Bowl teams we played this year

[whaler11]

I agree with you in terms of Nebraska leaving the Big12 and how it affects their recruiting and future. In fact, there is plenty of data to support that (here's a look at 2011 vs. 2014 classes for Nebraska):

http://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/nebraska-23

http://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2014/nebraska-23

Ironically, if Nebraska doesn't leave for the B1G, one might argue that West Virginia doesn't end up in the Big12, and then we perhaps end up in the B1G or at the very least the AAC would continue to contain either WVU or Louisville (depending on which one the ACC poached). So screw Nebraska!

However, as I've obviously posted before, looking at Nebraska's less healthy situation is not the same as looking at the B1G's situation as being less healthy. They are fine, and will continue to be fine, on the football field. OSU has a top5 recruiting class, Michigan has a top15 recruiting class, and there are at least four more schools in the top40 recruiting classes (MSU, Wisc., Penn St., and NW). The product is not getting worse.

If there are people out there that want to judge conferences by their performances in the bowls (although the ACC has somehow received a pass for 15 years), I would suggest that some of these bowls be held in the north. Then, I suspect, you would see a very different outcome from what you're seeing now, when a kid from Mississippi has to play in New York City in December...

The product has been getting worse for a decade and outside of Ohio State, it's pretty terrible.

When Vanderbilt is hauling in more than everyone in your conference but Ohio State and Michigan it's a serious issue.

There aren't enough players - Western PA is a shell of it's football past. Ohio and Michigan even if you don't want to look at it have horrible demographics going forward - shrinking cities, low birth rates, zero job growth, aging populations.

There was a great story recently on the plain states and how their high schools football programs are disappearing because the modern farm does not require huge families to run.

Where we are on concussions right now is just the tip of the iceberg. It's like the first batch of mortgages that went under water. Participation is already down in youth football and that is going to be a huge issue for the Northern schools - participation is going to fall a lot faster where the Big 10 needs to recruit than other parts of the country. Texas, Florida, Georgia... Their huge advantage in generating players is going to explode even further over the next decade.

I've got no bone to pick with the Big 10 - but their product has suffered and when they had a chance to improve it they went for a short term money grab (another bubble that will pop on them someday).

To take Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland... When they should have been going after North Carolina, Florida State and Texas will just make it harder on them. The irony that they are most against paying players will be fun for people to note in the future.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

Looking at the bowl lineup...will the B1G win a bowl game?

So far Minn and Mich have lost. Newcomers MD and RU have lost.

Upcoming likely losses....Iowa to LSU and Nebraska to Georgia.

That leaves OSU vs Clemson, MSU vs Stanford and Wisc vs USCe

I think these 3 are a toss up at best and if you put a gun to my head, I would pick against all 3 B1G teams.

 

[uconnfan68]

Ohio State might beat Clemson. Michigan State might beat Stanford.

The trend is clear and it's against the Big 10 - the facilities won't matter if you can't get the players. If the SEC and ACC have access to better players AND are more willing to cheat while associating with lesser academic schools where else can it head but down for the Big 10?

It's not a coincidence Ohio State is the only school that even has a pulse nationally (maybe Wisconsin to a degree). It's not a coincidence with whom Notre Dame aligned themselves.

The Big 10 elitists can give each other handjobs over their research funding. The 99.9% of the population that doesn't care will just watch better games.

While I agree with much of this, you are overreaching with 99.9% want to WATCH better games. If UConn is left out (looking more and more likely), I won't be watching anything. And I most certainly will not be paying money to watch other teams and leagues.

 

[whaler11]

While I agree with much of this, you are overreaching with 99.9% want to WATCH better games. If UConn is left out (looking more and more likely), I won't be watching anything. And I most certainly will not be paying money to watch other teams and leagues.

I was referring to the Big 10's and
some internet loudmouths obsession with academics. Would anyone watch Purdue/Northwestern over South Carolina/Arkansas because the Big 10 schools get more research money.

The ACC came to their senses to a degree. Playing Louisville doesn't negatively impact the academics of North Carolina or Georgia Tech. Everyone who has a grasp on reality understands that even the academics of the players don't impact the reputation of the school. Other than a handful of places, everyone else came to grips a long time ago that the admission standards and the academic support necessary is a lot different than the rest of the student body.

 

[UConnDan97]

The product has been getting worse for a decade and outside of Ohio State, it's pretty terrible.

When Vanderbilt is hauling in more than everyone in your conference but Ohio State and Michigan it's a serious issue.

There aren't enough players - Western PA is a shell of it's football past. Ohio and Michigan even if you don't want to look at it have horrible demographics going forward - shrinking cities, low birth rates, zero job growth, aging populations.

There was a great story recently on the plain states and how their high schools football programs are disappearing because the modern farm does not require huge families to run.

Where we are on concussions right now is just the tip of the iceberg. It's like the first batch of mortgages that went under water. Participation is already down in youth football and that is going to be a huge issue for the Northern schools - participation is going to fall a lot faster where the Big 10 needs to recruit than other parts of the country. Texas, Florida, Georgia... Their huge advantage in generating players is going to explode even further over the next decade.

I've got no bone to pick with the Big 10 - but their product has suffered and when they had a chance to improve it they went for a short term money grab (another bubble that will pop on them someday).

To take Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland... When they should have been going after North Carolina, Florida State and Texas will just make it harder on them. The irony that they are most against paying players will be fun for people to note in the future.

And I've got no bone to pick with you...or the south. But what you're stating is opinion, not fact (outside of the obvious SEC dominance in the sport). If you were to compare the B1G to the Big12, you would get a wash. And I'm not exaggerating about that.

As for the population, all of the states in the north are growing also, just not at the same percentage. The "exodus" southward is having more made of it than really should be. Even Connecticut, the land of steady habits, is slowly growing (although listening to the news, you would think that we would run out of people in ten years!). Michigan is at a population stand-still, but they have almost 10 million people anyways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate

If you look at "where the recruits are going to come from", 4 of the top 10 highest producing states for recruits are in B1G country:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida

And the top programs in the B1G still get many of their recruits from south of the Mason-Dixon anyways. Here's a "for instance" from Wisconsin, which has a healthy dose of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2014/wisconsin-36

The B1G is healthy. Are they the SEC? Hell no. But nobody else is either...

 

[fortebleedsblue]

Make sure to read the disclaimers on the Big 10 prospectus - prior results do not guarantee future returns.

I'm not declaring the Big 10 dead on those two games. They are dead because their trend line is clearly down, their demographics are terrible going forward, and they made huge mistakes in realignment.

The Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland trifecta is a straight up debacle in the long term.

Grasping at straws here but if northern football is dead with regards to recruiting then wouldn't it be fair to say that the AAC has greater upside down the road with UCF and USF for Florida, ECU for N Carolina, SMU and Houston for Texas? Add Tulane and Memphis and there is a solid southern presence. A little conference success and some strategic OOC game scheduling could really propel this conference.... A blessing in disguise or trying to make lemonade out of lemons?..

 

[whaler11]

And I've got no bone to pick with you...or the south. But what you're stating is opinion, not fact (outside of the obvious SEC dominance in the sport). If you were to compare the B1G to the Big12, you would get a wash. And I'm not exaggerating about that.

As for the population, all of the states in the north are growing also, just not at the same percentage. The "exodus" southward is having more made of it than really should be. Even Connecticut, the land of steady habits, is slowly growing (although listening to the news, you would think that we would run out of people in ten years!). Michigan is at a population stand-still, but they have almost 10 million people anyways:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_growth_rate

If you look at "where the recruits are going to come from", 4 of the top 10 highest producing states for recruits are in B1G country:

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida

And the top programs in the B1G still get many of their recruits from south of the Mason-Dixon anyways. Here's a "for instance" from Wisconsin, which has a healthy dose of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee:

http://rivals.yahoo.com/connecticut/football/recruiting/commitments/2014/wisconsin-36

The B1G is healthy. Are they the SEC? Hell no. But nobody else is either...

I know it's my opinion and I know that bad demographics means they aren't growing as fast. Saying they have 4 of the top 10 states, while technically true - when their four add up to less than the states that dominate it's a bit of stretch to call that a positive. They now have three more mouths to feed and haven't really opened any new territories - they already did well in Jersey and the incremental gain in Maryland is hardly going to sustain 3 additonal programs.

I think you are ignoring that it isn't just the SEC that has passed them on the field. The PAC 12 has.

The ACC is gaining. Look at the NFL draft. The ACC clobbers them these days.

Financially healthy. Certainly for now. Football? Already third at best and sinking.

 

[whaler11]

Grasping at straws here but if northern football is dead with regards to recruiting then wouldn't it be fair to say that the AAC has greater upside down the road with UCF and USF for Florida, ECU for N Carolina, SMU and Houston for Texas? Add Tulane and Memphis and there is a solid southern presence. A little conference success and some strategic OOC game scheduling could really propel this conference.... A blessing in disguise or trying to make lemonade out of lemons?..

If the AAC had bowl access and a television payout that was in the realm of competitive one could make the case that it wouldn't be a death sentence.

Wouldn't hurt to never include schools like Tulane and Tulsa. About as useful as a fourth and fifth nipple.

If UConn/Cinci/UCF/USF/Houston/ECU/SMU/Navy/Temple got together and got a contact in the mid teens that could have been as good or better than the Big East as it died.

 

[Drew]

If the AAC had bowl access and a television payout that was in the realm of competitive one could make the case that it wouldn't be a death sentence.

Wouldn't hurt to never include schools like Tulane and Tulsa. About as useful as a fourth and fifth nipple.

If UConn/Cinci/UCF/USF/Houston/ECU/SMU/Navy/Temple got together and got a contact in the mid teens that could have been as good or better than the Big East as it died.

I still would've liked to have seen UMASS added over Tulsa. Could use another state university (ex: WVU, UConn, UNC, UVA, etc). I always thought that killed the old Big East in terms of perception because the schools in there weren't necessarily University of ____ and it was more schools like Pitt, Cincy, etc

 

[whaler11]

UMass is nice in theory but it's just not going to work out there. They just don't have enough of a fan base/institutional support to be successful in the long term.

 

[UConnDan97]

I know it's my opinion and I know that bad demographics means they aren't growing as fast. Saying they have 4 of the top 10 states, while technically true - when their four add up to less than the states that dominate it's a bit of stretch to call that a positive. They now have three more mouths to feed and haven't really opened any new territories - they already did well in Jersey and the incremental gain in Maryland is hardly going to sustain 3 additonal programs.

I think you are ignoring that it isn't just the SEC that has passed them on the field. The PAC 12 has.

The ACC is gaining. Look at the NFL draft. The ACC clobbers them these days.

Financially healthy. Certainly for now. Football? Already third at best and sinking.

I won't argue against the PAC being better top to bottom. I agree with that assessment. I will argue against the idea that Texas, Florida, and California dominating the recruit production of the country is in some way a new phenomenon, because it's not. That has been true for years. It's also true that the premier teams in the B1G still land high-level players from those states (more Florida and Texas than California, which seems to keep all of its players on the west coast primarily).

And I'm not sure that the B1G is worried about the three extra mouths to feed, if I'm being honest, since they don't care about the teams on the bottom. They will use the additional population bases in New Jersey and Maryland to feed their top 6 programs. And after all, that is all that anyone cares about when it comes to college sports! Nobody cares about the parity (for more, see 'Old Big East'). They just care about having a couple of teams in the top 10 (which the B1G does)...

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Schools like Michigan and Nebraska are no more than one very good hire away from being perennial contenders and will be in such a position for at least a few more decades even if it does take that long to finally find the right coach. They are where Alabama was with Franchione and Shula and where USC was with Ted Tollner/Larry Smith/Paul Hackett.

Where they differ from most schools (as any school can make the statement that the right hire would make them a perennial contender) is that a) the right hire for these schools doesn't need to be nearly as perfect as the right hire for us, Kansas, Rutgers, or any of the masses; b) what the right hire would need four to six years to accomplish at most schools could be accomplished in half that time at Michigan or Nebraska and c) Michigan and Nebraska won't need to worry about losing their head coach once they start winning the way many other schools would.

 

[whaler11]

The last time Nebraska didn't lose at least 4 games in a season was 2003.

Their biggest bowl win this century was a Gator Bowl against Clemson.

Their last top 10 end of season ranking was 2001 and only once since then have they finished in the top 15.

Between 1969 and 1998 they never lost 4 games in a season (granted they were shorter). But between 1969 and 1989 they never finished ranked lower than 12 and were in the top 10 17 times.

They still have a brand... But come on if you can't see the bloom is long off the Nebraska rose you are living in the past.

It's also the other way around. Their hires need to be more perfect because of the expectations. There are plenty more Randy Edsalls and Greg Schianos that can win 7-8 games a year than there are Bos and Osbornes who can win 10+ under enormous pressure.

 

[FDNY99]

Nebraska killed their program the day they left the B-12 for the B1G. They were able to transition their recruiting area to Texas after they weren't one of the only games in town on tv every weekend. But that pipeline seems to have dried up now. Another example of how chasing $$ clouded judgement and in the end downgraded the on-field product.

 

[whaler11]

Nebraska killed their program the day they left the B-12 for the B1G. They were able to transition their recruiting area to Texas after they weren't one of the only games in town on tv every weekend. But that pipeline seems to have dried up now. Another example of how chasing clouded judgement and in the end downgraded the on-field product.

Ding ding ding. Where in the hell is Nebraska going to recruit without Texas?

They are going to beat Michigan and OSU in the upper Midwest and Texas/AtM/Oklahoma in Texas for players?

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

I still would've liked to have seen UMASS added over Tulsa. Could use another state university (ex: WVU, UConn, UNC, UVA, etc). I always thought that killed the old Big East in terms of perception because the schools in there weren't necessarily University of ____ and it was more schools like Pitt, Cincy, etc

Sure, for sake of accuracy both Pitt and Cinci are big state universities with as much or more of a following than UMass. They aren't THE state universities, but then again UMass Lowell competes for funding directly with the Mess in Amherst. Now, tiny, private Tulsa is a real head shaker with only a couple thousand students and resulting tiny alumni base and following ... just not much around ...

 

[whaler11]

Rice makes as much sense as Tulsa. At least they have one sport they are really good at. Plus the story behind the guy the school is named after is enough to keep Butch busy for a few months.

 

[Drew]

Rice makes as much sense as Tulsa. At least they have one sport they are really good at. Plus the story behind the guy the school is named after is enough to keep Butch busy for a few months.

and they're an elite academic institution

 

[UConnDan97]

Schools like Michigan and Nebraska are no more than one very good hire away from being perennial contenders and will be in such a position for at least a few more decades even if it does take that long to finally find the right coach. They are where Alabama was with Franchione and Shula and where USC was with Ted Tollner/Larry Smith/Paul Hackett.

Where they differ from most schools (as any school can make the statement that the right hire would make them a perennial contender) is that a) the right hire for these schools doesn't need to be nearly as perfect as the right hire for us, Kansas, Rutgers, or any of the masses; b) what the right hire would need four to six years to accomplish at most schools could be accomplished in half that time at Michigan or Nebraska and c) Michigan and Nebraska won't need to worry about losing their head coach once they start winning the way many other schools would.

You're 100% right as it pertains to Michigan. I don't think that anyone can argue with that point (not even Whaler...I think...).

As for Nebraska; I think they have made a crucial error by leaving the Big12, not only for the aforementioned recruiting area issues, but also because breaking up the nationally followed games against Oklahoma and Texas (it's hard to believe they haven't played each other since 2010!) has really taken a lot away from them in terms of national importance. I still believe that they will remain a very good team. But I would be shocked if they return to the elite stage any time soon...

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The fact Tulane and Tulsa are in this conference still astonishes me.

10 team round robin hoops and then everyone plays everyone once for football. It's not like we got a bump at all for getting to 12 teams and a CCG.

We have exit money for a few years and then even if we're not in a P5, the contract is short enough (6 years?) that if the league does ok maybe we can get a significantly better deal with Fox maybe looking to add content along with ESPN.

 

[whaler11]

You're 100% right as it pertains to Michigan. I don't think that anyone can argue with that point (not even Whaler...I think...).

As for Nebraska; I think they have made a crucial error by leaving the Big12, not only for the aforementioned recruiting area issues, but also because breaking up the nationally followed games against Oklahoma and Texas (it's hard to believe they haven't played each other since 2010!) has really taken a lot away from them in terms of national importance. I still believe that they will remain a very good team. But I would be shocked if they return to the elite stage any time soon...

I agree that Michigan is one hire away from elite. But it might even be harder to find than Nebraska because their fanbase almost automatically rejects anyone who isn't a 'Michigan Man'. I wouldn't give up on Hoke yet, but that was a seriously pedestrian Michigan team this year.

They beat ND, and Minnesota... 2-6 against Bowl teams if you give PSU the benefit of the doubt. 3-6 if you count CMU winning 6 games.

Michigan has lost at least 5 games 5 out of the last 6 years? Yikes. Haven't won the conference in a decade.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

You're 100% right as it pertains to Michigan. I don't think that anyone can argue with that point (not even Whaler...I think...).

As for Nebraska; I think they have made a crucial error by leaving the Big12, not only for the aforementioned recruiting area issues, but also because breaking up the nationally followed games against Oklahoma and Texas (it's hard to believe they haven't played each other since 2010!) has really taken a lot away from them in terms of national importance. I still believe that they will remain a very good team. But I would be shocked if they return to the elite stage any time soon...

Nebraska recruited far more than just the state of Texas when they were at their best and they were only in the B-12 for a few cups of coffee over their most recent stretch of highest level of success (three titles in four years mid- 1990's). When they were at their best in recruiting the state of Texas (mid 1970's to late 1980's), the closest they got to that state in a conference road game was when they visited Norman Oklahoma.

They've recruited the west coast, east coast, Texas, Florida and the midwest very well for decades, what hurt their program was the retirement of an all time great coach (Osborne), replaced by an adequate coach (Solich deserved better treatment that what he received but he wasn't going to perform at a high enough level to keep them on top), compounded by a horrendous hire (Callahan may have done more damage there than PGDL did here), followed by another adequate coach (the one good thing that can be said about Pellini is that he did make an effort to restore the school's image) who really can be viewed as little more than a bridge from the mediocrity of Callahan to where the right coach can take them.

This school has sold out every home game since before my 2nd birthday (I'm 53 at the moment) and will guarantee a sale of every visitor's seat and any available additional seat to every road game. They will sell more tickets to their spring game than 75% of the FBS will sell to their best attended home game. I personally believe (because of the disparity in national titles between the two schools over the past 50 years) that it would be a bit easier for Nebraska than it would be for Michigan to get the right guy in there. Michigan's guy would need to be closer to perfect than Nebraska's.

What a lot of the talk (no longer playing conference games in Texas, too many years since their last title) about Nebraska reminds me of is the comments we heard (from fans of schools who hadn't accomplished a damned thing) after our men's hoops team lost to Va Tech in the NIT in 2010 and what some (from primarily the same schools) have been saying now that we no longer play in the BE about how our program can never be very good again. All this does is demonstrate the lack of understanding of the sport.

 

[whaler11]

Nebraska has the 35th ranked class on Rivals and isn't in ESPN's top 40. They have 3 four star commits. All three are from Kansas.

They have one player from Florida and none from California.

There comes a point - and Nebraska is there - where what you did three coaches ago ceases to be predictive of your future and you actually need to have actual success before it can just be assumed for you.

The game has changed - the monster programs don't roll out the balls anymore and dominate.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Nebraska has the 35th ranked class on Rivals and isn't in ESPN's top 40. They have 3 four star commits. All three are from Kansas.

They have one player from Florida and none from California.

There comes a point - and Nebraska is there - where what you did three coaches ago ceases to be predictive of your future and you actually need to have actual success before it can just be assumed for you.

The game has changed - the monster programs don't roll out the balls anymore and dominate.

There always was and always will be far more to it than merely rolling out the balls in order to dominate.

As far as what you did three coaches ago, I agree but the exact same thing could have been said about Alabama when Mike Shula was the head coach. The right guy (it may take years for Nebraskla to find him) could accomplish more at that school in three years than he could at 85-90 other FBS schools in eight years.

 

[thatguyed]

The biggest take away from the bowls to date for me is that midwest football is dead and everyone knows it. Every game money has poured in against the MAC and Big 10 and it's been right.

Maryland and Rutgers do not help. The gap is growing between north and south. The Big 10 is screwed on the football field.

So then it just might make sense to B1G to try to beef up on the basketball and olympic sports areas.

Gee, I wonder who would be a great fit for that?