|
|
Post by 19delta on Jan 2, 2009 1:52:47 GMT -6
With the NW-Mizzou game being the exception, the Big Ten hasn't even been competitive this postseason in the bowl games they lost.
Michigan - Lost by 2 scores and the game was over by the end of the 3rd Quarter
Penn State - Lost by 2 scores but the game was over by halftime
Wisconsin - Lost by 29
Minnesota - Lost by 21
They have been outscore 31-26 in bowl games and that includes Iowa's 21-point win! You look at the Big Ten teams that lost and the average score was 35-16. I don't think that OSU-Texas will break the trend, either.
What is the issue with the Big Ten? Why does it seem like Big Ten teams just can't compete consistently with the likes of the SEC, PAC-10, and Big 12? Heck, given the FSU-Wisconsin game, you can probably put the ACC in there, as well.
Is the Big Ten even a "major" conference anymore? Where would you rank the Big Ten in regards to the other D-IA conferences?
What does the Big Ten need to do to compete with the top conferences?
|
|
|
|
Post by towtheline on Jan 2, 2009 2:00:02 GMT -6
What does the Big Ten need to do to compete with the top conferences? [sarcasm]They all need to run the "shotgun spread offense" and throw the ball at least 175 times a game. If they all do that, then they will be able to compete.[/sarcasm] |
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Jan 2, 2009 5:17:17 GMT -6
What does the Big Ten need to do to compete with the top conferences? Recruit more team speed, especially on defense. (And in Penn State's case, it wouldn't hurt to learn a few more coverages to go with their "Beat Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar" Cover 3...) |
|
|
|
Post by gunrun on Jan 2, 2009 6:21:24 GMT -6
What does the Big Ten need to do to compete with the top conferences? Recruit more team speed, especially on defense. (And in Penn State's case, it wouldn't hurt to learn a few more coverages to go with their "Beat Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar" Cover 3...) Ted, I would have to agree with you. Alabama had a great team this year and they play "Big Ten" ball with a pro-style offense and a powerful running game. Team speed on defense may be the difference. Also, Offensive Tackles can be road graders, but they also must be quick enough to block speed rushers. This one single mismatch is what killed Ohio State vs. Florida two years ago. The OT vs. DE matchup is becoming one of the most important in football, if not the most important. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 7:49:18 GMT -6
What is the issue with the Big Ten? Is the Big Ten even a "major" conference anymore? Where would you rank the Big Ten in regards to the other D-IA conferences? Give it a season (or two), who knows....nothing stays the same. Although I don't know WHAT,exactly, could help the Big10. I would say a LARGE part of the problem is the recruiting base. You are NOT going to compete with the Californias, Texas, Gulf South and Virginias, and that is where the majority of football talent is located.....don't kid yourself What does the Big Ten need to do to compete with the top conferences? for starters.............divorce yourself from the Rose Bowl, then get a Big 10 Championship game. Until they do that, they will never compete with the rest of the National conferences |
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Jan 2, 2009 8:26:23 GMT -6
I disagree with the premise of this thread
It's all pretty random
With the only non-randomness being some of the matchups. Iowa was a midlevel Big 10 team and thrashed SC. Who wouldn't have lost to USC? You can't really say that the UGA-Mich St game "wasn't even competitive." Michigan St led until mid 3rd quarter; UGA led only 10-6 until the start of the 4th; and they won by 12. Michigan St. also was not exactly my pick as the best team in the world.
Like I said, a lot of this is random. Last year, yes, Ohio St got thrashed by LSU. (LSU thrashes a lot of people in bowl games, i.e. Notre Dame, Georgia Tech, etc.) But Michigan beat a vaunted Florida team last year?
I do agree that they ought to get a Big 10 title game.
|
|
|
|
Post by seagull73 on Jan 2, 2009 9:00:40 GMT -6
Big Ten = Thick ankles
|
|
|
|
Post by Coach JR on Jan 2, 2009 9:34:31 GMT -6
What does the Big Ten need to do to compete with the top conferences? Recruit more team speed, especially on defense. (And in Penn State's case, it wouldn't hurt to learn a few more coverages to go with their "Beat Me Daddy, Eight to the Bar" Cover 3...) I looked at rosters of SEC and Big 10 last year to see the differences, if any, in size. These are the trends I found in the differences on Defense. DTs: Big 10 teams seem to normally have 2 285-290 guys in a 4-3 set. SEC normally seems to have one big NG type 300plus and a smaller 275-285 3 technique. DEs: Big 10 DEs will normally outweigh SEC DEs by 15 or so pounds...I saw some that probably would have been playing DT if in the SEC. LBs: Again Big 10 LBs normally 15 or so pounds heavier than SEC LBs. It's not unusual to find LBs in the SEC at or just under 220 but with 4.5 speed. DBs: same same....heavier in the Big 10, faster in the SEC. As always nothing is absolute, and you could find exceptions on either side...it was just a trend I noticed with one year's snapshot. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2009 9:49:55 GMT -6
I think the bigger issue..is that this seems to be becoming an issue. The more ESPN (who nearly has a stranglehold on college sports other than the NCAA b-ball tournament) plays up this Big-ten futility angle (whether there is one or not) the more likely it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Lets face it, the college football landscape is vastly different than it was 30 years ago. Recruiting is much more difficult, and kids opinions and ideas are shaped by the most nonsensical things. I recently spoke with a young man whose main reason to go to Miami, Fla is so that when he plays on Sunday/Monday night football, he can say his name followed by "The U". This was a basis for his decision. Others base their decision on the type of gear the school wears (Under Armor/Nike/etc.). Given this environment, it is not that difficult to envision the media's treatment of the Big-10 the last few years having an affect on recruiting in the immediate future.
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Jan 2, 2009 10:03:02 GMT -6
Big 10 guy here.....I hate seeing this.
My best educated guess:
You play to win your conference.
From a defensive standpoint, if you cannot stop the run, you will not win the conference. And by stop the run, we mean getting your run fit and fighting double teams for 30-35 plays of IZ and Power.
Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Minnesota..........these guys will run the ball down your throat, and consequencely, the defenses need to stop the run.
The spread teams in conference (Indiana, Northwestern, Michigan, Purdue, Illinois) either don't pose that big of a threat-read the first four-or are new enough to the spread-Illinois-that teams seem to be seeing if it "sticks".
Simply put, what one desribe as a "spread" team hasn't traditionally been a contender for the title. Save having a Drew Brees or Juice Williams running the offense, they just don't come out on top.
So, when we get to facing teams with faster athletes (especially in the trenches) and a spread we haven't seen a lot, we lose. USC is not spread, just good. (though there are a ton of teams built like Oregon State in the Big Ten......I'll get crucified for this, but I don't know if USC makes it through the Big Ten undefeated--------definitely not the SEC)
Interestingly, if Paul Johnson continues his success, I could see the flexbone making a come back in the run friendly Big 10.
If that happens, the SEC's and Pac-10's of the world will be the ones looking inept as IV and midline rips up their pressure front defenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by PSS on Jan 2, 2009 10:44:31 GMT -6
Dubber, you have to be kidding about Paul Johnson and the flexbone making the SEC looking inept. Wasn't LSU that just put a beat down on that flexbone. I like watching the option run just as much as anyone else but it is not power football, it is finesse football.
You defend that with assignment defense and team speed, not power.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingt74 on Jan 2, 2009 10:44:48 GMT -6
Well, USC and FSU got to play home games.
I think the Big Ten teams are built to play in poor weather while the SEC, ACC, Big 12, Pac-10 teams don't have to worry about weather as much.
Plus, what 18 year old speedster wants to move to Michigan when he can be in Soutern Cal or Florida?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigdog2003 on Jan 2, 2009 11:39:06 GMT -6
As an South Carolina fan I was suprised that the game was that bad. Spurrier says that he doesn't have a qb that can run his offense yet. He said Beecher was the guy for him, then it was Smelley, then it was Gracia. I don't know what he needs, but I so know that I keep watching all three over throw wide open receivers, but sometimes it looks like the offense has no clue of what is going on. Maybe it is just that college football has caught up to his offense. I mean when he was a Florida the spread wasn't as big, now everyone has the spread in some form in their offense. But what gets me is the lack of a run game. I don't understand it.
Sorry for the rant but I needed to get that off of my chest.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Jan 2, 2009 11:45:43 GMT -6
Spurrier says that he doesn't have a qb that can run his offense yet.. I never liked this excuse. Adapt, do something different, find something to give your kids a chance. |
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 11:56:30 GMT -6
Am I reading this correctly?
The major issue with the Big 10 is team speed?
Hell... if I look at Indiana's roster... I don't see a lot of slow guys...
And are we saying the faster team wins? Its got to be something more than... the Big 10 isn't as fast? Doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 12:08:03 GMT -6
doesn't college football prove that scheme don't matter ?
And ultimately, in college football, whoever recruits the best, wins the most games?
If that being the case, then the basic premise is recruiting........where can you pull recruits from, and what is the quality of those recruits?
Wasn't Ed Orgeron that said, "The planes fly South, they don't fly North".?
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 2, 2009 12:14:38 GMT -6
ED got fired at Ole Miss.
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 12:16:36 GMT -6
doesn't college football prove that scheme don't matter ? And ultimately, in college football, whoever recruits the best, wins the most games? If that being the case, then the basic premise is recruiting........where can you pull recruits from, and what is the quality of those recruits? Wasn't Ed Orgeron that said, "The planes fly South, they don't fly North".? I hear ya... But recruiting is such a crap shoot. Johnny stud boy, was the man in high school, couldn't crack the line up in college... What's the difference between the Sanchez kid at USC and the Marve kid at U of Miami... both studs in HS... great recruits... but one gets it done and the other stuggles. I guess my point is... we don't know good recruits... until they have made good. And many times... when we talk about talented teams... they have the 1 or 2 premiere athlets, but its a bunch of kids I'd never heard of... and maybe that's just me... But Percy Harvin? Who was he in Hs? Sam Bradford? Didn't know a thing... didn't see him in the QB Elite competition... And don't even get me started about O'linemen... We have the recruitiing gurus, grading recruiting classes... but we already know how shady a business that is... and again... there are entirely too many high schools, for there to not be enough talent to go around. Stud from the Illinois area... isn't as studly as the stud from Florida... because Florida has Spring ball? Is the learning curve that steep from HS to College? I'm not saying I know the answers... I don't know if we are even asking the right questions. USC has 3 backs with 600 yds a piece... I've heard of McKnight... the other two... didn't know a thing... and they are similarly talented.. |
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 12:29:59 GMT -6
ED got fired at Ole Miss. how is his recruiting class doing, though (Oher, Eason, Snead)? He almost had McKnight and Garcia And I think there are two other lengthy threads discussing that Spring Ball isn't the common denominator that sets the talent apart. But back on point, until there is an apex of competitiveness within the confernce (Conf Championship), there really won't be many Big Ten teams that can compete on a national scale. There is the cream puff schedule, then beat up on a few conference teams, then you all go to a bowl game. Until they divide the 11 Big Ten teams up into divisions within the conference to vie for a championship, there is really nothing to quantify the 'best' team of the conference. Get a conference championship game, and at least, maybe the conference would be defined by something MORE than 2-3 games every year. |
|
|
|
Post by goldenbear76 on Jan 2, 2009 12:33:14 GMT -6
The thing that is strange for me is , you say the big ten needs the bigger slower guys to stop the run 30-35 times a game all year long. But the fact is, in bowl games, your not running the ball well against these smaller faster defenses. Part of the problem to me is there is not a consistant threat to run. A team might run an Iso or inside zone once ...it gets stopped for 1 or no yards...and most of these teams seem to think ..Well that play isn't going to work and you never see it for awhile. Defenses will guess a lot. If I was the bigger slower team, my advice is to run straight ahead. At least till they start cheating inside. If you can't beat the smaller faster defense by running it straight ahead...then your not going to win. lol. One caveat unless you are an option team.
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jan 2, 2009 12:35:30 GMT -6
I don't know if it comes right down to the talent base, I think as stated above the Big 10 plays a totally different type of football than the SEC or PAC-10. Plus PSU inability to get out of a cover 3 vs USC is mind boggling but I am not one to criticize a game plan I am not part of. You have up and down years and sure the Big 10 has sturggled but didn't Michigan wack Florida a year or two ago? secsports.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=2&url_article_id=6307&change_well_id=2(2007 stats) The talent is there but it's a a different type of talent. The SEC leads in players in the NFL by 29 over the Big-10, so I guess there are guys who can play in the Big-10 so maybe it's a bit of a style thing vs. a personnel thing. Ohio St is second overall for NFL players behind Miami so who knows. Obviously USC was the much much better team yesterday, maybe the best team in the nation right now. |
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 2, 2009 12:53:27 GMT -6
ED got fired at Ole Miss. Brophy: how is his recruiting class doing though (Oher, Eason, Snead)? My point exactly, Ogre is a great recuiter and recruited great kids but he still couldnt win. with him coaching them with his schemes etc OTOH look at Nebraska, this year first year, not even his kids or time to put together a recruiting class while he was busy guidling LSU to ta National Title Pelinis team went from about 106th in total defense to about 55-60th. The very same front 4 went from laughable to respectable and even dominated a number of games including the Gator Bowl etc 5-7 to 9-4 and all that with a QB no one , I repeat no one wanted (Joe Ganz). Where did 5 star prospect and Elite QB academy award winner that EVERYONE wanted Harrrison BEck end up? After quitting NU, Sitting the bench for an NC State team.  |
|
|
|
Post by stud17 on Jan 2, 2009 13:49:30 GMT -6
I grew up watching the Big Ten so I'm going to be a little bias towards the Big Ten. Here's my thinking: correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't hear this obsession over the SEC 10-15 years ago; I heard it about the Big Ten. College offenses have changed over time going from wishbone to 4-5 wide offenses; college offenses are a trend, it changes over time. It's the same thing with the FBS conferences; Big Ten was "it" in the past, now SEC has its turn. Who knows, maybe down the road it'll be the Big East and even further down the Mountain West. ;D
A conference cannot be dominate forever. I'll admit that the Big Ten hasn't been as successful in the past just like the SEC hasn't been this successful forever. Its inevitable that a conference will has years where it's just not that strong. We can look into it as much as we want, but the simple fact is that a conference cannot be dominate forever. When college football returns to power running, the BIG TEN will REEMERGE AS THE DOMINATE CONFERENCE!!!!! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Jan 2, 2009 14:04:47 GMT -6
Return? When was it ever dominating,
I remember lots of lost Rose Bowls, losing to very average Pac 10 Teams.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 14:09:54 GMT -6
Lot of good points brought up and 15-10 years ago.....
I think it was the 1983 Schnellenberger NC that turned the SEC / South into the dominant brand of football that we know today......then the Miami Jimmy Johnson years of speed merchants on defense...THAT is the game today.
What has changed in the last 15 years (actually that's 25!)?
I dunno.....
The schemes, the approach to year-round football, Weights / Speed training has taken on a whole new dynamic, recruiting (virtual) wars, publicity / market share, television......
Who is winning in those "advancements"?
|
|
|
|
Post by khalfie on Jan 2, 2009 14:10:10 GMT -6
Buddy of mine did some research... says the Big 10 hasn't been relevant since a half century ago...
Seriously, the Big Ten is a shadow of its former self.
Even during the Schembechler/Hayes era (which a lot of people without an AARP card seem to think represented some sort of football nirvana in the Big Ten), the Big Ten was a Big Bust in bowl games. Bo's Michigan teams were 5-12 in bowl games. Woody's bowl history at OSU was 5-6.
From 1947-59, the Big Ten was 12-1 in the Rose Bowl. From there, things started to go downhill.
1960-69: 5-5
1970-79: 1-9
1980-89: 3-7
1990-99: 6-4
2000-09: 1-6
The Big Ten is 16-31 in the last 47 Rose Bowl games it has played.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jan 2, 2009 14:14:02 GMT -6
I think an argument /assessment of an entire conference based on 1 particular game is the definition of futility.
|
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Jan 2, 2009 14:16:34 GMT -6
I think an argument /assessment of an entire conference based on 1 particular game is the definition of futility. if the premise that supports an assumption is flawed, does that make the assumption flawed? Most here are talking about the consistent lack of output from the Big 10. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 2, 2009 14:53:38 GMT -6
The Rose Bowls have been disappointing, but I don't think this argument gives USC and Texas enough credit as they've won the past four or five Rose Bowls. A LOT of teams have looked dreadful against those two schools this decade and Michigan's loss to Texas came down to a last second field goal--the 2005 Rose Bowl I believe.
The Big Ten also, despite Ohio State's performance in the past two national title games, has a winning record against the SEC in bowl games the past seven years--10-9 or something like that counting Iowa's win (delta, did you conveniently forget that with your first post?) and Michigan State's loss yesterday.
I'm not saying things are good--the Big Ten does have the worse record out of the BCS conferences in bowl games the last five or so years. But, I don't think it's as bad as this thread makes it sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by 19delta on Jan 2, 2009 15:22:12 GMT -6
counting Iowa's win (delta, did you conveniently forget that with your first post?) and Michigan State's loss yesterday. No. I was specifically addressing the bowl games in which a Big Ten lost. |
|
