The Big Ten Is Irrelevant - Again

[matcar]

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.

We got our ass handed to us by Florida. I don't know if we SHOULD have won that or not but the result was on the field so I have a real hard time blaming the media for factoring that into their evaluation....I think they are very right to do that and we are the ones who should better factor that.

 

[Bucky32]

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.

Yup, did pretty darn well in the 1999 bowl season (5-2) and 2002 (5-2 with an OSU national title).

The bolded remains to be seen, though right now I'm inclined to agree with you. Delany essentially added another Illinois and Purdue to the conference, only with more potential eyeballs on them.

 

[BUCKYLE]

Down? Sure. Need to pay big money to coaches and let bag men do their thing? Definitely.

Irrelevant? Then why does NW make more off an older tv deal than any team in the SEC?

 

[jwinslow]

We got our ass handed to us by Florida. I don't know if we SHOULD have won that or not but the result was on the field so I have a real hard time blaming the media for factoring that into their evaluation....I think they are very right to do that and we are the ones who should better factor that.

Maybe UF was simply better. They were definitely hungrier and Troy was as soft as he was content, which was an odd sight.

OSU got obliterated non-stop for an ugly 18 month span from Jan 07 to Sep 09. (and frankly everything after Jan 07 wasn't embarrassing)
Oklahoma never stopped being a powerhouse and Big Game Bob was never used derisively despite having a much longer and more embarrassing set of losses (OSU never got Boise State'd).

That's where the media bias comes into play and is a separate topic from whether or not the B1G stinks. And that has a big effect on recruiting, particularly for the schools who aren't bringing home the trophies themselves.

 

[Woody1968]

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).

I don't think that Nebraska has been in the conference long enough to make a complete judgment. If you only looked at the first two years with Ped State in the conference, you might think they brought a lot more than they ended up bringing over the long term. I know I am in the minority, but I would like to see Oklahoma - yes, their academics suck, and they have history. But they are a marquee program and provide a rivalry with Nebraska, a traditional recruiting ground in Texas, plus they strengthen the western division.

 

[Bucky32]

What are the odds Texas and/or Notre Dame are added in the next 15 years?

 

[Woody1968]

What are the odds Texas and/or Notre Dame are added in the next 15 years?

I think pretty low.

 

[Bucky32]

I think pretty low.

That's what I figured, now that the expansion wheel has stopped spinning.

 

[matcar]

Maybe UF was simply better. They were definitely hungrier and Troy was as soft as he was content, which was an odd sight.

OSU got obliterated non-stop for an ugly 18 month span from Jan 07 to Sep 09. (and frankly everything after Jan 07 wasn't embarrassing)
Oklahoma never stopped being a powerhouse and Big Game Bob was never used derisively despite having a much longer and more embarrassing set of losses (OSU never got Boise State'd).

That's where the media bias comes into play and is a separate topic from whether or not the B1G stinks. And that has a big effect on recruiting, particularly for the schools who aren't bringing home the trophies themselves.

I guess you and I can agree to disagree. My feeling is that the B1G has been largely lousy for most if the SEC run and the media has simply reported that truth. Other programs such as Oklahoma may have been lousy too, but that doesn't change our lousy-ness.

And I'm slowly beginning to wonder if this is more than something cyclical. Money talks- Buckyle noted all the money NW is taking in. All the B1G are raking it in. But they aren't paying it back out in coaching. Perhaps if that continues this won't be cyclical but will be more or less permanent.

 

[Saw31]

While we're (B1G) down here on our knees sucking cock, remember to cup the balls. Wouldn't want to get the rep that we suck at sucking too...

We (TOSU) will be great again, maybe as early as next year. The rest of the B1G? Are they even going to try? Well, we know Culture Problem Aggy over in Slappy Valley is going to try, even if a few children's lives are ruined along the way. I believe M*ch*g*n is trying, they are just not good at their jobs. Don't know enough about what Nebraskans think about the current situation. The rest? TBD...

 

[LordJeffBuck]

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.

The decline has been going for longer than that.

In 1961, Bear Bryant won his first national championship at Alabama, and Woody Hayes' Ohio State squad finished second in both major polls (and earned a FWAA championship, a minor national title). That really began the rise of the south in college football.

Titles from 1933 to 1960:

Big Ten.............9 outright, 2 split (Minnesota 6; Michigan 2; Ohio State 1 + 2 split)
SEC.................2 outright, 1 split (LSU 1; Tennessee 1; Auburn 1 split)

Midwest region.....14 outright, 2 split (Big Ten plus Notre Dame 4; Michigan State 1)
Deep south..........2 outright, 1 split (SEC only)
Southwest...........5 outright, 0 split (Oklahoma 3; Texas A+M 1; TCU 1)
East coast..........5 outright, 0 split (Army 2; Pitt 1; Maryland 1; Syracuse 1)
West coast..........0 outright, 1 split (UCLA 1 split)

In other words, from 1933 to 1960, the Big Ten won 35.7% of the titles (10/28), and the midwest region won 53.6% (15/28); while the SEC (and the deep south overall) won only 8.9% (2.5/28).

Since 1961, the shift to the south has been dramatic:

Big Ten.............2 outright, 2 split (Ohio State 2; Michigan 1 split; Michigan State 1 split)
SEC................14 outright, 4 split (Alabama 7 + 3 split; Florida 3; LSU 1 + 1 split; Tennessee; Auburn; Georgia)

Midwest region......8 outright, 5 split (Big Ten plus Nebraska 3 + 2 split; Notre Dame 3 + 1 split)
Deep south.........22 outright, 6 split (SEC plus Miami 4 + 1 split; Florida State 3; Clemson 1; Georgia Tech 1 split))
Southwest...........6 outright, 2 split (Oklahoma 3 + 1 split; Texas 3 + 1 split)
East coast..........3 outright, 0 split (Penn State 2; Pitt 1)
West coast..........4 outright, 4 split (Southern Cal 4 outright + 3 split; Washington 1 split)
Mountain............1 outright, 1 split (BYU 1; Colorado 1 split)

From 1961 to 2013, the SEC won 30.2% of the titles, and the deep south region won 47.2% (25/53); while the Big Ten won 5.7% (3/53), and the midwest region won 19.8% (10.5/53).

 

[NFBuck]

Media absolutely plays a role in this. It's hard to argue that. Aside from OU beating a complacent bammer team this January, what has what's left of the Big12 done? They have 1 National Title ('05 Texas) since 1985. Why isn't Texas getting savaged in the media for their awful fall? They have gone from the powerhouse program in a football crazy state with the alumni support, network, etc., to the 3rd (behind aTm/Baylor) or even arguably 4th (behind TT or TCU) best program in their own state? And it's looking like Charlie Skrong might have a ground up rebuild on his hands.

The SEC is the penthouse, and will remain so because their programs are almost all situated in recruiting hotbeds, and many of them seem to operate by their own recruiting rules (oversigning, anyone?). The PAC-12 will remain strong as long as Oregon can sell Nike. After that? Well, USC seems to be heading back in the right direction. Stanford Football™ suffered a setback this week. Is this the start of their slide back to mediocrity? Is Shaw for real, or has he benefitted from what Harbaugh built and is now regressing as his own touches on the program take over. UW hasn't been relevent since the early 90's, the Arizona programs are consistently up and down. UCLA seems to be on an uptick, but we're still waiting on their first BCS appearance since the 90s.

The ACC has been the cremepuff (LOL!!!1!!11!) for years until FSU finally awoke on the shoulders of an (alleged) felon. After that? VT is coming off two bad years after a mostly solid decade that included many big game failures. Miami is on life support. Lousiville and Pitt are Big East refugees who have never proven they can win on the big stage. Clemson just woke up from 2 decades of mediocrity, and may see a significant dropoff post Tajh-Watson.

In short, I think it's the SEC and everybody else jockying for 2nd place. And I think that will be the case for the forseeable future. The B1G is going to struggle to climb to second until scUM and PSU get their act together. tOSU-scUM-Ped Aggy are the Big Three. Wiscy and Nebraska are after that. Iowa is good for a decent season every now and then. Sparty is hot right now, but can they maintain it when Narduzzi moves on to run his own program? Dantonio was pretty mediocre his first 5-6 years there. After that, it's pretty much bottom feeders hoping to get a late-december bowl game.

 

[jwinslow]

I guess you and I can agree to disagree. My feeling is that the B1G has been largely lousy for most if the SEC run and the media has simply reported that truth. Other programs such as Oklahoma may have been lousy too, but that doesn't change our lousy-ness.

And I'm slowly beginning to wonder if this is more than something cyclical. Money talks- Buckyle noted all the money NW is taking in. All the B1G are raking it in. But they aren't paying it back out in coaching. Perhaps if that continues this won't be cyclical but will be more or less permanent.

I conceded long ago that the bottom half (or 80%) will be permanently down (or close to it). I see OSU & UM spending huge bucks on coaching, recruiting and facilities and they're still trying to find their way.

I agree with the principle of B1G schools sitting on their gold but I'm not sure if the alternative will pay the dividends that we hope it will.

 

[jwinslow]

Media absolutely plays a role in this. It's hard to argue that. Aside from OU beating a complacent bammer team this January, what has what's left of the Big12 done? They have 1 National Title ('05 Texas) since 1985. Why isn't Texas getting savaged in the media for their awful fall? They have gone from the powerhouse program in a football crazy state with the alumni support, network, etc., to the 3rd (behind aTm/Baylor) or even arguably 4th (behind TT or TCU) best program in their own state? And it's looking like Charlie Skrong might have a ground up rebuild on his hands.

The SEC is the penthouse, and will remain so because their programs are almost all situated in recruiting hotbeds, and many of them seem to operate by their own recruiting rules (oversigning, anyone?). The PAC-12 will remain strong as long as Oregon can sell Nike. After that? Well, USC seems to be heading back in the right direction. Stanford Football™ suffered a setback this week. Is this the start of their slide back to mediocrity? Is Shaw for real, or has he benefitted from what Harbaugh built and is now regressing as his own touches on the program take over. UW hasn't been relevent since the early 90's, the Arizona programs are consistently up and down. UCLA seems to be on an uptick, but we're still waiting on their first BCS appearance since the 90s.

The ACC has been the cremepuff (LOL!!!1!!11!) for years until FSU finally awoke on the shoulders of an (alleged) felon. After that? VT is coming off two bad years after a mostly solid decade that included many big game failures. Miami is on life support. Lousiville and Pitt are Big East refugees who have never proven they can win on the big stage. Clemson just woke up from 2 decades of mediocrity, and may see a significant dropoff post Tajh-Watson.

In short, I think it's the SEC and everybody else jockying for 2nd place. And I think that will be the case for the forseeable future. The B1G is going to struggle to climb to second until scUM and PSU get their act together. tOSU-scUM-Ped Aggy are the Big Three. Wiscy and Nebraska are after that. Iowa is good for a decent season every now and then. After that, it's pretty much bottom feeders hoping to get a late-december bowl game.

OU & Josh Heupel did win a title 15 years ago. Since then OU has been primarily a laughing stock in big games.

 

[Bucky32]

I guess you and I can agree to disagree. My feeling is that the B1G has been largely lousy for most if the SEC run and the media has simply reported that truth. Other programs such as Oklahoma may have been lousy too, but that doesn't change our lousy-ness.

And I'm slowly beginning to wonder if this is more than something cyclical. Money talks- Buckyle noted all the money NW is taking in. All the B1G are raking it in. But they aren't paying it back out in coaching. Perhaps if that continues this won't be cyclical but will be more or less permanent.

Northwestern will never invest in the football infrastructure needed to consistently compete at a high level. That's just not the priority there (and rightfully so.)