How can the B1G use all that money (legally and ethically) to improve its teams?

Submitted by M-Dog on

The Big Ten is utter poop at this point.  A national embarrassment for a supposedly "elite" conference.  

How can the league use all that money it has to improve its teams?  (Legally and ethically of course, we're not the SEC.)

Is there anything that the Big Ten office can do at all to improve things?  Sooner or later it will catch up with the league if it becomes irrelevant, and that pile of money will disappear.

   

Urban Warfare

September 16th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^

I agree with you about ND.  I think that was one of the things the B1G was going for with the PAC-12 partnership - it would have forced Notre Dame to either join the B1G or give up a lot of  traditional rivalry games.  I also think it would have been the first step towards forcing the NCAA to start cracking down on the SEC or face irrelevancy. 

cp4three2

September 16th, 2012 at 3:28 PM ^

Every team in the Big Ten has a good coach in basketball (Nebraska not withstanding). It's surprising to me that the Big Ten AD's were so forward looking in hoops but can't seem to do the same in football, which drives the conference.

jdon

September 16th, 2012 at 4:11 PM ^

stop these bowl game shenanigans where we are always away teams.

Demand playoffs with home games for higher seeds

Watch USC, FL. ST., Texas, Etc. falter in the cold weather.

 

 

There are two ways to assess a conference: wins/national championships   OR  players in the NFL.  There are probably more Big Ten players in the NFL than SEC.

jdon

 

Finance-PhD

September 16th, 2012 at 5:04 PM ^

Conference, # of players, Average per team

SEC-308, 25.6

ACC- 278, 23.1

Big 10-256, 23.2

Big 12-221, 18.4

Pac-10-215, 21.5

Big East-115, 14.3

So by that measure SEC is on top or at least was with last years numbers.

 

Edit:

I looked up the last draft numbers. Here is the breakdown by state of the draftee's high school. This gives you some idea from where NFL players come.

Texas - 32

Florida - 31

California - 26

Ohio - 17

Georgia - 14

North Carolia - 10

Michigan - 9

Illinois - 8

Alabama - 7

New Jersey - 7

Washington - 7

South Carolia - 6

Wisconsin - 6

The list obviously goes on but look at where those players grow up. There is a bias in demographics and it plays into the SEC's favor.

club2230

September 16th, 2012 at 4:53 PM ^

The Big Ten can't improve its teams.  Only the schools can.  

I don't think that there is any risk of the league becoming irrelevent.  Remember it is the SEC that is constantly promoting its dominance over the Big Ten.  By my apartment there is a Porsche dealership across from a Cadillac one.  That is because they compete.  Porsche will not compete with Chevrolet because they are not on the same playing field nor for the same customer.  Notice how the SEC doesn't really seem to care about the Big East.  They are a lost cause and are not on that level playing field.  The fact that they are harping on the Big Ten means that there is some notion of relevence to the conference.  The Big Ten is still considered a quality conference.  They just aren't better than the SEC.

Sit down and relax.  UM and OSU will be back sooner rather than later.  They will ultimately define the conference with Wisconsin, and the other second tier teams riding on the coattails of the anchors such as Arkansas, South Carolina, and Georgia have done in the SEC.  

Frito Bandito

September 16th, 2012 at 5:12 PM ^

Use the money to develop youth football leagues around the midwest. Get them started earlier in the process and develop better recruits.

CC_MFan

September 16th, 2012 at 5:35 PM ^

involved.  Delaney and co. need to step to the plate and get the playing field even.  They either don't think it is a problem or don't care, which is demonstrated by there silence.  Someone needs to bring up the oversigning and grey shirt problems or it will never change.

woomba

September 16th, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

I think changing the rules to move up conference play up a week and allowing one non-conf game in the middle of the season would help things out a lot in the rankings game.

The other conferences seem to have learned how to game the schedule to increase the chances of their top teams making out unscathed but the Big Ten hasn't mastered it yet.

Tater

September 16th, 2012 at 6:41 PM ^

The Big Ten will be very good soon enough.  As much as I hate to admit it, Dantonio might be able to keep Sparty in the top 25 most of of the time now. Nebraska is better than people think right now; UCLA has been a trendy "surprise" pick to do well this year, and Nebraska's loss to UCLA wasn't really a "bad loss."

Wiscy is OK; they just need to develop their own QB once in awhile instead of relying on one year rentals.  Iowa and NW will be fine; they will continue to have some good years and some mediocre ones.  

Ohio will probably dominate the conference as soon as they are eligible to do so under Urban Meyer.  If Meyer doesn't self-destruct, he will win National Championships at Ohio.  MIchigan is already back to what Ann Arbor has been accustomed to for the last thirty years or so.  The "Big Two" are still going to be the "Big Two," with or without help from the other teams.

The only real problem is PSU, which was nuked so that the NCAA has plausible deniability (or whatever the legal term is) in lawsuits.  

The Big Ten has plenty of strong teams.  The SEC is better at the top end with Bama, LSU, and SC, but their middle teams aren't any better than the Big Ten's middle teams.  It's really the same with pretty much any conference right now.

All the Big Ten needs to do is not schedule any horrendously stupid games in non-conference play.  They aren't nearly as bad as they are being portrayed.  Next year, the media will find another conference to shit on.

BlueHills

September 17th, 2012 at 12:18 PM ^

I don't understand what all the hand-wringing is about.

The Big Ten was not considered the strongest conference during the days of the "Big Two and Little Eight," hence the moniker.

Here's an example: Since 1970, the Big Ten is 11-26 agaainst the Pac 8/10/12 in the Rose Bowl. The B1G had a decent run in the game in the 90s, but it has mostly been a losing proposition for the past 42 years (I started my count with Bo's first Rose Bowl). 

Nor was the PAC-8/10/12 even considered the strongest conference, though USC was often a dominant team. For much of the time, it was the Southwest (Texas) Conference, or the Big 12/Big 8, later the SEC.

Since 1948, the Big Ten has boasted exactly 5 AP national championship titles (I'm not counting teams that weren't in the conference during those years, but throw in PSU and Nebraska and the numbers improve a bit).

During most of that 64 years this wasn't considered a worrisome problem. What changed things? The BCS. Suddenly all this regional rivalry has become important. I say phooey.

If certain other conferences are better at football, well, so what? That's been the case for my entire existence on the planet, and I'm old. The SEC is stronger at football. Maybe others are, too. Big Freaking Deal.