Seven facts Big Ten football fans must admit

[True2tRA]

We are down until we are up. They are up until they are down. It doesn't mean what is now will be what is the future and it also doesn't completely erase history either. The Big Ten holds some of the most successful football programs in the history of this sport. Michigan, Ohio St., Nebraska are some of the winningest teams in history with some of the greatest names in coaching and player history. Discounting any of that illegitimizes any so called sports writer. Know your sh#t and stop always living in the now. Now means nothing to history or the future.

I truly hope you don't believe the last three sentences you wrote.

Because you aren't great "now" doesn't mean you weren't once. Because you aren't great "now" doesn't mean you can't be again. Thus, "now" doesn't mean anything other than we are down right now.

If you are a so called sports writer, know your history. The SEC isn't God Almighty himself just because of their recent dominance and the Big Ten isn't trash just because they haven't dominated recently. Nebraska isn't all of a sudden a sh#t football program just because we haven't won the big one for a while. I believe we are elite, and I think we will be back on top again someday. Dominance doesn't last forever for any sports team. Parity is even greater in sports now than it ever was.

I truly hope you don't believe that I don't believe what I wrote there big guy. I believe every word of it.

I'm glad you believe it, but you're wrong to discount the "now". And it reflects the problem that we're having with Nebraska right now. Nebraska isn't "elite" in any sense of the word as a football team right now. None. And the sooner people stop with the "we are down now but look at the 90's!" and start with the "we are down now, we need to change something" it will be a happy day.

And just because an LSU wasn't good previously does not discount their status now.

While you are correct that things can be cyclical and there is absolutely no reason Nebraska can't be elite again, sitting around waiting for the cycles to change on its own.....well that's pretty ill advised.

I never said I discount the now. I said "now" doesn't change the past, and it means nothing to the future. There ya go with the the putting words in the mouth problem again. Don't put words in mine. Not once did I say that.

I said don't discount the history of programs. Everyone wants to talk SEC all day as if they've dominated the history of the game. They are merely having their "moment in time". Same as Nebraska, Ohio State, and Michigan just to name a few of the Big Ten schools this guy wanted to point out. As if those programs mean nothing. Those 3 programs are amongst the winningest in history. I get the impression people forget that.

What are you even talking about. Nobody says "we are down now, but look at the 90's!". Ive never once heard anybody say that. Matter of fact, your comment there specifically proves the point I was making. The one you're trying to twist into some sort of disagreement. The 90's are our history, they were brilliant. Nobody can take them from us, they have no bearing on what is happening currently, and we may or may never be that team again in the future. Doesn't mean it never happened. How do we know it wont happen again? What would all your pissing and moaning be for if Nebraska wins the NC next year? What would you find to complain about. Point is, the SEC is having their time. They weren't always dominating college football, and they may not in the future, but they are now.

 

[True2tRA]

We are down until we are up. They are up until they are down. It doesn't mean what is now will be what is the future and it also doesn't completely erase history either. The Big Ten holds some of the most successful football programs in the history of this sport. Michigan, Ohio St., Nebraska are some of the winningest teams in history with some of the greatest names in coaching and player history. Discounting any of that illegitimizes any so called sports writer. Know your sh#t and stop always living in the now. Now means nothing to history or the future.

I truly hope you don't believe the last three sentences you wrote.

Because you aren't great "now" doesn't mean you weren't once. Because you aren't great "now" doesn't mean you can't be again. Thus, "now" doesn't mean anything other than we are down right now.If you are a so called sports writer, know your history. The SEC isn't God Almighty himself just because of their recent dominance and the Big Ten isn't trash just because they haven't dominated recently. Nebraska isn't all of a sudden a sh#t football program just because we haven't won the big one for a while. I believe we are elite, and I think we will be back on top again someday. Dominance doesn't last forever for any sports team. Parity is even greater in sports now than it ever was.

I truly hope you don't believe that I don't believe what I wrote there big guy. I believe every word of it.

I'm glad you believe it, but you're wrong to discount the "now". And it reflects the problem that we're having with Nebraska right now. Nebraska isn't "elite" in any sense of the word as a football team right now. None. And the sooner people stop with the "we are down now but look at the 90's!" and start with the "we are down now, we need to change something" it will be a happy day.

And just because an LSU wasn't good previously does not discount their status now.

While you are correct that things can be cyclical and there is absolutely no reason Nebraska can't be elite again, sitting around waiting for the cycles to change on its own.....well that's pretty ill advised.

The last paragraph is gold. You telling me there's no reason Nebraska can't be elite again. Priceless. I only probably say that more than any single person on this site, but please, preach to me. Funny.
Sitting around waiting for the cycles to change? Tell these coaches and players they are just sitting around. Yes, the hitting, the weight lifting, the film study, the coaching, the teaching, the schoolwork to stay eligible, the running, the time away from home, the not seeing their families, the list goes on and on....yeah, sitting around.

 

[Mavric]

I'm glad you believe it, but you're wrong to discount the "now". And it reflects the problem that we're having with Nebraska right now. Nebraska isn't "elite" in any sense of the word as a football team right now. None. And the sooner people stop with the "we are down now but look at the 90's!" and start with the "we are down now, we need to change something" it will be a happy day.

And just because an LSU wasn't good previously does not discount their status now.

While you are correct that things can be cyclical and there is absolutely no reason Nebraska can't be elite again, sitting around waiting for the cycles to change on its own.....well that's pretty ill advised.

This doesn't seem to stop you from insisting that Nebraska should be expected to have no trouble beating 2/3 of our schedule. I guess it just depends on what point you're trying to make.

 

[beanman]

We are down until we are up. They are up until they are down. It doesn't mean what is now will be what is the future and it also doesn't completely erase history either. The Big Ten holds some of the most successful football programs in the history of this sport. Michigan, Ohio St., Nebraska are some of the winningest teams in history with some of the greatest names in coaching and player history. Discounting any of that illegitimizes any so called sports writer. Know your sh#t and stop always living in the now. Now means nothing to history or the future.

I truly hope you don't believe the last three sentences you wrote.

Because you aren't great "now" doesn't mean you weren't once. Because you aren't great "now" doesn't mean you can't be again. Thus, "now" doesn't mean anything other than we are down right now.If you are a so called sports writer, know your history. The SEC isn't God Almighty himself just because of their recent dominance and the Big Ten isn't trash just because they haven't dominated recently. Nebraska isn't all of a sudden a sh#t football program just because we haven't won the big one for a while. I believe we are elite, and I think we will be back on top again someday. Dominance doesn't last forever for any sports team. Parity is even greater in sports now than it ever was.

I truly hope you don't believe that I don't believe what I wrote there big guy. I believe every word of it.

I'm glad you believe it, but you're wrong to discount the "now". And it reflects the problem that we're having with Nebraska right now. Nebraska isn't "elite" in any sense of the word as a football team right now. None. And the sooner people stop with the "we are down now but look at the 90's!" and start with the "we are down now, we need to change something" it will be a happy day.

And just because an LSU wasn't good previously does not discount their status now.

While you are correct that things can be cyclical and there is absolutely no reason Nebraska can't be elite again, sitting around waiting for the cycles to change on its own.....well that's pretty ill advised.

The last paragraph is gold. You telling me there's no reason Nebraska can't be elite again. Priceless. I only probably say that more than any single person on this site, but please, preach to me. Funny.
Sitting around waiting for the cycles to change? Tell these coaches and players they are just sitting around. Yes, the hitting, the weight lifting, the film study, the coaching, the teaching, the schoolwork to stay eligible, the running, the time away from home, the not seeing their families, the list goes on and on....yeah, sitting around.

I think you're missing his point. I don't think he's implying that they're literally sitting around. He's saying they need to create a step change through shaking things up or changing their approach in a drastic fashion rather than following 'the process.' The process may very well be the way to take, but I can't argue with Polo in that we see the same crap every year and they can't seem to address some of these things. Then again, maybe I'm mis-reading what he's trying to say.

Plus whenever I post something I see Jennifer Lawrence's bewbies. Yay!

 

[NUpolo8]

His weird infatuation with Jennifer Lawrence notwithstanding, Beanman gets it.

 

[beanman]

His weird infatuation with Jennifer Lawrence notwithstanding, Beanman gets it.

I like her because she's jiggly. I'll change to a brunette next week.

 

[True2tRA]

Okay, so now the conversation has turned completely from what the original article was saying. Now to what I interpreted him saying. To NuPolo misinterpreting what I was saying. To the semantics of the words " sitting around" gimme a f'ing break.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, It’s Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren’t Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

1) Big Ten vs SEC Matchups are Getting More Lopsided

I think it's foolish of the author to assume that the Big Ten will continue to struggle against the SEC because they have struggled against them in the first half of the decade. Operating under that assumption, the Big Ten should've "dominated" the SEC in the 1990s because they were 6-4 against SEC teams in the first half of the 90s. But the SEC reversed that trend in the second half going 12-5 against Big Ten teams to finish with a 16-11 record. Similarly, the SEC was 12-7 against the Big Ten in the first half of the 2000s, and should have gone on to decimate the Big Ten; yet the conference versus conference record ended at 18-15 meaning the Big Ten was 11-3 agains the SEC in the second half of the 2000s. And like many have mentioned here and elsewhere, the match ups are in fact getting closer, not more lopsided.

2) The Additions of Maryland and Rutgers Will Dilute Football Even More

Maryland and Rutgers weren't brought into the Big Ten for football reasons, they were brought in for financial reasons. I agree that both teams aren't the football powerhouses that Virginia Tech and North Carolina (?) would have been. But how can the author even proclaim this as a "fact" when neither team has played a snap in the Big Ten?

3) To Be a Top Conference, You Have to Win National Championships

To be the top conference, you have to win national championships (and you could debate that point as well). But there should be no denying that the Big Ten is a top conference. Under this statement, only the SEC and the laughable ACC would be top conferences.

4) Ohio State and Wisconsin Carried the Big Ten Through the BCS Era.

Agreed.

5) The NFL Does Not View Its Talent as Elite.

I don't know why top ten pick is used as a cutoff to determine elite status. It's arbitrary and is being used out of convenience to claim the SEC's dominance over the Big Ten. I would like to see how many total NFL players each conference comprises. James Laurinitis is still Big Ten talent the last I checked.

6) In Recruiting, It's Second Tier, Not Second Best.

Why the distinction? It can definitely be argued that Big Ten recruiting is second best behind the SEC. Disagree again.

7) 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren't Currently Elite.

Agreed.

2/7...not bad.

 

[True2tRA]

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, Its Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Arent Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

1) Big Ten vs SEC Matchups are Getting More Lopsided

I think it's foolish of the author to assume that the Big Ten will continue to struggle against the SEC because they have struggled against them in the first half of the decade. Operating under that assumption, the Big Ten should've "dominated" the SEC in the 1990s because they were 6-4 against SEC teams in the first half of the 90s. But the SEC reversed that trend in the second half going 12-5 against Big Ten teams to finish with a 16-11 record. Similarly, the SEC was 12-7 against the Big Ten in the first half of the 2000s, and should have gone on to decimate the Big Ten; yet the conference versus conference record ended at 18-15 meaning the Big Ten was 11-3 agains the SEC in the second half of the 2000s. And like many have mentioned here and elsewhere, the match ups are in fact getting closer, not more lopsided.

2) The Additions of Maryland and Rutgers Will Dilute Football Even More

Maryland and Rutgers weren't brought into the Big Ten for football reasons, they were brought in for financial reasons. I agree that both teams aren't the football powerhouses that Virginia Tech and North Carolina (?) would have been. But how can the author even proclaim this as a "fact" when neither team has played a snap in the Big Ten?

3) To Be a Top Conference, You Have to Win National Championships

To be the top conference, you have to win national championships (and you could debate that point as well). But there should be no denying that the Big Ten is a top conference. Under this statement, only the SEC and the laughable ACC would be top conferences.

4) Ohio State and Wisconsin Carried the Big Ten Through the BCS Era.

Agreed.

5) The NFL Does Not View Its Talent as Elite.

I don't know why top ten pick is used as a cutoff to determine elite status. It's arbitrary and is being used out of convenience to claim the SEC's dominance over the Big Ten. I would like to see how many total NFL players each conference comprises. James Laurinitis is still Big Ten talent the last I checked.

6) In Recruiting, It's Second Tier, Not Second Best.

Why the distinction? It can definitely be argued that Big Ten recruiting is second best behind the SEC. Disagree again.

7) 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren't Currently Elite.

Agreed.

2/7...not bad.

Plus 1, and as far as number 7 I agree. Currently not elite. That could all change very quickly. I totally agree with your point on number 3. Also, like you said in your first point, this guy takes a small sample size and acts like its the historical rule. This just isn't the case and it's idiotic to do that., the way the game changes Oregon and the PAC 12 could start winning championships this year. Stanford andmOregon both have been knocking on the door. It won't mean they are suddenly world beaters, or better than the SEC or Big Ten. It just means they are having success right now.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

His weird infatuation with Jennifer Lawrence notwithstanding, Beanman gets it.

I like her because she's jiggly. I'll change to a brunette next week.

I find her overrated personally like the SEC.

 

[wildman]

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, Its Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Arent Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

1) Big Ten vs SEC Matchups are Getting More Lopsided

I think it's foolish of the author to assume that the Big Ten will continue to struggle against the SEC because they have struggled against them in the first half of the decade. Operating under that assumption, the Big Ten should've "dominated" the SEC in the 1990s because they were 6-4 against SEC teams in the first half of the 90s. But the SEC reversed that trend in the second half going 12-5 against Big Ten teams to finish with a 16-11 record. Similarly, the SEC was 12-7 against the Big Ten in the first half of the 2000s, and should have gone on to decimate the Big Ten; yet the conference versus conference record ended at 18-15 meaning the Big Ten was 11-3 agains the SEC in the second half of the 2000s. And like many have mentioned here and elsewhere, the match ups are in fact getting closer, not more lopsided.

2) The Additions of Maryland and Rutgers Will Dilute Football Even More

Maryland and Rutgers weren't brought into the Big Ten for football reasons, they were brought in for financial reasons. I agree that both teams aren't the football powerhouses that Virginia Tech and North Carolina (?) would have been. But how can the author even proclaim this as a "fact" when neither team has played a snap in the Big Ten?

3) To Be a Top Conference, You Have to Win National Championships

To be the top conference, you have to win national championships (and you could debate that point as well). But there should be no denying that the Big Ten is a top conference. Under this statement, only the SEC and the laughable ACC would be top conferences.

4) Ohio State and Wisconsin Carried the Big Ten Through the BCS Era.

Agreed.

5) The NFL Does Not View Its Talent as Elite.

I don't know why top ten pick is used as a cutoff to determine elite status. It's arbitrary and is being used out of convenience to claim the SEC's dominance over the Big Ten. I would like to see how many total NFL players each conference comprises. James Laurinitis is still Big Ten talent the last I checked.

6) In Recruiting, It's Second Tier, Not Second Best.

Why the distinction? It can definitely be argued that Big Ten recruiting is second best behind the SEC. Disagree again.

7) 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren't Currently Elite.

Agreed.

2/7...not bad.

Plus 1, and as far as number 7 I agree. Currently not elite. That could all change very quickly. I totally agree with your point on number 3. Also, like you said in your first point, this guy takes a small sample size and acts like its the historical rule. This just isn't the case and it's idiotic to do that., the way the game changes Oregon and the PAC 12 could start winning championships this year. Stanford andmOregon both have been knocking on the door. It won't mean they are suddenly world beaters, or better than the SEC or Big Ten. It just means they are having success right now.

If Oregon, Stanford or anyone else wins a mnc. Would mean they were the best that year only. Now if Pac 12 won 9 championships in a row like the SEC. Then they would be the best conference out there as winning 1 is tough that many in a row would be difficult to do. Would deserve respect for that.

But the thing is most people don't look at the past, they look at the now. Which is why the article was written about today was to get the average readers attention. Most schools or fans seem to look over x number of years any more to judge a coach. They want a turn around and success now, not wait for tomorrow. With some schools achieving success with a new coach shows that it can be done. Because of that i feel is why were are in the what can you do for me now stage in sports. Which is why we see coaches being let go after 2 or 3 years. Because fans are starting to care more about the now, not the past. The past is great i love seeing things about the 90's as that is when I grew up learning about football. But that does nothing for me now. I want to see the team improve and be competitive now. People like me that looks at the team now, not in the past is who the article is written for.

 

[suh_fan93]

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, It’s Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren’t Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

Definitely agree. The Big 10 is definitely not what it used to be. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Rutgers and Maryland as new members.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, It’s Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren’t Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

Definitely agree. The Big 10 is definitely not what it used to be. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Rutgers and Maryland as new members.

Money is your answer.

 

[suh_fan93]

I've never really heard of "collegespun" but I was linked to it on another site and stumbled across this article.

The facts:

1. Big Ten vs SEC Matchups Are Getting More Lopsided

2. The Additions Of Rutgers And Maryland Will Dilute Football

3. To Be A Top Conference, You Have To Win National Championships

4. Only 2 (OSU & UW) Programs Carried It Through The BCS Era

5. The NFL Does Not View Its Talent As Elite

6. In Recruiting, It’s Second-Tier, Not Second-Best

7. 3 Of Its 4 Traditional Powers Aren’t Currently Elite

What do you think? Do you agree?

Definitely agree. The Big 10 is definitely not what it used to be. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Rutgers and Maryland as new members.

Money is your answer.

Well that's kind of obvious.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

in re: 1) the margin of victory in BUG-SEC games was 5, 7, 10 with a 1-2 record. Lopsided was probably not the word he was looking for.