Will the Big 10 become the New SEC?

[typ3kal]

Throwing out a question to the board about the Big 10. In future projections I don't see the ACC,BigEast, Pac10, or Little12 competing with the Big10 for the MNC slot anymore. I see the MNC title game as almost exclusively featuring the winner of the Big10 vs (SEC or (OU or Texas + VTech or Miami or FSU + USC). While many have deduced that the Big10 will now become a bruiser conference that will spoil itself year in and year out due to team dropping at least 1 or 2 games to win the conference, I'm not sold. I still think regardless if the conference produces a 1 loss team, that team will be selected to play in the MNC over a 0 loss team that has steam rolled through a terrible conference (see Big East & Pac-10). I feel yearly it will feel like 2007 all over again. A 1 or 2 loss team in the MNC (Like two loss LSU was that year).

I just think it would be hard for pundits to select a 0 loss team like Texas or OU over a 1 loss B10 champion. Considering OU and Texas will have nearly 8 guaranteed wins conference (MU,ISU,KSU,KU,Baylor) + 3 cupcakes and a light BCS opponent.. it'll be hard for them to consciously choose them over a team like Nebraska (ideally) that will have to slug through, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, MichSt, NWestern, PennState*Predicted Xover, tOSU, Purdue, Illinois... And then likely PState, tOSU, or Wisc in the championship game.

That's a brutal schedule to only drop 1-2 games in.

It's a lot less impressive for OU/Texas to beat ATM, TTech, OSU, and then OU/TX (The only teams really capable of getting occasional wins in the Southern conference now that the north has lost Nebraska) and walking over the opponent in the other 8-9 games.

People have said the SEC is a conference that has too many powerhouse teams to produce MNC contenders as they will knock each other out. I tell the cynics to ask Bama, LSU, and Florida how it's worked out the last half decade.

 

[huskerjack23]

Throwing out a question to the board about the Big 10. In future projections I don't see the ACC,BigEast, Pac10, or Little12 competing with the Big10 for the MNC slot anymore. I see the MNC title game as almost exclusively featuring the winner of the Big10 vs (SEC or (OU or Texas + VTech or Miami or FSU + USC). While many have deduced that the Big10 will now become a bruiser conference that will spoil itself year in and year out due to team dropping at least 1 or 2 games to win the conference, I'm not sold. I still think regardless if the conference produces a 1 loss team, that team will be selected to play in the MNC over a 0 loss team that has steam rolled through a terrible conference (see Big East & Pac-10). I feel yearly it will feel like 2007 all over again. A 1 or 2 loss team in the MNC (Like two loss LSU was that year).

I just think it would be hard for pundits to select a 0 loss team like Texas or OU over a 1 loss B10 champion. Considering OU and Texas will have nearly 8 guaranteed wins conference (MU,ISU,KSU,KU,Baylor) + 3 cupcakes and a light BCS opponent.. it'll be hard for them to consciously choose them over a team like Nebraska (ideally) that will have to slug through, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, MichSt, NWestern, PennState*Predicted Xover, tOSU, Purdue, Illinois... And then likely PState, tOSU, or Wisc in the championship game.

That's a brutal schedule to only drop 1-2 games in.

It's a lot less impressive for OU/Texas to beat ATM, TTech, OSU, and then OU/TX (The only teams really capable of getting occasional wins in the Southern conference now that the north has lost Nebraska) and walking over the opponent in the other 8-9 games.

People have said the SEC is a conference that has too many powerhouse teams to produce MNC contenders as they will knock each other out. I tell the cynics to ask Bama, LSU, and Florida how it's worked out the last half decade.

It's a great concept short term certainly and the SEC has set a precedent for this, but I'm gonna throw a wrench in the plan for long term. Is conference expansion done? Is a playoff inevitable?

I remember in June when this was all going down that a playoff was exponentially more revenue than the current BCS as is. That may be speculation, but I see this not having to be a problem anymore.

But, I'd rather have an undefeated team go over a 1-loss team unless it was a special circumstance like when Nebraska is involved.

 

[typ3kal]

Throwing out a question to the board about the Big 10. In future projections I don't see the ACC,BigEast, Pac10, or Little12 competing with the Big10 for the MNC slot anymore. I see the MNC title game as almost exclusively featuring the winner of the Big10 vs (SEC or (OU or Texas + VTech or Miami or FSU + USC). While many have deduced that the Big10 will now become a bruiser conference that will spoil itself year in and year out due to team dropping at least 1 or 2 games to win the conference, I'm not sold. I still think regardless if the conference produces a 1 loss team, that team will be selected to play in the MNC over a 0 loss team that has steam rolled through a terrible conference (see Big East & Pac-10). I feel yearly it will feel like 2007 all over again. A 1 or 2 loss team in the MNC (Like two loss LSU was that year).

I just think it would be hard for pundits to select a 0 loss team like Texas or OU over a 1 loss B10 champion. Considering OU and Texas will have nearly 8 guaranteed wins conference (MU,ISU,KSU,KU,Baylor) + 3 cupcakes and a light BCS opponent.. it'll be hard for them to consciously choose them over a team like Nebraska (ideally) that will have to slug through, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, MichSt, NWestern, PennState*Predicted Xover, tOSU, Purdue, Illinois... And then likely PState, tOSU, or Wisc in the championship game.

That's a brutal schedule to only drop 1-2 games in.

It's a lot less impressive for OU/Texas to beat ATM, TTech, OSU, and then OU/TX (The only teams really capable of getting occasional wins in the Southern conference now that the north has lost Nebraska) and walking over the opponent in the other 8-9 games.

People have said the SEC is a conference that has too many powerhouse teams to produce MNC contenders as they will knock each other out. I tell the cynics to ask Bama, LSU, and Florida how it's worked out the last half decade.

It's a great concept short term certainly and the SEC has set a precedent for this, but I'm gonna throw a wrench in the plan for long term. Is conference expansion done? Is a playoff inevitable?

I remember in June when this was all going down that a playoff was exponentially more revenue than the current BCS as is. That may be speculation, but I see this not having to be a problem anymore.

But, I'd rather have an undefeated team go over a 1-loss team unless it was a special circumstance like when Nebraska is involved.

What about taking a 0 loss BYU or Boise State over a 1 loss B10 team?

 

[NUance]

Will the Big 10 become the New SEC?

Yes. And the SEC will become the new SWC. Now that the NCAA has grown a sack.

 

[UGAHusker]

No. Laughable proposition.

EDIT: After seeing our 2011 schedule, I take back my previous statement.

 

[huskerjack23]

Throwing out a question to the board about the Big 10. In future projections I don't see the ACC,BigEast, Pac10, or Little12 competing with the Big10 for the MNC slot anymore. I see the MNC title game as almost exclusively featuring the winner of the Big10 vs (SEC or (OU or Texas + VTech or Miami or FSU + USC). While many have deduced that the Big10 will now become a bruiser conference that will spoil itself year in and year out due to team dropping at least 1 or 2 games to win the conference, I'm not sold. I still think regardless if the conference produces a 1 loss team, that team will be selected to play in the MNC over a 0 loss team that has steam rolled through a terrible conference (see Big East & Pac-10). I feel yearly it will feel like 2007 all over again. A 1 or 2 loss team in the MNC (Like two loss LSU was that year).

I just think it would be hard for pundits to select a 0 loss team like Texas or OU over a 1 loss B10 champion. Considering OU and Texas will have nearly 8 guaranteed wins conference (MU,ISU,KSU,KU,Baylor) + 3 cupcakes and a light BCS opponent.. it'll be hard for them to consciously choose them over a team like Nebraska (ideally) that will have to slug through, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, MichSt, NWestern, PennState*Predicted Xover, tOSU, Purdue, Illinois... And then likely PState, tOSU, or Wisc in the championship game.

That's a brutal schedule to only drop 1-2 games in.

It's a lot less impressive for OU/Texas to beat ATM, TTech, OSU, and then OU/TX (The only teams really capable of getting occasional wins in the Southern conference now that the north has lost Nebraska) and walking over the opponent in the other 8-9 games.

People have said the SEC is a conference that has too many powerhouse teams to produce MNC contenders as they will knock each other out. I tell the cynics to ask Bama, LSU, and Florida how it's worked out the last half decade.

It's a great concept short term certainly and the SEC has set a precedent for this, but I'm gonna throw a wrench in the plan for long term. Is conference expansion done? Is a playoff inevitable?

I remember in June when this was all going down that a playoff was exponentially more revenue than the current BCS as is. That may be speculation, but I see this not having to be a problem anymore.

But, I'd rather have an undefeated team go over a 1-loss team unless it was a special circumstance like when Nebraska is involved.

What about taking a 0 loss BYU or Boise State over a 1 loss B10 team?

If the one loss is in the big ten title game, they don't deserve to go. But, if they had a close loss to a good team, early in the year, it'd be the best option due to conference superiority.

 

[Caven]

It's a great concept short term certainly and the SEC has set a precedent for this, but I'm gonna throw a wrench in the plan for long term. Is conference expansion done? Is a playoff inevitable?

I remember in June when this was all going down that a playoff was exponentially more revenue than the current BCS as is. That may be speculation, but I see this not having to be a problem anymore.

But, I'd rather have an undefeated team go over a 1-loss team unless it was a special circumstance like when Nebraska is involved.

In the Omaha World Herald article interviewing Delaney and Perlman, it was stated several times that the Big 10 was still wanting to take another 12 months. If they only wanted Nebraska then Delaney wouldn't have told Perlman that they were still 12 months out from making a decision. IMO this thing isn't done yet. 2015 to a 9 game conference schedule at the same time that the Big 10 goes to 16? I would be very comfortable placing a bet on that.

 

[Creed]

In the Omaha World Herald article interviewing Delaney and Perlman, it was stated several times that the Big 10 was still wanting to take another 12 months. If they only wanted Nebraska then Delaney wouldn't have told Perlman that they were still 12 months out from making a decision. IMO this thing isn't done yet. 2015 to a 9 game conference schedule at the same time that the Big 10 goes to 16? I would be very comfortable placing a bet on that.

I think it should stay at 12. Just look at Neb's schedule for 2011. Who are they going to add without watering down the league? The top contenders are Rutgers, Pitt, Mizzou. If they add any of those they need to add some big names too like ND or OU.

 

[killer cacti]

No.

 

[Creed]

Will the Big 10 become the New SEC?

Yes. And the SEC will become the new SWC. Now that the NCAA has grown a sack.

You're right and I hope the NCAA continues to set up camp in SEC land. It's no secret they are the troublemakers of CFB with all their infractions and suspensions. The SEC knows how to exploit loopholes in the system to benefit their FB programs - just like the Massoli case. I think Florida had a similar case go unnoticed a few years ago when a player from Utah went with Urban because Fl was weak at that particular position.

 

[junior4949]

I think it will be very tough for a one loss Big 10 team to get into the final show over the Texas/OU winner because it is most likely whoever wins that game will be undefeated.

 

[sd'sker]

it is crazy how the perceptions for the big 12 and big 10 will change just because NU switched. the big 12 will look like a joke, worse than the big 10 ever looked. and the big 10 will look like a juggernaut, second to only the SEC, and a close second at that.

i am so excited i cannot see straight.

 

[typ3kal]

I think it will be very tough for a one loss Big 10 team to get into the final show over the Texas/OU winner because it is most likely whoever wins that game will be undefeated.

As far as I know, the SoS of a B10 team that must beat 4 top 20 teams + the average strength of the other B10 teams would get the bid over the little10 who would have 1 top 20 opponent at most 2. For once I'm liking the BCS computers.. Here's to texas getting jobbed :lol

 

[Creed]

NU, the hopeful,continued rise of Iowa and Wisc, and maybe Mich back to form will put the B10 over the SEC.

The Big 10 has enjoyed a very poor reputation due to the two OSU flops vs SEC in the NCG and the pummelings by USC in big games.

Even with those losses (2 SEC and 4 USC) the Big 10 is 10-11 in BSC games and is an even 500 against the SEC in bowl games in the BSC era.

With one more bowl game (Gator Bowl) vs the SEC on tap - if you throw in Neb in one of those games vs the SEC your chances of wins goes up most likely.

 

[GMoose]

The conference is stronger now, but you need to look at the grand scheme of things. Was the Big 10 really one Nebraska away from being on par with the SEC? I certainly think not. If Nebraska continues to improve and is a perennial conference contender, when Michigan comes back around we might start having this discussion.

If Nebraska stays on course, Iowa stays on course, Wisconsin stays on course, PSU doesn't drop off too much when Paterno retires (or dies), Michigan comes back around (they can only be bad for so long), and Tressel stays on board at OSU, then it'll be a good conversation.