What a finish .......

[Eastside Terp]

for South Carolina to take the lead with 11 seconds over michigan ......

QB knocked out, back up comes in and throws TD pass to go up with time running out .......

crazy return is michigan's only chance .......

it would be ironic if Northwestern is the big ten's only win today? .......

[slapshot]

Best game of the day, and I'm a Blue fan. I knew that throw was coming. The SC guy had beaten the Mich defender most of the day.

Doubt Wisky will beat Stanford. But it will be interesting to see if the old dog, Alvarez, can rekindle the magic from when he use to roam the Wisky sidelines?

But before the SEC folks get all comfy in their 2-1 record over the B1G today, two of the B1Gs best teams, OSU and PSU, are home watching. And PSU will be watching for three more bowl seasons.

Finally, I thought Nebraska would win. I knew Mich would not. Mich still lacks a QB with an accurate arm. Gardner made a couple of quality throws, but he also made more off the mark throws.

[slapshot]

Well, Wisconsin put up a good fight.

Bit of a mis-match pairing #6 ranked team, Stanford, against an unranked team, Wisconsin.

Need a playoff system.

[FRANK X]

PSU/OSU were home for good reasons.

[pmore108]

PSU and OSU both beat wisconsin in overtime. The Big 10 is a down conference and a shell of what it once was. I think that OSU can and will be good because Meyer can recruit the south but other than that the conference is pretty weak. OSU and PSU barely beat wisconsin and I doubt seriously that either team would have made that much of a difference against their competition. The SEC has lost some games but they are still the premier conference in college football.

[slapshot]

PSU/OSU were home for good reasons.

No disagreement. Although I believe the OSU ban is self-imposed.

[slapshot]

PSU and OSU both beat wisconsin in overtime. The Big 10 is a down conference and a shell of what it once was. I think that OSU can and will be good because Meyer can recruit the south but other than that the conference is pretty weak. OSU and PSU barely beat wisconsin and I doubt seriously that either team would have made that much of a difference against their competition. The SEC has lost some games but they are still the premier conference in college football.

Yes, the B1G has work to do, but if you follow, then you would know they are actually on an upswing, and there is much greater parity in the Big ten than there was just 5 yeras ago. It use to be Northwestern who? Minnesota what? They are up and comers.

But let's re-cap:

* Unranked Wisconsin loses to #6 Stanford, 20-14.
NOTE: That game was Wisconsin's to W/L, and were driving, when intercepted.

* #18 Michigan loses to #10 South Carolina, 33-28.
NOTE: One stop of SC, on 4th and 7, and Michigan wins.

* #16 Nebraska loses to #7 Georgia, 45-31.


In all games, B1G teams were a big underdog. Oh, and please note that BOTH OSU and Wisconsin DESTROYED Nebraska....I mean beat them to a pulp.

The point being - it's all about the match-ups. Shuffle OSU and PSU into the bowl lineup, and we have:

OSU vs Stanford
PSU vs South Carolina
Michigan vs Georgia

Nebraska plays...whomever?

Different outcomes? Quite possibly? This is why we need a playoff system...these bowl tie-ins are bogus, and you can have huge mis-matches between opponents.

You can't take two of the B1G's top two teams out of the equation and then declare they are a "down conference"? They are "down" because they are missing two of their best programs. That said, there's nobody in the B1G that can match-up with Alabama. Not yet, at least.



If you look at the recruiting rankings, 4 B1G teams are ranked in the top 25 for 2013. If it were not for the PSU scandal, it might be 5 teams?

Several programs now have new coaches...so we'll see what the next few years holds?

But here's the bottom line: The Big Ten is the richest conference, by far. So, if money talks (which it usually does), then I wouldn't burry the Big Ten quite yet.

[pmore108]

psu also lost to uva who maryland managed to beat with a freshman qb that wasn't expected to play at all this season. OSU is the only legit team in the big 10 like I said. They could play with LSU, Clemson (not an SEC team but a team that has tremendous talent and could be nasty next year), FSU, etc. The rest of the big 10 would probably lose to those teams 8 out of 10 times. The louisville result was a shocker to some people but not to all as I heard people calling that upset three days ago. Hell, Louisville would be the second best big 10 team.

[slapshot]

psu also lost to uva who maryland managed to beat with a freshman qb that wasn't expected to play at all this season. OSU is the only legit team in the big 10 like I said. They could play with LSU, Clemson (not an SEC team but a team that has tremendous talent and could be nasty next year), FSU, etc. The rest of the big 10 would probably lose to those teams 8 out of 10 times. The louisville result was a shocker to some people but not to all as I heard people calling that upset three days ago. Hell, Louisville would be the second best big 10 team.

As anybody involved with sports knows...it's NOT how you start the season that counts, but how you finish.

PSU lost their first two game, the first one coming against a MAC team, Ohio. In hindsight, coming off the scandal they did, with the defections they had....it was no wonder they got off to a pathetic start. But they turned it around.

By "legit", I presume you mean top 10? Otherwise, you have no idea what you are talking about. An unranked Wisconsin giving #6 Stanford all they could handle, and that's after Belima departed, is an indication to me they would hang with any team (excerpt Alabama), in any conference.

With but a couple of exceptions, the ACC s a joke, year in and year out. They typically do bad in the BCS bowls, and fair OK in the other's because they are usually paired against cream puffs. Look no further than the usual ACC rep in BCS bowl games, VaTech, if you want to see how the ACC BCS rep usually fares in BCS bowls. Sad.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ad-as-big-east

ACC BCS record, 2-11.

Let's look at who ACC team played this bowl season:


Cincy vs Duke (Cincy won)
Rutgers vs VaTech (VaTech JUST barely won)
USC vs GT (GT win, but SC playing without their starting QB).
Vandy vs Clemson (Vandy destroyed Clemson)
N. Illinois vs FSU (FSU win, but N Illinois lost their head coach 3 weeks before the bowl). Also, N. Illinois lost to a sub-par B1G team, Iowa.


LOL. Tell me, oh great one, what football juggernauts did the ACC play this bowl season? The ONLY ranked team that any ACC teams played in a bowl game was N. Illinois, and as I said, their coach left for a better job and a bigger payday just weeks before the bowl....not to mention N Illinois losing to Iowa earlier in the year.

Here's a trivia QUESTION: How many non-FCS college football teams went on to win their bowl game after losing their head coach at the conclusion of the regular season?? Maybe (?) a handful in the past 100 years? Maybe?

We need a playoof system, because comparisons based on these buy-in bowl games is bogus. The ACC gets cream-puffs in most of their bowl games, the B1G does not. Fact.

Finally....one of the usual bottom feeders in the Big ten, Northwestern, handily beat the SEC counterpart, Miss State...who, by the way, handily beat the following SEC opponents this year: Auburn, Tenn, Kentucky and Arkansas.

The Louisville win last night was a surprise to most handicappers. Look at the odds going in. It's laughable that you come on here, AFTER THE FACT, and say it was no surprise to folks you know. LOL. If that's the case, then you should have made a bundle of $$$ in taking the spread?

[pmore108]

-Listened to the radio on Sunday night and a handicapper was talking about how the spread was too high on the Louisville game and how Strong will have them ready to go against Florida, he knows the opponent, FL has inconsistent qb play and the game isn't in The Swamp. I don't gamble on games but I tended to agree. Especially with Bridgewater who is fantastic.

-Clemson played LSU and beat them in a fantastic game they did not play vanderbilt. I don't care how you slice it LSU is better than anyone in the Big 10. OSU could play with them but that is the only team.

-Vanderbilt played NC State. They won by 14, Georgia also beat Nebraska by 14. In my opinion Georgia would have done the same thing to Michigan, they can score much easier than SC though their defense isn't as good so you likely would have seen a higher score than the Michigan-SC game.

-FSU was uninterested in the game and still dominated an overmatched NIU.

-I never said the ACC was better than the big 10. They aren't. With that said, FSU and Clemson would beat every team in the big 10 but OSU easily.

-The wisconsin game was not as close as the score indicated. Stanford scored 14 off the bat and held on to win with their good defense as they do in most of their wins. Additionally if you are going to use who beat who by how much, psu/osu vs. Stanford would have been tight games as well, I wouldn't assume that osu would beat stanford.

I had this same conversation with my brother the other day: the big 10 is infinitely deeper than the ACC. However, the two best ACC teams (FSU and Clemson) would beat everyone in the big 10 except OSU. I am not on here touting the ACC though, I am simply saying that the big 10 is not that great. They are the 4th best conference in my opinion ( I don't claim to be a 'great one' as you called me). The ACC is behind them for sure.

-I agree that a playoff is needed. What happens alot in bowl games, in my opinion, is that favored teams have nothing to play for. Especially a team like oregon or LSU and they have let downs (see FSU this year, even though they won). A playoff would keep that mentality from creeping in.

[slapshot]

My bad on Clemson/Vandy. It was NC State.

As far as OSU being the only team that could hang with LSU, not sure how you can say that? There's no direct comparisons in which to compare. But if you want to look at in-direct measures, LSU JUST got by Aurburn, 12-10...who lost to Miss State, 28-10...who got thumped by Northwestern, 34-20. Then there's Florida beating LSU, Florida got beat by Louisville, who got beat by BOTH Syracuse and UCONN. Sracuse lost to, yep, you guessed it, Northwestern. Indirect, I realize...but what do you have to make your point, besides opinion? Anything?

Now, do I think Northwerstern could compete with LSU on a regular basis. Nope, I do not. But I do think the more traditional, perennial powers in the B1G could - like OSU, PSU, Michigan and Nebraska.

As far as Nebraska is concerned - They finished the season with two straight woeful defensive performances. First, the Cornhuskers lost the Big Ten championship game 70-31. Then another poor defensive game against Georgia. BUT, given they were in the Georgia game, until about the middle of the 4th, I'm not worried at all about Nebraska being able to compete against SEC teams. They still own a (commanding) winning record against SEC teams, 12-7 against in bowl games against SEC teams. ..

Michigan isn't going to consistently beat anybody, of high caliber, until they have a good QB. Essentially, Gardner had played in a total of 4 games prior to the bowl. How they would have matched up against Georgia, is anybody's guess...but certainly without Denard under center, their chances to beat a team like Georgia is diminished. Against the top ranked team in the country, Notre Dame, when they had Denard, Michigan lost by 7 pts....and that was against Notre Dames STINGY defense. But before you decide to put a fork in Michigan's future, you might want to check out their recruiting rankings - #4 for 2012 and #1 for 2013. The future is bright, and I asssure you, will continue to grow. As I said - The Big Ten is actually un an upswing, not down as you alluded.

"FSU was uninterested in the game". Bwahahahaha. OK. Too bad N Illinois didn't have Dan Dorien to coach. You never know how he might have made a difference? So, what's tjhe answer to my trivia question?? I think we all know the answer, don't we. Few, if any programs have ever won their bowl after their head coach left at the conclusion of the regular season....so FSU beating a demoralized N Illinois team? No surprises, at all. Guess we should all feel lucky that FSU wasn't "interested"?

"FSU and Clemson could beat all B1G teams (except OSU), easily". Such a BOLD statement that isn't backed up with any facts. Not a shred of evidence of this. Just a BOLD opinion. But let's just start with Clemson, since you seem to have a hard on for them....in the last game (signifdicant) of the regular season, they lost to South Carilina by 10 pts. 10 pts. Two scores. Significant. And actually, the game wasn't even that close. Now, a few weeks later, it took one last, desperate throw, on 4th down, to beat Michigan by 4 pts. Sorry, but that was Michigan's game to LOSE, and not South Carolina's to win. One stop, and Michigan wins.

So, tell me again how you arrived at your conclusion that FSU/Clemson would "easily beat" every team in the Big ten, with the exception of OSU. I say, baloney.

Now here is were you show your bias (or ignorance)..."the Wisconsin-Stanford game wasn't that close". LOL What game were you watching? Look at any of the sats, and they are all very close:

1st downs: 17 for Wis and 17 for Stanford
Total yards: 301 for Wisc and 344 for Stanford
Penalty yards: 40 for Wisc and 48 for Stanford
Turnovers: 1 for Wisc and 0 for Stanford (perhaps a game changer??)
Time of Possession: 29:52 for Wisc and 30:08 for Stanford

Stanford won by 6 pts.....yet, Wisconsin had the ball for one last drive to possibly win the game, but was intercepted, ergo, my comment about Wisc lone turnover, being a possible game changer. Short of going into OT, or missed FG in the last second, it don't get much closer than this.

End of discussion.

Come with actual facts next time. Enough of your BS opinion. Please NOTE, I'm not the one making these outlandish claims...so the burden is on you to back your assertions - if you can. I simply say: The Big ten is not as bad as you claim, and is actually moving up, not down. Greater parity now exists in the B1G than in many years. The fact that Northwestern, of all teams, was the lone Big Ten representative (1-2) to beat a SEC team, is indication of the depth. Now, when we get OSU and PSU back into the mix. I suspect we will swing positive in the win column against the SEC. We will see?

[pmore108]

Dude you're getting way too hostile about this and it's kind of ridiculous. It's not an outlandish claim to state that the SEC is better than the big 10. They have dominated them in recent history in bowl games (7-2 since the tie in I believe that started 3 years ago) and if you look at the following link about the recruiting classes you will see that 5 of the top 10 (including #1) belong to the SEC:


http://insider.espn.go.com/college-s...s?action=login


I reluctantly agree that OSU and to an extent Michigan may be on the upswing ( i like Brady Hoke alot, thought he was a great hire after the rrod debacle) but we saw how far apart Michigan was from bama this year with Mr. Robinson at qb. Granted I think they were missing the starting running back in that game but I doubt it would have made a difference in that one (41-14 I think?). I think and hope that the suspensions will hurt psu more than people think but who knows.

Using your logic about nebraska-georgia, the Clemson-SC game was close going into the 4th quarter if I recall correctly. I believe it was 20-17 after three and SC scored late (maybe 6 mins left?) to give them the 'significant' 10 point win. So the close in the fourth quarter 14 point win by georgia isn't significant but the close in the fourth quarter 10 point win by SC over clemson is?

I disagree that it wasn't SC's game to win. Both teams made plays, SC made more particularly clowney after the ref's terrible decision on that measurement.


My point about FSU was they dominated that game and it was a lose-lose situation for them. How many times have we seen that situation blow up in the favorites face?

I watched the wisconsin stanford game. Turnovers are part of the game and truthfully Wisconsin should have had more (believe this was mentioned in the post game). With that said, credit wisconsin for hanging in there but nothing psu did this year or osu for that matter has me believing that they could come in and definitely win that game for the big 10. Maybe I simply never thought that Stanford was going to lose that game and that's why I feel the way I do about it.

Again PSU lost to uva and Ohio! I get it was early season but that still means something. Ohio is a decent enough team though. Tettleton's son is pretty good. Also, psu lost (by two scores) to the same Nebraska team that you claim as being down at the end of the year so I fail to see how they would have been an upgrade against Georgia.

[slapshot]

Dude you're getting way too hostile about this and it's kind of ridiculous. It's not an outlandish claim to state that the SEC is better than the big 10.

Do you read your own posts? Seriously.

You said, and what I am disagreeing with, is the following:

"With that said, FSU and Clemson would beat every team in the big 10 but OSU easily."

You said this. Twice. So I asked for your evidence of this claim? A very simple request, and the burden is on you to back up your claim. So far, nothing but unsupported opinion.

I never said the Big Ten was better, or even equal to the SEC right now. I'm not that naive, nor that much of a homer to say such a thing. Please go back and re-read what you wrote, and my response to your claims.

I said that the Big Ten is not as bad you you make them out to be, and are headed up, and not down as you alluded.

I also said that if we were to add OSU and PSU into the bowl mix, that the outcomes of this year's bowl games might have been different? I'll stand by that statment. Please note, I didn't make any outrageous claims, like you did with FSU and Clemeson being able to "easily beat any Big Ten Team, except OSU". Never said, nor implied that adding OSU and PSU into the bowl mix would have "easily" beaten their SEC opponents? How could I say such a riddiculous comment. But I do believe that OSU is quite a bit better than Nebraska (63-38, better)...so plug them in for Nebraska's bowl, and good chance they beat, or take Georgia to the wire. Is PSU better than Michigan? I simply don't know, as they didn't play each other this year. But PSU did beat Wisconsisn...so what does that prove?

I disagree that it wasn't SC's game to win. Both teams made plays, SC made more particularly clowney after the ref's terrible decision on that measurement.

You can disagree all you want, but you are still wrong. Michigan with the lead and under 2 minutes remaining. They were one play away from winning that game: 4th and 3 at SC 37. Stop by Michigan and game over...and that's why South Carolina went for it on 4th, on their own 37 yeard line. Not a gutsy call, they simply had no other option but to go for broke. Michigan didn't make the stop, so it was there's to lose. But credit to SC for executing at the end.

I watched the wisconsin stanford game. Turnovers are part of the game and truthfully Wisconsin should have had more (believe this was mentioned in the post game).

So did I. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. They didn't have more tunrovers, did they? Stop the spin. Stop the what ifs. Wisconsin had one turnover, and it came at a critical point in the game. End of story.

Again PSU lost to uva and Ohio! I get it was early season but that still means something. Ohio is a decent enough team though. Tettleton's son is pretty good. Also, psu lost (by two scores) to the same Nebraska team that you claim as being down at the end of the year so I fail to see how they would have been an upgrade against Georgia.

You must be new to college football.

As per my previous comments: It's not how you start, but how you finish the season that counts.

Case in point -

2007:

Michigan opens the season against App State @ the Big House. Michigan was ranked #5 in the country. Heavily favored, Blue lost 34-32...and shocks the college sporting world. EPIC failure!! Subsequently, the very next vweek, Michigan drops completely out of the rankings. Gone. The next week, after the App State loss, Michigan lost again, at home. Season over, right? Wrong. Now, fast foward to the end of the season.....ready for this.....they beat heavily favored Florida, 41-35 in the Capital One Bowl. Michigan hit rock bottom at the beginning, but turned it around and beat a highly regarded Florida. It's how you finish. Period.


The reverse of this would be USC, this season. Pre-season #1, smoking everybody until they hit Stanford (barely lost)...and then the wheels come off, and finish the year by losing 5 or their last 6 games...finally to be humiliated by woeful GT in their bowl game.


Nobody cares how you start (although it takes a lot of effort to recover). People want to see how you progress through the season. PSU stumbled mightely at the begining...but recovered nicely at the end. End of story.

[pmore108]

Yes, that was one of my points and I probably shouldn't have said easily. Although I do believe just seeing the many teams play that Clemson and FSU are better than the rest of the big 10 outside OSU. I also said that the big 10 is way deeper than the acc otherwise!

One of your earlier statements was that the SEC folks shouldn't get high and mighty because two of the big 10s best weren't playing. MY contention was that OSU is the big 10's best, psu not so much.

I pointed out that while osu and Michigan were recruiting well, the SEC still dominated the recruiting rankings. My opinion is that the big 10 is the fourth best conference. If you look at the link I posted there are two big 10 teams in the top 20. ANd I agreed with you that OSU and mich were on the rise.

Not new to college football, but just because a team improves (like PSU) it doesn't mean that they are significantly better than what they were earlier. The truth probably lies in the middle.

[slapshot]

Yes, that was one of my points and I probably shouldn't have said easily. Although I do believe just seeing the many teams play that Clemson and FSU are better than the rest of the big 10 outside OSU. I also said that the big 10 is way deeper than the acc otherwise!

Again, without a direct comparison, you can't make such a statement with any kind of credibility. But you certainly are entitled to your opinion....although i strongly disagree with it. This much we know for sure - Mich, Wis. and Nebraska all played top 10 teams in their bowl games. Mich and Wisc lost in the last minute of the game. FSU played down in the ranking, and against a team that just lost their head coach.

One of your earlier statements was that the SEC folks shouldn't get high and mighty because two of the big 10s best weren't playing. MY contention was that OSU is the big 10's best, psu not so much.

I said no such thing. Go back and re-read. I said, to reiterate, if OSU and PSU had been able to compete in a bowl, the entire dynamics of who plays whom in these bowls would have changed, and that, in turm could have changed to fortunes of the big ten. OSU is light years better than Nebraska. What would have happened if we plugged OSU into that game against Georgia, in place of Nebraska?

I pointed out that while osu and Michigan were recruiting well, the SEC still dominated the recruiting rankings. My opinion is that the big 10 is the fourth best conference. If you look at the link I posted there are two big 10 teams in the top 20. ANd I agreed with you that OSU and mich were on the rise.

Again, you seem to want to put words in my mouth. I never said the Big Ten was better, or as good at the SEC right now. I can't make it any plainer than that.

Since 2000, the Big Ten has beaten SEC teams about 40% of the time. So clearly, there is work to be done. But If money talks, then the Big Ten's position as the most affluent conference, should help in the long run.

I am heartened to finally see movement in the Big Ten to bring in some talented NEW coaching blood. For example, I think Purdue hiring an up and coming black head coach is a good sign of moving in the right direction. If PSU can keep their new coach, and doesn't go to the NFL, I think PSU's future is bright. Michigan is now on the right track and recruiting well. Myers at OSU will hopefully breath new life into their program? After only one year, and attaining a perfect season....I think we have our answer about OSU. Minny and Illinois also have new coaches, and Minny, a brand new stadium complex. Money talks, and the B1G will be back. But not there, yet.

Without a playoff, conference rankings are bogus. I've heard several experts say, if you were to base those conference rankings on the % of bowl wins from each conference, the big east would come out on top. Does anybody believe that?? I certainly don't. As I said many posts ago, it all depends on the tie-ins for these bowl game. For example, big ten teams always get paired with the top few teams from the SEC, B12 or Pac12. The ACC usually does not.

Not new to college football, but just because a team improves (like PSU) it doesn't mean that they are significantly better than what they were earlier. The truth probably lies in the middle.

Lol. They are significantly better. The team was basically in dis-array at the beginning of the season, due to the NCAA sanctions, followed by player defections. The PSU at the end of the season would rip both Ohio and UVa a new one. While only an opinion, I would easily wager some serious money on either of those game, if it were to happen.

[pmore108]

"But before the SEC folks get all comfy in their 2-1 record over the B1G today, two of the B1Gs best teams, OSU and PSU, are home watching. And PSU will be watching for three more bowl seasons. "


That is what you said with regard to the SEC. Again, I agree with you that OSU and michigan are trending upward but the big 10 as a whole? I don't see it. The thing that hurts the Big 10 the most in my opinion is that the best players come from the South without question. The SEC teams and Texas teams have a distinct advantage in that regard. The big 10 has one state (Ohio) that produces on par with those southern states and PA which has dropped off a little but there is still great football played there.

With regard to the wealthiest conference, I agree that money does equal success most of the time, I think the PAC-12 has the largest tv deal now (Their payouts per school may be less than the big 10 I'm not sure) and I know that the SEC is renegotiating their tv deal after this season so I think who has the most money could change.

I know that my terps are going to struggle mightily to adjust (even though I reluctantly admit that the move was probably the right one) and that the addition of them isn't helping the big 10 all that much football wise. Anyway, good discussion. If you're going to disagree about anything, might as well be sports.

[slapshot]

"But before the SEC folks get all comfy in their 2-1 record over the B1G today, two of the B1Gs best teams, OSU and PSU, are home watching. And PSU will be watching for three more bowl seasons. "

Correct. But how does that translate into thinking that I think the Big Ten is better than the SEC?

I fail to see the leap from what I said, to what you think I said?

What that means is...exactly what I've repeated several times: That had OSU and PSU been in the bowl mix, the dynamics of who plays who (ie the pairing) would have changed. That's fact. And with a different pairing, nobody can tell me that the bowl outcomes might not have been different...ESPECIALLY give how close these games were.

Again, I agree with you that OSU and michigan are trending upward but the big 10 as a whole? I don't see it.

LOts of intangibles that will take a few years to yield results. Things like a new stadium/sports complex at Minnesota. Mega expansions/upgrades to the sports compexes at Michigan and Purdue. New coaches at Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, OSU, Minnesota and PSU.

Then there's the ever increasing revenue from the BTN that feeds back to every school, to hire better coaches, build better facilities, etc. The money game marches on.

There are many tangibles to try and assess the relative status, compared to other conferences. One of them might be performaces in bowl games? Ceratinly the performance of Big Ten teams in bowl games has not been great, of late. But as per my prior comments on pairings, one needs to consider the following:

http://www.offtackleempire.com/2011/...in-the-bcs-era

The Big Ten faces the most difficult bowl slate

"I've aimed the blame squarely at the Big Ten's middle class as being who is behind the Big Ten's bowl troubles, but now is time to take a step back and consider just what it is they are up against. First, it's a fact, the Big Ten "plays up" more than any other conference because of its ability to put two teams in the BCS every year. And its not the top programs that are most affected, its the middle class - whether in the form of undeserved promotions to the BCS (2007 Illinois) or a constant increase in the quality of their bowl opponents (Northwestern and Michigan State annually). Second, the Big Ten schedules the very best bowl opponents. After the BCS matchups are two (now 3) against the top selections from the SEC, and a remaining schedule filled out with faceoffs "up" against the Big 12. As a result, the Big Ten's bowl lineup has been, and will continue to be, more difficult than that faced by any other conference.

The % of Bowl Opponents in AP Top 25:

Big Ten 67%
SEC 61%
Big12 54%
Pac12 56%
ACC 43%
Big East 31%



Over the BCS era the Big Ten played more BCS conference opponents and more ranked opponents than any other conference, and outside the SEC its not even close. And that's not all - the Big Ten's plays those opponents "on the road" in virtually all of its bowl games.


Another metric is recruiting. Here is the recruiting ranking from Rivals since 2005. I cut it off to include the top 50 ranked (recruting) programs. I also included ND's rank for comparison (ie, they have made major strided since almost falling off the map....to now playing for the National Championship):

2005: ND - #40
#5Nebraska
#6Michigan
#11Iowa
#12OSU
#25PSU
#29Purdue
#33Wisconsin
#35MSU

2006: ND - #8
#6PSU
#12OSU
#13Michigan
#20Nebraska
#30Illinois
#33MSU
#39Iowa
#40Wisconsin
#50Purdue

2007: ND - #8
#12Michigan
#13Nebraska
#15OSU
#20Illinois
#24PSU
#28Iowa
#34Wisconsin
#42MSU

2008: ND - #2
#4OSU
#10Michigan
#17Minnesota
#23Illinois
#30Nebraska
#41Wisc
#43PSU
#47MSU

2009: ND - #21
#3OSU
#8Michigan
#17MSU
#28Nebraska
#35Illinois
#39Minn
#43Wisc


2010: ND - #14
#12PSU
#20Michigan
#22Nebraska
#25OSU
#30MSU
#42Iowa
#50Minn

2011: ND - #10
#11OSU
#15Nebraska
#21Michigan
#30Iowa
#31MSU
#35PSU
#40Wisc
#42Illinois

2012: ND - #20
#4OSU
#7Michigan
#25Nebraska
#33Purdue
#41MSU
#43Iowa
#50PSU


It's interesting to note that OSU, Michigan and Nebraska are in the top 25 almost every year....followed (until the scandal) by PSU. Also note that ND's recruiting only cracked the top 10, in 3 of the last 8 years. Good, but not out of line with that of OSU and Michigan. But in terms of the top 50, most Big Ten teams are represented. Based on recruiting alone, I would say that OSU, Michigan and Nebraska are positioned to do well in the future.

The thing that hurts the Big 10 the most in my opinion is that the best players come from the South without question. The SEC teams and Texas teams have a distinct advantage in that regard. The big 10 has one state (Ohio) that produces on par with those southern states and PA which has dropped off a little but there is still great football played there.

I would also add California and Texas. Many Big Ten teams recruit in Texas. Purdue's Drew Brees is a case in point. Look at one of the top running backs in the country, Wisconsin's Montee Ball...he's from Wentzville, Mo. Not all the good ones go to SEC teams. But recruiting in states outside of the Midwest does take added recruting talent and persuation, that's for sure. Which is why I put a lot of the burden on Big ten teams getting new, younger coaching talent. For example, I think Purdue's new coach, Hazel, will do well. He is a black American who's already shown an ability to recruit around the country. Now, Ron Zook, formally from Florida, was Illinois' former coach, and recruited exceptionally well from Florida....but it didn't tanslate into bowl wins. So, we will see?

I think to be a champion, you need both recruiting, coaching, and a little luck. I am glad to see the coaching is turning over in the B1G. I think that will help down the road. Case in point - Joe Pa should have retired a long time ago, and now with new blood, I predict we will see a resurgence in PSU football.