Big 2, Little 10?

[B.B. Hemingway]

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)

 

It is safe to say that recruiting matters....

[robsker]

Junior & Rock:

 

generally I agree with you guys...

 

That said, if the question is "Why would anyone nationally assert that OSU and Michigan are the big two and the others the little ten?" I think most would point to perceived talent and recruiting. It is in that realm --- and really that realm only --- that one can defend a statement like that.

 

If on-field performance is assessed over ... say the past 4-5 years or so... then as was asserted before by someone else, the reality with only a one year exception is that it is the big 1 and the little 11 --- only OSU can stake claim to be above the rest (with Michigan, with all their talent, joining the little guys).

 

I will contend though that OSU is the only B1G program other than Minnesota that is trending in the right direction in an obvious manner (with Minnesota starting way behind). Michigan... maybe, but If they are trending the right way it is with a small upward slope.

Everyone else is flat-lined and not trending at all.. or the arrow points the other way. Penn State is hard to assess with all that has changed there.

 

So... I see OSU perched to own the conference for the foreseeable future. Not sure how nationally competitive they will be --- as in being a top 3-4 team... but they will easily rule the B1G w/o a real contender challenging them at all..

[kchusker_chris]

So... I see OSU perched to own the conference for the foreseeable future. Not sure how nationally competitive they will be --- as in being a top 3-4 team... but they will easily rule the B1G w/o a real contender challenging them at all..

at least we dn't play them next year - so maybe we can reach the title game.

[Excel]

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....

Why would Nebraska be in the top tier? They haven't earned it. However, to not include Wisconsin is kind of foolish.

 

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

 

Wisconsin: (9-3) - (10-3) - (12-1) - (9-4) - (7-6) - (10-3) - (11-2) - (11-3) --- Total Record: 79 - 25 Conference Championships - 2

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Basically the separation is being defined as what these two schools are doing in the recruiting department. From that, I can see the separation.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

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....

Why would Nebraska be in the top tier? They haven't earned it. However, to not include Wisconsin is kind of foolish.

 

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

 

Wisconsin: (9-3) - (10-3) - (12-1) - (9-4) - (7-6) - (10-3) - (11-2) - (11-3) --- Total Record: 79 - 25 Conference Championships - 2

 

 

Nebraska should not be considered top tier in B1G. You are 100% correct in the fact we have not earned crap, until we bring some hardware home... Going forward though I think both Wisconsin and NU cannot be predicted to be part of that group due to flat recruiting, in the end its how it plays out on the field, but the indicators for everyone outside of tOSU and Michigan are not good....

[robsker]

Bucky is quite correct re: Wisconsin deserving to be up there close to the top of the B1G over the past few years --- as it was, essentially, about as good a period of time for Wisconsin football ever. During that same time period, the Huskers were at some of the worst years for Nebraska football in the last 40 years or so.

 

So... Bucky you are correct. Husker fans struggle though looking at Wisconsin as a serious program because, historically, UW has been really pretty weak.

[Excel]

Bucky is quite correct re: Wisconsin deserving to be up there close to the top of the B1G over the past few years --- as it was, essentially, about as good a period of time for Wisconsin football ever. During that same time period, the Huskers were at some of the worst years for Nebraska football in the last 40 years or so.

 

So... Bucky you are correct. Husker fans struggle though looking at Wisconsin as a serious program because, historically, UW has been really pretty weak.

 

I completely agree but I have to say...as kind of a random thought...that Ohio State's dominance was so great that there really was only one top tier and only one occupant. I mean, five Championships. Dang.

[kchusker_chris]

Bucky is quite correct re: Wisconsin deserving to be up there close to the top of the B1G over the past few years --- as it was, essentially, about as good a period of time for Wisconsin football ever. During that same time period, the Huskers were at some of the worst years for Nebraska football in the last 40 years or so.

 

So... Bucky you are correct. Husker fans struggle though looking at Wisconsin as a serious program because, historically, UW has been really pretty weak.

 

I completely agree but I have to say...as kind of a random thought...that Ohio State's dominance was so great that there really was only one top tier and only one occupant. I mean, five Championships. Dang.

but you have to wonder how many they would have if they'd have had to win them in a championship game.

[True2tRA]

We've been in the Big Ten for one and a half seasons for cripes sake. I think people are jumping the gun by counting us out. We'll be back up there. As of right now, there really isn't enough data to say we belong mentioned in the top of the Big Ten or not because we are hardly a member yet. Penn State could climb up there, Purdue as looked decent at times, so has Indiana and Northwestern. Michigan had a great season LAST YEAR! How after one season can we say Nebraska isn't there, but Michigan is part of the Big 2? They just fired Rodriguez not that long ago and were looking like they were headed for the shitter before they got Hoke who is an excellent coach in my opinion. If anyone runs the show in the Big Ten, I guess you could say Ohio State hasn't really skipped a beat, and when they have been down, it wasn't very far down and it didn't last very long. Like I said though, give Us a few years to rattle the cages and shake things up a bit before we just start calling our conference Big 2 Little 10.

[Zaimejs]

You'll never see a news outlet talking about anyone "seperating" from anything ever.

[robsker]

Bucky is quite correct re: Wisconsin deserving to be up there close to the top of the B1G over the past few years --- as it was, essentially, about as good a period of time for Wisconsin football ever. During that same time period, the Huskers were at some of the worst years for Nebraska football in the last 40 years or so.

 

So... Bucky you are correct. Husker fans struggle though looking at Wisconsin as a serious program because, historically, UW has been really pretty weak.

 

I completely agree but I have to say...as kind of a random thought...that Ohio State's dominance was so great that there really was only one top tier and only one occupant. I mean, five Championships. Dang.

Bucky is quite correct re: Wisconsin deserving to be up there close to the top of the B1G over the past few years --- as it was, essentially, about as good a period of time for Wisconsin football ever. During that same time period, the Huskers were at some of the worst years for Nebraska football in the last 40 years or so.

 

So... Bucky you are correct. Husker fans struggle though looking at Wisconsin as a serious program because, historically, UW has been really pretty weak.

 

I completely agree but I have to say...as kind of a random thought...that Ohio State's dominance was so great that there really was only one top tier and only one occupant. I mean, five Championships. Dang.

 

 

Yeah... I'd love to see someone challenge OSU here in the immediate future --- but I do not see a single program --- not the Huskers, the Badgers, Michigan... anyone challenging them. I would not at all be surprised to see OSu (once they are eligible) win the B1G with at least the frequency they have in the immediate past... if not slightly higher. I expect a big 1 little 11. But... even more sadly... that big 1 in our conference will not compete well against the top of the nation.

[junior4949]

Recruiting is important, but it isn't the be all end all. If it were, Clownahan would still be here and Sherman would still be at A&M. If Mack Brown loses his job at Texas this year, it sure as heck won't be because of poor recruiting. Looking at the current BCS Standings for the top 15, there are definitely teams playing well above their recruiting classes such as KState, Oregon State, Mississippi State, Texas Tech, and Rutgers. Then, one can easily spot teams playing well beneath their recruiting classes like Auburn, Tennessee, California, Miami, Texas, and UCLA (new coach so they probably deserve a pass).

 

I've heard it said and read where Nebraska has the best receiving corp. in the B1G. I've even heard and read arguments that Nebraska has the best stable of RB's in the B1G. I'm sure there are positions where we don't have as good of talent as some in the B1G, but I'd put our talent right up there with any other team in the B1G. What team have we faced where there was a noticeable difference in talent? What team will we face this year where there has been a noticeable difference in talent?

[skersfan]

I think OSU will do just fine on the National level in the near future. They have talent, loads of it, a very good coach (2MNC) with heavy ties to the SEC. He will pull kids in from there to make them an elite team.

 

I think Michigan will be close, as state Hoke is a great coach, has turned programs around where ever he has been. Making San Diego State a winner was made me a believer.

 

Wisconsin, will be in the hunt on occassion due to their recruiting of the big uglies. They will get their coaching back soon.

 

Nebraska really has not been relevant for a long time. We have to start winning big games on National TV to even hope we can begin to compete with Ohio State. We have lost our strongest recruiting area in Texas I think, it will dwindle away. We need to get the castaways that Ohio State and Michigan leave. Our recruiting has to improve dramaticly period. Not only in quality, but actual sales, closing the deal. We have to do a much better job in coaching up what we have as we have failed in that badly. See KState, Boise State. They do not get the top kids, but they make them sound players with a chip on their shoulder. We seem to recruit better kids, but less drive, killer instinct. Of course there are exceptions, but overall we are not doing as well with our recruits as other out of the bubble programs

 

For those that think the 90's will return, you need to forget about it. Not happening. Coming to the Big made our life easier this year for sure, the Big 12 would have killed us this year.

 

Recruiting, talent, coaching, we are at best in third place in every aspect, some parts much lower.

[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....

Why would Nebraska be in the top tier? They haven't earned it. However, to not include Wisconsin is kind of foolish.

 

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

 

Wisconsin: (9-3) - (10-3) - (12-1) - (9-4) - (7-6) - (10-3) - (11-2) - (11-3) --- Total Record: 79 - 25 Conference Championships - 2

 

 

The media's words, not mine. I was using the two examples of the Big 2 (Ohio St., Michigan) that they gave, and I was comparing Nebraska because this is a Nebraska board. Wisconsin is a very nice program, and their recent success makes them an immediate threat to win the B1G, but will that last long term? I don't know, ask Urban Meyer how long he plans to stay at Ohio St. Historically, Nebraska more then belongs in the same conversation as Michigan, and Ohio St. And the historic value of each program is a viable variable in this discussion. Michigan has done nothing in recent years that suggest they are set to completely set themselves apart from the rest of the conference. You could make a case for Ohio St. with their recent run of conference championships, and their hiring of Urban Meyer, but Michigan?

 

In the long term will Ohio St. and Michigan win their fair share of conference championships? Of course. Will they win more then Nebraska, or even Wisconsin? I don't think that is a given at this point, and I don't see any immediate reasons as to why that would be the case...