• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

B1G teams and their SEC counterpart

Nutriaitch

Retired Super Hero
i'm bored and I drink too much.
during my latest binge, I decide to match up the B1G schools with their counterparts from the SEC.

would love to hear some of y'all chime in and offer up your own pairings as well.

  • Bama/Ohio St - Historically dominant. Up near top again as always
  • Auburn/Wisconsin - Solid, but universally considered just below the top tier. and this pisses them off
  • Florida/Michigan - once proud programs currently floundering around in their own liquified shit
  • Tennessee/Nebraska - stack up historically with the best of them, but mired in mediocrity due to poor coaching fires & hires.
  • Ole Miss/Illinois - a brief moments of glory, a whole lot of crap
  • Kentucky/Indiana - is it basketball season yet?
  • USCe/Penn St. - despite some success, neither truly feels like part of the conference.
  • Georgia/Michigan St. - always in the discussion nationally while somehow never being in the discussion nationally. all at the same time.
  • LSU/Iowa - not really a match, but everyone else was taken.
  • Arky/Minny - National title in the 60s. not a lot to brag about since then.
  • Miss St/Purdue - Haley's comet is seen more often than 10 win seasons.
  • Vandy/Northwestern - smart kids that typically get beat up by the cool kids
  • A&M/Maryland - was never top dog in their old conferences, "but hey everybody, look at us! we're in a new conference now! please love us!"
  • Missouri/Rutgers - nothing about adding these teams seems to make any sense whatsoever.
 
Your pairing only reaffirms my belief on how god awful the B1G really is.
I think it highlights more than anything the different attitudes in each conference.

I don't interact much with Wisconsin fans, but I honestly don't think many if them care that much that they are considered second tier... they take their Rose Bowl run once or twice a decade and happily eat sausage and drink beer. They backed their way into a nice four year run and should be happy until next decade.

Michigan should be paired with Georgia and Florida since their problems are a fun combination of academic and moral standards Georgia style with a total cluster fuck of leadership Florida style.

I would put Michigan State with Auburn- dangerous and able to win thanks to having lower standards than everyone else to the point that they will literally take anyone and everyone who can't get past admissions at other conference schools.

If Illinois cared/cheated one fourth as much as Ole Miss/Miss St have to get to the top, they would be an extremely dangerous college football team thanks to the Chicago recruiting base.

I think that more than anything highlights the differences in attitudes between conferences. Even without the whole cheating thing, the Big Ten teams just don't care enough to invest the money in coaches and facilities to be good. I mean, every last one of them is currently getting crushed by Kentucky recruiting the state of Ohio.
 
Upvote 0
And before anyone points it out, Michigan's standards are selectively applied. They are the most important thing in the world when they are trying to run Rodriguez out of town, but they are perfectly okay playing convicted felons and rapists when they have their Michigan Man at the helm... until they start losing.

This highlights the leadership issue they have.
 
Upvote 0
  • Florida/Michigan - once proud programs currently floundering around in their own liquified [Mark May]
Ummm, no. ttun has had decades of football dominance and tradition, with 11 national titles and 42 Big Ten titles (more than I thought). Florida has a whopping 3 national titles 8 SEC championships. TTUN flat out dominated FIVE DECADES from 1900 to 1950. Florida sort of dominated 1 1/2, just the ones that are more current.

To sum it up ttun wishes they were Florida.

If anything ttun is more like Tennessee, programs that have had wonderful lives but their graves had been dug a long time ago. May they rest in peace.
 
Upvote 0
Ummm, no. ttun has had decades of football dominance and tradition, with 11 national titles and 42 Big Ten titles (more than I thought). Florida has a whopping 3 national titles 8 SEC championships. TTUN flat out dominated FIVE DECADES from 1900 to 1950. Florida sort of dominated 1 1/2, just the ones that are more current.

To sum it up ttun wishes they were Florida.

If anything ttun is more like Tennessee, programs that have had wonderful lives but their graves had been dug a long time ago. May they rest in peace.

You're right, although I'd say Michigan dominated from 1879 to 1925. For all their history and gloating about championships, they've only got 1 1/2 AP titles to their name. Michigan probably does wish they were Florida.
 
Upvote 0
Honestly, I don't see how anyone could improve on this one. :bow:
I do. Florida had their 15 minutes of fame under Meyer and sourpuss. They were able to do it because Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee were out wandering around.

Once Saban was in Florida was out.

The Big Ten has four programs that over time will be dominant. Four teams have the history, money, fan base, facilities and the will to be consistently near the top of national rankings: OSU,UM, PSU, Nebraska. I give the SEC 5: alabama, auburn, LSU, Tennessee, Georgia.

The strange part is that this decade has been one in which the other, lesser programs of the Big Ten been able to rise while Michigan, penn state and Nebraska rebuild. In another 10 years MSU and Wisconsin will be back to 2nd tier.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
  • Bama/Ohio St - Historically dominant. Up near top again as always
Probably the easiest comparison.
  • Kentucky/Indiana - is it basketball season yet?
  • Vandy/Northwestern - smart kids that typically get beat up by the cool kids
Two perfect matches.

  • Auburn/Wisconsin - Solid, but universally considered just below the top tier. and this pisses them off
I would say that the historical comparison would be Florida/Wisconsin, as both teams were mediocre prior to the 1990s, and have improved greatly since then.

Prior to 1993, Wisconsin had an overall record of 468-400-49 (.537, 62nd among FBS teams), with 8 conference titles.
From 1993 to 2013, Wisconsin had an overall record of 184-80-4 (.694, 14th among FBS team), with 6 conference titles.

Prior to 1990, Florida had an overall record of 452-322-39 (.580, 42nd among FBS teams), with 0 conference titles.
From 1990 to 2013, Florida had an overall 232-73-1 (.760, 4th among FBS teams), with 7 conference titles and 3 national championships.

  • Arky/Minny - National title in the 60s. not a lot to brag about since then.
From 1900 to 1941, Minnesota was a true football powerhouse, with an overall record of 248-68-22 (.766, 3rd in FBS behind Notre Dame and Michigan), and 17 Big Ten titles and five national championships.

From 1942 to 2013, Minnesota had an overall record of 353-398-16 (.471, 80th in FBS), and two Big Ten titles, the last of which came in 1967. Minnesota's collapse is unprecedented in college football.

Arkansas had one great year (1964) and not much else before or since (13 SWC conference championships; .590 winning percentage, 28th in FBS).
  • Florida/Michigan - once proud programs currently floundering around in their own liquified [Mark May]
From 1898 to 1948, Michigan was arguably the greatest team in college football, with a .786 winning percentage (2nd in FBS behind Notre Dame) and 18 Big Ten titles and 10 national championships.

Since 1948, Michigan is definitely the most overrated team in college football, with 1/2 a national championship in 1997. Michigan has been living off its reputation for a very long time.

As mentioned above, Florida was pretty much crap until 1990 and has been elite since then (although Muschamp is doing his best to return the Gators to mediocrity).
  • Tennessee/Nebraska - stack up historically with the best of them, but mired in mediocrity due to poor coaching fires & hires.
  • Ole Miss/Illinois - a brief moments of glory, a whole lot of crap
  • Miss St/Purdue - Haley's comet is seen more often than 10 win seasons.
These are all pretty good comparisons, but I will note that Illinois had four national championships between 1914 and 1927.
  • USCe/Penn St. - despite some success, neither truly feels like part of the conference.
An interesting take on conference compatibility, but Penn State (.688 winning percentage, #9 in FBS, four national championships) has been FAR better on the field than South Carolina (.515 winning percentage, #68 in FBS, no national championships).
  • Georgia/Michigan St. - always in the discussion nationally while somehow never being in the discussion nationally. all at the same time.
A pretty good comparison.

Georgia has an overall .647 winning percentage (#13 in FBS) with two national championships

Michigan State has an overall .597 winning percentage (#25 in FBS) with four national championships
  • LSU/Iowa - not really a match, but everyone else was taken.
Kirk Ferentz is a way better coach than Les Miles. Waaaaay better. Ferentz has not one, not two, but three Big Ten Coach of the Year Awards, which is more than Woody Hayes, Jim Tressel, and Urban Meyer combined.

  • A&M/Maryland - was never top dog in their old conferences, "but hey everybody, look at us! we're in a new conference now! please love us!"
  • Missouri/Rutgers - nothing about adding these teams seems to make any sense whatsoever.
Who cares about the new kids on the block?
 
Upvote 0
  • Missouri/Rutgers - nothing about adding these teams seems to make any sense whatsoever.

It makes sense if you remember that the only reason we have Rutgers is for one single reason: $$$$$

The Big Ten conference is more concered about money than it is wins. They have successfully covered all of the major northern US tv markets:

Northwestern - Chicago
Michigan - Detroit
Purdue & Indiana - Indianapolis
Maryland - Washington DC
Rutgers - New York City

I like your pairings though. Pretty accurate IMO.
 
Upvote 0
It makes sense if you remember that the only reason we have Rutgers is for one single reason: $$$$$

The Big Ten conference is more concered about money than it is wins. They have successfully covered all of the major northern US tv markets:

Northwestern - Chicago
Michigan - Detroit
Purdue & Indiana - Indianapolis
Maryland - Washington DC
Rutgers - New York City

I like your pairings though. Pretty accurate IMO.

Actually, the great diaspora of Big Ten alumni in Chicago do more to lock down Chicago than does NW. Far more, and arguably more than NW and UofI combined.
 
Upvote 0
Actually, the great diaspora of Big Ten alumni in Chicago do more to lock down Chicago than does NW. Far more, and arguably more than NW and UofI combined.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The schools of Northwestern and Illinois themselves don't lock down Chicago. Its the fact that these schools - much like Rutgers and Maryland - are pumping out alumni that work in these large markets (Chicago, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, etc) and its suburbs. With that comes the demand to carry the Big Ten Network. Its all about the B1G branding and the Big Ten Network right now is a money sucker. Its deal with Fox Sports and the addition of 2 more schools have completely taken over half of the major available markets.

Think about it, the leftover large markets are spread out amongst the rest of the big conferences:

LA - Pac 12
Atlanta - SEC
Miami - ACC
Dallas - Big 12
Boston - ACC

The Big Ten is the most profitable conference because of a strategic expansion. Even though the SEC is teamed with ESPN, the B1G still comes in at $45 million more dollars in the TV Market this year.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Back
Top