Big Ten Announces Plans For New Student-Athlete Benefits

Big Ten Announces Plans For New Student-Athlete Benefits

Submitted by Ace on October 1st, 2014 at 2:16 PM

If you're in search of good news, look no further. The Big Ten just announced their intention to, among other protections for student-athletes, ensure that scholarships cover the full cost of attedance and are guaranteed for the duration of a S-A's undergraduate studies. The full statement from the Big Ten follows (also posted on the official Big Ten site with PDFs of the statements referred to in the second paragraph):

ROSEMONT, Ill. – The Big Ten Conference announced today that it has notified the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) of initial recommendations designed to provide enhanced benefits for student-athletes that are members in good standing with their individual universities as part of the NCAA’s new autonomy governance structure. 

For the past two years, the conference has publicly stated its desire to continue providing student-athletes with an unmatched educational and athletic experience, including comments made by Commissioner James E. Delany at the July 2013 Big Ten Football Media Days, at the Collegiate Commissioners Association meeting on September 25, 2013, at the July 2014 Big Ten Football Media Days, and in statements issued by the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors on June 1, 2014 and June 24, 2014.

The Big Ten will work to implement the following proposals through individual institutional action, conference-wide action or under the NCAA autonomy governance structure:

  • Cost of Education: Redefine full grant-in-aid to meet a student-athlete’s cost of education, as determined by the federal government.
  • Multi-Year Scholarships: Guarantee all scholarships. If a student-athlete is no longer able to compete, for whatever reason, there should be no impact on institutions’ commitment to deliver an undergraduate education.
  • Lifetime Educational Commitment: Ensure that scholarships are available for life. If a student-athlete leaves a university for a professional career before graduating, whether the career materializes, and regardless of its length, the scholarship will be honored after his or her playing days are complete.
  • Medical Insurance: Provide improved, consistent medical insurance for student-athletes. 

The Big Ten has also agreed to address additional student-athlete welfare issues including, but not limited to, health and safety, time demands and comprehensive academic support by way of a “Resolution” that creates a specific pathway and timeline for implementation.

The Big Ten Conference is an association of 14 world-class universities committed to the pursuit and attainment of athletic and academic excellence. Big Ten institutions feature broad-based athletic programs which provide nearly $200 million in direct financial aid to almost 9,500 student-athletes on 350 teams in 42 different sports.

We look forward to working with the ACC, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC through the NCAA autonomy governance structure toward adoption and implementation of these proposals.

This is huge news and a big step forward for the rights of student-athletes. In addition, that's quite a loaded last line of the statement—the attention now turns to the other Power 5 conferences and the NCAA.

Opponent Watch 2014: Week 4

Opponent Watch 2014: Week 4

Submitted by BiSB on September 26th, 2014 at 9:59 AM

About Last Week:

Morris empty

Melanie Maxwell/Ann Arbor News


I went back.

I don’t know why I went back. The pluie de grâce had so mercifully released us all from any sense of obligation. Despite being the most literal example possible, there would be no talk of “fair-weather fans” after this one. Long after the weather suggested we leave, and even longer after our souls begged us to leave, Carl Grapentine demanded that we leave. Eventually I emerged from the rain at the Blue Tractor. I partook of food and drink with friends. We spoke about it as the most dispiriting game we had ever attended, which is a high (and ever-rising) bar to clear. We listed the things we would rather do than watch any more of that game. We spoke of our kids and our jobs and our lives. We had moved on.

And then we went back.

From even before we slogged up the Stadium stairs until the moment I write this, I have been trying to figure out why. No sane person would do this. I have a home with dry clothes and warm blankets. I have a television that displays other, better football games. I have two dogs that love attention and never turn the ball over. I have a loving wife and a fun little toddler and a brand new baby girl. Game traffic had cleared. The game was over in all but the most technical sense. There was nothing preventing us from escaping to a more comfortable place, both physically and mentally.

But we went back.

Maybe we went back because we thought, deep in some deranged recesses of our waterlogged brains, that Michigan could actually win that football game, or at least that something would happen that we would have been glad to have seen. Maybe it was to support the players. Maybe it was to collect the ultimate Fandom Endurance badge: the kind of ultimate trump card that can be played when speaking of the trials and tribulations of Michigan Mandom. Maybe I am secretly a football hipster (see: the fact that I write about the Big Ten every week). Maybe it was sheer morbid curiosity; surely as Rome burned, some Romans remained on the seven hills overlooking the city and observed in awe the awesome downfall. Maybe I went back because I really, truly love the Big House, and the actuarial tables tell me there are only 400 or 450 home games left before I am no more.

But I think I went back because I wanted there to have been a reason. I went back because I couldn't stand the prospect that I could watch a football at Michigan Stadium and walk away feeling like there hadn't been a reason. But sitting here a week later, I can't tell you why I was there.

We keep coming back. But the reasons are becoming harder to find.

The Road Ahead:

Minnesota (3-1, 0-0 B1G)

Last game: Beat San Jose State, 24-7

Recap: 1 for 8. Seven yards. Zero touchdowns. One interception. Against a GERG defense. And a 17-point win.


As you can tell, from the lede, Minnesota completely abandoned any hint of a running game. Chris Streveler is many things, but he is unlikely that he will wrest the “Unstoppable Throw-God” title from Trevor Siemian any time soon.

Minnesota only passed for the total distance of a pretty makeable putt, but they rushed for 380 yards on 58 carries. David Cobb rushed for 207 yards, and Streveler tacked on 161 yards at 8.9 yards per carry. They mixed in all of the usual dual-threat running game stuff, including traditional zone read, inverted veer, belly, and QB lead/iso.

In theory, they are a really favorable matchup for Michigan. Who wants odds.

This team is as frightening as: A very, very poor man’s 1990’s Nebraska. Fear Level = 0*

Michigan should worry about: Maxxxxxx Williams. He’s averaging 18.3 yards per catch, and has two of Minnesota’s three receiving touchdowns. Michigan’s safeties haven’t been fantastic, and we still haven’t seen all that much from Michigan’s linebackers in coverage, so Maxxxxxx could be a problem.

Michigan can sleep soundly about: Maxxxxxx only gets the ball through the air. Which… yeah.


Next game: @ Michigan (Minn +12, which, wow?)), 3:30 Saturday, (ABC/ESPN2)

*Fear is for the living.


[AFTER THE JUMP: We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.]

Opponent Watch 2014: Week 2

Opponent Watch 2014: Week 2

Submitted by BiSB on September 12th, 2014 at 10:11 AM

Big Ten

The sun had risen, though it was hard to tell through the lingering haze and dust. It all seemed so surreal; they had so recently stood beaming with pride, assuring the peasantry that the claiming of Rutgersland and the conquering of the Turtle People had ensured our long-term security. We had been told that our leaders had won the kind of Lebensraum that would see us through the coming ages. When was that? Had it been a day? A month? Surely it could not have been so long ago.

Some would argue whether the Big Ten had ever really existed at all; that even before The Weekend, the “conference” was merely an idea. A fleeting notion. A foolish homage to the time of 22-personnel and punting from the opponent’s 35 yard line. But whatever it had been, it was no longer. Reports were sketchy, but from all indications the destruction was similar throughout the realm. The borders had been shown to be merely transitory, and the defenses illusory. This was surely not the last incursion, but did it matter? What more damage could be done than had already been done?

Big Life. Big Stage. Big Ten.

About Last Week:

yeah, no

The Road Ahead:

Miami (NTM) (0-2, 0-0 MAC)

Red Hawk

Last week: Lost to Eastern Kentucky, 17-10

Recap: The good news for Miami was that they outgained Ohio Valley Conference team Eastern Kentucky 445-280. The bad news was that they turned the ball over six times, including three interceptions from Tommy Hendrix. This runs Miami’s losing streak to 18 games.

This team is as frightening as: A team that has a full compliment of 85 scholarships available, plays a MAC schedule, and hasn’t won a single football game in the last 18 tries. Fear Level = 1.5

Michigan should worry about: Andrew Hendrix is throwing for 338.5 yards per game…

Michigan can sleep soundly about: …at 6.7 yards per attempt. Against Marshall and EKU. Also, if you believe silly superstitions like “reviewing game film,” you should probably feel pretty good.

When they play Michigan: A crowd of “100,000” will get to witness a comfortable, boring win over a terrible opponent.

Next game: at Michigan (-34), 3:30 Saturday (BTN)

[AFTER THE JUMP: Combative dromedaries are the best dromedaries]

You Shall Not Run

You Shall Not Run

Submitted by BiSB on July 9th, 2014 at 11:55 AM

Unrelated but never unrelated (h/t @smartfootball)

Ranking things is fun, or at least so BuzzFeed tries to tell me every freaking day of my life.  And just like any prediction, rankings that attempt to predict the future are typically a fool’s errand. But we are fools, so ON WITH THE PREDICTING.

Trying to project year-to-year development in college football is tricky at best. But we can also try extrapolate by asking two relatively simple questions: (1) were they good at the thing last year, and (2) how many of the people who did the thing last year will be back this year?

The question of the day is this: which Big Ten team will have the best run defense in 2014?

Were they good last year?

This part is easy. There are many ways to break down how effective various run defenses were last year, and while none is perfect, together they give a pretty comprehensive picture. A few of the key measurements:

Yards per carry (sacks removed) - Pretty basic. When the opposing offense tried a run the ball, how far did they go?

B1G rank


YPC (w/o sacks)

1 Michigan State 3.61
2 Wisconsin 3.80
3 Rutgers 3.82
4 Iowa 4.07
5 Ohio State 4.29
6 Michigan 4.42
7 Maryland 4.54
8 Nebraska 4.60
9 Penn State 4.67
10 Northwestern 4.83
11 Minnesota 5.03
12 Purdue 5.60
13 Indiana 5.90
14 Illinois 5.93

Rushing Defensive S&P+ rankingA fancy rejiggering of statistics based on outcomes for every running play a defense faces.

B1G Rank


Rushing S&P+ (nat’l rank)

1 Michigan State 2
2 Iowa 7
3 Penn State 8
4 Wisconsin 9
5 Rutgers 22
6 Michigan 33
7 Maryland 42
8 Northwestern 57
9 Ohio State 58
10 Indiana 75
11 Purdue 76
12 Minnesota 79
13 Illinois 83
14 Nebraska 84

Adjusted Line Yards – A breakdown of yards per rush compared to what would be statistically expected, and then adjusted for level of competition.

B1G Rank


Adj. Line Yards (nat’l rank)

1 Michigan State 2
2 Penn State 13
3 Iowa 14
4 Wisconsin 17
5 Rutgers 31
6 Maryland 35
7 Michigan 45
8 Indiana 49
9 Minnesota 58
10 Illinois 62
11 Northwestern 77
12 Purdue 79
13 Nebraska 88
14 Ohio State 96

And taking the Big Ten rankings for the various stats together, you get the following rough composite order. Being higher is better and being lower is worse (which you would have known anyway based on the teams at the top and bottom):




Adj. LY

Michigan State 1 1 1
Iowa 4 2 3
Wisconsin 2 4 4
Rutgers 3 5 5
Penn State 9 3 2
Michigan 6 6 7
Maryland 7 7 6
Ohio State 5 9 14
Northwestern 10 8 11
Indiana 13 10 8
Minnesota 11 12 9
Nebraska 8 14 13
Purdue 12 11 12
Illinois 14 13 10

So 2013 defensive front performances look to shake out into a few tiers:

  • Michigan State: They get a tier all their own.  I probably don’t have to explain this.
  • Pretty good: Rutgers, Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State
  • Meh: Maryland, Michigan, Ohio State
  • Butt (Not Jake Butt): Northwestern, Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota, Purdue, Illinois

How much do they return?

Answering the question "how many starters from the front seven return?" is a little trickier. Take Michigan for example: how many defensive starters did they lose? They lost Jibreel Black and Quinton Washington, but weren’t they kind of the same guy? Do you count that as two starters lost, or one? In a way, it doesn’t matter, as we’re just trying to get a sense for what various teams lost, not necessarily to quantify it. However, to give a very rough estimate of the kind of production everyone is losing, I included the percentage of the team’s total tackles accounted for by guys I deemed to be departing starters from the front seven.

Fitz TFL

Denicos Allen is gone. Clearly MSU will now be terrible.

The obvious caveats. The first is that tackles are an inexact proxy for quality. A mediocre inside linebacker will usually make more tackles than a top-flight defensive tackle (Nebraska LB David Santos made 87 tackles. Penn State DT DaQuan Jones made 56. Jones was first team All-B1G and a 4th round draft pick. Santos was terrible and was replaced by a freshman mid-season). However, we’re doing qualitative analysis with a quantitative kicker, not the reverse, so it’s helpful information that isn’t vital to our thesis. The second caveat is that the front seven aren’t the only people involved in run defense. Solid safety play is a big deal.

So, here’s where we are:


How good in 2013?

Returning starters (Front 7)

% of tackles by lost starters

Indiana Butt 7 0
Maryland Meh 7 0
Michigan Meh 6 2.9
Nebraska Butt 5 7.3
Rutgers Pretty good 5 9.5
Ohio State Meh 6 15.7
Penn State Pretty good 5 16.8
Minnesota Butt 4 19.4
Northwestern Butt 4 20.3
Purdue Butt 3 20.3
Illinois Butt 4 20.6
Michigan State MSU 3 27.7
Iowa Pretty good 3 34.6
Wisconsin Pretty good 0 38.2

They run the gamut from returning everyone (Indiana) to returning no one (Wisconsin).

A pattern emerges

You may notice that the better defenses are the ones that lose more people. This makes intuitive sense; defenses with more seniors are, all things being equal, better. Of the four defenses we labeled as “MSU” or “Pretty Good,” three (MSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin) suffer serious losses, and I’d argue those were the three best run defenses last year.

So, who are the contenders for Best Run Defense for 2014?

Contenders based on returning talent


  • 4.22 YPC
  • #33 S&P+
  • #45 Adj. LY
  • 6 returning starters

Michigan returns all of the major pieces of a run defense that was fair-to-good. Other than getting shredded by OSU for 393 yards at 8.5 YPC, they didn’t surrender more than 170 yards or 5 YPC in any of their other games. Add a healthy Jake Ryan, and if the defensive tackle play is good Michigan looks primed for a big year.

There is no advanced stat that appropriately values “beat running back to death with quarterback”.


  • 3.82 YPC
  • #22 S&P+
  • #31 Adj. LY
  • 6 returning starters

I love a good Rutgers joke as much as anyone (you know what’s a good Rutgers joke? Rutgers), but they actually had a solid run defense last year. They had the third-best YPC average (albeit against weaker competition), and they have some solid talent in the front seven with Darius Hamilton, WLB Steve Longa, and MLB Kevin Snyder. Granted, the run defense might just look good because Rutgers’ pass defense is so unbelievably bad, but such is life in Piscataway.


  • 4.54 YPC
  • #42 S&P+
  • #35 Adj. LY
  • 7 returning starters

Like Rutgers, we like to make Maryland jokes, but the run defense was pretty solid, and they return their entire front seven. Darius Kilgo and Andre Monroe anchor their 3-4 defense and do an excellent job of keeping linebackers clean. If they can stay healthy (never a guarantee at Maryland these days), they will be very good again.

Penn State

  • 4.67 YPC
  • #8 S&P+, #13 Adj. LY
  • 5 returning starters

Much like Michigan, Penn State had one implosion of a defensive game (also against Ohio State) and generally held up very well otherwise. You may recall 27-for-27 as a thing that happened. They lose DaQuan Jones, but they return C.J. Olaniyan and Deion Barnes. If MLB Mike Hull can avoid that always-troubling 37th major injury, Penn State could contend for top honors, though depth remains a concern.

Penn State reacted well to subtlety

Contenders based on history

Michigan State

  • 3.61 YPC
  • #2 S&P+
  • #2 Adj. LY.
  • 3 returning starters

State lost both starting defensive tackles, uber-productive (and TOTALLY NOT SUSPICIOUS IN ANY WAY) MIKE Max Bullough, and Denicos Allen. But I’m not an idiot, and the last thing I’m going to declare is that Michigan State will be taking some giant step back. The internet remembers such stupid declarations and revisits them. In the last 6 years, MSU’s rushing defense S&P+ rating (in chronological order) was #28, #23, #31, #5, #2, and #2. They have finished as the best rushing defense (in terms of YPC) in the Big Ten the last three years. Shilique Calhoun isn’t a great run-defender, but Marcus Rush and Taiwan Jones are pretty good, and… yeah. Again. Not an idiot.


  • 4.07 YPC
  • #7 S&P+
  • #14 Adj. LY
  • 3 returning starters

Iowa loses their entire linebacking corp, along with their 322 combined tackles. The remaining linebackers on the roster had 29 tackles last year. Combined. Howeverm Iowa returns almost all of the best defensive lines in the conference, including two of the best defensive tackles in Carl Davis and Louis Trinca-Pasat. Iowa’s worst defensive rushing performance in the last six years was roughly on par with Michigan’s performance last year, and they have been a top-30 rushing defense almost every year. Ferentz has zombie powers, so it could happen.



  • 3.80 YPC
  • #9 S&P+
  • #17 Adj. LY
  • 0 returning starters

The 2013 Wisconsin Badgers had a very good starting front seven. But so did the ’85 Bears. And those two groups have something in common: none of them will be lining up for Wisconsin in 2014. The Badgers didn’t just lose nominal starters, either: Chris Borland alone accounted for an estimated 793 tackles per game. They return SOME production along the DL in Konrad Zagzebski and Warren Herring, but this is almost entirely a reclamation job. Wisconsin doesn’t have a history of dominant rush defenses either; their average S&P+ rush defense form 2008-2012 was #33 in the country, and their average Big Ten rank in YPC over that time was a shade better than 6th in the conference. Unless Gary Andersen is a wizard of some kind, regression beckons.

Wisconsin starters

Hey, look, it’s Wisconsin’s front seven.


  • 4.60 YPC
  • #84 S&P+
  • #88 Adj. LY
  • 5 returning starters

Nebraska has the opposite problem Wisconsin had. The Huskers bring almost everyone back, but the guys they bring back weren’t very good last year. Nebraska was really good at getting to the QB last year (2nd only to OSU), which combined with a soft schedule to make their raw yards-per-carry numbers look somewhat decent. But remove those sacks or take anything other than a surface glance, and Nebraska wasn’t good on the ground. Randy Gregory is a hell of a pass rusher, but he’s not great against the run. It’s unlikely Nebraska will be in the conversation at the end of the year.


  • 5.90 YPC
  • #75 S&P+
  • #49 Adj. LY
  • 6 returning starters

Hey, they return a lot of guys. Lloyd Christmas dot jpg.

Not even pretending

Teams that weren’t good last year and have to replace significant portions of those not-good defenses


  • 4.83 YPC
  • #57 S&P+
  • #77 Adj. LY
  • 4 returning starters

Remember when they were ranked last year?


  • 5.03 YPC
  • #79 S&P+
  • #58 Adj. LY
  • 4 returning starters

Thieran Cochran is good. The rest of Minnesota is not good.


  • 5.60 YPC
  • 76 S&P+
  • #79 Adj. LY
  • 3 returning starters



  • 5.93 YPC
  • #83 S&P+
  • #62 Adj. LY
  • 4 returning starters

Gave up over 250 yards in 7 different games. Only held one power conference team under 4 YPC. Gave up 29 rushing TDs. Was bad.

My answer is ‘I don’t have the first damn clue’

Ohio State

  • 4.29 YPC
  • #58 S&P+
  • #96 (!!!) Adj. LY
  • 6 returning starters

They had a good YPC average, but the advanced statistics say they were somewhere between bad and abysmal. They only lose one starter, but that starter (Ryan Shazier) made 144 tackles and 23.5 tackles for loss. They return theoretically one of the best lines on the country, but how good can it be if it was so bad against the run last year? I am perplexed.

Strictures require that I take a guess

My monkey-choosing-mutual-funds stab at the 2014 sack-free YPC rankings:

  1. Michigan State
  2. Michigan
  3. Rutgers
  4. Maryland
  5. Penn State
  6. Ohio State
  7. Iowa
  8. Wisconsin
  9. Nebraska
  10. Indiana
  11. Northwestern
  12. Minnesota
  13. Purdue
  14. Illinois

Breaking B1G

Breaking B1G

Submitted by BiSB on May 29th, 2014 at 9:32 AM

In our continuing pursuit to explain to outsiders "what is Big Ten football," and, more importantly, "why is the Big Ten football," we turn to the world of metaphor. Or simile. I forget.

We look now at the Big Ten through the prism of the characters of Breaking Bad. Minor spoiler alerts, of course, but the series has been over for almost a year, so if you haven't seen the series GET ON THAT. Totally worth the time



 Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC

Hank Schrader

Self-assured to the point of arrogance, but his brash exterior belies a deep-seated insecurity. He's not used to losing, so when stuff starts blowing up around him, he gets rattled. Everything started to go wrong when this upstart “Heisenberg” fella started to upset the order of things. He proceeded to pour unprecedented resources into chasing Heisenberg, like tailing people for weeks on end or spending $850,000 on a new offensive coordinator. He experiences successes, and occasionally seemed set to take down his quarry, but in the final confrontation with Heisenberg (who is, it turns out, family) he ends up busted and bleeding.


Michigan State

 Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC

Walter White (aka Heisenberg)

He spending years – nay, decades – as the doormat for those around him. But then through a series of unlikely events, Walter finally found himself on top of his world. He is suddenly the one who knocks. He IS the danger. Still, his inferiority complex shines through from time to time, and he spends as much time trying to prove he isn't the man he used to be as he does being Heisenberg.


Ohio State


Saul Goodman

Some would call them “sleazy. ” They would prefer to think of themselves as calculating. They have a very well-oiled system and the resources to make it work. He occasionally  gets punched in the mouth by Walter, and is threatened by Hank, though Goodman always stays just out of reach of the law. Also, of everyone in the show, he's the guy you really want to see get punched in the face, and you'd be like, "yeah, he probably deserved that, if not for this then for other stuff."




Gustavo Fring

Careful. Almost boringly careful.  Nothing is unnecessarily flashy, which is what makes him effective. At the end of the day, you realize he’s probably a step ahead of you. He will run the zone stretch six times in a row until you think “I’ll jump the zone stretch and take over the drug empire,” which is when he goes play action for 36 yards. Then goes to the zone stretch.

I suppose I could have gone with "Badger," because, well, Badger. But Badger was a chubby white guy who somehow survives. Wait...




The Winnebago

They were there at the beginning, and for a while they kinda fit with the whole scheme. It was full of fumes, had terrible accommodations, and was in the middle of nowhere. And usually there were only a couple of people there. If you get stuck there for a couple of days, it will probably turn into the worst weekend of your life unless you can figure out how to MacGyver a battery out of some brake fluid and pocket change to get the everloving hell out of there.


Penn State



She used to be a major part of the drug empire until some turmoil threw that into doubt. Despite being marked for death a couple of times, and seemingly being on the cusp of being pushed to the side several times, she continues to find ways to be relevant. She's also conspiratorial as hell; she always thinks someone is out to get her. And while sometimes that's true, it's because she did some really, really bad things.



 Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC


As soon as she shows up in an episode, your immediate reaction is "ugh, this is gonna suck." She's a somewhat major character, but she does absolutely nothing to drive the plot. Instead, you just get caught up in small and annoying side-plots that just make you hate that you're spending time watching this. There is no depth to her character; she's pretty much a one-note kind of gal. But all things considered, her character flaws are pretty minor, especially when compared to some of those around her, so it could be worse.





It isn't really his fault, per se, but his arrival signaled an epic shit-storm that made everyone around him not want to be there anymore. Plus, Tortuga means "tortoise" and a terrapin is a turtle. Which is like a tortoise. So it fits.




Jesse Pinkman

The plucky, scrappy little guy. Historically a f*ck-up, but occasionally pulls his act together enough to pull off a train heist or something. You root for him, largely because he's the lesser of however-many evils. His style is kind of refreshing, and often acts as a nice alternative to the heavy, dour roles played by everyone around him. Also, does a lot of meth.



 Frank Ockenfels 3/AMC

Skyler White

No one likes you. We get that you are good at some (limited) things, but that doesn't mean we want to see you ever.




"Tio" Hector Salamanca

Old, decrepit, and smells a little funky. They don't really do much anymore, and their best-case scenario is crapping in his opponents' place of business, because f*** the DEA. Also, stankface gonna stankface.



Gale Boetticher

He seems like a pretty bright guy, and despite his quirkiness you find yourself rooting for him. But then one day, someone is like "you know, with the way things are going, YOU could run things in the West Division." And he starts to get all excited, and then BLAM.

In a way, he should have seen it coming. He isn't the type to lead. He's a born middle-of-the-pack type. Nevertheless, even though the natural progression of the plot needed him to... uh... exit the plot, we felt a little bit bad that it had to happen like it did. Also, tell me this pose doesn't look familiar:





A chubby, gumpy-looking white guy who somehow manages to survive the whole damn series. He's not really a protagonist or an antagonist. You find yourself happy when he wins, but in the same way you're happy for your dog when he finally finds where you put his water dish. Sure, his accomplishments might not be impressive in the objective sense, but give the little guy a pat on the head anyway.



The Fly

The Fly

What is this? Wait, this is it? This is what we're doing? WHYYYYYY?????

The Grand Opening

The Grand Opening

Submitted by BiSB on May 2nd, 2014 at 9:15 AM

Previously on we-ripped-this-off-from-BHGP: ID16, ID16 part II, Urban's meeting.

As you may have heard, the Big Ten opened its new office in New York City recently, and the media got its first look on Wednesday.

Big Ten HQ

What you may not have heard was that shortly before the media took their tour, the Big Ten coaches and a handful of administrators got a look inside. We have a transcript of their meeting.

Delany Delany: Okay, thanks everyone for coming. Before we begin…

Hoke Hoke: Years?

Delany Delany: Aw hell, not this again. Anyway, what I was…

Hoke Hoke: YEARS???

MeyerMeyer: He’s not going to stop until you do it, Jim.

Delany Delany. Sigh. Okay, fine. 135.


Dantonio Dantonio: Yep!

Meyer Meyer: Congratulations, blind squirrel.

Hoke Hoke: BEAT?

Beckman Tim Beckman: Off!

Beckman Beckman: …hehehe…

Beckman Beckman: Get it? Cause he wanted us to say “Beat Ohio,” but instead I made a funny. Which is what we call jokes in Illinois.

Pelini Bo Pelini: Dude, Darrell, how the hell did you lose to that buffoon?

Hazell Darrell Hazell: Did you see what Danny Hope left me? The cupboard was bare, except for those jars of urine. And Rob Henry. I probably should have played the urine more.

Delany Delany: ANYWAY, thanks for all taking the time to come to the opening of our new offices. We’re hoping that given our new territory, we can expand our brand…

Brandon Dave Brandon: WOOT!!!

Hoke Hoke: Sorry, he does that. It isn’t voluntary.

Brandon Brandon: What are we hashtagging this meeting? #B1GLifeB1GOffices? Damn I’m good.

Delany Delany: Let’s just get the tour started.

[AFTER THE JUMP: the tour]

Hokepoints Doesn't See a Regional Trend

Hokepoints Doesn't See a Regional Trend

Submitted by Seth on February 4th, 2014 at 11:21 AM

Yesterday Ace posted a link to the full Lemming recruiting rankings from 1990 to 2004. Just perusing the list is pretty interesting, since accessible recruiting data on a national scale otherwise only goes back as far as the Rivals and Scout databases. Since nobody likes to make their information easy to get at, it'll take some time for this all to be processed.

But for a first stab I did find something I can pull relatively easily from both Lemming's sheets and modern data: where players come from, and where they went. Lemming only had data on where recruits were from going back to 1999. Since it was easiest to grab a Top 400 from 247, I took theirs too, but they run out of rankings before 2008 so there's a gap. It won't matter for this. I broke the nation into regions that quasi-match the traditional conference footprints:


And here's the % of high school recruits that each contributed to Lemming's (on the left) and 247's (on the right) lists:


Who's been telling you that demographics are responsible for the SEC's rise? It's not there. The Big Ten's traditional footprint was providing 15% of the nation's talent in 1999 and the SEC was around 35%; today it's almost the exact same.

[After the jump: regional retention]

This Week's Obsession: B1G X

This Week's Obsession: B1G X

Submitted by Seth on December 12th, 2013 at 12:05 PM


That episode where Mr. Burns had to go work for Smithers. I'm sure there is one. 

The Big Ten Championship Game and bowl selection gives us an opportunity to zoom out a little.

Who's on the up, how do next year's divisions stack up against each other for the short and long term, and what's the long term outlook for the Big Ten on a national scale (and do you care?)

Mathlete: With Michigan State's title and several preceding years of quality, they have moved into that 1B tier. Ohio State is the only team right now I would consider in the top tier. They have both the recruiting and the on field to be clearly at the top.

I wonder what Coach Dantonio thinks about "1B" status. He probably has a measured, mature response that acknowledges his schedule was kind of easy and his recruiting is lacking. [Fuller]

Joining the Spartans in 1B I would put Wisconsin. Behind them you have the good but definitely behind the top teams group. Unfortunately right now that includes Michigan along with Nebraska, Iowa. In the third group you have the chaos teams. Northwestern, Indiana, Minnesota (how did that happen), Penn State and probably Maryland are teams that had a pretty decent year last year despite another rash of injuries. That leaves Purdue, Illinois and Rutgers at the bottom tier.

So if you look at the divisions you have the East with 2 first tiers and 1 second tier team. The West would have 1 first tier and 2 second tier teams. The caveat is that the East's second tier team, Michigan, has been recruiting like a first tier and will finally have a large amount of acclaimed talent in the upper classes. If Michigan can move up to tier one, then the East is considerably more challenging.

On a national scale it's hard to see the Big Ten join the top as a group. The two paths up are recruiting and coaching and right now there is a pretty big gap between the Big Ten and the best in both. If Michigan can start playing like it's recruiting, and 1-2 teams of Michigan St/Wisconsin/Nebraska/Iowa can play at the top level each year, then that should help the profile of the conference. Three+ really good teams means you move out of ACC territory and get to where a conference champ would be in a position for 2 high quality wins. Ultimately, that's the blueprint for the Big Ten at the top as a conference, 3 high quality teams, 2 high quality wins. Without a foundational shift, the full depth isn't going to match up. But if the top 3 can, the conversation should die down.

[Just Jump.]

Mailbag: We Should Have Been Screwed, Funk Position Paper

Mailbag: We Should Have Been Screwed, Funk Position Paper

Submitted by Brian on November 19th, 2013 at 11:28 AM


"I hope we're all up on the latest changes to the NCAA rule book." [Fuller]

Wait, substitution. Wait. Wait, what?

Yo Brian,

So when the bearded lady rushed into the center ring to launch the football out of the cannon through the flaming uprights at the end of the Evanston Circus, Michigan obviously made a substitution.  Northwestern did not make a substitution, but they, according to the Rules, could have.  If they did, it seems like that would have taken more time before the official gave the ready for play, and potentially wasted enough time to run the clock out.  In this parallel universe game which is crazier than the actual circus which unfolded, does Michigan get to attempt the field goal? How are the rules applied in that situation (which thankfully did not happen)?


UPDATE: NEVERMIND the below, as I missed this section in the rulebook:

Late in the first half Team A is out of timeouts. A pass play on third down ends inbounds at the B-25 short of the line to gain with the game clock showing 0:10. Facing fourth down and three, Team A immediately hurries its field goal team onto the field. RULING: Team B should reasonably expect that Team A will attempt a field goal in this situationand should have its field-goal defense unit ready. The umpire will not stand over the ball, as there should be no issue of the defense being uncertain about the next play.

Thanks to Maize and Blue Wahoo. I will self-immolate now like a Northwestern fan observing his team playing football.


We should have been screwed. The NCAA rulebook has a specific mention of this very scenario:

Late in the first half Team A is out of timeouts. A pass play on third down ends inbounds at the B-25 short of the line to gain with the game clock showing 0:30. Facing fourth down and three, Team A gives no indication as to its next play until the game clock reads 0:10. They then rush their field goal unit onto the field, and Team B then hurries to respond.

RULING: The umpire moves to the ball to prevent the snap until Team B has had a reasonable opportunity to get its field-goal defense unit onto the field. The umpire will step away when he judges that the defense has had enough time. If the game clock reads 0:00 before the ball is snapped after the umpire steps away, the half is over.

That is in blue along with various other new rules (like "minimum time for spiking the ball") this year, so it must have just been added. If Fitz tried to substitute, the rulebook says that the refs have to let him and the clock would then run out.

This is of course terrible since it prevents the sort of exciting thing that happened against Northwestern and replaces it with the clock running out because the defense can't get aligned in time and should be immediately stricken in the name of fun… except maybe it doesn't exist?

Game ref Bill LeMonnier:

“When a team is coming out and it’s the last play of the game and they substitute with their field-goal team, the defense is not given the opportunity,” referee Bill LeMonnier said. “Usually there’s match-up time on substitutions. When it’s the field-goal attempt like that on the last play of the half, then there’s no match-up given.”

This is in direct contradiction of the rulebook. So… yeah. I don't know. The only thing that may reconcile these two points of view is the rulebook stating that the team getting the FG unit out there spent 20 seconds doing nothing, whereas Michigan was clearly going GO GO GO as soon as Gallon was tackled.

Spiritually, if you can't get your FG block team on the field in that situation and the other team can get the play off, screw your field goal block team. Fire drills forever.

[After THE JUMP: talking Funk, safety rotation, and the latest bizarre email.]


GIS throws this at you when you google for Darrell Funk, so congrats Firstbase

Hokepoints: The 'How Big Ten Are You?' Test

Hokepoints: The 'How Big Ten Are You?' Test

Submitted by Seth on August 6th, 2013 at 10:53 AM


As we enter the last season of the Big Ten as a natural twelve-team conference (er…) it is only natural that we begin to question exactly who's a "real" Big Ten of the Big Ten, and who ought be "the other four." With media days under way across the Midwest and 2014 recruiting now in full swing, the Big Ten coaches have begun the annual rite of playing up their school as the epitome of this great conference. To separate the contenders from the pretenders, in the great tradition of teen magazines, I have created a sort of test. Answer these 20 questions and find out if your school is the Real Bee-One-Gee:

1. After you joined the conference people commonly started calling it…

a) the Intercollegiate Conference of Faculty Representatives
b) the Western Conference
c) the Big [actual number of schools in the conference]
d) the Big11Ten
e) That league that's been arguing with Time Warner and running all those ads to call your cable company lately.

2. When it comes to finding a head coach the ideal candidate would be a man who…

a) was born into our program and will be content to stay here making $50k/year until his dying day.
b) can most plausibly be foisted on the fans without breaking the bank.
c) is the most Kirk Ferentz.
d) best embodies the traditions and ideals that contrast most sharply with the guy we just fired.
e) has already proven he can win at the highest collegiate levels, preferably coming off his obligatory two-year NFL excursion.

3. Our school is best known for growing ______.

a) leaders and legends in the weight room and in the community.
b) a new strain of pesticide-resistant turf
c) offensive linemen
d) pro-style quarterbacks
e) disillusionment in the NCAA, its rules, and its enforcement competency.

4. With 6 minutes left in the game you have the ball up a touchdown on your opponent's 37-yard-line, and it's 4th down and 7 to go. What do you do?

a) Run up the middle because that kills the most clock.
b) Punt and play defense.
c) Fake FG then pooch punt and to bury 'em on the 1.
d) Send in your kicker with thoughts of beautiful co-eds.
e) Send all your receivers on deep routes and tell your quarterback it's time to poop some magic.

5. You have just been informed that one of your players was ticketed for a DUI. Whom do you speak to first? (UPDATED)

a) The offending student.
b) The parents of the offending student.
c) The parole officer of the offending student.
d) The guy from the local police station who fixes these things.
e) The shady agent dude who sold you the student.

6. A fan of a rival school is Tweeting about how much your school sucks. What is your first/most typical reaction?

a) Tweeting? Is that one of those computer whatsit things? Sorry I don't have an iBay account.
b) Reference historical record against each other going back to that one period when your school was a national power.
c) Calmly explain that you take great pride in the tradition and history of your great school and the profound respect you have for this, the greatest rivalry in college sports in your opinion.
d) Demonstrate your unparalleled passion for your school: "YOUR/UR JUST JELLOUS!"
e) Wait, back up. We're rivals?

7. "Chicago's Big Ten team" refers to...

a) Northwestern
b) Illinois
c) The University of Chicago
d) Michigan
e) Notre Dame

8. The best example of a great rivalry trophy would be…

a) a piece of schlock we stole from the Paul Bunyan Museum that one road trip.
b) something we picked up at a farmers' fair 100 years ago, and had it bronzed when it started to smell funky (slab of bacon, whole pig, whole turtle).
c) something our "rival" left on the field (megaphone, shillelagh, spittoon, wooden bucket, water/Gatorade jug, house keys) when they skedaddled after that one time we beat/tied them.
d) an item we dug up at a Civil War site and have been fighting over since (tomahawk, top-hat, ship's bell, etc.)
e) something Jim Delany made up to explain why we have a protected game with someone 5 states away.

9. What is Notre Dame to you?

a) A great and important rivalry that dates back to the days of _____.
b) Another great university and football program with great tradition.
c) Mackerel-snappin' papists; after that Guy Fawkes incident I don't trust 'em. Heck, didya year they think "Bill Shakespeare" is a quarterback?
d) Any of several magnificent High Gothic cathedrals you will see on our world-class study abroad program to France.
e) A small, overrated private school for lazy rich kids in a train-stop rust belt town in Indiana, notable for operating since 1924 under the delusion that it's in Lower Manhattan.

10. The following word/phrase shall never depart your lips without the reverence of a thousand angels with very long trumpets:

a) Biofuels
b) Power
c) Degree
d) [Name of school]
e) The Percy Harvin role

[Jump: 10 more questions and scoring]