Sad/Crazy Big Ten Stat

Submitted by Ziff72 on November 20th, 2012 at 12:51 PM

I was stunned by this, but I think it's true.   Whole article is the usual stuff we already knew.

 

Meanwhile, maybe you've noticed that Big Ten games have gotten slower and slower, and less and less compelling. Do you know the last Big Ten quarterback to be chosen in the first round of the NFL draft? It was Kerry Collins, in 1995. The two best pros the Big Ten has produced in recent years, Drew Brees and Tom Brady, came from Texas and California, respectively. Russell Wilson, who transferred to Wisconsin for his senior season, went to high school in Virginia. And in case you missed it, all of this was hammered home by the high-profile oopsy-daisies of standard-bearing Ohio State in BCS bowl games throughout the '00s. 

17 years and 0 number 1 picks?   Yeesh.  

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8654190/on-urban-meyer-ohio-state-wisconsin-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers 

 

Comments

GoBlueInNYC

November 20th, 2012 at 12:57 PM ^

To answer your question:

17 years and 0 number 1 picks?

No. It's been 17 years since a Big10 QB has been taken in the first, but the Big10 has produced a #1 pick since then. Jake Long, for one, was taken #1 overall.

Magnus

November 20th, 2012 at 1:07 PM ^

Well, it's an article about college football, so I think the point is that the "hype" of first round talent doesn't circulate around the Big Ten.  People pay to watch good quarterbacks play, but the good quarterbacks often come from the Pac-12 (Aaron Rodgers, Carson Palmer, Matt Leinart, Jake Locker, Andrew Luck, Mark Sanchez, Matt Barkley, etc.), the Big 12 (Vince Young, Robert Griffin III, Sam Bradford), or the SEC (Peyton Manning, Tim Tebow, Cam Newton).

It's the same reason that I don't think Michigan's #1 pass defense is extremely impressive; it's impressive, but not WOW impressive.  The quarterbacks in the Big Ten just aren't very good, and the guys putting up the best numbers overall (Denard Robinson, Braxton Miller, Taylor Martinez, etc.) are dual-threat guys who may or may not play quarterback at the next level.

1464

November 20th, 2012 at 2:35 PM ^

And furthermore, your reference to the SEC accounts for 2 crappy QBs, one which is not even a starter.  According to your list, the Big 12 has two starters - one less than the Big 10.  I mean, holy shit, Matt Barkley isn't even in the NFL yet.  Let's just play MSU and assume he is going to take over somewhere and make the offense BETTIR!!! This is just a dumb argument and I feel stupid for getting involved in it.

Magnus

November 20th, 2012 at 4:09 PM ^

I don't care about the NFL with respect to this discussion.  I'm talking about college.  People pay to watch good quarterbacks.  Fans like to go see Matt Barkley, Tim Tebow, etc. when they're playing in college.

Notice that this article is about the Big Ten, a college football conference.  That's my focus, not the next level.

redhousewolverine

November 20th, 2012 at 6:29 PM ^

Not saying he didn't straw man you there, but people pay to see denard, Martinez, and miller. They are not jake locker, Barkley, griffin, or Bradford in the level of excitement and hype each of those brought to the passing game, but one of your references was tebow who is possibly one of the greatest college QBs of all time but everyone save the broncos former head coach (McDaniels?) that he wasn't a viable nfl QB. Denard has been all over ESPN; you are varying back and forth between talent and excitement. Yes, the Big Ten hasn't had as much talent pkaying QB over the years but the clip the op listed above seems to make the argument that the Big Ten has inferior QB play because it has less first round buzz. Although going in the first round tends to indicate a certain level of talent, there are a myriad of factors playing into what leads to a good NFL QB. You mentioned several Big 12 QBs; however, the Big 12 is notorious for forgetting to play defense. That makes it easier to be an elite college QB and get picked earlier. I agree with you that overall Big Ten QB play is not as competitive as some of the other conferences so you can't just say we have Brady and Brees and say we hold our own against other conferences; however, saying that the Big Ten lacks QB talent based on lack of 1st round prospects doesn't tell the full story to Big Ten competitive struggles. When it comes to producing NFL QB talent probably no conference has an advantage. When Ben Rotheslberger, jake cutler, joe flacco, tony romo, and Alex smith are starting QBs in the NFL it supports the notion that finding talented QBs who translate from the college level is incredibly difficult.

JDVan

November 20th, 2012 at 12:59 PM ^

So two of the elite NFL QB's are from the B1G but they don't count because they were born outside of it? Seems a bit off. B1G still puts forth a bunch of pros. The larger problems deal with facilities, coaching salaries, etc... IMO.

I Like Burgers

November 20th, 2012 at 1:37 PM ^

Either way, having two good/elite QBs out of 32 starting QB spots ain't exactly impressive.  If you want to count Russ Wilson's 1 year at Wisconsin as a Big Ten QB, then you've got three B10 QBs out of 32 teams.  Still not good.  And since Brady and Brees entered the league in 2000 and 2001, its been a while since the Big Ten has produced a decent QB.  With the QB talent that's in the Big Ten at the moment, that's not something that's going to change any time soon.

1464

November 20th, 2012 at 2:30 PM ^

Let's go ahead and count Henne, as he is a starter.

While we are at it, let's just look at the guys like Romo and Roethlisberger.  It's not like the score SEC 28, B10 4.  You ESPN talking heads.  This is a stupid non argument.

OysterMonkey

November 20th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^

 

This is not one of the all-time great Ohio State teams, but they are far better than any of their conference brethren even now; it makes me think that, if Meyer does not once again burn out his psyche on a hotel-room carpet, the Buckeyes will dominate the Big Ten for at least the remainder of the decade. With the possible exception of an aberrant Michigan or Wisconsin squad here or there, I cannot see anyone consistently challenging them.

3 point win against 7 loss Indiana, 1 point against 5 loss Sparty, OT needed to beat both 6 loss Purdue and Wisconsin's third string quaterback. Yes, genius, they're far better.

bighouseinmate

November 20th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^

...........to Meyer's time at UF. He went there and won repeatedly with mostly Zook's recruits. When his own recruits came "of age", so to speak, other than an outlier or two, UF started getting worse, competitively. Some of that may be from other SEC schools getting better, but I put most of that on UF.

And all that as UF was still getting top-flite recruits.

My guess is that Meyer has a handful of good years at OSU before they "come back down to earth". 

But your point about their wins stands. I'm not sure how one could even state that winning by such small margins, some of them with lots of luck involved(or just plain bad coaching moves by the opposing coaches), constitutes OSU being "far better" than any of the other conference schools.

Here's hoping that UM brings them back down to earth quickly with a win in Columbus.

PurpleStuff

November 20th, 2012 at 2:23 PM ^

It is all about players, but the downturn you talk about only lasted two years (Meyers' last and Muschamp's first).  UF is back in the top-10 again this year with Meyer recruits.  It is looking more and more like the downturn had less to do with burnout or Meyer not recruiting well and more to do with Cam Newton transferring.

OysterMonkey

November 20th, 2012 at 3:26 PM ^

I try not to argue against reality.

But can anyone look at OSU and think they're head and shoulders above their BIG competition? They have one good conference win, against Nebraska. Other than that, they blew out Illinois (who hasn't?), beat PSU by double digits, and have the four wins I mentioned above. PSU is ok, not spectacular. Plus their non-conference schedule was garbage.

If Denard didn't get hurt against Nebraska and UM played OSU's out of conference schedule, you think UM would be any worse than 10-1?

 

OysterMonkey

November 20th, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^

I know this is the internet, but you could try discussing what I actually said. My contention was not that they suck or that they aren't among the best teams in the B1G this year. Clearly they are.

My contention is that they're not "far better" than all of their conference opponents, poised to dominate the conference for the next decade (save an "aberrant" good year here and there from Michigan or Wisconsin).

In conference, OSU is 7-0, with four wins decided by a field goal or overtime. They're having a very good season, results-wise, but they aren't exactly dominating. This is my point.
 

UofM-I-Hart

November 20th, 2012 at 1:08 PM ^

Accept that things change. Always have and always will. Were the traditions in the 1960's the same as 10 years before that? No. Were things the same last year as they were 5 years ago? No. Things HAVE to change and they always have. Every tradition was new at some point in time. They have to be MADE. Jesus, boggest bunch pf cry baby fans ever pn this bpard makes me sick.