Tougher Conference ?

[SuperBuckFan08]

Everyone always claims that the Big 10 is slow. Then some kid from Wisconsin chases down one of the fastest runningbacks ever out of Arkansas from behind and it shuts people up for awhile. Then we get back to "the big ten is slow." The big ten has athletes on par with the Big 12. To think so would be your downfall.

Do any teams in the Big10 use any hybrid type linebackers/Peso backs? That is one area where Nebraska might have an advantage in terms of speed. It's not that Big10 teams do not have their share of speed at the skill positions. They do. We just do not use the 250 pound linebacker anymore.

Ohio State has the "Star" Position which is basically a safety/linebacker hybrid. Brings incredible ballhawking skills and powerful hits to separate the ball from the intended receiver or bring down the big back. They will play all over the field so they have to be the most versatile and fearless player.

 

[Caven]

It's all cyclical. B12 was the stronger conference for a while but B10 was stronger at times. B10 has less doormats IMO. Never fails that Indiana or northwestern beats the conference "power" year in and year out.

Either way, stability is what it is all about. I'm grateful to say I welcome all challenges that the future brings.

Northwestern = Baylor = Vanderbilt

They're like the brainiac kid with pop-bottle lens glasses who always gets picked last in sandlot baseball.

Except Northwestern likes to actually win the conference every once in a while.

True, Northwestern did win the Big 10 once during the past 110 years. And they were tied for the best record two other times, both fairly recently.

Actually, I think NW is headed in the right direction under Fitzgerald. Almost can't be called a doormat anymore.

You just had to make me pull up the list of conference champions by stating over the past 110 years didn't you

2 outright championships in 1936, 1995

5 shared titles in 1926, 1930, 1931, 1996, 2000

Vanderbilt has only ever been bowl eligible 4 times and has zero SEC championships (they won a bunch of stuff in small leagues in the early 1900s before joining the SEC)

Baylor was actually decent through the mid 70s and 80s and has 4 titles in 22, 24, 74 and 80 in the SW conference.

 

[Creed]

Northwestern has been to quite a few bowl games over the last 10-15 years unlike Vandy and Baylor. NW has yet to win one. They had some close calls. They had Missouri beat in the Alamo bowl a few years ago but Missouri came back in the 4th quarter and won in OT. 2009 they had a good chance to beat Auburn but were stopped at the goal line in OT. This year they lost by a TD to TT.

NW is not a bad team, although they have their years where they can be down. They can be a thorn in your side every once in a while - just ask Iowa.

 

[roksmith]

Team speed is a tricky beast to master in the Big Ten. You must maintain a power game at the same time.

In order to win the Big Ten, you have to be able to play, not only in September, but also survive the November games in Michigan and Minnesota.(not against the teams, but the elements)

Nebraska should be able to handle the cold better than most of the Big12 schools, but bring Texas or Oklahoma's high flying offense into the Big Ten and let their 190 lb receivers get hit by a 240 lb linebacker a few times in 20 degree weather and they start to have alligator arms. To survive the Big Ten schedule you have got to be able to pound the ball up the middle consistently to grind out games in November otherwise the Outback Bowl is where you will be headed.

The biggest issue the Big Ten has with big bowl games is that in order to compete with the southern and western schools, you usually have to sacrifice power for speed. Warm weather schools tend to have a different type of athlete. Perhaps more speed, but less power and toughness. Play the bowl games in 3 inches of snow and look for a different outcome.

John Cooper tried that for several years and got his butt fired for it. Nobody cares if you can beat California or Florida schools if you can't beat Michigan and Wisconsin.

I think Nebraska is a good fit for the Big Ten and will definitely be a boost for the conference. I also think the Big Ten was probably a slightly tougher conference before.. surely it is now.

 

[Joe_5700]

Team speed is a tricky beast to master in the Big Ten. You must maintain a power game at the same time.

In order to win the Big Ten, you have to be able to play, not only in September, but also survive the November games in Michigan and Minnesota.(not against the teams, but the elements)

Nebraska should be able to handle the cold better than most of the Big12 schools, but bring Texas or Oklahoma's high flying offense into the Big Ten and let their 190 lb receivers get hit by a 240 lb linebacker a few times in 20 degree weather and they start to have alligator arms. To survive the Big Ten schedule you have got to be able to pound the ball up the middle consistently to grind out games in November otherwise the Outback Bowl is where you will be headed.

The biggest issue the Big Ten has with big bowl games is that in order to compete with the southern and western schools, you usually have to sacrifice power for speed. Warm weather schools tend to have a different type of athlete. Perhaps more speed, but less power and toughness. Play the bowl games in 3 inches of snow and look for a different outcome.

John Cooper tried that for several years and got his butt fired for it. Nobody cares if you can beat California or Florida schools if you can't beat Michigan and Wisconsin.

I think Nebraska is a good fit for the Big Ten and will definitely be a boost for the conference. I also think the Big Ten was probably a slightly tougher conference before.. surely it is now.

We are pretty well acquainted with the cold here in Nebraska. I grew up in Milwaukee WI, and I can tell you that it gets colder here in the winter. I also remember Nebraska losing to Texas in a very close one a few years back with snow falling in Lincoln.

 

[roksmith]

True, and you kind of made my point. I assume you are talking about 2009 when Nebraska's offense was terrible and Texas came in with one of the nation's highest scoring offense and you played them to a virtual tie... losing on a last second field goal. Texas was scoring over 40 points a game that year... Had they played a third of their season in cold weather, they would not have done so well. Nebraska's style should be less affected.

 

[Nebula]

All I know is, somewhere around June of last summer the Big 10 suddenly became infinitely tougher in my mind.

For years, if you asked me, I would happily tell you that the Big Ten conference was far and away the most overrated conference in cfb. I attributed this to an "East Coast bias," whatever that means. (I utilize that whenever I hear about how the NY Yankee-Boston rivalry is the greatest blood feud since Alexander Hamilton vs. Aaron Burr.)

I love Nebraska football, to the point where my objectivity may falter to a degree. (We can probably eliminate the word "may" from the preceding statement.) I think we all remember Ohio State getting trounced repeatedly over the last 5-6 years on the biggest of stages...and they have been the class of the Big 10 without peer or question for years now...up until last year I suppose. (Wisky was a peer of Ohio State last year talent wise, for sure.)

Michigan is way down. Penn State needs new blood in the captain's seat, and a fresh perspective. (Taking that into consideration, I hope Paterno is Methuselah reborn.) Michigan State is an average program...when I try and think of past Spartan legends I get stuck on Smoker. Iowa has been living on some lucky dice rolls...and I think that luck is on the wane.

The Buckeyes and Wisconsin are for real. But so were Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Okie State over the last decade. (And Texas Tech, we may recall, rose pretty high for a minute there in '07. Kansas played in the Orange Bowl 3 years ago. K-State, with Freeman and some of the guys they've had is probably a comparable program to Mich State and the Spartans are one of the better Big 10 teams. That doesn't hold true for the Wildcats in the Big 12-2.)

I'm prone to changing my opinion, so this isn't a statement chiseled into the granite of eternity or anything, but as I sit here at 8:00 AM on April 5th, I'm starting to realize that I think the Big 10 has not been nearly as difficult as the Big 12 was over the last decade. I watched Ohio State waltz into those NC games over the last decade and I thought, "man, if they played our conference schedule there is no way they'd be undefeated."

The last thing I want to do is bag on our new conference...maybe I just haven't assimilated all the way yet. But I have an ingrained skepticism about the quality of Big 10 play. I have a feeling that my perception will be permanently altered during an 8 day stretch come next Oct. 1st, however. (Hopefully not though, right?)

*roksmith, I think he meant the infamous Terrence Nunn game. Poor Terrence. And fwiw, Callahan made the right call. We got a first down. Kid just put his helmet in the perfect place, and we all died a little inside.

 

[Caven]

All I know is, somewhere around June of last summer the Big 10 suddenly became infinitely tougher in my mind.

For years, if you asked me, I would happily tell you that the Big Ten conference was far and away the most overrated conference in cfb. I attributed this to an "East Coast bias," whatever that means. (I utilize that whenever I hear about how the NY Yankee-Boston rivalry is the greatest blood feud since Alexander Hamilton vs. Aaron Burr.)

I love Nebraska football, to the point where my objectivity may falter to a degree. (We can probably eliminate the word "may" from the preceding statement.) I think we all remember Ohio State getting trounced repeatedly over the last 5-6 years on the biggest of stages...and they have been the class of the Big 10 without peer or question for years now...up until last year I suppose. (Wisky was a peer of Ohio State last year talent wise, for sure.)

Michigan is way down. Penn State needs new blood in the captain's seat, and a fresh perspective. (Taking that into consideration, I hope Paterno is Methuselah reborn.) Michigan State is an average program...when I try and think of past Spartan legends I get stuck on Smoker. Iowa has been living on some lucky dice rolls...and I think that luck is on the wane.

The Buckeyes and Wisconsin are for real. But so were Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Okie State over the last decade. (And Texas Tech, we may recall, rose pretty high for a minute there in '07. Kansas played in the Orange Bowl 3 years ago. K-State, with Freeman and some of the guys they've had is probably a comparable program to Mich State and the Spartans are one of the better Big 10 teams. That doesn't hold true for the Wildcats in the Big 12-2.)

I'm prone to changing my opinion, so this isn't a statement chiseled into the granite of eternity or anything, but as I sit here at 8:00 AM on April 5th, I'm starting to realize that I think the Big 10 has not been nearly as difficult as the Big 12 was over the last decade. I watched Ohio State waltz into those NC games over the last decade and I thought, "man, if they played our conference schedule there is no way they'd be undefeated."

The last thing I want to do is bag on our new conference...maybe I just haven't assimilated all the way yet. But I have an ingrained skepticism about the quality of Big 10 play. I have a feeling that my perception will be permanently altered during an 8 day stretch come next Oct. 1st, however. (Hopefully not though, right?)

*roksmith, I think he meant the infamous Terrence Nunn game. Poor Terrence. And fwiw, Callahan made the right call. We got a first down. Kid just put his helmet in the perfect place, and we all died a little inside.

So Missouri is for real over the past decade with 3 losing seasons and going over 10 wins 3 times, and Okie State is for real with 2 losing seasons but only a single 10 win season, but Iowa with 1 losing season, 4 10 win seasons and 2 BCS bowl appearances and Penn State with 3 losing seasons and 3 10 win seasons and 2 BCS bowl appearences aren't? Hell even Michigan has better stats over the last decade than most of the Big 12. They have fewer losing seasons, more 10 win seasons and more BCS bowls that either Missouri or Okie State. They have just had a couple of down years that are memorable for how down they were. What bowl did Texas go to this year again? If you are using Missouri and Okie State as part of your benchmark for what teams are real then you are missing a whole lot of Big 10 teams that fit the category.

I also love how you throw in Texas Tech flying high for one year as another boost to the Big 12 but leave out Big 10 teams that have done something similar (Iowa in 2002 comes to mind without even doing any research)

And lets not even get into comparing Kansas State with its 2 11 win seasons and 2 7 win season (the rest aren't even winning seasons) to Michigan State and its ... ok so that is a valid comparison. They both mostly suck and have the occasional great season.

I also don't get why everyone puts Wisconsin so high and bashes Iowa, when Iowa has the same number of 10 win seasons and more BCS appearences as Wisconsin over the past decade and Iowa has a 6-4 edge over that time. I would say that Wisconsin and Iowa are just about the same team - which makes sense given the respective coaches history and philosophies.

 

[corncraze]

Guys guys guys, honestly who really cares which conference has a very SLIGHT edge over this decade?

It doesn't change the fact that every Husker fan wanted out of the Longhorn League. Now, we are getting more money, better academics, a very good and stable conference, and we going to be able to watch our team every week! Why are we wasting our time with this stupid argument?!?!

 

[knapplc]

Guys guys guys, honestly who really cares which conference has a very SLIGHT edge over this decade?

It doesn't change the fact that every Husker fan wanted out of the Longhorn League. Now, we are getting more money, better academics, a very good and stable conference, and we going to be able to watch our team every week! Why are we wasting our time with this stupid argument?!?!

People are bored in the offseason. That's all I can figure. Also, because college football's cyclical nature takes years to cycle through, people don't see ups and downs as cycles, they tend to see them as "the way things are."

 

[Nebula]

So Missouri is for real over the past decade with 3 losing seasons and going over 10 wins 3 times, and Okie State is for real with 2 losing seasons but only a single 10 win season, but Iowa with 1 losing season, 4 10 win seasons and 2 BCS bowl appearances and Penn State with 3 losing seasons and 3 10 win seasons and 2 BCS bowl appearences aren't? Hell even Michigan has better stats over the last decade than most of the Big 12. They have fewer losing seasons, more 10 win seasons and more BCS bowls that either Missouri or Okie State. They have just had a couple of down years that are memorable for how down they were. What bowl did Texas go to this year again? If you are using Missouri and Okie State as part of your benchmark for what teams are real then you are missing a whole lot of Big 10 teams that fit the category.

I also love how you throw in Texas Tech flying high for one year as another boost to the Big 12 but leave out Big 10 teams that have done something similar (Iowa in 2002 comes to mind without even doing any research)

And lets not even get into comparing Kansas State with its 2 11 win seasons and 2 7 win season (the rest aren't even winning seasons) to Michigan State and its ... ok so that is a valid comparison. They both mostly suck and have the occasional great season.

I also don't get why everyone puts Wisconsin so high and bashes Iowa, when Iowa has the same number of 10 win seasons and more BCS appearences as Wisconsin over the past decade and Iowa has a 6-4 edge over that time. I would say that Wisconsin and Iowa are just about the same team - which makes sense given the respective coaches history and philosophies.

This is where that challenged objectivity comes into play. I wasn't being facetious when I said the Big 10 suddenly became much better in my view...I literally and suddenly thought, "you know...there's some pretty good teams in the Big 10. Hell, that's maybe even a better league then the Big 12!" I really thought that...and I also thought things for years that seemed to solely support the idea that the Big 12 (Read: our conference) was vastly superior in terms of talent than almost any other league, save one, and that's only because they cheat to an nth degree more than anyone else.

That isn't an example of indisputable logic, but hey, what can I say? I'm human.

I look at OU and Ohio State, and I think those teams are pretty equivalent in terms of talent level and accomplishments, when we're talking about the last decade or so. I think Texas and Wisky (The Wisky of last year, anyhow) are maybe fairly equivalent....but Texas has been in a couple NC games and won one, Wisky, no appearances. The lack of a bowl appearance last year isn't enough to tilt things away from Big 12-2 Headquarters. Edge to Texas. Penn State and NU...maybe fairly equivalent. We've been in a handful of CCG over the last decade, won none. We had one of the most decorated defensive players in the history of college football during that span, have hung around the top 25 a decent amount. Doing literally zero research, I remember Penn State having a nice team a few years ago, but for the most part, the Lions have been somewhat down over the last decade. This one (actually, this applies to all of my comparisons) can be debated, but if I had to, I'd say NU has an edge.

So...then what? If we're alright with declaring Mich State and K-State a wash, what do we have left? An improving Northwestern team...have they had more success over the last decade then, say, Texas A&M? Who would you rather play? Michigan has severely underachieved for years...I always thought that nobody did less with more than Lloyd Carr. That team we beat in the '05 Alamo bowl was loaded with talent. Now they're starting all over...again. I look at Oklahoma State over the last ten years and Michigan...that is not as stark a divide as you might think. Mich has been down for a while and they will continue to be as they adapt to Hoke, meanwhile, the Boone T. Pickens Lottery Bonanza continues, and a betting man might make the leap in logic to think that as Okie State continues to add state of the art facilities, they will continue to reel in top tier athletes. The Cowboys were a legitimate contender for the National Title three years ago. Michigan can't say that, at all. I'll give the edge to the Cowboys.

Then what? Iowa? I think Missouri has been equally talented. Maybe not better, but you can certainly make an argument for equal. Who is left?

I still think the Big 12-2 was a better conference over the last decade. A tougher conference slate, with an additional game against the best team from the other division for the title crown. That alone gives the nod to our old conference. However...things change, and things have changed an awful lot over the last year. As we all know. (Well, I think we all know that. Some people seem to think that few understand the cyclical nature of things. )

As it stands now, with no CCG, a clearly down Texas team in a league that in NO WAY can afford a limping Longhorn program, and a conference line up giving annual snoozers like Iowa State vs. Oklahoma and K-State vs. Texas Tech...well. Clearly the Big 10 is superior now. Right? :lol:

 

[Creed]

I think we all remember Ohio State getting trounced repeatedly over the last 5-6 years on the biggest of stages...and they have been the class of the Big 10 without peer or question for years now...up until last year I suppose.

I think we all remember OU losing quite a few BCS games as well including a 55-19 loss to USC which is far greater than any Ohio State loss. 3-5 record to be exact compared to Ohio State's 6-3. OU played the likes of Boise State & West Virginia while Ohio State is playing SEC or PAC 10 teams.

I think there's is an "East Coast" (namely ESPN) bias against the Big 10 and Ohio State.

 

[Nebula]

I think we all remember Ohio State getting trounced repeatedly over the last 5-6 years on the biggest of stages...and they have been the class of the Big 10 without peer or question for years now...up until last year I suppose.

I think we all remember OU losing quite a few BCS games as well including a 55-19 loss to USC which is far greater than any Ohio State loss. 3-5 record to be exact compared to Ohio State's 6-3. OU played the likes of Boise State & West Virginia while Ohio State is playing SEC or PAC 10 teams.

I think there's is an "East Coast" (namely ESPN) bias against the Big 10 and Ohio State.

Oh, no question about that. They (ESPN) have a vested economic interest in promoting the SEC as the supreme college conference, far outstripping any contender. So much so that they'll completely gloss over things, like, say, Cam Newton or reports surfacing about Patrick Peterson and needing to "beat" 80k. "Beat" means one-up, right? So...LSU?

Just my opinion, but I felt like Ohio State was equally outclassed in their title game appearences. (Disregarding the two years in which OU and the Buckeyes won the title, obviously.) Both teams had years full of hype that ended in embarrassing losses. There is something to be said about that 3-5 record vs the 6-3 record though...especially when you consider (as you said) that the Big 12 BCS tie in is with...the Big East. Taking that into consideration, yeah, I'd concede that the Buckeyes hold up better under scrutiny than OU.

 

[roksmith]

I think there's is an "East Coast" (namely ESPN) bias against the Big 10 and Ohio State.

Oh yea.. I almost forgot about that.. prepare yourselves to be dissed by ESPN and the rest of the national media.

By joining the Big Ten you will lose all credibility as a team and Mark May will pick against you on principle.

You may get a pass for the first year or two until they remember you are now a part of the Big Ten. It gets comical at times

 

[knapplc]

I think there's is an "East Coast" (namely ESPN) bias against the Big 10 and Ohio State.

The "East Coast Bias" is actually in favor of the Big 10. There have been many times, especially through the 90s, when lesser-deserving Big 10 teams were getting a lot of publicity over other teams.

1994 and 1997 in particular come to mind, when both PSU and Michigan got a lot of air time, and Michigan ended up with half a title they didn't deserve, all because of that bias. It all stems from the fact that most of the football-covering media used to be centered in the Northeast, although that is changing now. ESPN in particular used to shill for the Big 10, but they've now switched their love to the $EC.