Exam Time: 2 Questions Each Big Ten Leaders Contender Needs to Answer in 2011

Monday, we took a walk through the Big Ten Legends division to try to sort out a division race that goes five teams deep.  

Every team in the division has at least two major question marks heading into the season, and how each team addresses those questions will go a long way toward sorting out who wins the first Legends title and who finishes just north of Minnesota in the standings.

To the (mostly) east we have a similar situation: four teams look capable of making a run to Indy.  

There are a range of teams here as well—from favorites (Wisconsin) to long shots (Illinois).  Also, one team may not even be allowed to play in the conference championship game, depending on an NCAA ruling expected to come down in two months. But let's humor the Buckeyes for now.

Without further ado, I give you the Big Ten Leaders Division: 

Illinois: Does the Offense Go 2-D?

It is hard to fault Nathan Scheelhaase for anything he did last year as a RS-freshman starter for the Illini.

Especially when you consider that he took over for departed starter Juice Williams and did more with the offense than Juice had done since the Illini's miraculous 2007 Rose Bowl run.

Scheelhaase was arguably the best freshman quarterback in the country, and he adapted himself very well to the pistol offense that Paul Petrino brought to Champaign.

In fact, Petrino deserves a great deal of praise for the turnaround he engineered with the Illini.  

On the surface, the total offense and rushing offense ranks don't change much between '09 and '10 (total offense improved two spots to 45th nationally, rushing offense six spots to 11th nationally).  

The big surprise is how much better the Illini got at turning those yards into points.  In 2009 the Illini were 81st in the country averaging 24 points per game. Once Petrino took over in 2010, that number jumped to 32 points per game, good for 26th nationally.

Not having a defense that was a complete pushover helped quite a bit, but the Illini were very good at moving the ball on the ground with running backs Mikel Leshoure (1697 YDS, 6.0 YPC) and Jason Ford (480 YDS, 4.8 YPC) as well as Scheelhaase (868 YDS).

This kind of offensive production on the ground—matched with a stout defense—was good enough to get the Illini to seven wins, and possibly more had the team not fallen short in three winnable games (Minnesota, Michigan, and Fresno State).  

However, if Illinois wants to make the step up from middle-of-the-pack, Paul Petrino is going to have to find a way to improve the other half of the offense: the passing game.

Part of the issue is that the Illini didn't need to pass much.  

Leshoure and Ford packed a wallop as a one-two punch, and Scheelhaase had the wheels to keep defenses honest.  

However, the Illini were a pitiful 111th in passing offense (151 YPG) on some pedestrian passing numbers from the freshman gunner (1825 YDS, 6.9 YPP, 59% comp, 17/8 TD/INT) which was good for an average pass eff. rank of 53rd nationally (eighth in the conference).

In 2011, the offensive line returns mostly intact, but the receiving corps will be young.  

A.J. Jenkins is the only receiver with any significant numbers (746 YDS, 56 REC, 7 TD), while the rest of the receiving corps had 10 or fewer catches apiece last year.

It stands to reason that with another year in the system, Nathan Scheelhaase will take a step forward in the passing game. Petrino has spoken well of receivers Ryan Lankford and Darius Millines—hopefully giving Scheelhaase a couple more targets.

Regardless of what the passing game is in 2011, the rushing attack should be good enough to get the Illini back to a bowl, especially with eight home games on the schedule.  

But if Zook wants his team to take another step forward—and if he likes his job in Champaign, as you can bet he does—the Illini offense has to answer one question: can Scheelhaase and his group of young receivers move the ball through the air when necessary? 

Illinois: Who Fills the Big Shoes on Defense?

Even more surprising than the Illini's transformation on offense is perhaps the incredible change on the defensive side of the ball under Vic Koenning.  

I'll let stat guru Bill Connelly put this one in perspective:

"

"I'm not sure what he can do with a thinner front seven, but it is difficult to overstate how good a job Vic Koenning did with this defense last year. In 2009, Illinois' defense ranked 93rd in Def. F/+ with a minus-7.2% rating. They improved to +10.2% and 17th last season, the sixth-biggest single-season improvement on record from 2006-10."

Largest Single-Season Defensive Improvement According to F/+ Rating:
2009 Nebraska (+26.3%)
2010 N.C. State (+21.4%)
2010 Stanford (+20.6%)
2008 Florida (+18.4%)
2007 Louisiana Tech (+17.8%)
2010 Illinois (+17.4%)

"

So, yeah, the Illinois defense was as big a success story under a new coordinator as you could hope to have.  

A great deal of that success was attributable to the big men in the middle of the Illinois front seven.

Martez Wilson finally found a way to deliver on the massive wave of hype that he rode into Champaign on.  

The five-star recruit did almost nothing in his first two years on campus, and he was injured his third year and granted a medical hardship for it.

In 2010, he had his coming-out party, leading the Illini in tackles and coming in second in both sacks (4) and TFL (11.5).

The reason Wilson wasn't first in those categories was because Corey Liuget, the Illini's stud defensive tackle, recorded a team-high 4.5 sacks and 12.5 tackles for loss.  

Both players turned their breakout seasons into NFL paydays.

A big part of Illinois' success against the run in 2010 (32nd in the country with 130 rushing YPG allowed) had to do with those two locking down the middle.  

Now, it is up to Vic Koenning to find suitable replacements without leading to a significant dropoff in production from the defense.  

Freshman Akeem Spence should be a good substitution for Liuget after a very good first year that earned him freshman all-American honors.  

It will be up to Ian Thomas, Johnathon Brown or Ashante Williams to pick up the linebacking slack in 2011.

The question every Illini fan should be asking themselves: can the defense replace two NFL draft picks without suffering any setbacks?

Penn State: Brother, Can You Spare Me a Quarterback?

You want the 2010 Penn State season summed up in one word?  Mediocre.  

That pretty much explains how good the Nittany Lions were at everything they did.  The team was below average running the ball as well as stopping the run (74th nationally in both rushing offense and defense, also known as: how not to win in the Big Ten), and the passing game wasn't anything to write home about either.

Like most offensive struggles, the line of blame gets drawn right to the guy(s) taking the snaps.  

True freshman Rob Bolden began the season but ceded playing time to RS-SO walk-on Matt McGloin after a concussion against Minnesota.

Neither quarterback was terrible.  

Bolden started the first six games (and got a few snaps later in the season as well) and managed to put up 1,360 YDS, 7.0 YPP, 58 percent comp., 5/7 TD/INT.  

Before you scoff at these numbers, remember that this came in games against Alabama, Iowa, Illinois, and Temple—a range of defenses that goes from great to pretty good.

McGloin, as plucky walk-ons are wont to do against true freshmen, put up some flashier stats:  1,548 YDS, 7.2 YPP, 55 percent comp, 14/9 TD/INT.  

But keep in mind he had the benefit of playing four of the worst defenses in the Big Ten (Minnesota, Indiana, Michigan and Northwestern) before you let those 14 touchdowns skew your viewpoint.  

In two games against defenses that featured a pulse (OSU, Florida), McGloin threw seven of his nine interceptions and completed 50 percent or less of his passes.

Because of the inexperience at quarterback last year, teams were able to put the onus on the passing game to move the ball while gearing up to stop the run, and that often worked.  

Evan Royster only broke 100 yards four times last season, with backup Silas Redd doing it once.  

Redd is back, and he boasts an impressive 5.7 YPC figure. Coupled with the return of a good deal of experience on the offensive line, that should help the Nittany Lions improve the ground game in 2011.

That is if the quarterback—whoever it is—can take the next step forward and keep defenses honest. Fortunately for Penn State, the receiving corps is deep and talented.  

Big-play threat Derrick Moye returns (885 YDS, 16.7 YPC, 8 TD), as do lesser-used options Justin Brown (452 YDS, 1 TD) and Devon Smith (363 YDS, 1 TD).  

Whoever wins the job under center is going to have options.

The real question the Nittany Lions need to answer in 2011 is: who will win the quarterback battle, and will the winner be good enough to help the offense take the next step? 

Penn State: Does the Defense Rebound?

Mediocrity was visible on both sides of the ball, most notably in the defensive front seven.  

The Nittany Lions struggled all year to get stops in the running game and get to the quarterback.

Some of this was attributable to injuries.  

Talented defensive end Jack Crawford was hobbled with an injury throughout the season and was barely productive.  

Another end, Eric Latimore, is back after a wrist injury knocked him from his starting spot in 2010.  

What's more, the Nittany Lions expect MLB Michael Mauti to be back to 100 percent after an ACL injury sidelined him in 2009.

The injury bug has already struck once this year, however, as Pete Massaro suffered a second ACL injury (the first happening in 2009) during spring practice. He will miss all of 2011.

The defensive front seven will need all the help it can get, as the 2010 version was decidedly poor at executing its two main functions. In the running game the front seven provided little resistance, allowing 165 YPG (74th in the nation) and racking up a measly 5.46 TFLPG (75th nationally).  

When teams looked to pass, the Nittany Lions front seven wasn't much better, coming in at 101st in the country in sacks per game.  

Despite the lack of a strong pass rush, the secondary was surprisingly good against the pass (16th nationally in pass defense), although that is somewhat attributable to the ease at which teams could run against Penn State.

All hope is not lost, however.  This is still Penn State, a team that is two years removed from top 10 rankings in rushing, total and scoring defense, as well as sacks and TFLs.  

The talent is there for a big return to vintage Penn State football, and you know the coaches are good enough to get the team there.

Yet the question remains: does the 2011 Penn State defense return to form, or will injuries and bad luck derail the Nittany Lions again? 

Ohio State: Is Fickell Enough?

Perhaps no team so far in this Big Ten preview has had as strange a set of two questions as Ohio State does.  

That seems entirely fitting, given the whirlwind that has encircled Columbus the last nine months.

First, there was the relatively minor tattoo-for-merchandise scandal.  

Then there was the more serious Tressel-knew-all-along scandal.  

Finally there was the what-the-hell-is-Terrelle-doing-driving-that-car almost-scandal before Pryor took his talents to the supplemental draft and Buckeye fans were left slack-jawed, staring down a season without the three-year starter and—quite possibly worse—without the figurehead of the program.

Now, I'm sure Luke Fickell is a nice guy, and being in charge of that defense is an excellent thing to have on your resume no matter what the head coach was doing.  

But in the aftermath of the second-biggest scandal of the summer (thanks, Miami), it is up to interim coach Luke Fickell to keep the juggernaut in Columbus on the tracks through 2011, and in the process, hopefully help him keep his job.

This will be no easy task.  

The defense loses seven starters from last year—including five of its top tacklers to the NFL.  That is a lot of talent to replace for anybody.

Luckily, two of the returning players have some starting experience from earlier in their careers: Tyler Moeller is back at the hybrid LB/SS spot after a medical redshirt, and C.J. Barnett is back at safety after a knee injury early last year knocked him out for the season.  

Linebacker sees the return of one starter, Andrew Sweat, with a host of hyped freshmen and role-players from last year looking to step in.  On the line two players are back: Nathan Williams and John Simon.

With experience coming back at a few key positions and a roster full of talented underclassmen waiting for a shot at a starting spot, it all depends on Fickell's ability to keep the ship on an even keel. As the former defensive coordinator, Buckeyes fans shouldn't have too much to worry about.

On the other side of the ball is the larger question.  

With a hyped true freshman and a journeyman RS-SR battling it out for the starting quarterback job, it seems quite likely that the offense takes a big step back to the conservative side in 2011 after being a top-20 unit in scoring, total and rushing offense in 2010.  

Think vintage Tressel-ball. Lots of handoffs, lots of conservative calls, let the defense win.  

With the return of Boom Herron in the backfield and DeVeir Posey at receiver, the Buckeyes will have weapons to lean on for most of Big Ten play. But the first five games could be a struggle, especially against a tough MSU team in Week 5.  

Luckily, the offensive line should be fine with the return of Mike Brewster at center and J.B. Shugarts at right tackle.

Make no mistake, however, the Ohio State program is still very much a Jim Tressel creation, and while Fickell is a dyed-in-the-wool Tressel-ite, he has big shoes to fill and a larger degree of difficulty than Tressel has ever faced.  

The question for Ohio State on the field in 2011 is: can Fickell hold the team together during a rough transition, amid an NCAA scandal and with his head on the chopping block?   

Ohio State: Where Does the NCAA Hammer Fall?

The long dance between the NCAA and the Ohio State athletic department has been a major story line in college football since late last fall.

First, the two sides went back and forth about the question of when the suspensions of five players should be enacted.

The OSU athletic department pushed to allow the players to be included for the bowl game against Arkansas.

For reasons that completely escape me, this was allowed to happen.

When it eventually came out that Tressel had known about the violations all along and had chosen not to report them to the compliance office, things looked to be getting bad for the Buckeyes.  

Tressel was then fined and fired.  

Soon after, his fine was rescinded and his dismissal changed to a resignation.

Blogger's head's everywhere exploded.

Now that we are a couple months away from the final verdict, a couple things seem clear.

First, it looks as if the athletic department's plan to pin all the blame on Tressel while thumbing their nose at the NCAA might actually pay off.  

The NCAA told the Buckeyes that there would be no Failure to Monitor or Lack of Institutional Control charges added to the original list of violations—the dreaded one-two punch that knocks out most serious offenders.

Second, a further investigation into separate violations could be occurring, but the findings and penalties of such an investigation will be something revealed down the road. The 2011 season is therefore only faced with the decision regarding the tattoo scandal and Tressel cover-up.

This could go one of two ways for the Buckeyes.  

The NCAA could agree with Ohio State and say that it was all Tressel's fault, that the school and athletic department were just helpless victims and that the self-imposed sanctions are more than enough to satiate the NCAA's blood-thirst.  

This would be the best case scenario for Ohio State, and at this point is—unfortunately—probably the front-runner in terms of possible outcomes.

However, there is still the possibility that the NCAA delivers at least a one-year postseason ban on the following logic: Ohio State used ineligible players to earn a trip to a highly-profitable BCS bowl game.

Ohio State then lobbied to allow those ineligible players to play in the bowl game by pushing back the suspension until the 2011 season. Ohio State then won the bowl game using ineligible players on an argument built on lies and cover-ups.  

In most cases, the NCAA punishes teams for the advantages they gain by breaking the rules.

Illegal contact/gifts to a recruit usually means scholarship losses, exceeding allotted practice time usually means giving back twice the amount in the future, use ineligible players to win a bowl game? One would think that at least a one-year postseason ban would be on the table.

We won't know anything until October.

But when the announcement comes, the NCAA gets to answer one question for Ohio State: will the Buckeyes be eligible to play in the Big Ten's first championship game? 

Wisconsin: Good Problems to Have.

I watched a lot of football last year.  

I saw Michigan games in which the spread-and-shred offense was transcendent.  

I watched Oregon turn up the pace to 11 en route to the kind of offense that "basketball on grass" doesn't even seem to cover.  

I saw Andrew Luck dominate teams in ways most quarterbacks only dream of.  

I watched Cam Newton "fulfill his athletic potential."

But I don't think I saw anything all year that was quite as disheartening as watching Wisconsin roll over almost everyone in its path.  

It took the Badgers a few games to really hit peak performance, but once it happened the college football world got to witness the pro style offense operating at a level that has rarely been seen before.

Now Wisconsin has to figure out how to get back to that.

On the offensive line, the Badgers lose two very good starters in LT Gabe Carimi and LG John Moffitt.

In true Wisconsin fashion, however, the line still returns 72 combined starts and averages 6'5" 325 lbs.

This was a unit that was 18th nationally in sacks allowed and helped pave the way for a 12th-ranked rush offense. One has to think that there will be a drop-off when replacing two standout linemen on the left side, but even a moderate drop-off still leaves the line far north of "average."

Besides, the Badgers get back arguably the two best rushers from a trio that combined for over 3,000 yards and 46 touchdowns.  

Then-freshman James White led the team with 1,052 yards and 14 touchdowns, but his sophomore backfield-mate Montee Ball chipped in 996 yards and 18 touchdowns.

It is certainly something special to have three running backs gain 1,000 yards—I'll give Ball the four-yard benefit of the doubt.  

Now Ball and White get to shoulder the load without bruiser John Clay in the mix. While the powerful Clay added a different dimension, I'm sure the Badgers will do just fine without him.

The biggest question comes in the passing game.  

Most Badger fans rejoiced when Russell Wilson came aboard for a one-year stop at the top of the QB depth chart, but there remains the question of whether he can recreate Scott Tolzien's magic.  

Tolzien was not a "wow" athlete, but he was deadly accurate (73 percent completion) and could do everything he was called upon to do in the offense.  Wilson is capable of turning broken plays into highlights, but whether he can cut apart a defense with the surgical precision of Tolzien is still very much up in the air.  

Wilson threw the ball a lot more than Tolzien last year (Wilson threw fewer than 30 passes just twice in 2010, Tolzien never threw more than 30 passes in 2010), but Wilson needed that many passes, as he completed them at a rate of just 58 percent.

Wisconsin's offense looks poised for a return to 2010 form on the ground, but part of the reason last year's version was so efficient was the ability of the passing game to pick up yards without wasting plays or possessions.  

With TE Lance Hendricks gone, the offense is going to have to rely on an injury-prone Nick Toon as a primary receiving threat.

So if Wisconsin plans on being the same unstoppable force in 2011, Russell Wilson will have to answer his doubters: can he be the accurate tactician that the Badgers offense needs? 

Wisconsin: Forgotten, but Not Gone, Right?

Lost in the wake of destruction that the Wisconsin offense left behind in 2010 was the realization that, yeah, the defense was pretty good, too.  

Not otherworldly by any means, but good enough at what it needed to do to set the offense up to succeed.  

The Badgers were ranked in the 20s in rushing, total, scoring and passing defense despite being tied for 76th in TFL and tied for 91st in sacks per game (not to mention an average 53rd in pass eff defense).  

All of this paints a picture of a defense that was risk-averse, good at containing big plays and good enough to get the ball back more often than not.

Part of that effectiveness came from having a guy like J.J. Watt haunting the dreams of opposing offensive coordinators.  

Watt had seven sacks, three forced fumbles and three blocked kicks, on top of his 21 TFL and second-best on the team 62 tackles (from a defensive end, this is very impressive).  

The former MAC walk-on tight end was rewarded for his dominance when he was chosen 11th in the NFL draft.

Now the Badgers have to do some work replacing Watt's otherworldly production.  

The next six defensive linemen on the depth chart last year combined for only 17.5 TFL—3.5 less than Watt had on his own. Fortunately, the front line is young and presumably getting better.

Another boon for the defense is the return of linebacker Chris Borland from an injury that knocked him out of most of the 2010 season.  

He was a very good player as a freshman, and if he is healthy it is one more answer for the Badgers on defense.

In the end, this unit is lucky.  

The offense should do so much that even an average defense that can get the ball back more often than not should have the Badgers fighting for double-digit wins.  

But if Wisconsin wants more—and you can bet they do—the defense needs to answer one question: can it recreate the success of last year without J.J. Watt?