my rant!
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Jelley 6 months ago
When you mentioned the Pac-10 dominance in bowls you forgot to mention that everyone of the bowl games a PAC-10 team was in was on the West coast so they had home field advantage at every game. Seems a bit unfair that we are ripping on the Big Ten when they have to travel over 1500 miles for everyone of their bowl games and everyone of their opponents is much much closer.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kent Moore 6 months ago
I agree completely.
To say that the OSU vs LSU title game was not a defacto home game for LSU is crazy. That's like having that game at Cleveland Stadium.
I really wish bowl games were played all over the country and not predominately in the south. Yes it is a vacation for fans but take a look at two examples
1. Orange Bowl - Half the stadium was empty.
2. Rose Bowl - well represented by Penn State fans.
The point is two-fold. One, fair weather doesn't always attract fans. Two, if the games are big enough, people will come.
I'd love to see games like Iowa vs Florida at Beaver Stadium in the cold. How about Oklahoma vs USC at Green Bay.
It is a little unfair that people from the North have to travel all over the country to watch their favorite teams play when other fans can walk down the street to see their favorite team play in a bowl game.
Yes, bowl games may be vacations for both fans and players, but the whole point of the bowl game is the game. Not taking your kids to Disney Land.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Kent,
You make some good points but it's been this way for decades. The Big Ten has only recently had such problems. So I don't think you can excuse this to "away" games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Jelley 6 months ago
True just recently it has been like this but Ebay and stubhub just recently came out too. In the past half the tickets were made available to one teams alumni and half to the others, but now if a person lives too far away a person will just buy the tickets so they can resell them for a higher price since they don't have the money for the trip and usually it is a fan of the team closer and Big Ten teams are always further away. In the past people would only buy them if they did have the money for the trip now its different.
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
I don't reallly like the home-field thing but it is rather ridiculous that there sin't anothe r BCS game in the midwest.We shuld add a fifth game to the BCS with one being in either ST.Louis, Detroit, Indianappolis or some other dome.Make it a little easier for Big 10 teams on tavling.Going 1500 mils for a game is a little crazy,especially when ur opponent has to drive 11 miles.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
IS the B10 down this year? Yes but is it as far down as the 1-6 bowl record indicates? I don't think so. The B10 is the ONLY BCS full time cold weather conference. In order to compete in the B10 (and get to the bowls) you have to be built for cold weather. And who do you play in the bowls? A team from a warm weather conference. And where? At a bowl site favoring the warm weather team often in their backyard (PSU against USC 11 miles from their campus with 2/3 of the tickets going to the Pac10, we do OK against anyone else). And don't forget, in the B10, they actually have to go to class.
So the bowl schedule comes out and the B10 is prohibitive underdogs in 6 of the 7 games because with the second BCS (against TX, another team that was one play out of NC contention) moved everyone up and you expect different results because....? By comparison, the vaunted PAC 10 played three games in Cal , one in Las Vegas and one in El Paso and had none of their teams playing above the level they should have been at (no second BCS team). How would those teams (or the teams from other conferences) do if they had to come to the Midwest for bowl games? I would guess not well. (See Tampa NFL that prior to the year they had won the SB had not ever won a game that the game time temp was below 32 degrees or was it 40)
Does the B10 have room to improve? Sure. More potent passing attacks and some more speed would help. But the biggest improvement in bowl performance would occur if we had better matchups. This year, that would have ment no second BCS team (we were down and did not deserve one) and playing anyone but USC in the RB. With no OSU in the BCS, we probably go 4-3 or 5-2 and no one would be talking about it. It would also help if games were in the midwest but that is not going to happen. Would the outcome of the RB been the same if it was played at 30 in Happy Valley?
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
I completely disagree with the cold weather excuse and I'm about to debunk it right here and now. First of all, the Big Ten finishes their season earlier than any other conference. They don't play December games at all. In fact, most teams in the Big Ten are done by Thanksgiving so they only play 3 games (unless there is a bye and then it's even less), in November. Therefore, 2/3's to 3/4's of the Big Ten teams games are in September and October. I've been to Big Ten territory during that time of the year. Yes, it can get cold at night but in the afternoon (which is when the Big Ten plays all their games), it is pretty pleasant...maybe a little crisp. But, being as active as football is and being in all those pads, the players are just fine unless there's a real cold snap. It's not like a sunny afternoon game in October at Bloomington or Champagne-Urbana or Columbus is the Ice Bowl. And Minnesota plays in a dome.
And, by the way, unless the bowl game in question is in Miami, the temperature at most of the bowl games is in the 60's (maybe the very low 70's) which is exactly the same type of conditions the Big Ten teams play their September and early October games in. It's not like the Big Ten teams are melting and the "southern" teams aren't. It really doesn't take much conditioning on either side to play a game when it's 65 degrees out. That's why they play them in the places they do...so that the fans and the players are comfortable.
Therefore to make some comparision about bringing a "warm weather team" up to Happy Valley to play at 30 degrees isn't really a fair comparision because only one team is at a disadvantage whereas when the temperature is a comfortable 65 degrees, neither team is disadvantaged.
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
Cold weather is really only an issue for fans.Donald,Ann Arbor gets REALLY cold come November,just watch the UM/OSU game you'll see.Also Minnesota is no longer playing in a dome.Next year they open their new stadium which is finally home for them and only them.
Edit Comment Cancel
Iceman 6 months ago
I agree with you Donald, 100%. I was so happy Iowa made that field goal, I didnt want the bcs title game to suck, like the last 2 years. I think why the big ten is falling so far behind is because the coachs are stuck in the 60s. Look at Floridas and the sooners offense, it is wide open football. Most of the big ten teams play with a arm tied behind their back. 3 yards and a cloud of dust doesnt work anymore, and its painfully boring to watch. Its also really hard to get 5 star recruits go north, who whould want to live in the cold?
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Thanks for the read and the comment. I'm glad someone else "sees" it too.
Edit Comment Cancel
Bing Wang 6 months ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003%E2%80%9304_NCAA_football_bowl_games
You can start from there and take a stroll down the Big 10's painful memory lane of Bowl performances. They did not have one single winning record in bowl games since 03. (there is a small box on the right that tallys up all the winners for you by conference and you can click to go to the next year)
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Elias 6 months ago
Also something for you all to see.
I guarantee you if you sent an SEC team to play USC in a de facto home game at the Rose Bowl every year, your conference champion would get shellacked to. Anyone that thinks they could go to USC and manhandle them the way they are playing is out of their minds.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
I think USC is the best team in the land. They had a mental letdown against Oregon State this year or they would be in the national title game and probably win it. Last year, it was Stanford. Since Leinart and Bush left, they always seem to lose to a team they shouldn't. But, when their heads are in the game (which they are in the "big games"), they can and do beat anyone. And I think they would beat anyone if they played them in Miami or Phoenix as well.
It's really not about USC here. That's only one of the so far 5 losses the Big Ten has accumulated this bowl season.
Edit Comment Cancel
William Smith 6 months ago
Anthony,
Where do you think the big 10 ranks among conferences? I just know that Ole Miss is waxing Texas TEch right now. Who in the world is Ole Miss??
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Elias 6 months ago
The Big Ten is only three years removed from sweeping the BCS and only 5 years removed from winning a title. We should all just calm down. The Big Ten will be back.
Edit Comment Cancel
William Smith 6 months ago
Anthony,
You need to realize that Ohio State and Penn State are the only legitmate BIG 10 programs. They will always be good. The rest are no better than the MAC. Just look at what the rest of the conference has contributed to the NFL draft the past 5 years.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Jelley 6 months ago
Well lets think what else has come out of the Big Ten the past five years?
How about the first pick in the draft last year from Michigan in Jake Long. The year before that Michigan had over eight players drafted including two first rounders.
Saying the rest of the conference is no better than the MAC is pure ignorance.
Edit Comment Cancel
Anthony Elias 6 months ago
I don't think we can overlook Michigan leading the all time college football wins list. They are a legitimate program. Michigan will be back soon, as will be the Big Ten. If I'm not mistaken didn't Michigan beat the Florida Gators last year in the Capital One Bowl?
Edit Comment Cancel
HD Handshoe -- BlockONation.com 6 months ago
Michigan, not legit?
Down? YES
Not legit? That's just ridiculous to say
Didn't Michigan just beat Florida Heisman winner teBLOW last year in the Capital One Bowl?
Since 2002, the Big Ten is leading overall 10-9 vs the SEC head to head
Edit Comment Cancel
William Smith 6 months ago
Jake Long, Joe Thomas, The tight End from Purdue.
A bunch of big slow lineman. They are good though. There are more draft picks from Florida, GA, and LSU than the entire BIG 10.
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan Jelley 6 months ago
Yeah big slow lineman that play the second highest paid position in the NFL.
Sure there are more draft picks from there because those are states where more and better high school recruits come from for playmaking positions like QB, RB, and WR. Think about it, the top five states for college recruitng are 1. California, 2. Florida, 3. Texas, 4. Ohio, 5. Georgia, Carolinas, or Lousiana. So who do you think is going to produce the most NFL prospects since most players stay in-state. Obviously its going to be USC, Florida, Texas, Ohio State, Georgia, and LSU. Plus those schools will draw some of the top players out of the northern states because kids like to play where its warm. The fact is Big Ten will still produce NFL talent just at o-line, d-line, and linebackers.
The Big Ten is not one of the better conferences that much is clear but to compare them to the MAC is idiotic.
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
I for one hate the conference debate.Everyone likes to think conferences are better than others because of so and so beat so and so.No conference is better than another in the BCS ranks bor are many teams better than others.UM(not this year btw) may be able to beat UF two years ago but OSU may not be able to even though OSU beat UM.The thing is games aren't decided by talent alone or one conference being better than another,but it is based on match-upsDoes someone really want to say Utah was more talented than Bama.No they weren't,however,they had an advantage in match-up.Ther offense had an advantage vs the Bama D and they capatalized.UM played Utah to the fourth because UM had a good match-up vs that same Utah team and was able to keep it close even despite inexperience.CFB is based on match-ups not conference.The top team in SEC may be better than the best Big 10 team but that doesn't mean they are better than the fourth best Big 10 team if they have a bad match-up.Who cares if the big 10 sucks anyway.As a UM fan i could care less about how anyone does outside of my team.Everyone else needs to worry about there own team and stop worrying about their conference.When u are so woried about ur conference u start rooting for rivals that is when u need to step back and look at urself in the mirror.Good article btw.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Jordan,
Thanks for the props at the end of your comment.
Here's why conferences matter. Do you believe that an undefeated team from the Sun Belt or MAC or Conference USA, or WAC is deserving of a chance to play in the BCS title game? I will go on record to say I don't. I don't think most CFB fans would either. That's because being undefeated is only as good as who you play. And teams from those conferences don't play anybody. But, it is (or at least has been) believed that an undefeated team from the Big Ten is BCS title game worthy. That's why Ohio State was there for 2 straight years and Penn State would have been there this year if not for a field goal at the last minute by Iowa. Had Iowa missed that field goal, Penn State would have been there because it was believed by most that their undefeated record would have been a quality one. That's based on conference quality because virtually all the BCS conference teams schedule almost exclusively cupcakes for non-conference games. So we HAVE to be able to trust the quality of competition in conference to make these judgments.
And it really wouldn't matter if we went to a playoff system or a "plus one" model. Whether we are trying to narrow the field to 2, 4, or 8 teams means that a selection committee or poll voters or someone is having to make subjective decisions about quality of records.
So, in an effort to measure the quality of a teams record, one has to look at who they play in conference (since out of conference is mostly cupcakes) and how well those opponents fare in games against other conferences. And the Big Ten is getting worse. The conference hasn't had a winning bowl record since 2002 and the last 3 years have seen the record get progressively worse. So Penn State was ranked number 2 or 3 for most of the season and we now see it was based on playing in a conference whose 7 best teams (the ones that ended up bowl eligible) have gone 1-5 so far (and potentially 1-6 if Ohio State loses) when paired up against other conferences bowl teams.
This is why conferences matter. In the south we have a southern colloquialism that you can't sleep with the dogs and not wake up with fleas. The point is that each of us is a product of and is profoundly affected by his/her environment. Whether you say it colorfully or not, it's still the truth. And if the Big Ten is pushing each other around, it doesn't mean that anyone in that conference is necessarily a great team. The teams are affected by the larger "environment" of their conference. That's just the way it is. So, since it's true, it should be accounted for when determining bowl spots, especially national championship spots, and (hopefully someday soon) playoff spots.
By the way, I strongly disagree with your statement that Utah had better matchups against Bama. Bama was unmistakenly unmotivated to be in that game (until it was too late) because they wanted to be in the national title game, committed several turnovers, suspended the NUMBER ONE draft pick in the nation (and then his backup gets knocked out of the game in the first quarter), and more. On top of all this, they committed the unpardonable sin of overlooking an opponent. But Bama's talent level much exceeds Utah's even with that high draft pick out.
USC lost to Stanford last year. Does that mean Stanford was better or had better matchups? No, it means neither. If they lined up 100 times, USC would win 97 of them. If Bama lined up against Utah 100 times, Bama wouldn't win 97 of them but it would probably be close to 65-70. But it wasn't one of those 65-70, it was one of those 30-35 that Utah would have won. Doesn't mean Utah is better or that they had better "matchups." Though I do agree that your matchup theory is a valid one in many situations, I just don't think it holds water to describe the Sugar Bowl.
I took some time to respond thoughtfully to your well stated post. It won't get my feathers ruffled if you choose not continue the thread but would you at least let me know you read this. Thanks...
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
See i have issues with the SOS of conferences and what not.We never know how good a particular conference or team is since they don't play everybody.One thing that can be learned is that any team can beat anyone on any day.We don't know if the SEC is really that good since their OOC schedule is weak(best team was ASU who didn't make a bowl).People said all year the Pac 10 is weak but they won all their bowls so what does that say?The ACC had all but i think one or two teams go to a bowl game.Does that make them the best?No it doesn't.There is no way to know who is really the best conference wise.I'm just tired of seeing fans like SEC fans that cheer SEC at games instead of cheers supporting their team.That is my little pet peeve.If i heard a UM fan cheer for OSU in a bowl game just to boost conference national perception i would punch them in the face.I will root kinda for OSU all the way up to the UM game,only for the reason that the better they are when we beat them the better the taste of victory.After that i want them to lose horribly.Saban said himself in the Sugar bowl postgame that it came down to matchups vs Utah and Utah had the advantage in the game.I understand the SOS of the conference but i don't buy that.This is why we need playoffs and not an 8 team playoff but a 1-AA style playoff.It is the only way.Teams like Utah,TCU, and boise st all deserve NC shots if they meet the criteria.It is ridiculous teams like these get ripped off because of money.It is ruining the integrity and meaning of the game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Jordan,
Good points. However, I will tell you that your fellow Big Ten team fans are starting to get more into this regional pride thing than you are. I live in Orlando and went to the FSU/Wisconsin game. There were people there in Michigan and Ohio State garb and some Michigan State fans (who had come down early for their bowl the following week) that were there cheering on Wisconsin. And I don't think it was so if Wisconsin won, their team's respective victories over them this season looked better. I think it had to do with Big Ten teams tired of hearing about it. Are you trying to tell me that the Wisconsin fans should have turned on these fellow Big Ten brethren?
And, as far as "rooting" for our "rivals," we only consider them rivals on the day we play them. They aren't our rivals but rather our fellow conference brethren when they're playing out of conference. Most fans of SEC teams have one, maybe two teams that they are just programmed so much to loathe that they can't even pull for them in a bowl game. But for the most part, we all pull for each other and expect the other fans to pull for our team too. It's a really great thing and it's part of the reason that the SEC is so successful and the fans are so into it (the SEC annually ranks highest in game attendance and television viewership). There is a comraderie that other conferences should try to emulate rather than find fault with. I feel like I have 8 or 9 teams that I like. If my team isn't having a great year, some of the other teams will and it keeps me engaged longer. Besides Arkansas, I particularly like Georgia, LSU, Bama, South Carolina, and Ole Miss. The 2 teams I loathe and can't pull for no matter what are Tennessee and Auburn. I'll be pulling for Florida next week. You see, in the SEC it's not really like the Big Ten where your two favorite teams (in your case) are Michigan and whoever is playing Ohio State. I wrote a very good article (other BR fans assessment, not mine) back in the summer explaining this kinship and people seemed to "get it."
You also said you only care about UM and don't care if the Big Ten sucks but then you also stated that you realized that an Ohio State victory was better for UM if Ohio State was undefeated. So, you proved my point that the better your conference brethren do, the better if reflects on your team. Earlier, I called it your team's "environment." A win is perceived better against a better team. A loss is not perceived as poorly to a better team. So you want the teams you play to win their games so they are considered "better" teams.
One last thing on the matchup thing. I read the entire transcript of Saban's remarks. He didn't say matchups killed Bama but, instead, focused on only one particular matchup - the offensive line. That's where they suspended the nations number 1 draft choice (he didn't even travel to New Orleans) and his backup got hurt in the 1st quarter. That, in effect, caused a leak in the boat that they had grave difficulty overcoming. However, that is not an inherent matchup problem of Bama's to Utah's because if their starter was playing, that matchup actually favors Bama. It only became a matchup problem because it was a 3rd stringer and it happened to be on the side that Utah's best pass rusher plays on. But, talent to talent when starters are in, this matchup (like almost all on the field) favored Bama. So Bama lost but not because of a mismatch of talent (until they had 3rd string against Utah's 1st string).
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
U make good points but i will still have to agree to disagree.No wisky fans shouldn't turn on the other Big 10 fans.As for OSU them winning every game prior to UM game isn't really about making us look better.It is just so much sweeter to UM fans when we ruin a great OSU season,OSU fans feel th esame.I don't hav an interest on how our schedule looks it's just that knowledge of ruining OSU season.None the less a victory over them is worth it regardless of how bad they are.Even though i like to see them win up to UM game i still love to see them lose.I took great pleasure in the USC game.But u make great points and i understand what u are saying.It is just that i personally don't like to buy into it.But again great points.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Jordan,
I like debating you. You seem knowledgable and level-headed. I appreciate the banter. Thanks for the thoughtful comments you've made.
Edit Comment Cancel
jordan krumrey 6 months ago
Thanks i enjoy discussing with u as well.U know ur stuff that is for sure and u make great points.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Grant 6 months ago
yeah yeah lets all kick the Big 10 when their down, and I won't defend them too much because it has been a bad 3 years for the Big 10 but this year i think we took a step forward in the regular season with some improving teams, that said the Big 10 was in a position to fail this bowl season because of the said match-ups:
#4 in Big 10 Northwestern vs #1 in Big 12 North Mizzou
#7 in Big 10 Wisconsin vs #1 in ACC Atlantic FSU
A MSU that can't beat ranked teams vs #3 in SEC Georgia
#6 in Big 10 Minn vs #3 Big 12 North Kansas
the only good matchups for the big 10
Iowa vs USC (no not that USC)
#1 PSU vs #1 USC (yes that USC)
#2 OSU vs #2 Texas
even though it will not be reflected in this bowl season the Big 10 took a step forward towards having an good conference again but flops, matchups and classic bad Big 10 bowl game play are rearing their ugly heads.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Tom,
While I appreciate your input, a few assumptions here are just wrong or spun in the best light possible for the Big Ten.
While Missouri was "tied" for the top team in the Big 12 North, they were overall the 4th or 5th best team in the Big 12 given that the South division is where all the heavyweights live.
Florida State was not number one in the ACC. The number one team there goes to the Orange Bowl. That was Virginia Tech. In fact, FSU was not even in the ACC conference championship game.
Instead of saying #3 Big Ten team MSU, you say MSU who "can't beat ranked teams." Yet, they had the #3 spot in Big Ten just as Georgia did in SEC. And, by the way, the rap on Georgia this year as they lost to Florida and Alabama was that they couldn't win the "big ones" either. So this should have been a good chance for the Big 12 as opposed to a "bad matchup."
And, with Kansas you again spin this #3 in the Big 12 North bit. If you lined up the entire Big 12 as one conference, Kansas was the 7th best team and they were playing the Big Ten's #6 team. And they beat Minny worse than the 3 touchdown scoreboard indicated.
The Big Ten's #1 lost to the Pac 10's #1 and my guess is that the Big Ten's #2 will lose to the Big 12's #2 (and frankly I think Texas is the Big 12's #1 so this is a trade-up for Ohio State).
Iowa took care of business. They were the only ones.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Grant 6 months ago
First I said that FSU was #1 in the ACC Atlantic, which is accurate. And that matchup was laughable and you can't really defend a 7-6 team vs 9-4
2nd yes i did spin somethings but really look at the point spreads and name me one bowl game besides Iowa vs USC were the Big Ten team wasn't a significant underdog.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Tom,
You make my point for me. The Big Ten teams are underdogs because they lose bowl games. As I point out, the #1 B10 team (Penn State) played a #1 from Pac10 (USC), the #2 B10 team (Ohio State) played a #2 from the Big 12 (Texas), the #3 B10 (Michigan State) team played a #3 from the SEC (Georgia), the #4 B10 (Northwestern) played the #5 from the Big 12 (Missouri), the #5 B10 team (Iowa) played the #5 (or perhaps 6) from the SEC (South Carolina), and the #6 B10 (Minnesota) played the #7 team from the Big 12 (Kansas). In each of these cases, the Big Ten's team was the same or higher place in their conference than the opposing team was in theirs.
So, again, tell me WHY WERE THEY ALL THE UNDERDOGS? That's my very point. The top teams in the Big Ten can't beat the top teams elsewhere. The middle teams in the Big Ten can't beat the middle teams elsewhere. And don't give me the "away" game excuse. During one stretch of the 90's, the Big Ten went 7-1 in the Rose Bowl. Pasadena hasn't moved locations since then. The Big Ten has gone downhill.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tom Grant 6 months ago
but then what is exposed? Shouldn't the title then be the Big 10 is as expected. Yes the Big 10 didn't matchup well against the top teams in the Big 12 and SEC this year... and who does besides the top teams in the Big 12 and SEC? My point is the Big 10 got comparatively poor matchups when compared with another weak conference in the ACC who got their leading teams matched against weaker teams and still lost, so where is the ACC exposed.
I am saying the Big 10 could have taken a step forward but it got alot of credit for a solid regular season and they got a bowl season over their heads.
As for the 'road' game thing (which you brought up) the Big 10 has no bowl games in their regional states and if that doesn't matter why does the SEC go out of the way to not leave SEC country, logging the fewest travel miles of any BCS conference? Because it matters. Why does USC have an amazing Rose Bowl record? Because they roll out of their own beds to play in the Rose Bowl. The Big 10 teams are cold weather programs in a warm weather sport, combine that with a lack of the depth of athletes of the elite teams right now and that is the problem with the Big 10 currently.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Tom,
The reason why I titled the article "exposed" is because it hasn't really sunk in yet to the masses that they aren't really that good. Think about it. If the Big Ten was looked at like the Big East or the ACC, there is no way that they would be one of the conferences that gets not one but two slots among the BCS bowls for at least the 2nd straight year (that's from memory but if I looked it up it could be more). Furthermore, Utah went undefeated but was not considered for the national title game. However, had Penn State not lost to Iowa, they would have been in it because an undefeated team from the Big Ten is deemed worthy (because of a historical respect for that conference). However, Penn State got shown the boot at USC and, from the way Utah played at the Sugar Bowl, I'm pretty sure Utah would have taken Penn State too. So, at this point, the Big Ten is still considered a better conference than the Big East, the ACC, the Mountain West, and the Pac 10 (some years). But, as you can see from when they actually match up out of conferenced against equal or better (or in some cases not as good) of competition, they don't do any better than those conferences.
Edit Comment Cancel
D Fedco 6 months ago
The big Ten is not new at stinking up the bowls.
They have 1 winning bowl season in the last nine years!
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
In your response that cold weather doesn't make a differnce, you do not get the point. Being from FL and never watching those teams go North in cold weather it would be difficult to understand the affect. In order to get to the bowls, you have to win Big 10 games. Most of the B10 games take place in late Oct and Nov. And guess when the cold weather is. So while cold weather affects maybe 5 and sometimes more games each. they are all B10 games (over half the total) The part of the game that is most affected is the passing game and other speed issues. Accuracy and catching the ball. The runner getting outside are also affected. The type of game least affected is the power running game. So you build your team that way with bigger OL, and DBs and Lbs that are better supporting against the Power Running game. IS it better? Maybe maybe not but it is more effective in the games you have to win to get into a good bowl game.
As an example of the effect of cold weather (and wind) on a passing game, Drew Breeze came into a game at NU his senior year and the conditions distroyed his game. There are other examples. If it had no affect, why was the TB record so bad in cold weather games? Does that mean that the games would not have ended the same, no. I am just suggesting that if the games were played on a neutral cold weather field, it could have a significant affect on the outcome of many of the games.
You also try to say the idea that home field advatages have no impact BECAUSE the B10 performed well in the RB during one 8 year span. My question then would be who they played. If it was not USC/UCLA, then the other team had to travel also and while still a home field advantage, no where near the same.
It seems your entire point was to bash the B10 because of bowl outcomes while refusing to recognize some the built in disadvantages that the B10 has in playing in them.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Scott,
Are you kidding me. Nine of the twelve games (or 3/4's of them) are done by the end of October in the Big Ten. They play 3 games in November, wrap it up by Thanksgiving, and then have a debate at the end of bowl season when they don't do well that maybe they shouldn't schedule such a layoff between the last game and the bowl game. That's just the facts. And it's NOT that cold (usually) during September and October when, AGAIN, 75% of their games are played. This isn't hard.
As for the away game argument, I may have stuck that at the end of a reply to you to not have to make 2 replies as someone else had cited it. My point behind that is that back in the 90's when the Big Ten owned the Rose Bowl, nobody was saying anything about distance. I'm for making a playoff anyway. It's the Big Ten that so wants to stick to their historical Rose Bowl tradition. So, if it does make a difference (and I'm not admitting that it does), the Big Ten is bringing it on themselves.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
I have been to plenty of cold games at the end of Oct. While I agree that 7-8 of the games are not affected by cold weather, I am suggesting that 4-5 of the games for each team (except MN) have the potential to be affected and all of them are B10 games (the only ones important in conference standing) So while none of the Non Conference games are affected, half or more of the conference games are. Again, if you have not gone on a regular basis to cold weather (add in rain, wind and snow) , you can have no appreciation for the affect on a passing game. And rain at 40 is not the same as rain at 60 in its affect. High powered offenses tend to disappear when the weather changes. Games in Sept are usually Non Conference and while they have an affect on overall record, they do not affect conference standings. If you were in a conference where your most important games are played in cold and/or incliment weather, how would you build your team? To be able to do well in Sept when you are playing NC opponenets or during Nov, when it counts? You build them to Run and stop the Run (power running) first and in general, that is what they do. Bring those high powered offenses into B10 country in late Oct, Nov and you would find them being a bit slower, the passes being slightly off, Recievers being unable to hold on to the ball and in general breaking down. Without a more deliberate offense, you don't win when it counts. Ignoring this is naive.
Second, my statement is that if the opposing team is not USC the B10 performes respectably in the RB. While still on a field that does not favor the B10 team, it is at least an away game for the opponent. You still have the diproportiionate tickets etc., but at least the other team has similar travel issues to deal with. Since USC has been the opponent for much of the recent period, the B10 is at a marked disadvantage. Plus USC is the best in the country this year. I think your period in the 90's represented a time that USC was down and the one PAC 10 team to win was, you guessed it, USC.
Look, I am not suggesting that the conference is not down somewhat, for whatever combination of reasons. What I am saying is that it is not nearly as bad as bowl records would indicate. I am suggesting that the B10 has built in disadvantages in the bowl season that other confernce representatives do not face. Those disadvantages include traveling further to all bowls, and often playing a team that the venue is a defacto home game, playing in conditions that reward our opponenents for the more wide open passing offense that consistant conditions favor. Also most every team playing a level above the bowl that they would normally be in because of consistantly putting a second team in the BCS (even when not deserved). Had OSU been in the Cap One bowl against Ga, MSU been in outback against SC, IA been in Alamo, NU in Champs, MN or Wis in MCB etc. And I don't know of anyone that felt WI of MN were solid bowl teams. I am just suggesting that the reullts would probably have been far different. Throw in that one of the traditional powers was down and you have teams playing two levels of bowl above where they normally would. Throw in a lot of new coaches trying to get their systems in place. (Dantonio, Brewer, Rodriques, Beilema Fitz, Lynch) all less than three years.
Will the B10 change over time, sure, but unless global waming raises temperatures significantly, I would guess that there will still be stong ties to the run game. As long as bowls are where they are, the B10 will beat a disadvantage. But when you heap all the other factors on top you end up with a perfect storm
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Scott,
You make great points that are well thought out and you don't type like "text-talk." I appreciate all of that. Before I delve in to addressing your points, I must say that global warming (which you made a reference to) is a myth.
Back to football...
You say that the Big Ten teams build to play in cold weather (which to you means a power, smash-mouth run game). Yet, we see Illinois hiring Ron Zook, Michigan hiring Rich the Snake Rodriguez, Penn State switching to some version of a "spread" offense, etc. So, it's really not a matter of the Big Ten can't adapt but that for a long time it's been a good ole boys club that hasn't had to. Ohio State fans wanted Woody Hayes ball and Michigan fans wanted Schembechler ball and Penn State fans seem content to keep JoePa around and those three are the pre-eminent programs of the Big Ten (even though Penn State is a rather new addition).
You talk about rain and wind and cold. I can see where rain would be a factor but the wind in today's monstrosity stadiums rarely reaches the fields...especially when the stadium is full so you have all the bodies blocking it too. And, as I mentioned previously, the games are in the mid-day (warmest part of the day) and only 3 games in November (unless a late bye week and then it's only 2 games). But, while it rains everywhere, I'll concede that rain at 40 degrees is a different animal than rain at 65 degrees. But, really, how many of the 3 or 4 games that take place once the temps are in the 40's does it rain? Maybe 1 of the 4. So you have 4 games around 40 degrees late in the season and it might rain on one of thoses (historical average). Are you really trying to say that the entire coaching entourage of the Big Ten recruits, builds, and prepares their team all season for what might happen in one game and that doing so significantly increases their odds to reach a better bowl game? That might be your point and I'm not making fun of it as much as I'm calling it a stretch.
To further prove the point, Notre Dame solidified their road to the power that they eventually became a power when Knute Rockne implemented the forward pass. Before that, believe it or not, many college coaches didn't even utilize that rule in the rule book. He perfected the whole pass in stride (rather than running out to the first down marker and planting) and made ND a power for generations because it took teams so long to catch up to defending it. So, the whole pass happy offense originated in no less of a place than Indiana which, unless they've moved addresses, is smack in the middle of Big Ten country.
Look, it appears we are both right. I say that the Big Ten stinks it up in bowls and shouldn't be getting 2 BCS bowls. You say that if they didn't get 2 BCS bowls and everyone was knocked down one bowl, they would be more fairly competing and then they would win more and have a better record. If they won more and had a better record, people would start overestimating them again. So, it would seem that it's circular to some degree.
I've enjoyed debating with you. For the record, I like Ohio State and Coach Tressel and I used to like Michigan before they hired the snake and I used to like Penn State before they refused to grow a pair and show JoePa the door rather than letting the tail wag the dog at their school. But, Rodriguez and JoePa will not be there forever and I'm sure those teams will return to vogue with me again. The bottom line is that not only do I like the passion and appreciate the tradition and the historical richness of the conference but I think a healthy competitive Big Ten is a very good thing for college football. I hope the Big Ten improves. But, until then, I think we should all be "calling a spade a spade" and right now, that's not happening because too many are defending or making excuses for the mediocrity. That's been my point.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
First, the global warning comment was a joke.
The B10 teams have to be built to compete in all kinds of weather unlike teams from other regions. When your most important games (OSU, UM last weekend of season) are in cold weather, you tend to build for that. Cold, Wind (and I have been at plenty of games that it is a factor regardless of your thoughts) and all of the stadiums in the B10 are old, not built with negating the wind in mind so it remains a factor. Most of the games I have attended are at NU though I have also been to WI, IL, IA, MSU etc. NU had at least 5 or6 games that were weather affected this year includinding two rain, one snow, four cold,, three wind. Some of the games had multiple factors. Add another if you include the high humidity conditions at Duke. I also went to all of games at Un of AZ for a couple of years so I have seen the difference that weather makes.
In short, the B10 has to be able to play in all conditions. The bottom line is that weather whether it be just cold, windy rain or snow or some combination, has an undeniable impact on passing game. The more sophisticated and precision oriented the attack, the greater the effect. That long pass is just a little off, the routes aren't quite as precise, it is harder to throw the ball accurately and harder to hold on to so the 75% passers of the B12 are suddenly 60% or less and the attack sputters. It is not just that you run because of the weather, you also build defenses to stop the run becuse that is what your most important opponents do. If you cannot beat them, you do not get to a bowl. How did TX run offense do against dOSU? Or MU against NU?
The B10 does change and OU's spread came from NU (Kevin Wilson) but here it was more run oriented with Damien Anderson gaining over 2000 yds rushing (it originally came from Clemson and modified to fit B10 conditions. It has been adapted to a more pass oriented attack as the weather is more consistant in the B12 S) Why, because that is what it takes to win here. Will it change more? Sure. The next B10 evolution of the spread may well be the Super Back variation (a TE, FB hybrid that creates matchup and substitution problems, especially in the Super FastBall mode) Probably more run oriented QB's as well.
Another disadvantage that the B10 has is that our athletes actually have to go to class. And while Tressel is classy, dOSU has way too many Micky Mouse courses and programs to get players through. Zook the crook is also not a favorite and I have no real feeling for Rich Rod but preliminary results are not good. Regarding JoPa, he has earned the right to go out his way and his last couple have years have extended that right. The same could be said about Bowden (FSU).
Regarding venue sites, the B10 is always at a disadvantage but it becomes even more so when the venue is a defacto home site for the opponent. I fully expect FL to win towmorrow night. Not because I feel that they are the better team (I think that they are even) but becuase the game is in FL. None of the B10 teams could conveniently drive to the sites. At least four of our opponents could and all were closer. The only other BCS conference teams that have come North in late OCT or Nov were USC when they played ND and possibly Miami but itMiami has been a while
In short, while the B10 is down a bit, it is no where near what the bowl record indicates. This type of thing is cyclical. Typical top 10 programs usually have coaches in at least their 7th year. In the B10, only 4 teams in the B10 could claim that and Tiller was in his swan song year. dOSU showed that they could play with anyone (other than USC at their site but who could?) Change this years bowl matchups and the record would have been substatially different. Oregon doesn't lose the last game and PSU faces them, USC goes to Fiesta Bowl, OSU goes Cap one or another BCS, etc and you have a 5-2 or possibly 6-1 record. Iowa might also beat Ga and even NU could have done better (both had good defenses and multidimensional offenses) because of the one dimensional nature of MSU (Hoyer has never been more that a 50% passer). THis years linup and I was betting that the best we would go 2-5 with us severe underdogs in 6. I thought Iowa would win with with the only other possibilities at winning were NU or OSU. It is all about matchups and this year was one of the worst I have seen.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Great remarks. I've made my case and you made yours so any more response by me would just be unnecessary. I wanted to respond because I thought it was the polite thing to do so you wouldn't feel ignored. I appreciate the well-conceived and well-presented comments. These are the kinds of discussions that BR ought to be about.
Edit Comment Cancel
ThWard 6 months ago
I don't like comparisons between apples and oranges. Comparing 2-BCS-entry conferences to 1-BCS-entry conferences is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
The bowl season told us this much: the Big 12 and SEC are stronger than the Big 10 and the rest. Not a shock. But would we be ragging on the Big 10 if any of the other 1-entry-BCS conferences had a second entry instead of the Big 10? The ACC? Their runner up lost to Vandy, and Georgia Tech was run off the field in their home town. How would that conference have faired with a 2nd BCS entry and a corresponding bump up the difficulty ladder for the rest of the conference?
The Pac-10? Looked solid, I grant you, but change those matchups with a bump up in difficulty for every team (except USC). Big East? Come on, people. Saying the Big 10 is "horrible" is overstating the point, and using apples to oranges comparisons between the various conferences doesn't bolster it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
You are right TH. The reason that the Big Ten gets "picked on" rather than the Big East, ACC, or Pac 10 is that those conferences are already considered weak and their fans don't particularly try to deny that. But Big Ten fans do. And the media (to some degree) does given that the Big East or ACC would never have 2 BCS bowl entries (because the voters would never vote them there). The Big East was rumored to have their conference champion birth revoked back when the ACC raided them because it appeared that they would be no stronger (and therefore no more deserving) than the WAC or Conference USA. The ACC just won their first BCS bowl game in the last 9 tries so why put 2 in the mix when their "best" team usually can't win. And, most people consider the Pac 10 to be USC and the 9 dwarves. But the Big Ten is still living on tradition and history and stats. That's why they are the ones talked about and the other conferences aren't.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
I would argue that USC is the top program at this point in the year but some of that might have to be discounted because the RB is in their backyard. I discount the PAC 10 bowl record because all but one of their bowls were close to home, teams were not bumped up and only 50% of the teams went to bowls. I would suggest that the B12 is about the same as the B10 with the B12 getting a slight edge. At least they travel outside their region. They are over rated based on the fact that when their great offenses faced real defenses, they folded up and did not score and two of the matchups with the B10 went to the very last play. That gives the nod this year to the SEC while they have had issues, they still come out on top.
Edit Comment Cancel
ThWard 6 months ago
Donald, fair point (and my comment was aimed sort of generally, at the tone of the comments). But still - this argument is only relevant in a good/bad dichotomy.
That is, conferences are either good or bad. ACC = bad. Pac-10 = bad. SEC = good. And, apparently contrary to the Big 10 fans' beliefs, Big 10 NOT = good, but rather Big 10 = bad!
I think that's a fairly unsophisticated way to analyze the conferences. I also think it depends a great deal on sample size. In the last 10 years? I'd say the Big 10 has been a top 3 conference. In the past 2 years? Probably more like a top 4 conference (i.e., the 3rd or 4th best). This year? Hard to say. I thought it was 4th, behind the ACC, during the regular season, but the ACC had many favorable bowl matchups and looked even worse than the Big 10 (I say worse because of the 2-BCS entry v. 1-BCS entry distinction I made earlier).
My point is just that it's nuanced. As a Big 10 fan, it's not particularly surprising to me to learn that the Big 10 hasn't been a top 2 conference for a few years - I myself have felt that way. But I don't look at it as simple as "good or bad." Or, as you artfully titled the article, good and "pathetic" ;)
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Th,
I appreciate your comments and I do realize that there are all kinds of ways you can break down "success" and that many are intangible or at least hard to measure. That being said, when I wrote this article, I was fairly sure that Ohio State would lose and that the Big Ten would end up 1-6 in bowl games. But even when they were 1-5 and the best they could hope for was 2-5 (if OSU won), that's still a very bad bowl record. I realize that the whole "good/bad dichotomy" (very nice use of an underutilized word by the way), is simplistic and doesn't often fit. I think you interpreted that to be what I was doing rather than anything that I might have said. However, in this year's bowl season and the exclamation point it puts on the 5 year slide of poor bowl records that are getting worse by the year, you really don't have to have many shades of grey here. 1-6 is "bad." Can we agree to that?
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
I would suggest that the B10 is 3rd just slightly behind the Big12. If Oklahoma loses to FL tonight, the vaunted B12 South would have been one play away from going 0-4 and in general have performed not so well in matchups strongly favoring them (although they at least travel which the SEC does not). While the ACC won a few games, in general, even with fovorable matchups, they underperformed. PAC 10 with USC has the best in the country (especially at home) but otherwise were undiluted and had favorable matchups in favorable venues against teams that had to travel. The ACC, while it had a few wins generally underperformed in favorable matchups in favorable locations. The Big East is presently not very good
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
Scott,
I wrote an article I'd like you to read and comment on...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/108738-oklahoma-the-new-ohio-state-is-0-2-versus-teams-with-a-defense
Edit Comment Cancel
ThWard 6 months ago
Sure, a 1-6 bowl record is bad. I guess my point was more general - i.e., 1.) Bowl records are not always the best indicator of conference strength (see point about comparing apples to oranges in the world of 1-entry and 2-entry BCS conferences), and 2.) To the extent that bowl records are indicators of success, one must analyze them with a bit more nuance. Obviously, what follows from those two points is my suggestion that saying "1-6 in bowls is bad" does not necessarily mean "Big 10 conference, therefore, is pathetic and overrated."
But note, none of this is to suggest that the Big 10 is (or has been for the past couple years) particularly strong. I think the Big 10 has been historically weak the past few years. Yet I still think it's at worse the 4th best conference (probably more like 3rd) in what is always a generally fluid "conference strength" debate. In evaluating 2008 by itself, it'd be fair to say that IF the Big 10 was the 3rd best conference, the drop off is pretty damn steep between 2 and 3.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Harlan 6 months ago
We are in general agreement. I believe that for this year the B10 is the third best but I would suggest that the margin of difference from 2nd to 3rd is slight. Both the MU NU and dOSU TX games were decided on the last play on relatively neutral fields and if the B10 had won those contests, the B12 would be looking at 1-5. If FL wins tonight (a lot because of location) , the vaunted B12 South would have been one play away from going 0-4. I would suggest that much of the 1-6 record had to do with matchups and unfavorable venues rather than quality of teams. I do have more respect for the B12 because they do travel, not as much as the B10 but they do travel.
Edit Comment Cancel
Donald Fincher 6 months ago
TH,
I wrote an article I'd like your comment on...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/108738-oklahoma-the-new-ohio-state-is-0-2-versus-teams-with-a-defense
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.