OSU Support

Submitted by Mattinboots on
Adam Rittenberg has a good commentary up regarding the media bias against the Big 10. http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten Unfortunately it is in support of OSU, but he makes some excellent comparisons. The free pass that the Sooners have received compared to the media drubbing OSU has taken can easily be extrapolated to a comparison of the Big 12 to the big 10.
MGoBoard

death_roh

September 21st, 2009 at 8:46 PM ^

I agree with rittenberg that osu deserves better (though hate to say it) because oklahoma hasnt won a bcs game in forever. Top to bottom big 12 is probably better than big 10, but we need the upper half of our conference to look good this year. I might hate them with a passion when we play them, but I root for psu, osu to do well to improve our conference rep. It only helps us in the longrun, especially if we beat them

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 44

The Original Seth

September 21st, 2009 at 8:59 PM ^

I don't even know that I'd say the Big 10 is, top-to-bottom, worse than the Big XII. Oklahoma and Texas are both clearly better teams at this point than anybody in the Big 10 besides OSU and PSU, and Texas is likely better than Penn State but maybe not better than OSU (minus one bad playcall in the last second of the Fiesta Bowl, they win that game). Nebraska, Mizzou, and Texas Tech (along with maybe Oklahoma State, but I'm really not sold on Gundy) are surely a strong second tier. But though they've got outstanding passing offenses and so-so defenses, I'd be surprised if they put up the kind of numbers they hang on each other if they had to throw on Iowa's defense, or try running on that Wisky D-line. So the over/under numbers on points scored get set lower for the Big 10. But I think that league strength is a push this year, and probably goes in favor of the Big 10 next year, when Michigan's even better, Terrelle Pryor is a junior, Penn State reloads with two straight monstrous recruiting classes, Michigan State has a veteran O-line and returns Cousins (who, by the way, is really starting to scare me), etc. The only Big XII teams that won't take a step back next year will be Texas, OU, and those cornfed beasts in Lincoln; A&M is still 2 or 3 years away from fielding a competent team again, Baylor will make a bowl or two in the next couple but won't be good, and besides Mizzou the North will continue to be awful.

Joined: 02/06/2009

MGoPoints: 161

umchicago

September 21st, 2009 at 9:14 PM ^

big 12 is better and deeper this year; easily. even if you consider OK and TX a push with PSU and OSU (which i don't), who is the big 10 #3 team? illinois who got crushed by mizzu? msu who lost to cmu? us? even their bottom feeders like baylor are improved this year. give it a year or two and the big 10 depth will be much improved. but not even close this year.

Joined: 02/05/2009

MGoPoints: 33625

octal9

September 21st, 2009 at 11:02 PM ^

the first half of the game against Eastern still happened. Coaches did a great job adjusting, players did a good job of doing what they had to do. HOWEVA, the defense still has a lot of work to put in. This is not the defense of the #3 team in the Big Ten, nor is it the defense of the #3 team in any BCS conference. Agree to disagree, I guess.

Joined: 11/11/2008

MGoPoints: 5777

formerlyanonymous

September 21st, 2009 at 11:04 PM ^

Somewhat in octal's defense, he's claiming solid #3 teams have solid defenses. Ours is somewhat pliable at best. Definitely bend but don't break. Iowa's defense is definitely solid, and what has kept them in games. That's at least how I interpreted his initial point. So how good Michigan is playing compared to expectations isn't really what he's arguing. His point is that when it comes to rankings, Michigan's defense puts us a little bit behind #3 EDIT: damn phone interrupting my post. I'm late to the party.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 38964

CrankThatDonovan

September 21st, 2009 at 9:23 PM ^

Kansas, man. How do you forget Kansas? Anyway, I have several problems with your assumptions. First, the Big XII plays Iowa every year in the form of Iowa State, a member of what you describe as the "awful" north, and Iowa State has actually beaten Iowa outright twice in their last six meetings (in 2005 Iowa was ranked #8 before losing 23-3) and Iowa State has beaten the spread every year but this one over the past six years. Second, in bowl games since 2005, Michigan lost to Nebraska, Ohio State lost to Texas, Iowa lost to Texas, Minnesota lost to Texas Tech and Kansas, Northwestern lost to Missouri, and Indiana lost to Oklahoma State. The only Big Ten team to win a bowl game over a Big XII team the last 4 years is Penn State over Texas A&M in 2007. Third, Ohio State is not better than Texas. Texas beat them last year (though you discredit this victory for some reason), and Texas returned their super quarterback and almost everyone on both sides of the ball. Ohio State returned very little offense from last year's team. Fourth, Oklahoma with Bradford and Gresham is better than any Big Ten team, as is Texas. Missouri destroyed Illinois on opening weekend. Purdue and Michigan State have already lost to MAC teams in the first three weeks of the season. The Big Ten gets a lot of hate, but it is a pretty bad conference right now and their is no spin in the world that can make them look better than the Big XII

Joined: 08/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1708

The Original Seth

September 21st, 2009 at 9:29 PM ^

Kansas. You're right, I forgot them. I give the wrong impression if it seems like I'm discrediting the Texas victory (I actually went to college at Texas, and am a huge fan) -- just reluctant to put that Fiesta Bowl win in the same category with the Florida '06, or USC '08, etc. victories. RE: Iowa and ISU, at this point I would contend it's one of those impossible-to-categorize rivalry games, like Texas / Texas A&M (bad A&M teams have a habit of pulling out victories against 10-win UT squads), where rankings, talent, etc. never really seem to have the impact they should. And I buy into the two-bid conspiracy theory of Big 10 bowl success; if we didn't have the Rose Bowl and an NC bid, or two BCS bids, the last 4 years, we don't have match-ups like USC-Illinois, Minnesota-Kansas, etc. I think we send one overmatched team to heaven, and disrupt the match-ups all the rest of the way on down to hell.

Joined: 02/06/2009

MGoPoints: 161

CrankThatDonovan

September 21st, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^

My problem is that you are taking the only actual comparable evidence, head-to-head games, and discrediting this evidence to make your point seem valid. Ok, so Texas didn't destroy OSU, but a win is a win. Score one for the Big XII. Iowa is allowed to lose to Iowa State because it's a rivalry game? What about Michigan beating inferior Michigan State teams for six years? What about Florida dominating their series with Georgia? Rivalries tend to be close, but Iowa State has been terrible recently and Iowa has no business losing to them 1/3 of the time and almost never beating the spread. Score two for the Big XII. The Big Ten plays up in bowls? True, but there are usually other conferences that get two teams in the BCS (usually the SEC, the Big XII twice since 2005), yet those conferences do not complain about "playing up." Also, you are basically saying that Big 10 folds against competition that is just a bit better than them. If the Big 10 is similar to the Big XII, they should be winning at least some of their match-ups against similar teams in bowl games (Michigan in 2005 comes to mind). Again, the Big XII is a better conference, and it's not close

Joined: 08/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1708

umchicago

September 21st, 2009 at 9:59 PM ^

actually i believe iowa is only 5-5 against iowa st the past 10 years. and they escaped against n. iowa in week 1. and they are our #3 team? sorry, but the big 10 is down, way down, this year. but the talent appears to be young, much like in basketball. but i expect big 10 basketball to get back to elite status before football.

Joined: 02/05/2009

MGoPoints: 33625

harmon98

September 21st, 2009 at 9:52 PM ^

I agree with CrankThatDonovan's assertment: "The Big Ten gets a lot of hate, but it is a pretty bad conference right now and their is no spin in the world that can make them look better than the Big XII" the answer to Big Ten apologists is simple: win games out of conference. that's the quick and dirty road back to respect. I am, and have always been, a staunch defender of the conference but when you cannot consistently beat ooc opponents, there is no spin.

Joined: 07/24/2008

MGoPoints: 9886

formerlyanonymous

September 21st, 2009 at 10:09 PM ^

Charts:

Big Ten

Big XII

Offense

Defense

Winner

Ohio State

Texas

TEX

TEX

TEX

Penn State

Oklahoma

OU

OU

OU

Iowa

Oklahoma State

OSU

IOWA

IOWA

Michigan

Nebraska

UM

NU

UM

Minnesota

Kansas

KU

UM

KU

Wisconsin

Texas Tech

TT

TT

TT

Michigan State

Baylor

PUSH

PUSH

PUSH

Indiana

Missouri

UM

IU

UM

Northwestern

Texas A&M

PUSH

TAMU

TAMU

Illinois

Colorado

ILL

PUSH

PUSH

Purdue

Iowa State

Purdue

PUSH

Purdue

Kansas State

 
BigTen vs Big XII

3-5-2

3-5-3

3-6-2

Let's just say that theoretically these are the conferences lined up from top to bottom. I admit, these are just my personal opinions. Looking at this, I've placed who I think has the better offense, better defense, and who I think would win (O+D+Unresearched feeling). Again, I'm admitting a lack of specific research into match ups, it's just my perceptions.

All that said, I still can't see the BigTen matching up to the depth of the Big XII. Texas would beat any team in the Big Ten at least 8 times out of 10 right now. They match up well against anything we throw at them.

Oklahoma, when healthy, is a better team than any team in the Big Ten, but I don't think they dominate quite as much, probably 6 out of every 10 games against any BigTen opponent. This is enough for me to say OU vs Ohio State would be a push (see bottom chart). If they weren't choke artists, I would probably give them more. Since their not healthy, I would most likely give PSU the edge on offense, and probably even the winner category.

I like Iowa against OSU just because of their defense. It's been pleasantly surprising, carrying them in each of their games. Now that they've figured out their running back situation, I think they'll be alright.

Nebraska and Michigan would be a close one. Nebraska has a bit more depth on defense, but Michigan matches up much like VT against Nebraska. It'd be a great game, and I think Michigan has the edge.

Minnesota and Kansas is another evenly matched game, but I just can't trust Minnesota's offense of "pass it to Decker or die." That and Reesing is a pretty good quarterback. For that reason, I think KU wins it.

Wisconsin and Texas Tech would be death in all facets for the Badgers. Their speed rushing defensive ends and their huge DTs will have no force against Tech. They won't be fast enough to bull rush the interior line man and be forced to scramble around to catch Tech's passing game.

Michigan State and Baylor is my favorite match up of the two groups. Roberts is another really good QB running the spread option for Baylor. Both of these teams are too inconsistent for me to get a good feel on. I almost want to say Baylor, but I'm not sure their D could keep it within 7 points for a Sparty No moment.

Indiana's D vs Missouri's O would be a fun lower level match to watch. We still don't know enough about Indiana other than they squeak out the victories. Missouri has looked serviceable, so I think they win this one.

NU and TAMU just adds to the list of really good match ups. Both teams are rebuilding from near scratch. NU has potential, but I don't see them being a huge force this year. TAMU is just as shaky, including a near loss to Utah State this last week. I think TAMU's got a bit better group of athletes on D, which is why I give them the nod.

Illinois vs Colorado would be the clash of the dark horse failures. Neither head coach could develop a player for their lives these days. I could see this game as a 6-3 or 54-49 score. I can't even pick a favorite. It'd just be ugly either way.

Purdue and Iowa State would be much of the same in terms of ugly. I feel I have to give Purdue the nod just because their offense is at least functional.

Kansas State is so much worse than any team in the Big Ten, I don't think it really matters. They should give the BigTen at least win just due to their ineptitude.

For a bigger chart on my thoughts on who would beat who:

  OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC MSU IND NU ILL PURD
TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX TEX
OU PUSH OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU OU
OSU tOSU* PSU IOWA MICH MINN OSU OSU OSU OSU OSU OSU
NEB OSU PSU IOWA MICH NEB NEB NEB NEB NEB NEB NEB
KU OSU PSU IOWA KU KU KU KU KU KU KU KU
TT OSU PSU IOWA TT TT TT TT TT TT TT TT
BU OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC PUSH BU BU PUSH PUSH
MIZZOU OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC MIZZ MIZZ MIZZ MIZZ MIZZ
TAMU OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC MSU TAMU TAMU TAMU TAMU
CU OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC MSU CU CU PUSH PUSH
ISU OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC MSU IND NU ILL PURD
KSU OSU PSU IOWA MICH MINN WISC MSU IND NU ILL PURD

*tOSU is Ohio State

Looking at this, I'd say we match up pretty evenly once you get past Texas/Oklahoma.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 38964

CrankThatDonovan

September 21st, 2009 at 10:27 PM ^

Good post, lots of interesting tidbits. My thoughts: 1) Iowa rulez 2) Baylor's quarterback is Robert Griffin, not "Roberts." Honest mistake 3) Kansas is good. Briscoe and Reesing are a great combination, I think Kansas is a top 20 type team 4) That said, I like Michigan over Texas Tech and Kansas, at least until we see Michigan's real weaknesses (I know, the Michigan secondary vs. good passing teams, but still, we beat a similar passing Notre Dame team). OU, Texas, and Ok St would probably beat Michigan, though

Joined: 08/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1708

formerlyanonymous

September 21st, 2009 at 10:36 PM ^

1) Iowa is better than expected. I agree 2) Yeah, honest mistake. 3) I think they could be as well. They haven't played anyone well enough for me to be validated in that thought though. We'll know more in the next few weeks 4) This is getting cliche to the point I don't really want to say it, but I think Mangino/Leach have a REAL schematic advantage coming from their coaching tree. I think their passing sets and game plans would be a difference maker in our match up with them. They'd eliminate our DL's presence, and I don't know if we could effectively cover their short routes. So that's why I don't consider those teams like ND. ND is a run to set up play action. Tech would be a sophisticated short passing to set up the run and deep passes. Not sure we're ready, but yeah, these are just projections.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 38964

CrankThatDonovan

September 21st, 2009 at 10:56 PM ^

I understand what you're saying about Leach actually, like, being a good coach. I guess I am probably still susceptible to the "Texas Tech can't run the ball" mindset that was clearly proven wrong last season. I think that Michigan has better overall athletes than Tech or Kansas, not by a lot, but just a bit better, and I also feel that the short passing game might not be our real weakness (see the Western game where we destroyed a short passing spread offense). So, I guess what I'm saying is that a team with a potent play-action running game (USC, Notre Dame, maybe Ohio State) will have more success against our defense because they can better exploit our corners with their big outside receivers and our safeties with the threat of the run. A team like Texas Tech will not do as well because they will basically just make us play man coverage against smaller receivers, something that our tiny defense seems to be good at. We could end up playing one of those two in our bowl game, so their is a chance we'll find out

Joined: 08/08/2008

MGoPoints: 1708

tom c

September 21st, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^

I avoided a Gamecock game party last year cause of that stuff. It was fun getting the call at the start of the forth wanting to know who Iowa lost to.

Joined: 08/19/2008

MGoPoints: 67

Engin77

September 21st, 2009 at 10:43 PM ^

Fans of teams in conferences with Championship Games(BigXII, SEC, ACC) believe the Big Ten champion has an easier track to the title game. Rightly or wrongly, they also blame the Big Ten for standing in the way of a playoff system (fans of Mid-majors join in here.) and trying to protect the special Rose Bowl relationship at the expense of "more-deserving" teams.

Oklahoma may not have a strong record in BCS bowls, but generally their appearances have been more exciting than the Tressel-ball snoozers. Tom Osborne's Nebraska teams generated the same vibe back in the 90s, before they blew out FSU.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 5791

The King of Belch

September 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 AM ^

Interesting comparison. Nebraska's offense is dreadful. They have a pretty good running game, but that is if Roy Helu is on--and no one behind him. Their defense features probably the best defensive lineman in the country, but get past him and they are slow and young. I'd take Michigan by ten over Nebraska. Our speed would kill them, and the accuracy and scrambling of Tate, plus a bevy of running backs and receivers--this year UM would beat them pretty easily.

Joined: 07/21/2009

MGoPoints: 8