• 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!

The Big Ten Needs to Get Their Act Together

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
LordJeffBuck

LordJeffBuck

Illuminatus Emeritus
Staff member
BP Recruiting Team
The Big Ten and the SEC both have fourteen teams, and that's about where the comparisons end. While the SEC has won seven of the last eight national championships, the Big Ten has to go all the way back to 1954 to claim seven titles. Even if you add in latecomers Nebraska and Penn State, you still have to go back more than thirty years (1982, to be exact) in order to equal the SEC's recent success. It's clear that there is a real talent gap between the two conferences. So what does the Big Ten do in response? They create a perceived talent gap to accentuate the problem.

During the opening week of the 2014 college football season, half the Big Ten teams played patsies from the ranks of the FCS, while only three schools challenged themselves with an opponent from a Power 5 conference. Meanwhile, only two SEC squads dipped into the FCS to snag an easy win and half the teams opened against a Power 5 opponent, including out-of-conference wins over perennial powers from the ACC, Big 12, and Big Ten. So while the Big Ten was masking its weakness, the SEC was proving its strength. And the perceived talent gap between the two conferences widened with both fans and the media.

So what can the Big Ten do? First, stop scheduling FCS opponents, period. Games against undermanned teams can do nothing to help you, but they can certainly hurt you (Michigan having revenge against Appalachian State? Are you kidding me?). Next, make sure that each Big Ten team opens with a respectable opponent. It would be nice to mimic college basketball and see the Big Ten "challenge" another conference to kick off the season, although scheduling difficulties might prevent that from happening, at least for several more years. In the meantime, how about starting the season with intra-conference rivalries such as Michigan versus Michigan State; Ohio State versus Wisconsin; and Penn State versus Maryland. Finally, win some big games early on so that the CFB world takes notice.

If you have to play a few patsies (and let's face it, everybody has to), then at least bury them down in your schedule like the SEC does. By playing the softest cupcakes in week one, the Big Ten renders itself irrelevant before the season has even begun. The Big Ten has the reputation of being a weak football conference, and that reputation only gets worse as the level of the competition declines.
 
In the Big Ten's defense, they did try and set up the challenge series with the PAC who pulled out of it. That being said, win some big games, and either Michigan or Ped State needs to be a top 10 program. I'm in the minority, but I'd much rather see Michigan (perhaps a Hokeless Michigan) assume that role.
 
Upvote 0
The SEC waits until the final weeks (before their big rival game) of the season to play most of their FCS opponents, so the week one comparison isn't exactly accurate or fair.

No one schedules bye weeks and FCS opponents more strategically than the SEC. They always come before the biggest games of the season for the conference's chosen teams.

That doesn't address how lazy and cheap the Big Ten is when it comes to recruiting, hiring coaches, and investing in facilities, but it is an important point to make.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
The rub is evident..Meyer and Dantonio vs. Saban Miles Malzahn Spurrier Richt etc. Bert who was considered 3rdin the Big 10 is close to last in the SEC. The Big 10 has to spend the money to get even..they have the cash cow Big 10 network. The bottom teams won't make a comittment to winning in the Big 10.
 
Upvote 0
Another benefit of scheduling a quality opponent early (basically flipping a big time opponent with an FCS opponent like the SEC does) is that there is a lot of variability in the rankings, so when A&M beats South Carolina they jump ten spots thanks to South Carolina being stupidly overrated (which they wouldn't be later in the year) and pollsters still being willing to make a huge change like that.

Another benefit is that you have plenty of time to crawl back up the polls if you end up losing and you might even jump someone when they lose while you beat up on an FCS opponent at the end of the season.

All of these reasons are exactly why the SEC schedules the way they do (with a huge helping hand from their pimp ESPN) and it's pretty ingenious.
 
Upvote 0
I agree that there's a perceived (and very real) gap between the SEC and the Big Ten. But I guess I don't put as much stock in the timing of games that other people do. Why does it matter when Ohio State squished Akron, compared to when Alabama beat down South Central Shoemaker's Academy?

I also think that the gap in overall quality, while it is very real and absolutely needs to be dealt with, I think it's perceived to be much more than it really is. I haven't researched it in a few years, but a few years ago I checked out all the bowl games that had Big Ten vs. SEC in the BCR era. I forget which year I looked them all up, but that year (let's say it was 2009) was when the SEC overtook the Big Ten in head-to-head wins. Of course, similar to... who was it? Herm Edwards? Is that his name? Didn't he say, "you play to win the game." I say, "you play to win championships," and there's no way to argue that the SEC has been doing that, and the Big Ten hasn't. Someone can argue (like I did) that the Big Ten is maybe 20-20 against the SEC in those 16 years in bowl games. But I think the real score should be something like 9 to 1. (I lost count of the number of championships the SEC had.)

I don't think the FCS opponents are what is keeping the gap up. Nor do I think that the timing of those opponents are an issue (though, maybe you're right). But I do agree that the Big Ten needs to schedule bigger opponents. How some of these teams go 4 games without scheduling an opponent from a Power 5 conference really surprises me. What I'd love to see (though I know it would never happen) is a Big Ten - SEC challenge. Somehow pair all 14 Big Ten teams with all 14 SEC teams, and Week 1 of the season have them all play in the SEC home stadiums. The next season, have all 14 SEC teams come up to the Big Ten stadiums, and play after the last week of the season. Basically, there would be a week between the Ohio State-Michigan game and the Big Ten conference game, in this scenario, and Ohio State would use that week to host LSU or Auburn or Alabama.

I think the Big Ten needs to quit these neutral site games, but maybe if it's the only way to get the SEC teams to play the Big Ten, it's the only way. But the Big Ten needs to start winning them before we can complain about them. And I think that's the key. Someone else said it first, and it is absolutely the #1 thing: the Big Ten needs to win games. Ohio State can thump their chests all we want, but when it comes down to it, we lost our two biggest games of 2013, 2012 didn't mean a thing, and 2011 was a season we all want to forget. And we're still the only team that the Big Ten can count on. And until Penn State becomes what they think they were pre-Big Ten, Michigan becomes what they were pre-Tressel, and Nebraska becomes what they were in the '90s, I don't know that the Big Ten has much to talk about.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeye86 said:
The SEC waits until the final weeks (before their big rival game) of the season to play most of their FCS opponents, so the week one comparison isn't exactly accurate or fair.
Click to expand...
I mentioned the fact that the SEC schedules cupcakes later in the year.

The week one comparison is absolutely fair. My main point is that the Big Ten needs to make themselves relevant early in the year by knocking off some quality opponents. How many times has the national media (and the pollsters and the selection committee) looked at a Big Ten team (including Ohio State) and said, "Sure they're 8-0, but they haven't played anybody." The Big Ten teams need to challenge themselves early, not play a slate of FCS, MAC, Sun Belt, etc. teams.
 
Upvote 0
1. Push to have states in the region have high school spring football practices.

2. Adjust scheduling as described previously.

3. Understand that football is a game of aggression and hire coaches who get that. Coach to WIN, not to not lose (cliche I know, but true)

4. Invest and give a shit.
 
Upvote 0
As with everything else when dealing with organizations, it starts at the top.

Leadership has to have the desire to put an emphasis on sports, then the ability to translate the desire into action.

Think of the B1G right now;

Wants to compete at the highest levels AND have hired the right people to do it: OSU, MSU
Wants to compete at the highest level but incompetent: scUM, Nebraska, Wisky
Apathetic and incompetent (The daily double schools): everyone else

Jury still out: Penn State (not sure what those goofy bastards are up to)
 
Upvote 0
matcar said:
As LJB said, Hire better coaches and then we'd win some games. The B1G is littered with mediocrity in their coaching so it's no wonder the conference is also mediocre.
Click to expand...

wG6l0e_5_400x400.jpeg

"I resent that remark."
-Bo Pelini and his cat
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top