I'm well aware of what Ohio State's loss to LSU is going to mean for the Big Ten conference, and its fans. Yes, we're all going to be subjected to hearing about how the Big Ten sucks, and is the weakest of the BCS conferences.
Whatever, I'm used to it by now.
I'll be hearing more about how the Big Ten just can't handle the speed of the SEC even though I'm pretty sure that was Beanie Wells, a Big Ten member, running away from the LSU defense last night.
I'll be hearing about how the Big Ten can't compete with the SEC after Ohio State's second straight loss to the conference in the title game. That whole Michigan victory over Florida in the Capital One Bowl never happened.
There isn't much I can do about it either, because everytime the Big Ten plays a BCS game, they lose. Those are the games that people pay attention to, so the perception of most people is that the Big Ten is weak.
Nobody sees these games and says "Well, the 2007 LSU Tigers were better than the 2007 Buckeyes." or "The 2007 Trojans were a lot better than the 2007 Illini." No, all they see is "The Big Ten sucks!!"
The problem is, it's just not true. At least, not as true as everyone seems to believe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to say that the Big Ten has the same level of play as they do in the SEC. I'll admit that at the moment, the SEC is a better conference than the Big Ten. At least at the top of the conference. The Floridas, LSUs, Georgias, and Tennessees of the SEC are better than the Ohio States, Michigans, and Wisconsins of the Big Ten.
But last I checked the Big Ten still has it's Northwesterns and Minnesotas to match up with the SEC's Ole Misseseses and Vandys. And the Pac-10 still has it's Stanfords, while the Big East still has it's Syracuses, the ACC it's Dukes, and who could forget the Baylors of the world in the Big 12?
And for some reason, none of the SEC fans I know ever bring up the fact that in the last six years, the Big Ten is 9-8 against the SEC in bowl games.
Really though, arguing over which conference is better than the other is a pointless argument. College football has reached a point in which upsets are the reality. I mean, we have a 2-loss team representing what's supposed to be our national champion, Appalachian State going into Ann Arbor and winning, and Kansas winning the Orange Bowl.
These things aren't supposed to be happening, yet they are.
So is the Big Ten down? Yes, there's no denying it, but what most people seem to skim over is the fact that the overall play of EVERY conference is on it's way down. Parity is starting to make it's way into college football just like it did in the NFL.
ADVERTISEMENT
_thumbnail.jpg "NASCAR Cowboy Hats")
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 2)
1. I don't disagree with you in principle, however, get your use of apostrophes checked out, brother!
(They're fixed! Thanks. No idea what the hell came over me there. Must be shellshocked.-Fornelli)
Posted at 2:28PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Jayden James
2. Big Ten Is Hard To Defend
The SEC begs to differ.
Posted at 2:31PM on Jan 8th 2008 by alumnigonzo
3. The BIG TEN is living in the past, it no longer is a power house. Ohio state and Michigan are good teams but along way from # 1. The Big Ten can't compete with the speed.
Posted at 3:06PM on Jan 8th 2008 by JD
4. The Big-10 is not the problem. The conference did not determine that Ohio State should play for the championship. The problem is with the teams that schedule weak non-conference teams and the morons who vote in the polls who don't understand the concept of strength of schedule. The win/loss record of a team is only one factor in ranking the teams, but for most of these voters, they do not have the intellectual capacity to go beyond that factor. In any event, next year, Ohio State plays USC and that should help sort things out early.
Posted at 4:20PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Martin
5. When true fans speak about the speed difference between the SEC & Big Ten it is not in the skill positions. We all love our recievers, QB's, Running backs; but like it or not, football is about the those big guys up front. Games are won and lost in the trenches. That is where the SEC has the advantage -- they are big enough, strong enough to match up but the difference is the speed. That is the factor that is missed by even some Big Ten Coaches. If you ever tried to throw a pass or run a football with a weak line, you know what I am talking about. "Give me 11 good linemen and you can have 11 good backs." I heard a coach say that many years ago and at the end of our regular high school season, he allowed us to choose sides and play a game. It just happened that one team was all linemen and the other was all backs. Being one of the backs, I learned the best lesson ever about football. Don't ever sell those guys up front short -- they are the ones punching your ticket to the end zone. You saw with Ohio State and you saw it in the GA - Hawaii game fast defensive linemen offensive linemen.
Posted at 4:55PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Dean Vonetes
6. I have to disagree. I think the Big 10's problem isn't with its top teams, but rather with its middle and bottom teams. Michigan, OSU, Wisconsin, and Penn State (maybe Illinois as well if they can continue their success) are programs that are as good as the elite teams in other conferences. But the rest of the league, including teams that usually have winning records like Purdue, is very, very soft. Do you honestly think that Minnesota and Northwestern compare well to Vanderbilt and Stanford? Vanderbilt beat South Carolina and came very close to beating Tennessee and Georgia. Stanford beat USC. Minnesota couldn't beat anyone this year, including D-1AA squads, and Vanderbilt would slaughter them.
In sum, I don't think OSU's problem is a lack of talent. Their problem is that they don't play many tough games during the year and thus aren't battle-tested, and it shows when they square off against elite teams in the postseason. I don't think that's OSU's fault. They can't make their opponents better and they do schedule one tough OOC opponent each year. Washington was probably very good when that game was scheduled.
I do, like and above poster, have a problem with voters ranking teams solely on their won/lost records. Most of the pundits admitted before the game that USC is better than OSU. Yet I'll bet that not a single one of them actually voted that way on their AP ballots. Why? It was abundantly obvious that OSU shouldn't be in this game (unlike last year, when despite their weak schedule they did appear to belong until the blow-out against the Gators). For a fan like myself who really didn't have a stake in the game and just wanted to see a competetive matchup, the game sucked and I felt robbed by the voters who put those two teams in the game. USC should've been in there. That would have been a great game.
Posted at 5:07PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Gamecock Man
7. Maybe if the BCS bowl games were home stadium games for OSU, Michigan & such, the outcomes would be different.
Alas, the super-tough macho men of the SEC would be too afraid to sit out in the cold weather in January, so we're stuck with "neutral" games in which one team is on vacation and one team is a 45 minute bus ride from the stadium.
PS: Unranked Michigan beat the Heisman-led #12 Gators.
Posted at 5:22PM on Jan 8th 2008 by doug
8. Unless you live it, you just can't understand the week in and week out pressure that the SEC race puts on teams. Last year it took Auburn 2 games to recover from a 7-3 win over LSU. LSU was not the same after a brutal win against Florida this year, whoever survives these games and then the SEC Championship is battle tested. I know you guys don't want to here this but you just have to go to a regular season game and experience it. Every Saturday (in our minds)is Michigan/Ohio State. I think upgrading your non conference schedule will help...at least until you get a few more conference members that can test each other.
Posted at 5:22PM on Jan 8th 2008 by TAG
9. First you can ignore the AP poll..it has NOTHING to do with anything. I was surprised the the AP didnt give their paper championship to USC again, but hey maybe they had an attack of integrity for a change. Second, small conferences (ones without 12 or more teams and a championship game)tend to have only one or two (at best) teams in any given year. Reasons for that can be debated, but its true. Some might say its to keep the conference in the National Title hunt. If so, it denigrates the other teams in the conference. Think about it...your son is a great football player..and he wants to go to the Big 10...if he can choose who to play for...is there ANY reason to choose any OTHER schools than Michigan or Ohio State? Now go to the SEC. Remember ANY school he wants...he can choose between LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee as first tier schools.
Posted at 5:29PM on Jan 8th 2008 by S321
10. Beautiful, JD. I'm still giggling.
Posted at 6:01PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Sandy
11. Some people in the Big Ten need to understand that when SEC speed is discussed...that it means speed at the defensive line and cornerbacks. The
SEC has understood that concept. The homers like Blackledge, Corso and Herb, who picked Ohio State, need to quit being homers when picking Championship games.
Posted at 6:32PM on Jan 8th 2008 by franklin
12. Why not arrest the OSU team for pretending to be a football team?
Posted at 6:33PM on Jan 8th 2008 by gatorsrulz
13. I have to agree with the post from TAG. I grew up in the SEC, and have traveled to watch games in many other conferences, so I do have some real-life experience. The week in and week out battles in the SEC are just so grueling. I look over the schedules and see three, four, five HUGE (Ohio State/Michigan-like) games for each SEC team...games that could be as (or more) competitive than many of the BCS bowls...and that's just any given Saturday. Even the "no-names" in the conference are prepared to play spoiler each weekend.
You see many games that end up with 7-3 or 10-7 and figure "oh these teams must be weak" or "wow SEC football is boring"...it's quite the opposite. At the end of a 7-3 game (especially when there are multiple over-times), your stomach is in knots, your palms are drenched, and you are ready to vomit...and that is just from the fan's perspective. Imagine how the players must feel after a victory/loss like that. Then they get to turn around and do it again the following week, and the week after that...it just hardly ever lets up. To battle through that for an entire season (then win the division championship) only to go on and play the other "best" team in the nation...that is something that truly deserves respect. I'm not an LSU fan, but can honestly say...Tigers, you earned it!
Posted at 6:36PM on Jan 8th 2008 by III
14. Michigan will blow next year with OSU, because of new coach Rich lose the big one. Plus Akron is returning many starters next year?
Posted at 6:39PM on Jan 8th 2008 by gatorsrulz
15. While the grueling schedule may hurt the media's perception of SEC teams during the season due to all the close games, I think the experience of playing these tough games is precisely the SEC's advantage in the postseason. Ohio State has just as much talent on their roster as any other team in the country; as was pointed out before the game, LSU doesn't really have a speed advantage over OSU. So it's not "SEC speed" that killed the Buckeyes. It was LSU's execution, and LSU learned to execute under pressure like that by playing in tough games each week. Relatedly, dumb penalties really hurt whatever small chances the Buckeyes had. That's the sign of an unprepared team that didn't know what to do in a big game.
Posted at 6:54PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Gamecock Man
16. I agree with Gamecock Man about the problem not being at the very top of the conference. However, I also don't think the problem is at the very bottom either. All conferences will have a best team or 2, and an absolute worst team or two. Which top (or bottom) team is better just depends on the year.
The difference in strength of major conferences is almost completely determined by how tough the middle is. In the SEC, teams 3-6 are very tough while in the Big Ten only teams 3-4 count as very tough. That's what makes the SEC better than the Big Ten, not that LSU or Florida last year beat Ohio State.
Posted at 7:16PM on Jan 8th 2008 by jallotta
17. Ohio State would probably lose more games than the Ole Misses and Vanderbilt if they were in the SEC!!!
Posted at 7:22PM on Jan 8th 2008 by ken
18. Agreed, Jalotta. People make too much of the Florida and LSU beatdowns when they compare the SEC and Big 10. What's really significant is that the SEC went 7-2 in their bowls, and the Cotton Bowl loss can probably be discounted b/c it involved unranked Arkansas, w/o a coach, vs. a Mizzou team that should've been in a BCS Bowl. The Big 10, on the flip side, went 3-5 (someone correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not absolutely sure). The simple fact of the matter is that the Big 10 was extremely poor this year, and is at this point well behind the SEC, Pac-10, and even the Big 12 in terms of level of competetion. This may change over the next few years, especially if Illinois and Michigan improve, which I think is likely. But that's the way it is right now. Whether it be Michigan losing to App State, a 3-5 bowl record, or blowout losses in BCS games, the league hasn't lived up to its past over the last few seasons.
I see that all the homers who came out of the woodwork after the Capitol One Bowl have gone back in hiding. You out there, Rick?
Posted at 8:18PM on Jan 8th 2008 by Gamecock Man
19. Speed,kills.LSU had more game speed proven with their man D.There is no substitute for speed.
Posted at 8:57PM on Jan 8th 2008 by H dunlap
20. The problem with the Big 2/Little 8/plus Penn State Conference is that Michigan and OSU almost always wind up being undefeated or with only one loss before their last game matchup and the winner (typically the conference champion) invariably winds up in a major BCS bowl, most often the championship game. The last 2 years of record and many past years' losses in the Rose Bowl before BCS clearly show that the Big 2 don't deserve such lofty regular season rankings. The Pac 10, SEC and other conference champs deserve higher rankings than Michigan and OSU despite Michigan or OSU having undefeated or one loss regular season records. I blame the undeserved regular season high rankings for OSU getting into the championship game in the past 2 years. Wonder of wonders, I will not be surprised to see Michigan or OSU in the championship BCS game again next year and Southern Cal will probably be the next one to crush one of them next. The following year another SEC champ will probably crush one of them again. Maybe by next year the ACC champ will crush one of them. Enough with the undeserved regular season high rankings for the Big 2.
Posted at 10:41PM on Jan 8th 2008 by g