Bad showing for BIG

Submitted by massblue on September 15th, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Not a good day for the BIG. It saddens me to say it, but the only one who showed up was OSU. Even they showed there are holes in their defense.  ND may not be as good as we thought. So what does this say about BIG and UM?

Comments

Soulfire21

September 15th, 2013 at 9:41 AM ^

Perception of our conference will remain down. Honestly though, the SEC is good but what boosts their league perception is the national championships and bowl victories. They schedule, for the most part, terribly uncompetitive teams in the regular season.

I'd argue that the PAC 12 may be a better conference top to bottom (instead of just the few teams at top) than the SEC, but the 7 (8? Don't remember.) straight titles for the league is driving a lot of the perception that the SEC is so good.

That said, the Big Ten did blow it today. I keep waiting for our conference to turn a corner, looks like I will keep waiting.

TheDirtyD

September 15th, 2013 at 10:12 AM ^

We just scheduled and nearly lost to an uncompetitive team so what's that say about us? The SEC is good and a lot better the Big Ten. I never watch any PAC 12 games so I can't comment on them. Watching an average SEC game and an average Big Ten game is a lot different. The size, speed and how physical those teams are is why they're so good. It's a violent game and the more violent/physical team usually wins. You can be physical without running the football.

house of pain

September 15th, 2013 at 11:16 AM ^

I'm not so sure that they schedule poor OOC. Tennessee played Oregon yesterday. Alabama played VT this year, UM last year. Ole Miss played Texas yesterday. South Carolina played North Carolina in the first game of th season. LSU played TCU. Florida played Miami. Georgia played Clemson. And I'm sure I'm missing some. So that's a pretty decent slate..

Tater

September 15th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^

I live in SEC country, and a few SEC fans have told me that watching Big Ten football on TV is like watching old game films from the 1960's because everyone is moving so slow.

I hate to agree with the media hype about the SEC, but until someone actually starts beating them, they have a really good argument.

TheDirtyD

September 15th, 2013 at 12:19 PM ^

As do I living in Louisville I have to hear about SEC I hate it but, I have no comeback what am i supposed to say we almost beat SC. Or Michigan looked good against bama's backups I mean its not even close how much further ahead they are then the Big Ten. 

bluebyyou

September 15th, 2013 at 11:50 AM ^

Oversigning is what it is.  Even with the changes in SEC rules, which gives their programs a distinct advantage, there is nothing violative of NCAA rules which the SEC is doing. Ethical? Maybe not.

As for the B1G, there are a handful of programs doing it right with coaching, recruiting and facilities.  Beyond that, we have a bunch of schools who don't invest in athletics the way they should.  What's the answer?  Unequcal revenue sharing?  Use the Texas model?  Delaney needs to stop expanding the TV market and start looking at the ineptness that is pervasive in B1G football while people are still willing to pay for what has become a second rate football conference.  Now bball, that is something entirely different, but also a very different financial model.

As for Akron, getting beyond almost losing, an issue in itself, anyone condemning people for not showing up needs to get off their high horse.  The game should have been a blowout.  I make it to most home games, in fact I rarely miss one, but it doesn't cost me a heck of a lot less to come to town to watch UTL II than it does for Akron.  Same hotel bill, travel costs, food costs, etc. I don't care if we lose a few, but I am so tired of the creampuffs.  Most of the time it is a glorified scrimmage.  Using yesterday as an example doesn't fly.  It shouldn't have been that way.Brandon, I believe, recognizes this, which is why ND going away is a loss.

TheDirtyD

September 15th, 2013 at 11:57 AM ^

Ok they might oversign but its not that big of a deal a lot of the kids know this before coming to school there. Also the kids are talented enough to transfer to another school and earn a scholarship. No one forces those kids to go to school there. I don't mind oversigning its fine, the coaches have to produce wins and championships if they don't they're out. The kids have to excel and produce on the field if they don't they're going to be shoved down or off the chart. The same thing happens to academic scholarships if you don't do well enough you loose the scholarship. This is called life I don't get why people make such a fuss about this. Get mad at fan bases and society for creating the win at all costs mentality if you want, "oversigning" is simply a by-product of this.

goblue20111

September 15th, 2013 at 8:21 PM ^

I wouldn't mind it if we got rid of this facade of amatuerism. Let players transfer and play immediately. It's BS -- it's set up completely against them. I thought these were student athletes, earning their degrees? Isn't that the argument I constantly hear parroted about why allowing players to make a buck is wrong? Not attributing it to you just in general. You can't really tell me "it's a win at all costs system" and have it benefit one group of people. You either let everyone get a chance to get at the action or no one. 

If they're really student athletes, here to get an education, then so long as they aren't violating team rules, their scholarships should be honored. Most scholarship stipulations are pretty low and even the players who will never see the field are good enoguh to help out on the pratice squad.

snarling wolverine

September 15th, 2013 at 8:32 PM ^

 

Ok they might oversign but its not that big of a deal a lot of the kids know this before coming to school there. Also the kids are talented enough to transfer to another school and earn a scholarship. No one forces those kids to go to school there.

 

Do they really know in advance?  How many SEC coaches are honest enough to tell recruits, "Yeah, we might cut you down the road if you don't perform"?  I'd bet it's not many.  Recruits probably are assured that it won't happen to them - only to other, lesser players.

85 scholarship players should be plenty for a football team.  There is no good reason to justify signing more than that and jerking around guys who are already on the team.  Programs can manage.

 

 

Blarvey

September 15th, 2013 at 10:32 AM ^

It is not true that they don't schedule hard OOC opponents. This year both Georgia and South Carolina play Clemson, Alabama played VT, Ole Miss beat Texas at Texas, Tennessee played Oregon, LSU played TCU, Miss. State played Ok. State, and Florida has Miami and FSU. Sure, Texas may be bad and Miami and FSU have been only ok in the past but I don't think the B1G OOC scheduling is that much better.

treetown

September 15th, 2013 at 11:59 AM ^

I appreciate your point and as a conference the Big Ten isn't steam rolling over other teams and no one is chanting "Big 10" like a wind up doll but is that really a goal we want to shoot for?

Thanks to the internet, cable TV and sports talk radio, every rumor, possible signing, actual signing, and every second of every play of every game is now subject to the most intense scrutiny surpassing even the Zapruder film of JFK's assasination (for the younger people who don't know of this reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film).

Some good comes of this:

1. Very obscure and unrecognized players and teams become known. The unknown phenom or the greatest team "no one has ever heard of probably won't ever exist again." You don't have to get a New York or Chicago based newspaper sport columnist to write about your team or player to become known nationally.

2. Rising level of play and coaching. Are there more quality CFB players in the past? Is the pool bigger despite competition from other sports due to the popularity of football in general and the intense early identification and training of players? Probably yes, but even MORE IMPORTANT is the quality of coaching, scouting and preparation is at an all time high. Coaches have their professional groups that have annual meetings and training sessions. Video allows careful and close scrutiny of every team. It used to be only some rough grainy 35 mm film was available - now literally almost every Division 1 team has someone whose only job is to break down hours (sometimes whole seasons) of video to help coaches analyse tendencies and trends. Gameplans may not get executed correctly but I would venture to guess the the quality of those plans has improved over the past several decades.Just as training is now a 24x7x365 activies for top college players coaching is/will be like that. Right now every team that will face the UM this season AND next season is getting copies of the Akron game and breaking down what worked and didn't work seeing if there was something there they can use. As a fan of CFB we should expect closer contests in the future and we'll all enjoy better games.

3. Which means that we might be seeing the slow end but ultimate end of the cupcake era. Yes, there will be mismatches where one team is clearly mismatched but we shoudln't be as shocked at "upsets" - it is still a team game and getting a whole team up and ready allows for just enough variation that upsets will happen. Teams will still get jobbed by bad calls but that is whole other issue. (sorry Wisconsin, but you were robbed)

Some not so good things;

1. Winning or being perceived as being winners in CFB takes on a life of its own. We hear a lot of Walmart Wolverines but in some places support of a college team has morphed into somehow a statement of culture and regional pride, as if having a great CFB team is a lasting social contribution to USA and human civilization (which in the case of halting official segregation may be true of some places but that show you how far they had to come)

2. Overshadowing of real values - the UM has been fortunate. In large part even the most successful players who have had long and lucrative professional careers after Ann Arbor have acknowledged some OTHER benefits from having spent time at the UM.

Go Blue!

Anonymosity

September 15th, 2013 at 12:03 PM ^

Big Ten in horrible. PAC-12 is better, but definitely not SEC-good. The PAC-12 has, what, two very good teams and then a bunch of mediocrity?

My hypothesis is that every SEC team besides UK and UT would be in the mix for the B1G championship. Well, a few teams would be more than in the mix; they'd be stone cold locks to win it. But we'll never get to test that theory because the B1G collectively has a pathetic non-conference schedule.

Section 1

September 15th, 2013 at 1:30 PM ^

Ohio State -- the Big Ten's most reliable team -- played a very fine game and won on the road in California.

Michigan State seems to have turned a corner, and put on a dominant performance.

Minnesota overcame some real adversity and won.

Indiana romped to victory.

Northwestern rolled on toward what will probably be a very good, bowl-bound season.

Iowa won, when a whole lot of people expected them to lose.

Conference cellar-dweller Purdue gave Notre Dame a good game.

Michigan's day was a brain fart.  Of course we were lucky to win, but we did win.

Wisconsin could have pulled out a win, got screwed.  That leaves Illinois (the Tennessee of the B1G),  Nebraska and Penn State.  Penn State is going to be an outlier for some time.  It's too bad they can't just lie outside of the Conference altogether. 

Where is this such an awful day for the conference?  We went 1-3 versus the Pac12 for the day; Wisconsin might well have made it a 2-2 day.

JT4104

September 15th, 2013 at 9:43 AM ^

The conference is pitiful....lets not skate around that. OSU is probably the best team in the conference simply because no one is going to stop their offense.

NW is probably the 2nd best team due to their offense as well, they both seem to take care of the ball.

People dont want to hear it but were in the middle, unless we make huge leaps in the trenches you're looking at about a 8 win season.

willywill9

September 15th, 2013 at 9:51 AM ^

In the middle- of the B1G?  I strongly disagree.  This isn't necessarily a national champ contender, but what big ten teams are better than Michigan based on what you've seen thus far?  Ohio, and...?  We had a miserable showing last night, but should that really outweigh the first two games entirely?  Even if ND isn't as good as we thought they were, they're not worse than Akron.  This young Michigan team was NOT prepared for this game- period.

JT4104

September 15th, 2013 at 9:58 AM ^

Right now....I would make NW, OSU, Wiscy, and maybe even sparty favorites on a nuetral field.

Reason being the OL can't get a push against anyone and the DL can't generate pressure against anyone.

We laugh at Sparty's offense but I'd bet with our lack of pass rush even the sparty QB would find open receivers.

JT4104

September 15th, 2013 at 10:27 AM ^

We haven't had a push all season long and our pressure have been below average at best. We haven't dirtied up a QB's jersey yet and MAYBE beating up a poor UConn team won't change my mind at all.

I watched Purdue's young OL with 2 RS FR at guards and a soph C push ND off the ball. Last I looked Purdue didn't have any NFLer's on their OL.

Fact of the matter right now the trenches aren't getting it done and as long that is the usual problem this will be a long season.

So to answer your question...Yes, no matter what happens next week I would still have OSU, NW, Wisc, and MSU a nuetral field favorite.

Doc Brown

September 15th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^

Completely diagree about your perception of sparty. They did a beat down of a really bad 1AA team. YSU would make a game against a top tier D1 high school. Sparty has yet to show me they can do anything competent on offense. Yeah, their defense is still real. No team in the country has more of a dichotomy between the offense and defense than sparty. 

People are bsing Akron on LAST seasons performance. I honestly think with the speed they have on the edges Akron could be competitive in the MAC this season. I could be making excuses for our laking press coverage and half assed effort, whatever. It just seemed pretty obvious when we brought a CB or free safety on a blitz Akron easily hot routed to a quick slant (ND passed to their TE on a comeback route routinely in the same situation). I am also interested in the effect of getting Avery and Ryan back on our blitz packages. 

bronxblue

September 15th, 2013 at 11:43 AM ^

I'm sorry, but MSU on a neutral field does not scare me.  That defense is fine, but its a poor offense that ha struggled against horrible defenses.  NW has played Cal and needed a couple of TaINTs to win.  UM had a bad game and won, but they also dropped 59 on CMU and 41 on a Notre Dame team that isn't bad.  And who knows about Wiscy; they played two cupcakes and then lose to ASU on a controversial end. 

LSAClassOf2000

September 15th, 2013 at 9:45 AM ^

In summary, the winners were:

Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Michigan St., Iowa, Ohio St. and Northwestern

The losers:

Wisconsin, Illinois, Penn State, Purdue and Nebraska. 

So, as a conference, we did go 7-5, which I would agree seems a bit underwhelming against the opponents everyone had. That being said, the average margin of victory in Big Ten wins was 19.7 points and the average loss margin was 8.4 among teams. Michigan State won by the most and Nebraska lost by the most. The overall scoring margin for the Big Ten was +8.

The weekly review diary - ugly as it might get - will be up tomorrow hopefully. 

 

snarling wolverine

September 15th, 2013 at 12:05 PM ^

I doubt many non-Michigan fans will remember it.  It was a "scare," the kind of thing that happens to a top 25 team every week.  Next week there will be a new "scare" to make everyone forget this one.

Now if we'd lost that'd be another story.