Big 2, Little 10?

[B.B. Hemingway]

I have seen it mentioned in the media (most recently in a OWH article) that Ohio St. and Michigan have seperated, or have began to seperate themselves from the rest of the conference. According to some, they are taking their programs to the next level, and are expecting the "Big 2" to leave the rest of the conference in the dust. What has either school done in the past 5-8 years (especially Michigan) to seperate themselves from other conference schools, and more importantly, what have they done to seperate themselves from Nebraska?

 

Last 8 years for each team:

 

Michigan: (9-3)--(7-5)--(11-2)--(9-4)--(3-9)--(5-7)--(7-6)--(11-2)----Total Record: 62-38---- Conference Championships-1 (2004).

 

Ohio St.: (8-4)--(10-2)--(12-1)--(11-2)--(10-3)--(11-2)--(12-1)--(6-7)----Total Record: 80-22---- Conference Championships-5 (2005-2009)

 

Nebraska: (5-6)--(8-4)--(9-5)--(5-7)--(9-4)--(10-4)--(10-4)--(9-4)---- Total Record: 65-38---- Conference Championships-0

 

Obviously, Ohio St. has set the standard in the B1G, but have they seperated themselves to a point where Nebraska can't catch them? I don't think so, and I believe that Nebraska will compete well with them for years, and we will win our fair share of those matchups. Michigan and Nebraska have travelled oddly similar paths over the last decade, and I just don't see what Michigan has to their advantage that Nebraska can't compete with.

 

I found it offensive to not include Nebraska in the upper tier of the B1G.... But what are the media folks seeing that we're not? Can we compete in the long run? My answer, why not? Historically, neither of the two schools have anything on Nebraska....

[Count 'Bility]

We have to prove our worth to make it the Big 3. But quite frankly, what has Michigan done outside of luckily winning a close BCS bowl, against an ACC team, and put together a very good recruting class. Yes, their 2 losses are against top 5 teams (jury's still out on Nooter Dame for me, at some point theyre going to have to be able to score points), but other than that they've been less than impressive. Frankly, until someone proves they belong their with them, it's Big 1, little 11 (Ohio St.). Saturday night's our chance to really change the perception of this conference.

[gratefullred]

The media is looking at the obivious recruiting advantages the locations of Colombus and Ann Arbor have over Nebraska relating to population. It is the same argument against NU that has been made for the last 40 years. It is also the argument that this is the way the Big10 has been historically and so it will be again.

 

Michigan and OSU have these obivious advantages, but that will not keep NU, Wisconsin, MSU, PSU, and the rest of the league from competing with them. I wouldn't be offended by any media garbage.

[Omaha-Husker]

There isn't near enough on field evidence to say those two are head and shoulders above the rest of the conference yet. The one thing they are dominating at is recruiting rankings, a lot of people are looking at that and saying how can the rest of the conference with suck low rankings compete with top 10 classes in the future. They are getting talent infusion, but I don't think you can claim instant dominance off of kids not even on campus yet.

[kchusker_chris]

I think it's less about what these teams have done, and more about what the rest haven't done. Nebraska hasn't shown they can be anything but a 4 loss team. We aren't in the cellar, but we certainly haven't proven we can take that step into the elite. While Michigan has had it's ups and downs, they have proven (last year) that they can be an elite team and still run with the big dogs. I have no doubt that if you average the seasons out we'll be at the same level as most of the top teams in the nation. But I'm not convinced we'll have those elite seasons scattered in there that separates you from the rest of the pack. We're a 20-25ish team. Have been for some time now. Will continue to be well into the future it seems.

[Count 'Bility]

I think it's less about what these teams have done, and more about what the rest haven't done. Nebraska hasn't shown they can be anything but a 4 loss team. We aren't in the cellar, but we certainly haven't proven we can take that step into the elite. While Michigan has had it's ups and downs, they have proven (last year) that they can be an elite team and still run with the big dogs. I have no doubt that if you average the seasons out we'll be at the same level as most of the top teams in the nation. But I'm not convinced we'll have those elite seasons scattered in there that separates you from the rest of the pack. We're a 20-25ish team. Have been for some time now. Will continue to be well into the future it seems.

This is the reality that I've come to realize over the last year. It's who we are. I just tend to look at it with a little more optimism because we always seem the to see those flashes of brilliance the show us that eliteness certainly possible.

[Stickney]

Until NU demonstrates it is something other than what it appears (mediocre) this will remain true. Beat Michigan.

[NUance]

I have seen it mentioned in the media (most recently in a OWH article) that Ohio St. and Michigan have seperated, or have began to seperate themselves from the rest of the conference. According to some, they are taking their programs to the next level, and are expecting the "Big 2" to leave the rest of the conference in the dust.

I hope this is what the tOSU and Meechicken coaches think of us. So we can give 'em a bloody nose and kick them to the curb while they're overlooking us.

[kchusker_chris]

Until NU demonstrates it is something other than what it appears (mediocre) this will remain true. Beat Michigan.

As this week has gone on, I'm starting to see how big of a statement game this is for the program. The importance of this game cannot be understated. Lose (especially lose big) - and things begin to look really bleak. The years' "goals" become unachievable. Even winning out after this loss would likely leave us on the outside looking in at the Rose Bowl. Win and we ride that momentum through the rest of the season. Lose and we very well could have a deflated team playing before yet another dissatisfied fan base.

[Count 'Bility]

If we lost this game, Michigan has to 3 of there final 4 games for us to even think about it. We would have two conference losses, and they would have none with the tiebreaker in their pocket. Yes, it is a must win as far as goals go.

[junior4949]

I'd be more inclined to call it the Big 1 Little 11. For all the crap Shoelace gets for losing them games, he should get a lot of credit for winning them games. I'm a lot more interested in what Michigan becomes once RichRod's recruits have exited. I wouldn't exactly put Hoke on the same platform as Urban Meyer. Having said all that, I'm not convinced in the future one can really call it anything. If for no other reason, look at the Big 12. I'm not saying KState wins the Big 12, but they have to be the favorite right now. Who would have thought that to even be possible a year or two ago? Things change so fast in college football that it's pretty difficult to lable a conference like Big 2 Little 10. Take the Pac 12 for instance. Who would have thought Oregon State would be in the top 10 at the beginning of the season?

[robsker]

in terms of recruiting rankings --- and if said rankings in fact are the best measure of overall talent --- then Michigan and Ohio State are the big 2 and the rest the little 10. The recruiting advantage for the big two has been the case now for some time and continues.

 

Right now, Michigan has a Scout Ranking of #3 nationally and OSU #7. The next best in the conference is Illinois at #25. Wisconsin, the Huskers and Michigan State are all between #30-39 nationally. It will not end that way... but if you look merely at rankings say... the last three years and now... then it is a big 2 & little 10.

 

Of course, recruiting and talent (and the dubious relation between the two) are not everything by any means. That said, OSU and Michigan have far 'better" recruits than the little guys (NU and the rest of the conference).

[B.B. Hemingway]

in terms of recruiting rankings --- and if said rankings in fact are the best measure of overall talent --- then Michigan and Ohio State are the big 2 and the rest the little 10. The recruiting advantage for the big two has been the case now for some time and continues.

 

Right now, Michigan has a Scout Ranking of #3 nationally and OSU #7. The next best in the conference is Illinois at #25. Wisconsin, the Huskers and Michigan State are all between #30-39 nationally. It will not end that way... but if you look merely at rankings say... the last three years and now... then it is a big 2 & little 10.

 

Of course, recruiting and talent (and the dubious relation between the two) are not everything by any means. That said, OSU and Michigan have far 'better" recruits than the little guys (NU and the rest of the conference).

 

I prefer to look at on-field performance. Neither of the two programs are running away from Nebraska anytime soon.... Urban Meyer will always get his recruits until he quits coaching again, but the Hoke thing is just something that happens when a legendary program gets a new coach/new start. There is a renewed energy around the program, and kids are attracted too that. See Callahan in his first couple years here.... Michigan will not have top 3 classes on a consistent basis....

 

And without Robinson this year, Michigan would be garbage (Kornheiser voice)....

[junior4949]

Exactly, look at what Wisconsin and Michigan State have done the past few years. If it boiled strictly down to recruiting, Texas would be dominating rather than sucking hind tit right now. If one goes back and looks at the recruiting classes of four and five years ago, I highly doubt they see KState or Oregon State anywhere close to the top 10. How many top 10 recruiting classes did TO have in the late 80's and early 90's?

[kchusker_chris]

Exactly, look at what Wisconsin and Michigan State have done the past few years. If it boiled strictly down to recruiting, Texas would be dominating rather than sucking hind tit right now. If one goes back and looks at the recruiting classes of four and five years ago, I highly doubt they see KState or Oregon State anywhere close to the top 10. How many top 10 recruiting classes did TO have in the late 80's and early 90's?

But I'd bet you'd see: Oregon, LSU, Alabama, Florida, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Ohio State, and USC (the rest of the top AP 10) - goes both ways junior. For every 1 team that breaks the norm, there are 6-8 that follow it. Recruiting ranks are becoming a very good predictor of future success. Ignoring that is Nebraska's way of maintaining hope for the future