Is the Big Ten regressing?
| Minnesota | 30 | UNLV | 27 | |
| Michigan State | 17 | Boise State | 13 | |
| Northwestern | 42 | Syracuse | 41 | |
| Ohio State | 56 | Miami (OH) | 10 | |
| Ohio | 24 | Penn State | 14 | |
| Illinois | 24 | W. Michigan | 7 | |
| Nebraska | 49 | S. Miss | 20 | |
| Wisconsin | 26 | Northern Iowa | 21 | |
| Iowa | 18 | N. Illinois | 17 | |
| Purdue | 48 | E. Kentucky | 6 | |
| Indiana | 24 | Indiana State | 17 | |
| Alabama | 41 | Michigan | 14 |
These are the scores for every Big Ten game in the opening week of the 2012 football season. You can see that althoguh the Big Ten only lost two games (Penn State and Michigan), it was generally pretty wretched. Minnestota barely barely beats UNLV, Michigan State scrapes by a completely rebuilding Boise State team, Northwestern nearly loses to Syracuse, Ohio (Bobcats!) beats Penn State, Nebraska starts out struggling, Wisconsin almost allows Northern Iowa to come back and win (!!! I used to live in Cedar Falls, Iowa, where Northern Iowa is based... incredibly small and obscure when it comes to college football and recruiting; they should never be even close to Wisconsin), Iowa nearly loses to Northern Illinois (!!!), and Indiana scrapes by Indiana State.
These are supposed to MAC snacks and otherwise cupcake teams. The hell is going on?
I thoguht the Big Ten was supposed to be on the upswing this year and move towards regaining its rightful place as one of the best conferences in America. The way it seems now, I'm not sure if it's even in the top four, with the SEC, the PAC-10, the Big 12, and even the ACC (!)...
What's going on? Anyone have any hypotheses?
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:35 PM ^
what a pathetic performance
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:35 PM ^
shit can happen in the first week, from shock to surprise to HORROR. Not enough data for this hypotheses yet.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:39 PM ^
Florida looked awful against Bowling Green in their first game. Yes, they won ... but it was not terribly impressive. So yeah, first games are a bitch.
September 3rd, 2012 at 2:51 AM ^
And Arkansas, and Georgia, and South Carolina, and Texas, and Oklahoma and etc. etc. The sky hasn't fallen yet.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:36 PM ^
=/= the SEC. We're not regressing, we're just not playing total tomato cans, like N Texas, Arkansas St and Idaho State or Troy to open the season like all the schools trying to impress with their great offenses.
FCS schools need the $$, but I don't think any schools in the B1G, SEC, PAC-12 or Big 12 should be allowed to play an FCS school. It's just baby seal abuse.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:47 PM ^
it's all in how you look at it.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:24 PM ^
Indiana State's very happy to have the chance to play Indiana and the game was competitive. Northern Iowa's beaten Iowa State three times in the last twenty years; South Dakota and North Dakota State have each beaten Minnesota recently. Georgia Southern put more points and yards on Alabama than any other school last year (I know Alabama rested starters; it's still impressive). Montana won four straight against Idaho (that might be the only trophy game played across divisions, although they haven't played it for a few years). It's the highlight of the year for those schools--why do you want to take it away from them?
I can do without the Okie St./Savannah matchups and I don't know why Michigan should be playing UMass but there's some overlap between the bottom of FBS and the top of FCS and I don't think a blanket ban does anyone any good.
A bowl/playoff/ranking system that made a distinction between different calibers of FCS opponents and heavily penalized bad mismatches (within FBS too) seems like a better idea.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^
I'm not disputing any of the facts that you state. They are are true and good. My point is that a Big Ten team, if the Big Ten is really to claim a spot as one of the nation's foremost conferences, should never struggle with any of htese teams that you have metnioned. I'm not saying you shouldn't schedule these teams or anything... just when you do you should annhillate them.
Credit to the FCS when it is due... THe other side is that the Big Ten should be doing better.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:41 PM ^
Half the B1G teams lost key starters to the NFL last year (notably Wisconsin,) the other half are breaking in new Head Coaches and coordinators. Not surprising they weren't covering themselves in glory in week 1. Penn State is regressing for sure, Sparty will step back a little as others improve, and Nebraska is a push, (their offensive improvements should offset their defensive losses,) but Purdue looks better than average this year, so far, and if Illinois can start wrapping up it's local talent then they'll be more than just a top 10 defense like they were last year, too. Ohio and Michigan are on the ascendency. I'd even chart the trajectories as exponential these first few years. Michigan's playing for Championships.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:42 PM ^
Its week 1 (so take those scores with a grain of salt), but the Big Ten isn't as deep as it used to be, and two of the 12 teams are banned from the postseason. So it is what is man. Its pretty much us, MSU, and Wisconsin. Not exactly the halcyon days of the conference.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:10 PM ^
They have a veteran team, and they took Southern Miss (who is usually decent) to the woodshed. I think that's the game on our schedule that we're most likely to lose.
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^
the Big Ten deep? I actually think the conference of late has been more competitve than this past you refer to. It is only recently that the rest of the Big Ten has cycled through with years of competitiveness. Wisconsin and Iowa have come on, Penn State for a while, then MSU. It was Ohio, Michigan, and whomever happened to be hot that year when one or the other was caught napping.
I think this quarterback of the year strategy Wisconsin has is misguided, but they'll be back. Two years ago they could have handled Bama way better than we did.
PSU will be hammered for a while - they cannot strategize their way around the sanctions like USC did.
Nebraska is a good addition, but we'll see where they are as the season goes on. I happen to think our game in Lincoln decides the B1G this year.
OSU appears to be back but capped by sanctions.
MSU is in transition, we'll see how they as the post-Rich Rod recruiting downturn hits them.
It's all cyclical and explainable. And I agree, the bulk of the SEC did not look that good either. Dave just signed us up for the toughest assignment imaginable out of the box, and we weren't ready yet.
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:46 PM ^
Yes the B1G is regressing hard. They went 10-2 with the losses being to No. 2 Bama and from Penn State coming off one of the worst off season scandals in Football history. How pathetic.
/s
It's week 1 and the teams found a way to win. That's all that matters.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:01 PM ^
Found a way to win? Against competition that is barely a level above FCS?
I would hope that the Big Ten would be doing more than "finding a way to win" vs. Northern Illinois and Northern Iowa... Those teams should not be in the same sentence as any Big Ten team. I know for a fact that Northern Iowa cannot come anywhere near the talent level of any Big Ten school, since I used to live in Cedar Falls.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:37 PM ^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Iowa_Panthers_football#Victories_…
It's not great but it's not actually much worse than Indiana vs. OSU or Minnesota vs. Michigan. Should we kick Indiana and Minnesota out of the B1G?
Or there's 2003 when Northern Illinois opened with wins over Maryland (then #14), Alabama and Iowa State. I'm sure there were people that thought Alabama football had fallen off a cliff. The same year, Bowling Green beat Northwestern and Purdue and only lost in Columbus by a TD. All those teams went bowling and OSU finished #4 in the country.
I guess what I'm trying to say is (1) you're overreacting and (2) a little respect for usually-lesser opponents might be nice. They do occasionally win football games.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:53 PM ^
The year Iowa won the Orange Bowl.
Northern Iowa has been one of the top FCS teams as of the last few years.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:43 PM ^
Yes I agree with you on the point that Iowa and Wis. have the talent to not let those games get close.
However, I watched the Wis. game and they were NEVER in danger of losing that game. Even with the 14 point 4th quarter rally, Wisc. didn't have to spread out the defense or anything...they played clamn and regular cow football and won.
I didn't watch the Iowa game but I hear they lost 27 running backs or something. That might be a huge thing to deal with in week one. Oh...and they still won btw.
On top of that, the conference had a win over a ranked opponent, had the two WORST B1G teams (minn. and indiana) win their week one contests, and had three teams (ohio, nebraska, and purdue) win by a shit ton of points.
What else do you want?
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 PM ^
Although it is week 1 which is why most of the scores shook out like they did, lets take our blinders off. The B1G is not the power it once was. I do beleive that the leagues will begin to level out as the years go on (at least I hope).
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:54 PM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:57 PM ^
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 9:59 PM ^
because of recruiting. With PSU getting hammered, it's really UM, and OSU getting top recruits. Neb and MSu will also get their share, but in the 15-25 range, and then blech. We cannot consistently compete with top programs with mediocre recruiting.
And yes, Wisconsin is missing from this list. They don't recruit much, and they never play tough out of conference games either, until they lose in a bowl game. I don't see that changing any time soon, either.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:00 PM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:02 PM ^
I have got to find a copy of the manual for these things.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:03 PM ^
A summary look at the Week 3 and 4 stats for the Big Ten going back ten years basically shows most teams surviving their OOC schedule 2-1 or 3-1 with some going undefeated (some losing records thrown in, of course), and it is a fairly consistent pattern going back at least that far, so I would say that in the recent past the conference has at least been holding its own.
As someone mentioned, it definitely is not as deep as it used to be, there are a fair number of scares (e.g., 2003 - Ohio needs 3 OTs to beat NC State) and a a few upsets (the word starts with "H") and the odd ugly game (2005 - ASU rings Northwestern's bell 52-21). To be fair, the Big Ten was 10-2 last year in the first week, and 9-2 (Nebraska not being a member yet) the year before that.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:06 PM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 PM ^
Conferences have down periods, the BIG has two schools that just had major scandals blow up in the last year. Indiana is a basketball school and they have that little school named ND in state. Minnesota played a UNLV team that is starting to buy into a new coach's winning mentality and who had the best recruiting class in the history of the school last year. Also how many schools in the BIG have head coaches with less than 2 full years at the helm, at least, 5 by count. The BIG is in a transition period, not necessarily a regression.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:14 PM ^
The B1G has been down, but between Meyer, Hoke, Dantonio, and Bielema, I think good things are coming for this conference. Meyer has a very successful pedigree and is an excellent recruiter. Hoke, while not as experienced, is recruiting well enough to be at a much higher level talent-wise than we have been in a long time. Also, as much as it pains me to say it, I really think Dantonio is an excellent coach who will have MSU performing at a fairly high level for a long time. Finally, Bielema has been consistently piling on wins year in and year out.
September 3rd, 2012 at 12:33 AM ^
September 3rd, 2012 at 11:37 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:18 PM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:23 PM ^
I thought Florida had been avoiding it from the start.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^
I think Florida has avoided it for the most part in recent history. Both teams started offering 4-yr scholarships this year though, which is a positive thing.
http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2012/02/04/auburn-and-florida-…
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:21 PM ^
NO, it is not.... .. Rather, the talent has been spread out to four teams instead of two... Usually it was Michigan and OSU with all the talent and either were on par with the SEC bigs.... but then with the Lloyd hang-on Bill Martin ego- RR hire, it unfortunately sent alot of talent that normally would be ours, to MSU and Wisconsin. Why do you think MSU has been so good... Think Im wrong? Guys like William Gholston among many others would be blue or buckeye. So now we have four semi-strong teams, but in two years you will see maybe three.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:31 PM ^
I appreciate that you're from Iowa, but isn't Northern Iowa a perennial Top 10/25 team in the FCS? I feel like they're normally in the FCS playoffs at least.
Still not a good reason for the defending conference champ to almost lose but they're better than your average FCS team
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:35 PM ^
I mean, I have nothing but fondness for Northern Iowa... I've been to some games there and I have run multiple track meets in the Unidome. They recruit the best talent they can get (top Iowa talent mixed with some elsewhere, they have a great track program), but they should never even come close to the talent level of a Big Ten team.
Basically you are making my point... There is no reason for any defending conference champ to lose to a better than average FCS team. There is also no reason for any team in the Big Ten to lose to a team that is in a whole division lower than itself. It's like another App. State...
September 3rd, 2012 at 9:39 AM ^
There is no reason except that this is football and sometimes things happen for no reason. If every game were decided by "talent level" there'd be no need to, you know, actually watch the games. It would be quite boring.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:34 PM ^
Were going back to the Big 2 again with a sprinkle of Wisconsin and Sparty every now and then. If you watched the games, it was awful.
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:38 PM ^
I've been following the PAC-12 closely and they had similar results against horrible competition.
Arizona 24 Toledo 17 OT
Utah 41 Northern Colorado 0
UCLA 49 Rice 24
Washington St. 6 BYU 30
ASU 63 NAU 6
Stanford 20 SJSU 17
California 24 Nevada 31
USC 49 Hawaii 10
Washington 21 SDSU 12
Oregon 57 ARK. S. 34
Colorado 17 CSU 22
Oregon's game wasn't as close as the score indicates. It was like 50-3 at the half. Regardless, six teams played horribly, three lost, and no team played or beat a premiere opponent.
Either all of the premiere conferences are regressing or it's the first game of the season.
September 3rd, 2012 at 12:08 AM ^
Most of the teams the pac 12 played are ok teams. BYU, SJSU, NEVADA, CSU ARE ALL GOOD TEAMS
September 3rd, 2012 at 1:53 AM ^
Outside of Oregon and USC the PAC 12 is not a good conference this year.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:39 PM ^
2011 week 1....... USC 18 vs Minnesota 15..... I think USC was fine and well, Minnesota was Minnesota.
September 3rd, 2012 at 10:44 AM ^
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:40 PM ^
I think the reduction to 85 scholarship players is starting to show. The only reason it doesn't show in the SEC: oversigning.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:41 PM ^
Is pretty clearly better than or just as good as all non SEC conferences.
The Big 12 is about the same as the Big 10 and might be better in the long run with the addition of WVU, but it's close.
Pac 12: Oregon and USC are awesome, but what's after that? A Stanford team that beat SJSU by 3? A Washington team that beat San Diego State by 9? Utah? Cal? Ya, no......
ACC: Come on. Florida State is theoretically an elite team. Theoretically. Clemson? EDSBS fans know what to say here, or you could just reference last year's Orange Bowl. Virginia Tech is the ultimate paper tiger.
The whole SEC >>>>>>>>> Slow white kids from the Big Ten is so overplayed. The SEC owns everyone. Not just the Big Ten.
September 2nd, 2012 at 10:57 PM ^
September 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 AM ^