What is wrong with the Big Ten?
The most die hard Big Ten loyalist IMO can no longer deny that the Big Ten is at best the third best conference (very doubtful), and arguably just above the ACC as the worst. IMO the rank is fourth best, just above The Big East and ACC. Additionally, the gap appears large between The SEC and Big 12 at top, the Pac 10 next, and the rest of the major conferences. Although matchups are a factor, I think head to head play in the Bowls is a strong indicator of conference talent, and there the results are rather conclusive, with the PAC 10 at 5-0, the SEC and Big 12 with one loss, and the Big Ten at 1-5.
These results have replicated themselves over time recently. Please don't talk to me about us beating Florida last year, and other Capital One successes. The preponderance of the evidence backs up the consensus opinion. While on any given day a Big 10 team can beat the SEC and Big 12, on balance there is a large gap.
Why is this? Can it be blamed entirely on recruiting and the usual H.S. talent hotbeds being mostly southern? Discuss.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
I just posted a new thread- something along the same lines.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
I think one of the biggest reasons the Big 10 does so poorly is because we have to travel the furest every year and usually play our Bowl games in a stadium full of the other team's fans. And I know people are going to say that shouldn't matter and a truly great team would find a way to win no matter the location. If that is true, then let's see Florida or USC play a game at Big 10 Stadium in January. I have a funny feeling our bowl records would be a little better!
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
Penn State wouldn't have beaten USC if they played in Antartica.
OSU wouldn't beat Texas if they played on the moon.
Wisconsin wouldn't have beaten Florida State if they played in Iceland.
Minnesota/Kansas, etc., etc., etc.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
I'd like to oversimplify this thing -- weather.
1) Nicer weather = more time playing sports outside = larger pool of middle school and high school talent = greater competition against which to hone skills = greater pool from which to cherry pick talent at the college level.
2) Bowl games are always played in environments that suit good weather programs. I disagree that Texas would kill Ohio State on a frozen tundra. I think USC playing in Ann Arbor on January 1st would freeze its butt off and struggle against Penn State. I still think they would compete and succeed at times (see point 1), but the scores would be lowered, and it would turn into a power game.
3) Kids that grow up in the cold like warm places. If I had a choice as a five star recruit from Alaska (no emotional connections to any legit team) to play against good talent in the big ten or against the best talent in the world in sunny Florida, ummm, easy answer.
There is no real solution to this except for national recruiting strategy, player development, and the big ten coming together to lock it's doors on the best players. Jim Tressell should encourage all players that don't choose Ohio State to choose another big ten program, kids like Nick Perry should not be at USC, they should be at Wisconsin, Illinois, etc... As a conference we need to protect our borders better. The SEC recruits as a block -- similar to how they vote, coincidentally -- and it works.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 PM ^
I think OSU will beat Texas. Consider the two times they've met in recent seasons. I think Ohio State was the stronger team both times; first time in Columbus, the difference was Vince Young's last minute heroics, the same reason Texas defeated Michigan and USC in games where they were mostly outplayed. The second time Ohio State went down to Austin, faced a VY-less Longhorns squad and dominated. Granted, Colt McCoy has made himself into an elite QB this year, and Texas did beat Oklahoma, should have probably gone undefeated; but I think you might be surprised to see how much stronger the Bucks will be upfront. And Tressel has to pull out all the stops with Pryor and Boeckman and Wells and co. against a meh Texas defense, no?
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
Maybe, maybe not. But I would pay top dollar to see them try and then I would have no problem with everyone saying the Big 10 sucks. My point is until it is actually done (a team from down south or out west) coming to the midwest in Dec/Jan and winning, I will always argue against location/travel. The problem is it's never the other way around so you having to to compare...
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Sorta unfair to say OSU are losers since they haven't lost yet. Of course, I hope they get the snot beaten out of them by TEXAS and TEXAS introduces TP to smelling salt.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:15 PM ^
The B10 as a whole... maybe. But OUR record vs. SEC schools in bowls is pretty damn good.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
This is one of the worst Big Ten seasons in recent memory, but I think we did get the short end of the stick a bit in our matchups. I don't think OSU deserved to be in a BCS bowl, so if you pair them against UGA in the Cap One Bowl, that could have gone the other way. If you then bump each team down one bowl, the Big Ten could very well have gone .500 or better in bowls this year, despite how crappy we are this year.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:02 PM ^
that South Carolina shouldn't have been in that bowl against Iowa, which was the Big Ten's only victory.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:51 PM ^
reason for a single season's results?
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 PM ^
also in the thread was a statement that this is a trend, not a single season. The stats offered were only the latest examples of what IMO is the status quo.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:29 PM ^
to my knowledge, there's no support for your belief.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:58 PM ^
although the last couple of years bowl records, in fact over the years of this decade, would I believe disagree with you. I would love to see the support for the belief that the B10 is in fact equal to those conferences--best of luck.
January 2nd, 2009 at 4:06 PM ^
i've read it and have no desire to track it down for you.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 PM ^
The Big Ten is lacking quickness in the trenches. That is what it comes down to. We get wrapped up in all this speed, speed, speed talk but the fact is that all schools have speed. It's the elite schools that have speed up front. Games are won by the HEAVIES. (I think I have said that before)
RR is bringing his culture in and changing this. As I was watching the bowls this year, I was very excited. It is clearly evident that RR is changing this B10 expectation. There is a reason UofM was removed from the bowls. There is a shift in culture and us missing the bowl was a bi-product of this. That is the best way I can explain it. Maybe not the clearest but I think you get my point.
The trenches are where the Barwis Effect will be most noticable.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
Gotta agree. The OL and DL need to be a lot faster. That was all to obvious watching USC dominate PSU. I wonder what RR was thinking while watching that game?
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
More than anything, the Big 10's matchups just haven't been very good. There have been a lot of GOOD teams in the Big 10 the last few years, but no GREAT teams (with the possible exception of Michigan and Ohio State in '06, who both ran into buzzsaws in their bowl games) -- so in that regard, you're right about the talent level at the very top being pretty big.
I think a big chunk of it is the recruiting bases, because let's be realistic: How many top-25 guys are Florida, Oklahoma, Texas and USC (especially) getting compared to Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State? A lot more, in part because of their location.
I would agree that at this point the Big 12 and SEC are pretty comfortably the two best conferences, but I think the Big 10 and Pac-10 are about equal. I live in Arizona and see plenty of Pac-10 football, and Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA and even Oregon State are no better than your Northwesterns or Wisconsins. Without USC, it would be considered the ACC West.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:00 PM ^
The Big Ten struggles in bowl games for many reasons. On the surface, geography would seem to be No. 1. The cold. Traveling half to all the way across the country to play at team virtually if not completely playing a home game has much to do with the perception. The conference itself is the main problem. (See below)
The B10 has a huge disadvantage in the Rose Bowl almost every year. USC is far and away the class of the P10 and plays a home game at the RB. The Florida bowl games are less of a disadvantage for the B10 because the opponents are not usually a Florida team. The geography is more of a disadvantage in recruiting and the style of player the B10 goes after. Bigger, "tougher" and generally slower than the SEC, Big 12 and P10. Also the geography forces the conference end the season earlier (this is the real problem).
The B10 best teams are close to on par with the SEC and P10 at the top skill positions. Where the B10 fails miserably is the first level of backups. The B10 backups are thicker and slower than the backups for the USCs and Floridas that we face in BCS and other bowl games.
The biggest failure of the B10 is the scheduling. No, not the opponents, but the timing. The Big Ten schedule ends the Saturday BEFORE Thanksgiving. The SEC, Big 12 and PAC-10 play anywhere from 2-3 weeks longer than the B10. That 3 weeks for USC, the SEC champ and B12 champ are the largest, most predictable outcome changer for the Big 10. Your talking about three weeks of REAL practice with a goal to attain and an opponent to measure your team against week after week.
I like tradition as much as any other Michigan or Big Ten fan, but this big, slow conference needs to get into the 21st century. Move the end of the season two weeks later. Add a bye week or two or start the season a week later. I'm not a proponent of a conference championship game at all, but the schedule needs to be changed to close the gap. The 5-6 week layoff compared to the B12 or SEC 3-week is a HUGE advantage for the other conferences. We don't have to end the season the weekend before T'giving.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
Look at the line up of coaches in the SEC. Those schools have dedicated more capital to paying for quality coaches than any other league. That is why the SEC performs at a very high level every year. Ron Zook got blown out of UF, but he landed in the Big Ten, and appears to have stuck. Saban was in the Big Ten, but wound up at LSU (and now Alabama). Four coaches in the SEC have NCs (five if you count Fulmer).
The Big 12 is dominated by two schools, Texas and Oklahoma. Both schools have excellent coaches. If Mizzou, TT, and OSU remain competitive, we will need to see if they can retain their coaches.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:19 PM ^
Yeah, but if Carr was still at UM the B10 would have 3 coaches w/ NC's
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
are also a big factor, but that culture is changing. Most teams are running a "spread" type of offense. The 3 yards and a cloud of dust is dying out.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:06 PM ^
With the exception of Wisconsin, who seemed to have missed that "memo".
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
...were unfavorable as everyone has noted. With the ACC only getting VT to a BCS bowl, and the B10 getting two (tO$U does not deserve to be in the Fiesta Bowl), it bumped up a lot of teams to play higher seeded counterparts. FSU was a much better team than Wisky, KU than Minny, UGA than MSU. Iowa always seems to do its part, and USC (NTUSC) is just not very good (and this year was no exception). The only reason the Cap One Bowl wasn't a blowout was UGA shooting itself in the foot w/ dumb turnovers (hey, that sounds familiar...) throughout the game.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:05 PM ^
MSU would have had a chance against South Carolina. No one in Big Ten has a chance against USC, Texas, Florida or Oklahoma. We don't have the speed on defense or the same quality of QB.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^
Maybe the Big Ten just ain't getting the TALENT other teams are getting.
How many kids decommitted from USC, Florida and Oklahomo this year?
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:11 PM ^
I am generally not that impressed with the Pac-10. USC has won it 7 years running now, and in the absence of a couple of game breakers every few years (Dennis Dixon being our most relevant recent example), the rest of the league doesn't really scare me.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 PM ^
Yes, it's all about matchups and timing. The Pac-10 is what 5-0,6-0(?) in bowls this year but Penn State destroyed their #2 team Oregon State.
The Big Ten sells too well and we get bumped up into bowls we're not ready for. Plus the league is pretty soft in the middle these last few years.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
I definitely agree that it seems our overall record is somewhat due to the bumping everyone up in their matchups. Think about it, not only are teams bumpued up a bowl with the big ten having two BCS teams this year, but typically Michigan is also present in the bowl scenario which could really be a 2 bowl game swing in terms of where the other big ten teams should match up. It's not like the other schools have gotten all that much better, it's that we sucked it up this year and as a result caused another game to shift. So the big ten teams should be at least one and arguably two games lower (depending on the team; obviously not OSU or Penn State) in the bowls. I think it is the same general idea as to why ND finally won a bowl game, because they were playing a team which they could match up with instead of getting the bogus BCS bid.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
This is kinda off topic but we should play some SEC or B12 conference teams in the Big House. Usually our nonconf schedule is full of crap teams. Just a thought...
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
When the conference sends two teams to BCS bowls, it almost always does poorly, as everyone gets placed up a notch. But Big Ten teams travel well to bowls, so it'll keep on happening as long as we qualify two teams for the BCS.
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^
and does pretty well
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:18 PM ^
The SEC is better than us. I don't dispute that. But I definitely think we'd do better if we weren't bumped up a slot on a near-annual basis.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:40 PM ^
Part of the reason we always look bad is USC. I'd like for some SEC Champ to have to go 2,000+ miles to the most distracting city on Earth to play an NFL-talent laden USC in a home bowl game that they win 73% of the time the play in it. ...and sometimes send their 2nd best team (2006, 2007) to play them.
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
did it.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
I think Texas will expose OSU's lack of speed and it won't be close. Beanie Wells will have to have a monster game to keep OSU in it. If he does, then Pryor might get a chance to get the ball downfield. I doubt it though.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
We go to Oregon and get beat. Harrington
Oregon comes to Ann Arbor and we get beat. Dixon
Not bowl games....
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 PM ^
beat USC in a shootout. The Big Ten hasn't won a rose Bowl in 10 years. That's pretty pathetic.
If the cold weather theory is correct barometer of talent migrating south from a recruiting standpoint, in 10 years the Big Ten would be completely irrelevant because the losing would snowball and the talent would all defect or never be here in the first place.
I still say schedule timing has something to do with it. We need to move the B-10 schedule at least a week or so later.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
...the Big Ten season starts a week later than it previously has, pushing The Game to the weekend of Thanksgiving. This coincides with every other conference's last week of regular season games (save for the Pac-10). Conferences that have a championship game will still end their seasons a week later than the B10, but at least there won't be that 2-week gap of no one seeing a B10 team play while other conferences are still going at it.
January 2nd, 2009 at 1:56 PM ^
How many GREAT quarterbacks have come out of the Big10 as a whole lately? Not many. Troy Smith, Chad Henne (as good as he was, I feel like I'm already stretching), Drew Tate? Most teams in the Big10 haven't been able to field truly great quarterbacks in quite some time. The three yards and a cloud of dust concepts are still much stronger here than they are anywhere else in the country. Part of this is a factor of weather. Part of this is that the Big10 footprint/recruiting grounds have recently not been the strongest quarterback states.
My perception has been that the Big10 schools didn't really start recruiting the South and West hard until the late 90s. Some of the smaller schools really didn't catch on until much later. Until we are able to convince the great quarterbacks to come north, or the northern states start developing better quarterbacks, it will continue this way. Right now the conference is just playing to its recruiting strengths: Midwest/Northern recruits from run heavy high schools. (this is a generalization, I do realize not everyone is from the Midwest/Northern school)
Until then, we will retain run heavy teams like Wisconsin, Ohio State, Michigan State, Michigan, Iowa etc. We will continue not to be tested against the pass in conference games. We will hope and pray our defenses will be good when they face a real passing threat. (This is pretty much what happened with Penn State this year, they faced no good quarterbacks, first time they do, their weak secondary is exposed.)
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
I agree but to be fair to Penn State's passing defense, Sanchez was absolutely ridiculously accurate last night. I don't think anyone could have stopped him the way he was threading the needle.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
accurate because his guys were wide open all day. Early on he threaded a couple of needles, but as the game went on the USC receivers were more and more open, including Ronald Johnson (traitor) who had no one within 10 yards when he caught his touchdown.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:30 PM ^
Wasn't Ryan Mallett one of the top-rated qb's in the country, and from Texas? We got him to come north. Also, Forcier's from California.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
...Texarkana, Texas, and yes, he was one of the highest-rated QBs in the 2007 class.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^
I was talking about the conference as a whole. If we can start getting better quarterback play across the conference, it would improve. And yes, that is a big IF.
January 2nd, 2009 at 2:59 PM ^
So I went through the BCS teams to try and get a better grasp of where I think the Big10 stands. This is all my subjective opinions on how the teams compared to each other this year. I admittedly starting getting a little lazy and frustrated with the lower levels.
Teams on the same level are fairly even in my opinion.
| Big12 | SEC | ACC | Big10 | Pac10 | BigEast |
| Oklahoma | Florida | USC | |||
| Texas | |||||
| Texas Tech | Alabama | ||||
| Mizzou | Georgia | VT | Penn State | OR St | |
| Ok State | GT | OSU | Oregon | ||
| FSU | Mich State | CAL | Cinny | ||
| Nebraska | Vandy | BC | Iowa | Arizona | Pitt |
| Kansas | Ole Miss | UNC | WVU | ||
| LSU | UMD | NU | Stanford | Rutgers | |
| Baylor | South Carolina | Wake | Minnesota | AzState | UCONN |
| Miami | |||||
| Clemson | Wisconsin | S. Florida | |||
| NCSU | |||||
| Auburn | UVa | Illinois | |||
| Texas A&M | Tennessee | Purdue | UCLA | Louisville | |
| Colorado | Arkansas | Michigan | |||
| Kan State | Kentucky | ||||
| Miss St | |||||
| Duke | Indiana | Wazzou | Syracuse | ||
| Iowa State | Wash |
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:20 PM ^
Interesting chart! I'd make a couple changes, though. PSU should be on Texas Tech's level, not Missouri's. And Iowa is better than MSU. MSU beat them 16-13 in East Lansing, in a fluky game in which Iowa massively outgained Sparty but committed costly turnovers (and then Ferentz had a brain fart at the end of regulation and passed on a FG attempt).
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
Yeah, I was kind of conflicted on Sparty and Iowa. I think they are a somewhat wash. I just gave MSU the edge due to the win. As far as Mizzou vs PSU, I think its a wash there as well (hence tied). Mizzou has a slight advantage at QB and WR. PSU has a slight advantage on RBs. I guess the PSU lines may warrant them moving up to the Tech level.
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:43 PM ^
- Kids from cold climates like to leave for warm climates, kids from warm climates like to stay in warm climates.
- Kids growing up can play football outdoors all year long in warm weather. They don't have to drop it for 6 months to go inside and play hoops.
- Bowl games are usually in the opponents house, in weather and locations that they are already adjusted to. A sunny 70 degree day in a bowl game feels oppressive when you are a 300lb. lineman that has acclimated to 20 degrees. Also, if you are a California kid or a Florida kid, you probably have already seen Disneyland and Seaworld. These things are not distractions.
- Style of play - B10 teams have long emphasized a ground control game in part to not be impacted by the weather in the B10 in October/November. This has been changing thanks to Joe Tiller and others who have shown that you can still have a wide open arial attack in less than perfect weather.
- B10 teams have generally higher standards, making it harder to recruit kids that just want to go to NFL Trade School. We're not talking Harvard here, but it is nowhere near the free-for-all that they have in the SEC, B12, and parts of the PAC10 and ACC.
- 40+ day bowl game layoffs.
- B10 teams are well-supported, despite their shortcomings on the national stage. This means that they play in much better bowls than they should (Notre Dame also has this issue). This year is a perfect example, every team except PSU should have played down one bowl game level.
- This is not a statement but a question - does the B10 have a drug testing program? Because it sure looks like USC et al certainly do not.
Are these things "solveable"? No, not totally. B10 schools will never have the natural advantages that USC, Florida, TX, Miami have. It is something we will have to work around, changing what we can.
Some progress IS being made. If PSU can come out of the dark ages, then it shows it can be done. RichRod and the Zooker add to this. The 40+ day bowl game layoffs are about to end. Global warming will help - what the hell we already stuck with it, might as well have some upside.
Nevertheless, we have to be realistic. The best we can hope for is that a B10 team is in the NC picture once or twice a decade and can actually win it. An occasional Rose Bowl victory would be nice too as the rest of the Pac10 catches up a litle with USC and drains some of that 5-deep talent away.
January 2nd, 2009 at 3:54 PM ^
Small quibble, but the ACC is, at least, as good an academic conference as the Big 10, if not better.