Getting into BCS championship games
The supposed title game formula for the Big Ten is for one team to make it into the championship game by having one fewer loss than a team from the other conferences, since the conference was (rightly?) perceived as weak compared to the Big 12, SEC, and maybe Pac 10. On the other hand, the SEC specializes in getting the nod over other conference teams with an equivalent record due to their perceived conference strength (which I think is kinda BS over the past two years, but whatever). Given that the Big Ten just made it a lot harder for any team to go undefeated, do you think that the increased schedule strength will offset that?
I'd tend to believe that the Big Ten will rightly be considered one of the top two conferences in the country; while the Pac-10 picked up Utah, they essentially lost USC, and I don't think that they have strong conference depth. The Big 12 was eliminated when they lost the championship game, and the ACC and Big East still remain afterthoughts. Between Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, OSU, PSU, and Michigan, I think we'd have several solid contenders each year.
In other words, what's the order of conference strength in 2011 and on?
I think we saw in last year's bowl season that the Big 10 is stronger than the Pac-10, at least. And like you said, USC getting hit will help us there too.
Not sure if anyone outside of Big 10 country is going to put us above (or equal to) the SEC or Big 12 though until we start winning some BCS titles. I think it's going to stay SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10 until we do something about it.
I truly think we have the second best conference with the addition of Nebraska. The Big XII (?!?!?!) isn't that powerful other then the two juggernauts. while the other teams are good we all know that its a two horse race.
I feel with Nebraska and the young coaches in our conference (that all show a lot of potential) we could catch up to the SEC (I don't think surpass, but make it a closer second).
And with Nebraska, the Big Ten could be scary good.
is to avoid the painfully long layoff for the Big Ten champion before the BCS championship. It was a competitive disadvantage when you had a team coming off a six-week hiatus playing a team that's been off for only four weeks (or whatever -- I didn't look up the exact numbers).
If I recall correctly, that was the gist of the Paterno comments that started all this, way back when. Might be fun to go back and visit some of those threads now.
EDIT: I looked it up, and here's the original quote, via ESPN:
"We go into hiding for six weeks. Everybody else is playing playoffs on television. You never see a Big Ten team mentioned. So I think that's a handicap. I've tried to talk to the Big Ten people about, 'Let's get a 12th team -- Syracuse, Rutgers, Pitt -- we could have a little bit of a playoff.'"
So not quite what I remembered -- more about managing perceptions...
I think that assuming that most teams play up to their historical standards (i.e. we win 8+ games regularly), the actual conference strength is:
1. SEC (I puked a little as a wrote this, but hard to argue with it)
2. B10
3. PAC 10
4 / 5 - Tie between B12 and Big East - who cares
In terms of media / casual fan perception:
1. SEC (WAY too much speed for anyone to keep up - just insane how fast they are)
2. PAC 10
3 / 4 / 5 - Tie between B10, B12 and Big East, depending on geographic location
Aside from OSU, which has to be the least exciting team in college football, the B10 has not had a team show any real strength over the past few years. PSU has a good season, Iowa had a good stretch - but nothing stands out. Assuming that we return to form, and that Nebraska continues to rise over the next few years, I could see the B10's stock rising. Between Michigan, OSU, Nebraska and Penn State, we would have 4 top flight teams, with Wiscy, Iowa and occasionally Northwestern making up a very decent middle of the conference. As for Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, MSU (zing!!) and Minnesota, every conference has its share of crappy teams.
I'd put the Big East at the bottom now, both in perception and in actuality. Ever since RichRod left, their champion has been depantsed two years in a row, and now that Brian Kelly has left to return ND to glory (the glory of losing many bowl games in a row), there's no obvious strength there.
Who's worse, the ACC or the Big East?
I have to agree with the Big East...Cincy couldn't even stand up to Florida, and I'm pretty sure was the weakest of all the BSC teams last year. And if that's the kind of competition they have in the conference...says a lot about its strength.
I wouldn't say people think that casual fans think the Pac 10 is so great. I wouldn't consider myself a casual fan, but I think most people see them as USC + 9. My guess would be that the casual fan's rankings look like this, especially with the death of USC.
1. SEC
Distant 2. Everyone else.
Aside from OSU, which has to be the least exciting team in college football, the B10 has not had a team show any real strength over the past few years.
Really?
1. While OSU doesn't have the most exciting offense and relies on special teams and defense more than most teams, I think most knowledgable Big Ten fans would say that the Buckeye defenses have been very tough and I find good defense to be exciting.
2. During the past four years Iowa won a BCS game and Michigan, Illinois and Penn State played in BCS games. In each of the past four years the Big Ten has qualified the maximum two teams for BCS games.
3. The Wolverines were a strong No. 2 before losing to OSU and USC in 2006 and Iowa lost only an OT game last year.
I agree with your order at the top, with SEC, Big Ten and Pac 10 at 1,2 & 3. I'd still keep Big 12 ahead of Big East and MWC. But it's no sure thing that the Big Ten can't leapfrog the SEC.
Iowa also lost to jNWU last year, but your point is valid.
The Big 10 will have the same issues as the Big 12. Conference championship games are just another hurdle for teams aspiring to National Championships and will result in slip ups from time to time.
Honestly have we had any trouble actually getting into the NC game? I don't think so. Heck, in 2006 we were 1 douche vote (ron zook) away from sending two big ten teams to the NC game. I don't think the conference view has much to do with anything outside of the ESPN talking heads.
True, but the results of that bowl season tainted the Big 10's reputation until this past year.
I think the move to a conference championship game is for two reasons:
1) mo' money, mo' money, mo' money
2) hedge against the congressional threat around the legitimacy of the NC (i.e., first line of defense is "conference champions decided on the field" are playing for the NC, second is to go to plus one)
I believe this is the case for the Pac Ten as well.
I don't think the voter argument of Joe Pa holds much water (e.g., OSU in 2007). (Somehow this hurt USC / the Pac Ten more than it did the Big Ten. I guess if you have a conference championship, you can more afford one "slip up" during the season.) That said, having the extra game may in fact help the two teams playing it bridge to Jan 1, and therefore be more successful on January 1st.
In the new world, do we really think a one loss Texas or Oklahoma is more worthy than a one loss Big Ten Championship Game winning Michigan?
...on the issue from a previous post.
...even with the less than tectonic shifts in conference realignment that have taken place to date, the Big Ten's decision to explore expansion -- culminating in the addition of Nebraska -- will have far reaching effects for the perception of the conference's relative strength and competitiveness with the other BCS conferences.
The extra media attention that the Big Ten will receive at the end of November and early December will be significant as the WWL's machine focuses on the race for the conference championship game. In college football, it's almost as much about perception as it is about on field performance. Teams from more highly regarded conferences generally get the benefit of the doubt vis-a-vis teams from more lightly regarded conferences with the same record and the Big Ten's top to bottom strength will have multple teams in contention through the last several weekends providing multiple story lines.
Starting in 2011, it will be in the media's interest that the Big Ten champion remain in the running for a berth in the BCS Championship Game. OVer the past few years, the trend has been to lavish attention on the teams in the SEC and the Big XII races (teams with 0 to 2 losses) and the handful of undefeated teams from the Big East, MWC and WAC (all of whom were on WWL death watch (i.e., hoping these teams would fail to finish the regular season as the BCS #1 or #2)).
You do have to give due credit to the non-BCS conference teams that manage to go undefeated. I was cheering against Texas so badly because I wanted TCU in the NC...
...and most CFB fans have tended to root for the teams that would make the BCS look as bad as possible and I'm one of them. ABC/ESPN, CBS and Fox like to play up those stories, but they really want it to end neatly with two conference championship winning teams meeting in the BCS Championship Game because it helps their bottom line.
Now the Big Ten is going to get the same extra love that's been lacking absent a fluke occurrence like 2006.
The PAC-Ten is very deep, just not top-heavy. They have 8 or 9 teams that could break into the top three in the conference.
UofM - The biggest problem with the perception of the B10 over the past two years has been MI. Until we get back to battling every year for the conference title, the preception will be that the conference has lost something. And the perception will be right.
Nebraska - Nebraska has one more year left in the B12. If Nebraska wins the B12 or even makes a good run again the way it did this year, then Nebraska's move from the B12 to the B10 will be seen as the B12 losing a top tier team and the B10 adding one. If Nebraska stumbles and ends up as the third or fourth best team in the conference, not so much.