The Big Ten Is Irrelevant - Again

[Mike80]

I don't know about disband, but admit defeat....I think we are all starting to do just that. And that's prolly a good thing.

A little acceptance might be good. I don't know when things will really change since this is likely a problem where the B1G isn't investing the money in coaching that it needs to. I suppose none of us know if or when that will change.

I think that beyond Ohio State, scUM and maybe the Pedsters, the Big Ten is a dying conference for football. Ohio is the only real football state left in the conference.

It goes beyond admitting defeat. The self review process will result in even less emphasis on athletics, not more. Think Chicago.

 

[NFBuck]

I think that beyond Ohio State, scUM and maybe the Pedsters, the Big Ten is a dying conference for football. Ohio is the only real football state left in the conference.

It goes beyond admitting defeat. The self review process will result in even less emphasis on athletics, not more. Think Chicago.

I'd throw scUM into the dying heap. They're a thoroughly mediocre program at this point with an AD that seems more intereted in cronyism than actually restoring the program. If they do can Hoke, I don't see him as the kind of guy that can make an inspiring hire like, say, FSU did with Fisher or Auburn with Malzahn. They're a broken down, 60 year old man trying to keep pace with a bunch of olympic sprinters in the CFB world.

 

[Mike80]

I'd throw scUM into the dying heap. They're a thoroughly mediocre program at this point with an AD that seems more intereted in cronyism than actually restoring the program. If they do can Hoke, I don't see him as the kind of guy that can make an inspiring hire like, say, FSU did with Fisher or Auburn with Malzahn. They're a broken down, 60 year old man trying to keep pace with a bunch of olympic sprinters in the CFB world.

So you're saying they are Ric Flair circa 2006? Yeah I can see it.

 

[matcar]

I think it's freaking hard to win a title and making that your sole metric will result in ESPN-approved cynicism and a complete inability to enjoy OSU sports 99.9% of the time.

FSU kept their head down and kept chugging away and eventually got over the hump (helped in part by contractual protection by ESPN when it came to discussing let alone routinely mocking their - and the ACC's - mediocrity).

It has taken Oregon decades with spectacular facilities, uniforms, bag men to get over the hump by my standards and still fall short of LJB's golden standard. I seriously doubt they even reach this plateau if scandals do not force their big brother out of the western market (and send him to Seattle).

I think Michigan needs more self-review (and they're getting it).

I think PSU needed it 10 years ago and is right where they need to be now.

I think OSU will continue to self assess under Meyer and are doing a pretty good job with room for improvement.


I think the rest of the conference is largely garbage and no amount of self review will change their local talent & bagmen deficiencies. I think they could improve their facilities and coaching to become more like Iowa in slightly good years, but most will never be strong teams.

Can MSU & UW get much better? Or are they close to maximizing their abilities? Maybe slightly better recruiting but they have serious deficiencies that they've overcome already.

Yes it's hard to win a title. I don't really expect much of that, but this conference hasn't been particularly competitive for quite a while. It goes beyond just not winning the title.

 

[jwinslow]

Yes it's hard to win a title. I don't really expect much of that, but this conference hasn't been particularly competitive for quite a while. It goes beyond just not winning the title.

Which is why I severely rebuke a 'no titles, end of story' approach to the basketball conference. I think there's plenty of valid criticism for the football league, though it feels rather worn out at this point.

I think this was a woodshed weekend for the league and Michigan is not going to settle for Brady Hoke's Michimanity any longer. PSU just got an enormous shot in the arm from the lifted sanctions and despite the painful outcome, there was finally notable progress on defense for OSU. All need to keep making big strides but I like the upside of PSU & OSU far better than in 2011. What Michigan does remains to be seen. Ironically the best hire they could make could also be more of the same Michimanity cronyism that has plagued their program over the past few decades.

 

[Poe McKnoe]

I think the B1G needs a couple Tuesday night games against MAC schools to set things on the right course.


And by MAC schools, I meant the bad ones. Against the best B1G teams. That SHOULD provide an adequate margin of safety.


/Sarcasm

 

[BayBuck]

Ok so the Big Ten should disband and admit defeat I guess

It's official.

 

[Mike80]

It goes beyond admitting defeat though. Do you lay down and accept it or do you fight until the bitter end? I'd personally fight until the bitter end, but at some point the revenues drop, the costs will only continue to go up and eventually someone will hit the eject button.

 

[Bucky32]

I would say Ohio State is obviously the best Big Ten team since 2000 (arbitrary starting point but so what). A national championship and five BCS bowl wins, as well as the third-highest winning percentage nationally over that stretch is pretty darn good. No debate there.

After that, it's not pretty. Penn State has two BCS wins but their reputation has obviously been torpedoed with the JoePa saga. Wisconsin's three straight Rose Bowl losses were a big fail. Nebraska has continually slipped up on the national stage and were doing that even before joining the conference. No explanation needed for Michigan. Michigan State flies under the radar a bit and has improved drastically since hiring Dantonio, but the seasons under John L. Smith were lost years basically.

As it stands, the conference desperately needs Michigan and Penn State to return to their winning ways. I essentially see Wisconsin and Nebraska in the same boat despite taking different roads to get there. Their success would be nice for the perception of the depth of the conference but it's not absolutely necessary. Michigan State looks primed to ascend to a top-tier team and are acting like it; go check out the kids Dantonio is pulling in.

Basically I believe the future of the conference lies in the East teams regaining their former stature. If the top West teams can contribute, great. But the conference has a Michigan and Penn State problem, not a Wisconsin and Nebraska problem.

 

[LordJeffBuck]

Make sure to follow BuckeyePlanet on Twitter: https://twitter.com/buckeyeplanet

And retweet!

 

[Woody1968]

I would say Ohio State is obviously the best Big Ten team since 2000 (arbitrary starting point but so what). A national championship and five BCS bowl wins, as well as the third-highest winning percentage nationally over that stretch is pretty darn good. No debate there.

After that, it's not pretty. Penn State has two BCS wins but their reputation has obviously been torpedoed with the JoePa saga. Wisconsin's three straight Rose Bowl losses were a big fail. Nebraska has continually slipped up on the national stage and were doing that even before joining the conference. No explanation needed for Michigan. Michigan State flies under the radar a bit and has improved drastically since hiring Dantonio, but the seasons under John L. Smith were lost years basically.

As it stands, the conference desperately needs Michigan and Penn State to return to their winning ways. I essentially see Wisconsin and Nebraska in the same boat despite taking different roads to get there. Their success would be nice for the perception of the depth of the conference but it's not absolutely necessary. Michigan State looks primed to ascend to a top-tier team and are acting like it; go check out the kids Dantonio is pulling in.

Basically I believe the future of the conference lies in the East teams regaining their former stature. If the top West teams can contribute, great. But the conference has a Michigan and Penn State problem, not a Wisconsin and Nebraska problem.

I was looking back on 1998 - I believe we won all our bowl games that year. and I am pretty sure that the conference remained pretty strong until around 2004-2005. That is about the time it started to dip in quality, but you could easily argue that the SEC was a weaker conference in general in the late 1990s. despite Florida and Tennessee winning titles, because those two teams were generally so much better than any of the other SEC teams, there was little competition. So that leaves us with a decline in the past 10 years, in which some moderately successful coaches left or retired. I'm thinking Carr and Tiller.

Overall, I think adding MD and Rutgers is going to be a mistake long term. The conference needs to suck it up and get a football school or two with its last two slots.

 

[matcar]

Which is why I severely rebuke a 'no titles, end of story' approach to the basketball conference. I think there's plenty of valid criticism for the football league, though it feels rather worn out at this point.

I think this was a woodshed weekend for the league and Michigan is not going to settle for Brady Hoke's Michimanity any longer. PSU just got an enormous shot in the arm from the lifted sanctions and despite the painful outcome, there was finally notable progress on defense for OSU. All need to keep making big strides but I like the upside of PSU & OSU far better than in 2011. What Michigan does remains to be seen. Ironically the best hire they could make could also be more of the same Michimanity cronyism that has plagued their program over the past few decades.

I get your point about title or busy but you brought that comment on by bringing up the SEC as if they are less relevant in basketball. Yes, they have some doormats, but their top tier keeps them relevant. I wish the B1G could say the same in football but they really can't. Look, I'll admit that I'm doom and gloom at this point, but I really think it's warranted. I always expected tOSU to lose 3-4 games this year so I can get with that (although I don't see the defensive improvement that you and most others see). But the rest of the conference is even worse than I thought and with the exception of PSU and us, I don't see where we should expect a lot of improvement.

Folks often seem to think the media has failed to give the B1G any credit, my feeling is that the media has been largely correct while we have lived in a bubble denying the truth. This weekend, maybe the bubble burst.

 

[jwinslow]

I get your point about title or busy but you brought that comment on by bringing up the SEC as if they are less relevant in basketball. Yes, they have some doormats, but their top tier keeps them relevant.

If OSU had won vs UF like they should have done, would the league actually stop stinking? Or would the chatter simply change? (ie USC, FSU, Miami before the SEC).[quote
Folks often seem to think the media has failed to give the B1G any credit, my feeling is that the media has been largely correct while we have lived in a bubble denying the truth. This weekend, maybe the bubble burst.[/QUOTE]
I think the media has identified very real warts (and OSU has slid enough to remove any objections). My complaint about them is that they're willfully ignorant about warts elsewhere in CFB due to financial interests.

 

[cincibuck]

But we kickin' some ass in research dollars. In 2011 the Big Ten placed 13 of 14 schools in the top 60 public universities for research. Michigan 1, Minnie 8, Ohio State 11, Wisconsin 12, Purdue 13, Michigan State14, Penn State 19, Illinois 21, Iowa 23, Indiana 28, Rutgers 38, Maryland 61 - Northwestern placed 9th overall when private AND public schools were listed.
Nebraska couldn't be found so they better start kickin' some ass in football.

As a conference, only the PAC 14 compares. Texas does very well - in the top 10. But in the SEC only two public schools are mentioned: Florida at 47 and Kentucky at 68 (UK has some of the best research facilities and faculty in two areas: Horses and Tobacco) and of course Vandy does well as a private school. The ACC is led by UNC - Duke and NCSU, helped greatly by the research triangle bank rolled by the state some 30 years ago - but now threatened by a tea party guv who wants to cut back on upper ed. Pitt is very strong and FSU shows up in the top 50. UVA and Va Tech are mentioned - UVA perhaps limited by its emphasis as a top liberal arts program as opposed to research.

http://mup.asu.edu/research2012.pdf

Similar results would be found if we went into comparisons of undergrad and grad programs, if we looked at AVG student SAT scores, if we looked at faculty rankings. In terms of what the schools add to the economic strength and education levels of their respective regions we have a tremendous asset in Big Ten schools.

 

[jwinslow]

I was looking back on 1998 - I believe we won all our bowl games that year. and I am pretty sure that the conference remained pretty strong until around 2004-2005. That is about the time it started to dip in quality, but you could easily argue that the SEC was a weaker conference in general in the late 1990s. despite Florida and Tennessee winning titles, because those two teams were generally so much better than any of the other SEC teams, there was little competition. So that leaves us with a decline in the past 10 years, in which some moderately successful coaches left or retired. I'm thinking Carr and Tiller.

Overall, I think adding MD and Rutgers is going to be a mistake long term. The conference needs to suck it up and get a football school or two with its last two slots.

The problem is they just did that. Nebraska was not a good fit athletically or academically. Like many OOC games scheduled for future greatness, it didn't pan out like we had hoped.

Many want to add ND or Texas, but the instant they join, ESPN and others will suddenly start banging on their warts non-stop (despite having very large ones for most of the past decade).