Will This Be Our Year?
by Law Buckeye on Aug 23, 2009 12:59 AM CDT
in All
10 comments
Here we are. On the cusp of a new season -- a new day of trumpets and thunder. Of sweet golden fall mornings. The smell of warm grass, watered-down ale, and false triumphs. Yet, you're afraid, and so am I. See, we've bought into this whole "the conference is weak" argument. Try as I might, I cannot say that the Big Ten will be a major factor in the 2009 season.
Don't get me wrong. We will be better this time around. Better than we were in 2007 and 2008. But not for the right reasons.
Glory in our sport is painfully short-lived. If you're standing at the end of the season you're a champion. If you're kneeling, you're a pretender. College football isn't about real strength, it carries a "what have you done for me lately" mentality. Take a look back at 2008. The Pac-10 struggled through a woefully abysmal regular season. It was the victim of the Mountain West. One by one, the Power conference dropped out of conference games against non-BCS competition. The pundits howled. And yet, when the dust settled -- a perfect sweep in bowl games saved the Pacific's reputation.
Kind of the opposite of the Big 12, who could do no wrong during the regular season (save, maybe for falling victim to a dangerously poor tiebreaking standard). When the dust settled, the great firebombers from the South managed only a single win -- Texas' last minute squeaker against our own Ohio State.
Now the Big 12 faces an ultimatum. Win a championship, or become the new Big Ten. A league with metals and brass, but no balls when it's all on the line.
It's because of this short-term standard that I'd like to share my thoughts on where we're at today.
We're not ready to win a championship. Sorry.
Penn State is smart, and faces a simple schedule -- but it's without an offense line -- the kind of line that won the school its first championship in 1983. Also gone are its receivers -- the talents who made Daryll Clark look good. Throw in a secondary that won't be able to keep pace with fun and gun offenses, and its clear why even if the Lions make the BCS National Championship Game, they'll go down.
Ohio State may well overachieve. But they're still young -- without a proven line, proven receivers, and linebackers solid enough to cope with a USC squad that's in a league of its own. The fan in me won't count the Buckeyes out. But for now, they face a very likely loss to USC on September 12th. After that, their true goal will be to see Pasadena on New Years Day for the first time since 1997.
Iowa and Michigan State are in the same boat. None of these teams will make it through their scheudle undefeated, and as far as I'm concerned that's just fine.
See, I think the real reason for our discontent has little to do with talent, preparedness, and execution, and much more to do with unrealistic postseason matchups. Every year the Big Ten puts two teams into the BCS, five more teams are forced to play up against better competition. The result? A 1-6 record.
What gives 2009 its true breakthrough potential is that we just might get what we deserve. One team will go to the BCS, and six others will play supporting cast. Instead of looking up, we'll play down -- capitalizing on a favorable slate of matchups.
Will we win all our bowl games in 2009? Probably not. The top of the conference is still just a few steps down from competing with the likes of elite BCS competition. But we're not as far out as some people might imagine, and I'm dying to see what the skeptics have to say when the shoe is on the other foot. When a second-place Penn State faces off against the third best team in the SEC. When a third place Iowa lines up against the SEC's fourth best. When a fourth place Michigan State gets the fifth finisher in the Big 12.
What will pundits say when the Big Ten mops up the postseason? Here's a guess: they'll declare the conference's great revival. Bringing up the great Woody Hayes, and Bo Schembechler, the media will gush with our great unsung potential.
And they'll talk about 2010. A year when Ohio State grows up, and Michigan returns to its devilish self.
Yes friends, we're down, but not out. And far from done.
0 recs |
10 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I don't think you'll get the favorable bowl matchups you'd like...
Either Ohio State or Penn State will almost certainly win the Big Ten, and the other one seems a mortal lock to finish inside the top 14 (it would take a collapse of epic proportions for the Buckeyes or Lions to lose more than three games). Which pretty much means two BCS spots for the Big Ten again, especially if Oregon beats Boise (and I think they will) and so pretty much eliminates the chance of a semi-legit (i.e. not 2007 Hawaii), undefeated mid-major. Though we may see our first one-loss mid-major in the BCS, if someone from Utah / BYU / TCU gets through the MWC and somewhat tougher non-conference scheduling with only a single slip-up.
by drothgery on Aug 23, 2009 10:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree with this
I find it hard to believe there will be 2 Big Ten teams with more than 3 losses overall. The BCS bowls love the Big Ten and their fans.
I think the exception to this would be if Notre Dame ends up with a special year and a mid-major goes big-time bowling as well. That would eliminate some of the at-large spots available and possibly leave a Big Ten team out.
by DoubleB on Aug 23, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They'll only be one at-large and Notre Dame will grab it.
Remember, there are only 10 openings for BCS bowl participants, and 8 of them are filled de facto.
Not that anyone here shares it, but I think there’s a common misconception that the remaining two slots are populated with at-large value judgments. Of course, that’s not the case.
The BCS bylaws make it clear that a champion from a Non-BCS conference earns an automatic berth if either 1. They’re ranked in the top 12 of the final BCS standings, or 2. They’re ranked in the top 16 of the final BCS standings and that ranking is higher than that of a BCS conference champion.
I think, for once, this provision comes into play when the winner of the Mountain West is ranked higher than the winner of the Big East or ACC. (Remember, the Big East will start the season with no ranked teams).
That means there’s just a single spot left for grabs. I think a 11-1 Notre Dame team takes it.
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Law Buckeye on Aug 23, 2009 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, that requires an 11-1 Notre Dame
And since they’re certainly going to lose to USC; likely will lose to Pitt and MSU; probably will lose to UConn, Stanford, and Michigan; and possibly will lose to Nevada, BC, and Navy; and since Purdue, UW, and WSU are all better than my Orange (who I keep reminding people ND lost to last year), I wouldn’t count those as sure things for the Irish either.
by drothgery on Aug 23, 2009 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How do you figure 8 are filled de facto?
The six BCS conferences get an automatic spot every year, guaranteed (as do #1 and #2, but there have only been two bizarre cases — both from the Big 12 — where #1 or #2 failed to win their conference, neither of which would have been in the top 2 by the current BCS formula).
Then the highest-ranked non-BCS conference champ gets an autobid if they’re in the top 12 or in the top 16 and above at least one non-BCS school. Every year since the current arrangement has been set up, a non-BCS team has taken this spot, but it’s hardly a sure thing; there would not have been a non-BCS conference champ in the BCS under the current rules in 2005, 2002, 2001, or 1999 (for those playing at home, that’s about a third of the time). Only one team can qualify this way; Boise did not get a BCS spot last year despite winning the WAC and finishing the regular season as BCS #9.
Then ND gets an autobid if they’re in the top 8 (this only happened in 2005).
Then if #3 or #4 didn’t win their conference, they get an autobid — which didn’t happen in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1999, or 1998 (about 2/3 of the time; more often than not, #3 and #4 are both conference champs).
After that, any team in the top 14 is eligible to fill any remaining spots (though the BCS bowls — except possibly the Orange — have a strong bias in favor of their host conferences for replacing the BCS title game particpants).
Theoretically all 4 of the at-large spots can be filled automatically, but realistically the autobid rules for #1 or #2 and for ND almost never come into play; ND has qualified for an autobid only once (though for at-large slot two other times), #1 failed to win their conference once (2003 Oklahoma, despite USC being #1 in both major polls), and #2 failed to win their conference once (2001 Nebraska, despite Oregon being #2 in both polls). And the #3/#4 autobid rule rarely does. The only autobid rule beyond the BCS conference champs that frequently comes into play (or would have, if current rules applied prior to 2006) is the one for non-BCS champs, and even that doesn’t come up a third of the time.
You could argue, I suppose, that the Big Ten and Big 12 de facto have 2 BCS bids. There’s certainly a strong preference for them by the BCS bowls.
Or you could argue that the slots opened up by the BCS title game participants aren’t really open (plausible for the Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose, but it’s certainly possible for an ACC or Big East team to make the title game and I can’t think the Orange would take another ACC team if the ACC did put a team in the title game (at least, not unless FSU was available or the non-ACC options were poor; they’d likely even skip on Miami or VT as a fill-in). And I can’t think that a Big East team would be an at-large BCS selection (unless for some reason a highly-ranked WVU team did not win the Big East).
by drothgery on Aug 23, 2009 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great overview of the selection proces
I probably am giving the Irish a little too much credit.
Out of curiosity, do you think that we’ll see the Top 16/ahead of a BCS conference champion rule come into play this year? Will the Big East be the league that does it?
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Law Buckeye on Aug 23, 2009 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe
I’m not sure if we’ll see the top 16 rule come into play this year. On one hand, if Oregon beats Boise State - and I think they will; the days of Pac 10 teams taking MWC and WAC teams lightly are dead and buried after last year - then I don’t see any undefeated non-BCS schools. But a one-loss MWC champ could crack the top 16 (any non-MWC mid-major would need to be undefeated to crack the top 16). A two-loss MWC champ probably couldn’t, though, and that’s more likely. So that’s half the equation.
On the other side, Rutgers is going to go at least 9-3 and probably 10-2 barring an epic collapse; their schedule is highly favorable. That may not be good enough to win the Big East (Pitt, USF, and WVU probably have more talented teams; Cinci has better coaching), but it’s certainly good enough for a top-16 ranking. 10-2 probably gets them in the top 12. Best case for the Big East is probably someone other than Rutgers goes 10-2 and wins the Big East; it’s hard to see a 12-0 or 11-1 anywhere. So a non-undefeated mid-major will not be ranked ahead of the Big East champ.
The ACC, on the other hand, is pretty much unpredictable with Evans’ injury probably killing any chances of Virginia Tech being dominant (and no one else in the ACC will). But I’d guess there’s too much parity there for anyone to get through the conference with fewer than two conference losses, and all the major players have at least one non-conference game they’ll probably lose and possibly two (the ACC not really buying the SEC/Big 12 school of scheduling, which I’ll reluctantly concede because a Big East guy saying good things about the ACC is just painful). So best case for the ACC is probably a 3-loss champ (would be in the top 16, but not the top 12), and the likely case is probably a 4-loss champ. Which will be ranked outside the top 16.
by drothgery on Aug 24, 2009 9:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Then if #3 or #4 didn’t win their conference, they get an autobid — which didn’t happen in 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2000, 1999, or 1998 (about 2/3 of the time; more often than not, #3 and #4 are both conference champs)."
Texas got an automatic at large bid after the 2004 season because of this rule.
by Texas Wahoo on Aug 24, 2009 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stop it with the USC down talking…Ohio State will win this game…
The Rivalry, Esq.
Big Ten Football: 3 Yards and a Cloud of Field Turf
by grahamfiller10 on Aug 23, 2009 10:31 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Kind of the opposite of the Big 12, who could do no wrong during the regular season (save, maybe for falling victim to a dangerously poor tiebreaking standard).
I have to disagree here – I think the Big 12’s tiebreaker makes much more sense than the SEC’s. If there was a three-way tie at 5-3 instead of 7-1 and those teams’ division records were 4-1, 3-2, and 2-3, the 4-1 record would win the division; you wouldn’t toss out the 2-3 team and then go back to head-to-head. Why should you do that with any other tiebreaker?
You could certainly argue that using the BCS at all as a tiebreaker is a mistake, and I wouldn’t disagree. The polls shouldn’t be involved in deciding anything. But if you’re going to do it, the Big 12’s method – and not the SEC’s – is the right way to do it.
by SpartanDan on Aug 24, 2009 10:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
