Will any Big 10 team win a NC in the next 15 years?

Submitted by MonkeyMan on

Its been a while since the Big 10 has won a NC. Now that we have a playoff system I wonder if it won't be longer still. The perception of weakness will keep Big10 teams from getting invited to the dance, but what really worries me is that the level of competition that the Big10 affords its members is so low that the teams are never really forced to go to the next level of play. 

I do not believe, for instance, that Urban Meyer will win a NC with OSU. I think he will win a lot of games, but his teams will collapse against the champs from other conferences. For all that a coach can do, there is nothing that replaces good opponents to sharpen a team. 

The only way out of this that I see is for the B10 teams to really schedule other conference powerhouses hard in OOC play. 

I guess the reason that i am bringing this up is that- even if UM gets a great new coach- how hard will the team really be challenged in this conference? How sharp will it really get? There is a tendency to play to the level of those around you. 

Thoughts?

Baloo

October 30th, 2014 at 11:34 PM ^

15 years?  That's way too far in the future to make an accurate prediction.  That said, I think the answer must be yes.  The playoff allows for frequent inclusion of a Big Ten team, and winning 2 games in a row is something even inferior teams can do.

alum96

October 30th, 2014 at 11:41 PM ^

No.  A 4 star in OH is a 3 star in the south.  With oversigning you cannot be "wrong" on 5-6 players a year as you can in the south.  Most teams in the Midwest don't do 3-5 JUCos a year either.   Even teams doing it "right" in the south ala Georgia, are not serious NC contenders.

It is basically 2 different leagues at this point.

alum96

October 31st, 2014 at 12:10 AM ^

Good question.  I don't think its an ACC thing as there are many bad programs in the ACC.  The question is does FSU / Clemson oversign.  Miami FL has fallen off a cliff so I assume they don't.  So that just leaves those 2 programs.  I don't follow them closely enough to know if they follow the practices of a few in the SEC.  

Also dont undersell the JUCO situation.   If we were a SEC school we would have signed 3 JUCO OL in 2012 and a JUCO QB at some point in 12-13 and some of our issues would have gone away.  Even MSU signs 1-2 JUCOs every year - it's very rare for us.

Magnum P.I.

October 31st, 2014 at 8:18 AM ^

Yeah, spot on. The difference oversigning and JUCO transfers make is enormous. Enormous. Everyone pays attention to the shifting talent pool from North to South, and that's a big deal, as well, in the demise of the Big Ten and rise of the SEC. But the ability to take a mulligan on half a recruiting class confers a huge advantage. Case in point is our offensive line. It's looking like we struck out on several o-line classes in a row, and that has repercussions on our play for years. There's nothing we can do except address the deficit in the next recruiting cycle and wait three years until the new guys are ready.

Oversigning allows you to cast a wider net every year so that even if you strike out on 75 percent of your recruits like we have, you still get seven high-level, contributing players each class. JUCOs allow you to immediately fill any remaining gaps. Despite oversigning you still don't have that defensive tackle situation straightened out? Go pluck the linebacker who gained 60 pounds from high school to sophomore year and is destroying JUCO players. Translating JUCO performance to the NCAA game is probably a more accurate exercise than translating high school performance. Et voila: high-level players at every position.

Danwillhor

October 31st, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^

Mullen should be option 7 (or so) instead of 1-3/4. He has the luxury of missing on recruits and making up for it through jucos, oversigning and bringing in kids that barely qualified. Michigan does none of those things because they cannot do them. We've oversigned past 25 (by league rules and I'm not sure we got to 26) once in my life based on our numbers being so low. The juco issue (even transfers) is on a basis that can be really called VERY rare. It's just not the same. Michigan's behind competitively with most B1G schools in the juco dept. msu, Iowa, osu, etc all happily take them when needed. The South? Forget about it. It is a completely different league/world. Finally, will a B1G team win a title in the next 15? I think it's possible. It could happen this year. Yet, if the status quo remains there won't be a chance that a single "bad loss" conference team gets in. IMO, it would take a lot if help for osu to get in this year if they win out because of VTech and the weak conference. msu can make it I'd they win out and are built for a playoff like that. A good team can win two games in a row. The issue will be getting there.

814 East U

October 30th, 2014 at 11:42 PM ^

5 years no. 10 years maybe. 15 years yes. 15 years ago Michigan was one of the top 5 programs in college football and look at us now. A lot can happen in 15 years. I'd assume at least Ohio Sate gets one within 15 years.

RobM_24

October 30th, 2014 at 11:43 PM ^

Ohio State has the best chance, bc their coach runs a system that has yielded Championships. He's also recruiting at a Top10 (maybe Top5) pace. They also have a talented QB for the near future.

Gucci Mane

October 30th, 2014 at 11:44 PM ^

In the next 15 years 8-12 big ten teams will make the playoffs. I have to imagine that one can win two games in a row.

M-Dog

October 30th, 2014 at 11:46 PM ^

Sure.

In 15 years there will be 8 teams in the playoff.  The B1G will always have a representative.  Once you are in, anything can happen.  Nobody thought OK in 2000, OSU in 2002, FL in 2006, etc. had a chance.

So far, the B1G has seldom had a change to even play for a NC.  Now they will.

enlightenedbum

October 30th, 2014 at 11:54 PM ^

Considering I wouldn't be shocked if the NCAA doesn't exist (or at least doesn't govern football) in 15 years, it's impossible to say.  New governming body might dramatically change the rules.

alum96

October 30th, 2014 at 11:58 PM ^

Reference material.  Since 2002 there has not been a team from either CA or the south that has not won it all.  And USC was cheating.

Prior to 2002 there were 4 southern teams who won.  Outside of the outlier named OSU the last "northern" teams to win were Nebraska and Michigan in 1997.  

2003 LSU (National Champs)

USC (#1 in AP Poll)
13-1

12-1
Sugar: Beat Oklahoma 21-14

Rose: Beat Michigan 28-14
Nick Saban

Pete Carroll
#-2004 USC 13-0 Orange: Beat Oklahoma 55-19 Pete Carroll
#-2005 Texas 13-0 Rose: Beat USC 41-38 Mack Brown
2006 Florida 13-1 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Ohio State 41-14
Urban Meyer
2007 LSU 12-2 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Ohio State 38-24
Les Miles
2008 Florida 13-1 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Oklahoma 24-14
Urban Meyer
2009 Alabama 14-0 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Texas 37-21
Nick Saban
2010 Auburn 14-0 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Oregon 22-19
Gene Chizik
2011 Alabama 12-1 BCS Championship Game:

Beat LSU 21-0
Nick Saban
2012 Alabama 13-1 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Notre Dame 42-14
Nick Saban
2013 Florida State 14-0 BCS Championship Game:

Beat Auburn 34-31
Jimbo Fisher

 

alum96

October 31st, 2014 at 12:04 AM ^

Agreed!  I should have written "cheating and caught".

But since there have been actual head to head matchups (i.e. the BCS era) in the championship game, the south/USC has won outside of the blip that was 2002 OSU.

That said, I think the 1995 Nebraska team would have taken them all out other than maybe 1 Alabama team.  That team was sick.

mh277907

October 31st, 2014 at 8:04 AM ^

Actually, if I am not mistaken, OSU would have replaced Alabama and played Notre Dame (assuming a one loss SEC team did not jump them- which is a big assumption). OSU vs. Bama probably would have been a blow out, but OSU vs. Notre Dame probably would have been a really good game. 

Perkis-Size Me

October 31st, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^

As the playoff expands to 8 teams, which it undoubtedly will sometime in the coming years, the Big Ten will absolutely have a shot. Once you're in, anything can happen.

However, for the Big ten to be a more competitive force nationally, it is an absolute must for the conference to have top-tier coaches across the board. At least with its premier programs anyway. If the likes of Michigan, OSU, Nebraska, Penn State, as well as Wisconsin and now (sigh) MSU can attract quality coaches, which they all have the power to do, there's no reason the Big Ten can't compete with everyone else.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

PurpleStuff

October 31st, 2014 at 12:18 AM ^

The Big Ten hasn't been consistently good for 40+ years.  Since Bo got hired, OSU won a title in 2002, and Michigan split a title in 1997 (and under even the old BCS format I doubt we're favored to beat Nebraska).  You could argue that whoever got put in the playoff in 1973 would have had a shot (M/OSU tied, OSU smoked USC in the Rose Bowl while undefeated ND and Bama played for the title with ND winning it all).  Other than that we're done for the old guard, and that is from the days of the Big 2 Little 8 when racking up regular season wins was pretty easy..

Obviously PSU has had great teams throughout the years and Nebraska had a great run in the '90's, but they would have to improve signficantly to compete for a title now.

The dominance of the top SEC schools, FSU/Miami, USC, and OU/Texas is nothing new.

UMxWolverines

October 31st, 2014 at 12:43 AM ^

It's been a matter of finishing the job for the Big Ten. Since Bo was hired, Michigan has had the chance to win the national title (like gone into the OSU game or bowl game) 9 times and only won it once. 

OSU had a chance to win it 13 times and only won it once. (Another clue that we have not been competing with them lately). 

It's just a matter of being able to finish. 

Penn State did get screwed out of a share in 1994 though. 

 

 

CompleteLunacy

October 31st, 2014 at 12:39 AM ^

Even if you think that a Big Ten team only has a 5% chance of winning it all each year, you're still talking about greater than 50/50 odds that they win at least once during the next 15 years. Given the playoff format, I imagine the odds will be higher than that. 

Put another way, assuming each playoff team has a 25% shot at a title...If the Big Ten can get a team in the playoffs at least 3 times in a 15 year span they have a greater than 50/50 shot of winning at least once in that time. 

Tater

October 31st, 2014 at 1:04 AM ^

There is no way the playoffs will continue without all power five champions getting invited.  After the shitstorm that will happen in December, it could happen as soon as next year.   Even if it doesn't, as soon as Michigan becomes an elite team again, the conference will be perceived as "strong" again.  That could also happen as early as next year.

alum96

October 31st, 2014 at 1:25 AM ^

I think this current contract for the playoff is a good number of years (6?) but it would have made more sense to expand to 6 teams and give  #1 and #2 byes in the first week of the playoffs.  Let #3 play #6 and #4 play #5.  That way you do not need to expand the number of weeks or games played of the playoffs but can add 2 more teams.  And I do no think all power 5 conference champions should automatically get in.  A 9-3 champion has no business in the playoffs but what is clear is an undefeated team in any big 5 conference will get in over a 1 loss team so they are going to penalize teams who play any decent non conf opponents.  The first 3-4 weeks of the season is so lacking of good crossover games and that was due to the BCS.  One would have hoped the new system changed that to a degree.  I don't think it is headed that way. 

This year is sort of unique in that there are so few undefeated teams in week 7 or 8... usually you have quite a few more.  But in a normal season we'd have 6-7 undefeated teams at this point in the season and basically all the 1 loss teams (i.e. those who actually played a challenging non conf games) would be self eliminated.  So it discourages teams from playing a tough non conf game.