The Big Ten joins the modern era

Today is the Big Ten football championship. It took the conference a while to come up with a basketball tournament, and the benefit of that has been, well, increased revenue and excitement. It doesn't really tell you who the best team is or anything like that. Tournaments are just exciting. Simple as that.
But now with the football Championship Game, not only is there a shot at more money from TV rights and ticket sales, but tonight's game between Michigan State and Wisconsin will keep the conference in the public consciousness, something that hasn't been the case as the season ended in late November in previous years.
This is not the case this year, but in future years, it could also provide the opportunity for the best teams to actually play. With a 12 team conference, as it was with an 11 team conference, not everyone plays each other in a given regular season. It gave to talk that teams were only winning the conference because they played a weaker schedule. Now, teams are able to play the best team in the conference in order to win the conference. For football, it's the best solution.
For what it's worth, I'm picking Wisconsin by two touchdowns.

Big Ten > ACC

For the second year in a row, the Big Ten topped the ACC in the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. It's got to be so bad that the ACC has grabbed ringers in Pitt and Syracuse for years going forward. Sure, we added Nebraska, but honestly, like that makes a difference.
The only teams that lost were the tremendously awful Big Ten teams, like Iowa and Nebraska, or teams that had tough road matchups, like Wisconsin and Michigan. Everyone else won. 8-4 over the vaunted ACC. Does this mean the Big Ten is strong this year? I would say yes, but I bet most college basketball announcers and analysts will insist the ACC is having a down year.
A couple teams particularly impressed me. The first was Penn State, who is traditionally not... good. They took their show on the road and won at Boston College. The next was Minnesota, who took out a tough Virginia Tech squad in a defensive struggle, even without Trevor Mbakwe. Last was Ohio State, who laid waste to Duke.
Oh, and as always, I'm impressed by everything Purdue does, just like a proud father.

What now for the Big Ten?

With the word that Syracuse and Pitt are headed for the ACC, it is just further evidence that the NCAA as we know it is falling apart, headed for the 4 super conference structure. Those conferences, apparently, are the SEC, ACC, PAC 12 and local favorite, the Big Ten.. Many other conferences are figured out in terms of expansion. The Pac 12 will add Oklahoma State and Oklahoma, as well as, perhaps, Texas Tech and another team. The ACC, already at 14 with the addition of Pitt and Syracuse, may end up with Texas as well, which will need to take 1 more to make it an even 16. The SEC is already nabbing Texas A&M and Missouri will probably follow. They too will look to add another pair of teams.
The important thing for the Big Ten is this: three of the teams they thought they would add may end up in the ACC. They will likely continue to press for the New York market for their Big Ten Network. This means Rutgers is all but guaranteed to eventually receive an offer. Notre Dame will continue to be pressured. Other than that... Connecticut? One of the Kansas schools? The Big Ten may look very different very soon, but I don't think anyone will be able to anticipate where it is going.

The biggest problem with the new Big Ten

I didn't realize this until recently, but it turns out instead of rotating through opponents annually, they are doing it biannually, just like they used to. The problem with this is that there are more teams to fit into the schedule, and more teams that are considered "mandatory" opponents, either because they are part of their division (5 opponents) or because they are the preserved rival (1 opponent) which means there are 6 our 8 opponents decided, with the 2 other games rotating between 5 teams. Again, that is a biannual rotation, which means that there is one team that you won't see for 4 years. There will be college students in the Big Ten that won't see a conference foe at all in their college career.
For your review, here are the teams that won't see each other until 2015 with a pithy comment.
Purdue - Northwestern - These two, before reorganization were a preserved rivalry, meaning that they played each other no matter what every season.
Nebraska - Indiana - Too bad for Nebraska. Also, the Cornhuskers won't visit the state of Indiana until 2013 when they play Purdue.
Minnesota - Ohio State - Hey, with the forfeited wins from last year, it's a 5 year streak without losing to the Buckeyes! Way to go, Gophers!
Michigan - Wisconsin - Look at that. Michigan and Wisconsin won't play each other in Big Ten football for 4 consecutive seasons. Mind boggling.
Michigan State - Penn State - These two actually played a trophy game. Put it in storage for a while.
Iowa-Illinois - Iowa will actually drive past Champaign on the way to West Lafayette to face their new "rival" the Purdue Boilermakers.
Nice work, Big Ten. Your schedule ended up about as bad as possible.

A way to early prediction on the Big Ten championship game

I am trying desperately not to get stuck in a baseball only, or NFL draft only rut where it comes to my posts, so I decided to come up with this... A post where I try to make picks for a season that won't begin until late August.
OK, there is going to be no rational explanation on any of this, just a winnowing down of the teams until I have someone I can take for the championship game. The divisions, for those that don't remember are:
"Legends": Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska and Northwestern
"Leaders": Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin

All right, let's first eliminate the teams that don't have any chance. That leaves the conferences as:
Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraska vs Ohio State and Wisconsin.
Well, for the first, it's just a toss up between Ohio State and Wisconsin. One of the schools doesn't have the NCAA breathing down their necks. Wisconsin is in the title game!
As for the other division, I think all 4 of these teams could play much better or worse than anyone expects. One of these teams will reel off several wins to put them in the hunt. It's basically the Big 12 north that Nebraska tried so gallantly to leave. Michigan has a new coach, and Iowa has a new QB, so I will drop those two. Michigan State or Nebraska? I am going to say Michigan State, for no other reason than it would be funny to me if the realignment ended with this particular title game. Wisconsin vs Michigan State, neither of which are exactly marquee names in the conference which tried desperately to set up Michigan-Ohio State or Penn State-Nebraska scenarios. I hope it's always like this.

Let's See How the Conferences Did Against Each Other

Two Years ago, I made the case that Virginia Tech and Cincinnati potentially could have been considered for the National Title game because they came out of a very competitive ACC and Big East, two conferences that fared extremely well against their BCS opponents. Putting together those stats got me wondering, so since I'm pretty much the stats guy on this site, let's take a look at the expanded out-of-conference records for all 11 D-1A conferences in the 2010 season. Well here it is. Click on the table below to view it full size. I don't know how else to embed a big table in blogger.

So let's take a look at the table and see if we can make any observations.

- First the ground rules. This table shows each conference's record vs. every other conference, plus the conferences record against all of D-1AA (screw this FBS/FCS naming thing). The "Indies" are Army, Navy, and Notre Dame, who make up a fictional 3 team conference. Post conferences, the grand totals show each conference's non-conference record, record vs. D-1A only, and record vs BCS conference teams only (The 6 AQ conferences and Notre Dame). Boxes that are grayed out means the 2 conferences did not play all season.

- The two undefeated conference champions playing in the BCS championship game come from the best (PAC-10 at 10-5) and 3rd best (SEC at 10-6) conferences against BCS opponents from outside the conference. Maybe the BCS got it right after all. Only 1 PAC-10/SEC game was played all year, and it was won by the PAC-10 when Oregon stomped Tennessee.

- In contrast, TCU's Mountain West was 7th out of 12 against the BCS, only going 5-10, finishing behind the Indies and WAC (the MWC also was only 4-8 against the WAC this year, but they are getting the top 4 WAC teams in the next 2 years. If you can't beat them, join them), but the MWC did better against the BCS than BCS conferences ACC and Big East

- The Big East was only 3-12 against BCS teams. Awful

- Despite going 10-5 against the BCS, the PAC-10 only finished 14-10 vs. D-1A, so that means they were only 4-5 against C-USA, MAC, WAC, and MWC (they didn't play the Sun Belt)

- Thanks largely to 19 total games vs. the Sun Belt and D-1AA, the SEC finished the season with the best record vs. D-1A and total non-conference. They victimized the Sun Belt a perfect 8 times and went 10-1 against D-1AA.

- The only conference to beat up on D-1AA more than the SEC was the ACC, who went 12-1 against them. That helped get them an impressive 30-18 non-conference record, but they were only 18-17 against D-1A and 6-13 against the BCS.

- The MAC mostly exists to get big paydays for playing at Big Ten teams early in the season, so not surprisingly this was the most common conference vs. conference matchup in 2010, with the Big Ten winning 11 of 13 games. The above mentioned MWC vs. WAC was 2nd with 12 games.

- D-1AA teams managed to beat D-1A teams 7 times this season in 90 games played. Not bad for them. The only conference to lose more than once to a D-1AA team was the MAC. D-1AA managed to get 1 win over 4 of the 6 BCS conferences.

- I think everyone will admit that the WAC and MWC are downright competitive, and college football (at least until things get shaken up) really have 8 "power" conferences, with the Big East probably being the worst of those 8. However 3 conferences actually were worse than the Big East this year.....

- C-USA was a somewhat respectable 14-28 against the rest of D-1A this year, and were 5-22 against the BCS, which is pretty much expected for a lower level conference. They have to be pretty proud of Tulsa's win over Notre Dame, though.

- The MAC was a downright awful 7-35 against D-1A and 3-25 against the BCS. (Toledo over Purdue, Northern Illinois over Minnesota, Temple over Big East Champion UCONN)

- The Sun Belt being in D-1A is pretty much a joke. They went 0-26 this year against the BCS (including 8 losses to the SEC, who would miss them if they moved down) and were only 2-32 vs. all of D-1A (Troy over Bowling Green and FAU over UAB). Surprisingly, they only decided to play D-1AA twice, and won both of those games.

- I think that sums it up. Check out the table and feel free to put your conclusions in the comments.

Oh good, we're ready to say the Big Ten sucks again

Even though Minnesota beat North Carolina, and Ohio State has absolutely destroyed everyone they have played, I think we are already getting to the point in the season where every pundit in the land starts doubting the Big Ten's chops. It happens every year, and then the Big Dance comes along and the Big Ten "surprises" by getting at least 1 team in the Final Four and usually about 3-4 teams to the Sweet 16. But still, they play a methodical game, and each and every bad loss is seized upon as a sign that the Big Ten is an impossibly bad major conference.
Well, in the past week, we have seen Purdue take a bad loss to Richmond (they must be bad since Robbie Hummel is out! You know, just like he was last year when they made it t to the Sweet 16), Minnesota lost to Virginia (the UNC/West Virginia wins must have been the flukes) and Wisconsin lost in the finals of their early season tournament and Illinois and Michigan State only got third place in their tournament games. Yes, let's all start crapping on the Big Ten, and then talk about how weak the conference is when in fact it's simply very competitive.
Last year, the Big Ten won the ACC/Big Ten challenge, which is underway already (with Minnesota's loss to Virginia), and it must have been a down year for the ACC, since the Big Ten still garnered little respect from basketball pundits. How many games does the Big Ten have to win this year to gain a little love? Probably all of them.

So What are the REAL Competitively Balanced Divisions?

When the Big Ten announced their realignment on Wednesday, they said that both competitive balance and geography played a part in setting up the divisions. A lot has been said about the geography side of things. An East-West split seemed pretty easy, but what about the Competitive balance part of it. My guess is the Big Ten grouped and then split pairs of teams by competitiveness. It was probably something like 1. Ohio State - Michigan 2. Nebraska - Penn State 3. Iowa - Wisconsin 4. Purdue - Michigan State 5. Illinois - Minnesota 6. Northwestern - Indiana.

But, what if the Big Ten used real numbers to split up their divisions? I thought this would be interesting to look at, so I looked at each of the 12 teams records throughout the BCS Era (since 1998). I feel like that is a pretty good gauge of competitiveness. You have 12 years to work with, this was an era when things became a little more standardized in college football, and its recent history. Sure, Illinois was awesome in the 1920s with Red Grange, but how much does that matter or affect their recruiting now? Remember, colleges are trying to recruit kids that were born in 1992 or 1993 this year, so the BCS started when they were 4 or 5. So let's take a look at the standings since 1998. These records include bowl games and conference championship games (for Nebraska). Teams in the real life Ohio State division are in red and teams in the real life Michigan division are in blue:

	W	L	PCT
1. Ohio State	119	32	0.788
2. Wisconsin	107	46	0.699
3. Nebraska	105	49	0.682
4. Michigan	101	48	0.678
5. Penn State	96	52	0.649
6. Iowa	84	63	0.571
7. Purdue	83	66	0.557
8. Michigan State	76	70	0.521
9. Minnesota	75	72	0.510
10. Northwestern	67	78	0.462
11. Illinois	56	85	0.397
12. Indiana	47	92	0.338

So, if we were to split up the conferences from a competitive standpoint, we would put teams 1. 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 together and teams 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, and 11 together (to make it a "snake" pattern). This means the divisions would be:

Division A: Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana
Division B: Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois

This is interesting because in real life, the Big Ten put the top 2 and bottom 2 teams over the past 12 years together, leaving the other division to mostly be the "middle of the pack" division. Divison A looks much stronger on paper in the alignment above, but its actually more balanced, at least over the 12 years. The interesting thing is in his alignment, pretty much only the Purdue/Indiana and maybe the Iowa and Wisconsin vs. Minnesota rivalries would be lost to realignment, probably eliminating the real life need for a cross-conference protected rivalry.

I also took it one step further, because the Big Ten is all about money. Bowl game appearances bring in big bucks, so I gave 1 extra "win" for a bowl bid and 2 extra "wins" for a BCS bid. This didn't change the standings that much, but here they are:

	W	L	PCT	Bowls	BCS	EPCT
1. Ohio State	119	32	0.788	3	8	0.914
2. Wisconsin	107	46	0.699	9	2	0.784
3. Michigan	101	48	0.678	6	4	0.772
4. Nebraska	105	49	0.682	8	2	0.760
5. Penn State	96	52	0.649	5	2	0.709
6. Iowa	84	63	0.571	6	2	0.639
7. Purdue	83	66	0.557	8	1	0.624
8. Minnesota	75	72	0.510	9	0	0.571
9. Michigan State	76	70	0.521	6	0	0.562
10. Northwestern	67	78	0.462	5	0	0.497
11. Illinois	56	85	0.397	1	2	0.433
12. Indiana	47	92	0.338	1	0	0.345

This setup only gives us one change, but its a big one. It swaps Michigan and Nebraska. Here is what it would be under this alignment:

Division A: Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan State, Minnesota, Indiana
Division B: Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois

I'm sure under this format they would have done the cross-division rivalry because they split up "sacred" Michigan and Ohio State. What would the other 5 be? I'll guess Nebraska vs. Iowa, Minnesota vs. Wisconsin, Purdue vs. Indiana, Illinois vs. Penn State, and Michigan State vs. Northwestern. The most interesting thing I realized while doing this is that Illinois has only been to 3 bowl games in the past 12 years, and 2 of them have been BCS bowls. Weird. But that's why splitting them up by BCS appearances alone can be deceiving. Also, who would have guessed that Wisconsin has the 2nd best record over the past 12 years, even when you correct for bowls? They have been very, very consistently above average, but rarely great.

I'm interested to hear what you think about these other possible alignments. Feel free to leave a comment.

As expected, the Big Ten messed up divisional alignment

The Big Ten announced their divisional alignment starting in 2011, and as one might have predicted, the divisions made almost no sense:

Division A) Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Minnesota and Northwestern
Division B) Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue and Indiana.

The claim was made that they wanted to look at three things when creating their divisions, in this order: competitive balance, traditional rivalries and geography. Well great, you screwed up all of them. Let's review what they did wrong addressing all three of those factors, in reverse order.

Geography: This should be pretty office. An East-West split would have preserved a truer geographic balance. Have fun with your inter divisional game against Penn State, Wisconsin, as you pass through Northwestern on your way to get there! But really, this wasn't as bad as it could have been, as two teams in the middle of the Big Ten -- Wisconsin and Illinois -- were swapped with the two teams from Michigan.

Traditional rivalries: Most traditional rivalries are best preserved by a true East-West split, and as a result, most of the broken rivalries are because of the 4 teams that got swapped, like Minnesota and Iowa vs Wisconsin, Illinois vs Northwestern, Michigan vs Ohio State and Michigan State vs. Penn State. Realizing how important these rivalries are, the Big Ten, in their infinite wisdom, will have a set, cross divisional rivalry for every team. They are: Minnesota-Wisconsin, Michigan-Ohio State, Illinois - Northwestern. After that, it gets fun. Iowa - Purdue, Indiana - Michigan State (because this is basketball) and Nebraska - Penn State. So much for geography. And if they go with the 8 game schedule as is common, they will play their 5 divisional games, the 6th crossover game and 2 rotating games. This means that there will be 1 team that you won't see on the schedule for 3 seasons. That's pretty awesome for traditional rivalries, like Iowa-Wisconsin. Of course, there is the chance another conference game is added to the schedule, which may yet happen, but hasn't been confirmed to my knowledge.

Competitive Balance: I have discussed this at length. A true east-west division would be just as competitive as whatever monstrosity this is. Actually, probably more so. Putting Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin in the same conference would have assured a deep western conference. Furthermore, Illinois has been to a BCS game within the past few years, making this conference extraordinarily deep. On the other side, you have Ohio State and Penn State who have fielded any sort of talented roster in the past 5 years. Michigan and Purdue have been BCS teams, but it's been a very long time for each of them. Instead, Michigan was decreed to be just as high quality as Ohio State, and they were split up. Give me a break. When did Michigan become Notre Dame? Do we really need to coddle them and tell them they are pretty even though they haven't been relevant for several years? How long until Michigan is viewed as what they are, a relic of history? 

Let's face the facts, this was done for money. Michigan-Ohio State is the cash cow of the Big Ten. The split of those two teams drove the entire alignment. Congratulations, Nebraska, you left a conference that responded to the whims of Texas for one that responds only to Michigan and Ohio State.

How to divide the conferences

Now that the Big Ten has it's 12, decisions need to be made on what to do with dividing the conferences. There is worry about preserving rivalries and even more about making a conference title game watchable. They don't want another Big 12 situation, where the North was always subpar compared to the South. There is worry that combining the likes of Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State will make for a lopsided split.
I have news for those that worry, however. It's not that bad. Sure, Michigan and Penn State were forces about 20 years ago, but since the BCS was introduced, those two schools have 6 appearances (Ohio State had 8 by themselves... putting them anywhere makes this lopsided).
If you look at what is widely regarded as a geographic split, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue and Indiana in the east, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska in the west. If you want to go at this by appearances in BCS games, then that is 15 to 8, East. The Star Tribune printed Glen Mason's competitive balance version which was Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan State, Michigan and Nebraska and Purdue, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois, Penn State and Ohio State. For those that are keeping score, that is 9-14, in favor of the Ohio State division.
It seems like a lot of unnecessary gnashing of teeth, splitting teams up, if that's all the gain you get. Just go west to east. It's not going to be the same as the Big 12, where there were two legitimate powers in Oklahoma and Texas in the south. There is only one real power any more in the Big Ten, and Ohio State is going to continue destroying the Big Ten for the foreseeable future.

The latest Big Ten expansion rumors

Naturally, the best rumors on the Big Ten come from Kansas City radio stations. Better still, these rumors are best when only sort of refuted by someone who should know what's going on but clearly doesn't. This is what we had today, when said Kansas City radio station reported that the Big Ten had extended offers to 4 schools, which, of course, makes almost no sense. Joel Maturi, AD at Minnesota verbally shrugged his shoulders, confused.
Here are the 4 teams that Kansas City thinks have the offer:
Nebraska - They have already denied receiving an offer
Missouri - Probably one of the "locks" to join the conference if and when they expand. Not really reaching.
Rutgers - Finally! Someone for Northwestern to compete with! I bet Nebraska and Rutgers would be fast rivals.
Notre Dame - Pretty sure we've been down this road before.
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, even if Joel Maturi is being coy (or stupid) I'm onto you, Kansas City. I see through your web of lies.

Today in rumors.

Last night, various sources were reporting that the Big Ten had reached an agreement with Pitt to join (eventually) the conference. Never mind the fact that the rumors have been debunked since then, it's still fun to think about. The main thing to think about is what it would do to the conference.
First, Pitt is essentially the same school as Purdue. They will often be near the top of the conference, but would rarely win in either of the primary sports (football and basketball). They would automatically boos the overall strength of the conference in both sports, and that can't be a bad thing.
The thing that really peaked my interest was the idea of division in the Conference. You couldn't split it East-West because it would break up a rivalry (Purdue-Indiana, by my estimation). I thought of a possible rearrangement, preserving all of the current rivalries. Here's what I thought...
Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota in one division and Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern and Illinois in the other.
Steve and I have been at odds over this, as he thinks it would be more likely that the conference would want to jerryrig a Michigan-Ohio State conference championship every season. Given that it hasn't happened yet, it's just empty bluster and just more talk for around the water cooler.

Problem A #1 with the Big Ten Network

The problem with the Big 10 network, of course, is summer. The only current sports they are airing are gymnastics, baseball and softball. There is some old school basketball, but nobody wants to watch that, especially with the real basketball heating up. Big Ten Tonight is pretty much Mike Hall talking about what he had for dinner. I would say you are better off having Boomerang during the Summer. I've been watching Magilla Gorilla for three hours. Tell me that's not better than tape delayed softball between Iowa and Penn State.

Who are BTN's viewers?

Why is this commercial constantly on Big Ten Network? Who can afford this?


It's Dan Patrick, isn't it?

The Big Ten deserves all the hype it can get

It's not often that I take issue with a particular piece written by someone else (usually it's their work as a whole, like with Jim Souhan), however Ken Davis' assessment of the Big Ten conference raised my dander a little bit. He asserts that the Big Ten doesn't deserve the hype, nor do they deserve 7 bids to the Big Dance. His primary argument is that it is because the conference is poor offensively.
Of course, anyone who has watched the Big Ten this year knows this is an unfair assessment. The conference is just an exceptionally strong defensive group, that has demonstrated the ability to run with higher scoring teams (Purdue versus Oklahoma) and make high flying teams grind it out at their level (Michigan versus UCLA). That they are scoring so few points against one another despite being able to compete outside of the conference shouldn't be a condemnation of their ability, but praise of a deep conference.
Davis also cites the teams record versus the Big East (arguably the best in the land this year) and a near .500 record against another supposedly superior conference, the ACC as reasons why the Big Ten shouldn't be getting bids. He does not cite records against the Big 12, SEC, or Pac 10, the other 3 power conferences, all of which are definitely off this year. This is an argument not necessarily that the Big 10 is good, but rather the conference deserves the 7 or 8 bids. Three of the 6 power conferences are week, and the mid-majors don't have multiple teams deserving bids this year. [UPDATE: The Big Ten went 2-1 vs the SEC, 5-2 against the Big 12 and 1-1 against the Pac 10]
Take a look at Minnesota and Michigan, two middle of the pack teams in the Big 10. They had two losses combined in the non-conference schedule. Minnesota went undefeated, including wins against Louisville and Virginia. Michigan's losses were at Maryland and in a neutral site against Duke. They also netted wins against the Blue Devils and against UCLA.
The Big Ten isn't a flashy conference that doesn't look good until you look at what they've done. Not many people, including Mr. Davis, take the time to do this. To get their attention, the conference needs all the hype it can get.

A couple close shaves.

Fortunately, last night I was working and didn't have a heart attack watching Purdue and Minnesota playing on the road against Northwestern and Wisconsin respectively. Both games came down to the wire, and both ended with victories for the team I was pulling for. Thank goodness.
I think it taught us something about both teams though (and maybe not. Like I said, I missed the games). Purdue still expects to roll inferior opponents, but in the Big Ten, there are no such teams this year. Minnesota, on the other hand, has struggled against the top tier opponents they have faced, and perhaps came out flat because of nerves in Madison against the Badgers. Fortunately, both teams have the talent to overcome rocky starts this season.
Furthermore, they are lucky to have coaches that so well fit the demeanor of their teams. In the case of the Boilers, Matt Painter is a young coach with a lot of spirit, needed to light a fire under the lackadaisical Purdue team. On the other hand, a calmer, experienced Tubby Smith helped the Gophers relax and play their game. After so many disappointing basketball seasons from a personal perspective, this season is shaping up to be my favorite in a while.
(It's Friday, so I wrote about happy things instead of things that are pissing me off, like the Colts being out of the playoffs, the Twins already being mathematically eliminated from post season contention and the Wild are meagerly holding on to the last playoff spot in the West.)

What happened to the Big Ten?

As anyone who follows college football knows, the Big Ten has been off this year. Well, they've been off for a few years, if you ask most people. The problem is, they haven't had a set of top flight marquee teams. Even though there are several teams that are good, and there aren't many teams that are awful, it's often labeled as a bad conference. It's considered a travesty if Ohio State makes it to the national title game, and many pundits were disgusted at Penn State's run before losing to Iowa.
With Ohio State running a freshman quarterback and Michigan being terrible, Penn State's season has been less impressive. It's been like this for several years now. Even when Ohio State won the Championship after the 2001 season, many didn't believe they belonged on the same field as Miami before the game. Two blowout losses in championship games since that win have put a greater damper on the conference.
Then, there is basketball. Typically, the conference is evenly distributed with a couple great teams, several good teams and a few bottom feeders. Generally speaking, there are 5-6 teams that make the Big Dance every year, maybe 7 on a good year. This year, however, ESPN's "bracketologist" Joe Lunardi only has 4 in his preseason predictions. Beyond that, he doesn't have a single team among his last 8 out. (Of course, he has Kansas playing Missouri in the first round. Maybe by this point, Missouri will be in the Big Ten?)
So it's not just football, it's basketball too. Both of the premiere sports in the conference are off in the Big Ten. What's the problem? As I see it, it started with perception. With both sports, the Big Ten has played a slower, plodding game. They are a running conference with strong defenses in football, and a trapping, half court style basketball conference. This worked just fine when they were able to attract top flight talent. Perception turned though, and the Big Ten was called boring, and the schools were unable to attract the talent they once were. In the beginning, the conference wasn't bad, it was just alleged that they were. After so many people said so, it became a self fulfilling prophecy.
Purdue was poised to overtake the division in football because their offense was more wide open than other schools in the conference, attracting talent from Texas and Florida, football breeding grounds. Joe Tiller became less aggressive, however, and the talent stopped coming in. Ohio State and Michigan State remain atop the basketball world because they push the ball, and Illinois will return, because that is their philosophy as well. These four schools were the exceptions that proved the rule. They scored more points, were flashier and were met with more recruiting success. It's fortunate that the coaching in the Big Ten is so skillful, otherwise the Big Ten would be completely adrift. Younger coaches may be well served to go to a more aggressive schemes if only to pull in more blue chippers.
Or maybe the problem is that young talent from California or Florida don't want to spend four years in Wisconsin or Indiana. If that's the case, then I don't know what to say.

Does anyone want the Big Ten?

I asked this exact same question last year, and gave the division to the Buckeyes. I was right. It's tough to assess teams before games are even played, so now that the preseason is over, I feel more comfortable giving you my predictions on how the division will play out this year.

1. Penn State: I know they have been playing cupcakes so far, but even then, they are making sure to take care of business, something that can't be said for other teams in the conference. Additionally, for the first time since Kerry Collins, the Nittany Lions appear to have a quarterback capable of completing a forward pass. They should be tough to beat.

2. Wisconsin: As usual, the Badgers aren't terribly impressive, even when they win. They rely on a strong ground game, but I wonder, if a team that can put up a lot of points, like Penn State and Illinois does so early, the Badgers are sunk. Fortunately, there are few dynamic offenses in the Big 10 this year.

3. Ohio State: Ohio State has been playing down to their opponents so far this season, allowing Ohio and Troy to hang around a lot longer than they should. Should Terrelle Pryor develop into a legitimate quarterback, maybe they will make some strides, but I think right now that this team isn't of the caliber that they have been in recent seasons.

4. Michigan State: The Spartans are battle tested and have a talented running back in Javon Ringer. It's a lot easier to rely on a strong ground game, as they have less frequent off days. Also working to their advantage is a very soft schedule, especially at the start of the year, which will only serve to provide some momentum for when the tough part of the schedule kicks in.

5. Iowa: Every time I watch the Hawkeyes, I'm impressed by how athletic they are. We keep hearing that Kirk Ferentz is an excellent coach, so lets see what he can do with the Hawkeyes in a week conference this year.

6. Illinois: I think the effect of Rashard Mendenhall's departure is greater than anyone anticipated. Now, with Mendenhall fumbling his way through Pittsburgh, Juice Williams is left to head the Illini attack, and I don't think he's capable of getting this team to be better than middle of the pack.

7. Minnesota: The Gophers are actually improving as the season goes on. Their defense, while not great, is bolstered by the addition of some JuCo transfers. The real story will be their offense, as Adam Weber has really matured over the offseason and might be one of the top quarterbacks in the conference. They only need 2 more wins to get to a bowl game, but they could win 4 more games before the season is through.

8. Purdue: The Boilers looked terrible in their two wins and only played for one half against Oregon. They have no defense, but their offense seems well enough. This will lead to some very high scoring games, but I don't think the Boilermakers have the stomach to eke any of these games out.

9. Michigan: I can't get over just how bad the Wolverines are. Appalachian State last year was a champion, so there is some silver lining in losing to them, and Oregon was a ranked opponent. This year, losses to Utah and Notre Dame demonstrate just how bad the Wolverines are. A team that can't score points can't win games.

10. Northwestern: All is not lost for the Wildcats, even if they finish near the bottom of the conference. They just need two more victories to become bowl eligible, and I think it could certainly happen (Purdue, at Indiana).

11. Indiana: I don't care how good Kellen Lewis is. Antawn Randle El was good too, and the Hoosiers didn't do anything then either. As they proved against Ball State, the Hoosiers are mostly devoid of talent.

The SEC is a little too full of themselves

I have a buddy, Marcus, who is originally from Atlanta and is consequently a huge Georgia fan. We got into a little argument in which he loudly argued that the SEC is much, much better than the Big Ten. Every time I would offer a counter argument, like last year the Big Ten won two out of the three Bowl games the teams played in or the fact that the Big Ten has now won the past 4 Capital One Bowls, Marcus would have a loud if poorly laid out excuse, like Auburn really didn't want to play in the Capital One Bowl after going undefeated the previous year. And when I would mention how Georgia didn't deserve a shot at the national title because they lost to Tennessee, who in turn lost to LSU, his response was "But it's Tennessee" like that's supposed to mean something. And then there was this exhortation from an Alabama fan on Loser With Socks. Frankly, I'm sick of everyone telling us how dominant the SEC is every year. It's just not true. I'll prove it here in a second, but just know, SEC fans, if you are reading this, I understand that you think logical arguments are an affront to your sensibilities, but I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to reassure my fellow non-SEC fans that our conferences can share a football field with yours. I'm not going to win you over, I'm sure, so feel free to stop reading here and enjoy that new fangled indoor toilet of yours, or whatever it is you do for fun down there.
First, lets make one thing very clear. We're looking at the quality of the overall conference, not the individual teams. Clearly, last year at the top, Florida was better than Ohio State. That doesn't reflect upon the rest of the conference. Let's look more recently, at the BCS. Of the 4 major conferences (The ACC and Big East are too fluid to accurately use them in this little study) the SEC has the highest winning percentage. That's great for them, but again doesn't reflect their strength of conference top to bottom which is key. What is more indicative is that of those 4 conferences, the SEC has had the fewest number of individual teams play in BCS games, with 6, meaning half of their conference hasn't played in one of these all important games. The Pac 10, Big 10 and Big 12 have all seen 7 teams. Notable, of course, is the fact that only the Big 12 is as large as the SEC, meaning all three other conferences have had more than half of their teams make a BCS bowl game. While, yes, the best teams in the SEC are arguably the best in the country, the lack of any other teams elevating their game suggests a lack of competitiveness found in other conferences.
Enough about all that, however. The SEC fans like to talk about the tradition in their conference. Basically, they enjoy living in the past. The Alabama fan linked to above mentioned the Tide's 12 National Titles (of which 2 were not actually awarded to Alabama) which means they go all the way back to 1925 to count their Championships. I did so too, even though it's hard to leave out those dynamic turn of the century Michigan teams and compared the 4 major conferences. The end result? The SEC has had 17 national champions crowned. Not bad. They beat the Pac 10, who has only seen 14 champions. They did not, however, nose out the Big 12 (18) or the Big 10 (21). In fact, of the teams that did not make a BCS game from the Big 10, 2 had previously won national championships (Minnesota and Michigan State).
My point is this, without even going into Ole Miss and Vanderbilt, or talking about the conference's incredibly awful non-conference schedule, the SEC is vastly overrated. The Big Ten (as well as the Pac 10 and Big 12) are at the VERY LEAST on par with the SEC, if not better, top to bottom. Again, the SEC continues to put forth the very best teams, but the rest of the conference is crap. The Big Ten has more schools, top to bottom, that are higher quality programs, more greatly steeped in tradition.

And for the record, in the past 20 years, Colorado has been far more relevant than Alabama.

Introducing the Victoria Times Big Ten Bowl Pick'em Challenge

It's bowl season once again, and if you remember last year at all, you know I get into them. This year, we're inviting several other blogs, namely those with an interest in Big Ten Sports, to join the party. Look around the internet at the following sites that have been invited to participate. The entries are slowly trickling in but everyone has until Saturday to get their picks in. The invitees:
Sparty MSU was the first to respond and is doing a wonderful job with their preview.
Paging Jim Shikenjanski (For my money, the best named blog in the state of Minnesota)
Boiled Sports
Mondesi's House
Hoosier Report
Illini Talk
Black Heart, Gold Pants (Iowa, for those that don't know)
Maize N Brew
MGoBlog
Lake The Posts (Northwestern)
Around the Oval (Ohio State)
Buckeye Commentary
Halftime Adjustments (Ohio State)
Black Shoe Diaries (Penn State)
There is No Name On My Jersey (Penn State)

As I said, the entries are coming in, and as I was compiling that list, I got another. Here are the rules. We're just picking the Big Ten bowl games, both the winner and the score, and we'll sort everything out by the number of correct games followed by the nearness to the correct score, if, in fact, nearness is a real word. Be sure to check out all of those sites, because if they want their picks made public, they will appear on their own site, much like the picks Steve and I will be making, which are found below. For every game, the first pick is mine, the second Steve's.

Motor City Bowl
Ryan
Purdue 38 Central Michigan 21 - I get the feeling that this is the type of game where everyone says in the first half "Wow, how is Purdue only playing in the Motor City Bowl" then in the second, we are reminded of way. But Purdue will still win.
Steve
Purdue 45, Central Michigan 17
Purdue was up 38-0 when they played earlier this year before the defense got soft and gave up some garbage time points. I expect the same to happen here.

Champs Sports
Ryan
Boston College 49, Michigan State 14
I don't remember when we've been given any evidence that Michigan State is remotely close to as talented as BC. I will say this though, MSU tends to play to their opponents skill level, so I could be totally off on this one.
Steve
Boston College 34, Michigan State 14
BC was nearly in a BCS bowl. MSU was 6th in the Big Ten

Alamo
Ryan
Penn State 24, Texas A&M 16
I like Penn State in any game where there defense is well rested (their offense has been mostly irrelevant). A&M has been mediocre all year.
Steve
Texas A&M 42, Penn State 40 (3 OT)
This is a pretty even matchup between 2 middle of the pack teams in 2 big conferences that weren't that strong this year. I think A&M takes this after Penn State misses a 2 point conversion in OT. 1 OT for every poop break that Paterno takes during the game

Insight
Ryan
Oklahoma State 30, Indiana 21
I truly know nothing about Indiana this year, aside from the fact that they were playing for the memory of their deceased coach. Last year, they would be on ESPN Plus and I could see them play a couple times a year, but this year they've always been on the Big Ten Network. I just have to go with tradition and pick IU to lose.
Steve
Oklahoma State 48, Indiana 37
This will be a shootout between 2 teams that don't really have any impressive wins. OK State wins because his coach IS A MAN......HE'S 40!!!!!!!!!!!

Outback
Ryan
Tennessee 21, Wisconsin 20
I think this will be a fantastic game between two nearly evenly matched opponents. I think I'm basing this pick on how much I like the Tennessee spirit I always see and the fact that Wisconsin is almost aggressively dull.
Steve
Tennessee 28, Wisconsin 24
On paper, Tennessee had a more impressive year, but Wisconsin historically plays tougher in bowl games so this one could be close.

Capital One
Ryan
Florida 34, Michigan 20
While I expect this game will be closer than expected, primarily because Tebow isn't a spread quarterback, I also expect Michigan to lose. They haven't got up for a big game yet this year. Why start now?
Steve
Florida 52, Michigan 20
Michigan is in for a world of hurt. This will be like the national championship game last year and UM vs. Oregon this year.

Rose
Ryan
USC 53, Illinois 10
I really don't think Illinois is all that good, merely resilient, which can only get you so far. Rashard Mendenhall is my favorite name in college football though.
Steve
USC 42, Illinois 13
BCS mismatch of the year. I'm proud of Illinois for taking Notre Dame's spot for them this year

BCS Championship
Ryan
LSU 17, Ohio State 14
Both teams have made a name for themselves on defense this year, and I fully expect this to be a low scoring affair. When LSU gets into the high scoring shootouts, they find trouble. Fortunately, Ohio State isn't a huge threat to score a ton of points.
Steve
Ohio State 24, LSU 23
Call me crazy, but the underdog was won 7 of 9 BCS title games. I think Ohio State is getting angry about getting written off, embarrassed about last year, and LSU just seems a little too shaky to trust here.

So those are our picks. We'll have a list of participants perhaps on Saturday. It should be fun