Only a two-day weekend this time, but hope you enjoy it. As a reminder, the Big Ten presidents meet Sunday at league headquarters. I'll have coverage on the blog, so be sure and check in.
Tristan H. from Oakland, Calif., writes: Adam,Playoff selection shouldn?t be so complicated. Ideally, the top 4 teams in the country would go every year. However, there are too few games to be statistically conclusive about any rankings, and there are always a number of many teams that could argue that they are 3rd or 4th in the country. Something beyond the somewhat arbitrary BCS rankings is necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff.A conference championship does just this. It's a useful measuring stick that is separate from the BCS rankings; not only can you assess a team's regular season success, but you can see how they do when a shot at the national championship is explicitly on the line.My question boils down to this: how do proponents of a top-4 team playoff defend their position when the one thing everyone can agree about the BCS is that their rankings are inherently flawed? Thanks!Go Penn State! Go Michigan!
Adam Rittenberg: A lot of really good points here. The "best four teams" plan sounds great and simple and straightforward, and that's why it has so much support. But as you point out, identifying the best four teams is easier said than done. I think it's a lot easier to identify the top two or three and separate them, versus separating No. 4 from No. 5, which I think will be very difficult in most seasons. What I'd like to avoid is a conference champ with one close loss being left out because of the poor perception of its league. The SEC obviously doesn't have to worry about this, but the other leagues do. What if Wisconsin's only loss last year came on the Hail Mary play and the Badgers finished the season at 12-1? I could see Wisconsin being left out of the "best four" simply because of the Big Ten's poor national reputation and nothing else. There would be an arbitrary gap between No. 5 Wisconsin and a non-champion from another league, but Wisconsin would be left out because it plays in the Big Ten. That's not right in my book.
Again, the Big Ten's hybrid plan doesn't penalize a deserving non-champion like No. 2 Alabama last year. But it would give a worthy conference champion an opportunity over a No. 4 team that didn't win its conference or division.
Tony from Twin Cities writes: Adam - I was surprisde that you chose MSU as Iowa's most important game. I was expecting it to be Nebraska, hands down. 1) its a home, division game, 2) Iowa has stumbled down the stretch the last few years and needs to finish strong going into a bowl, 3) if Iowa/NU is going to be the next great rivalry, then Iowa needs to be more competitive than last year, 4) Iowa will have a national audience with very little competition for viewers.Feel free to cite me in your revision. You're welcome.
Adam Rittenberg: Sorry, Tony, no revision coming. Nebraska might be an important game for Iowa beyond just the rivalry factor, but if the Hawkeyes lose in East Lansing and later in Ann Arbor, they'll basically be out of the Legends Division race. The Nebraska game most likely will matter only for bowl positioning. I agree that division home games are vital, but if Iowa is going to make any noise in the Legends in 2012, it must play very good football in the state of Michigan. As for your last point, who cares how many people watch the game if all it will determine is whether or not Iowa goes to the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas?
Adrian from Minneapolis writes: First off, great article regarding the B1G's position on the playoff. I found Chris' (ESPN's SEC blogger) response article a bit from the hip and too school-yard ("You don't agree with me? What, you chicken?") without ever actually addressing the B1G's stance.The key to having this playoff thing work is removing the largest voices (in terms of both quantity and volume) of dissent. The B1G's playoff model provides the most well-rounded solution currently available. It addresses the ever constant "But the polls are bias toward " by forcing some conference diversity while leaving the door open with the wild-card for either an independent or a deserving conference non-champion.Everyone wants the top 4 teams in the playoffs. However, the entire reason there is a playoff around the corner is because it's not an easy task to identify the top 2 teams, and identifying the top 4 is not going to be any easier. With so many teams playing nearly uncaparable schedules, ensuring a certain level of conference diversity is a must to any successful playoff system. If we do not do that, we might as well just expand to 68 teams and call it January Madness.
Adam Rittenberg: I love my guy C-Low, but he, like most SEC folks, chose to ignore what I was pointing out (the Big Ten wants a hybrid model, not a conference-champs-only model) and simply restate the SEC's "best four teams" argument. Yes, we get it, you want the best four teams. And yes, we get it, you are the best conference. All hail the mighty SEC. Seriously, is there a group of Americans less secure with their own success than those in SEC Country?
Anyway, your points are valid, and I do think it would be nice to have conference diversity in a college football playoff. By that I mean more than two conferences. I think it's fine to have a playoff with both Alabama and LSU from last year, or with both Oklahoma and Texas from 2008, or with both Ohio State and Michigan from 2006. But I don't know if a playoff with two SEC teams and two Big 12 teams -- or, God forbid, two Big Ten teams and two Pac-12 teams -- will resonate nationally. Maybe it will. Again, I just think people aren't truly thinking it through about the difficulty of selecting the best four teams.
Jonathan from Westerville, Ohio, writes: You saw the alum, fan and supporter backlash a year ago, but would the Big Ten office ever think about realigning (in the future) with Ohio State and Michigan in the same division? Reason being, I don't trust college administrators and AD's not moving "The Game" off the final weekend in the future.
Adam Rittenberg: Jonathan, I can see where your mistrust comes from, as athletic directors are being more creative with scheduling now than ever before. Much of that is good and results in attractive games like Michigan-Alabama, but it would be a shame if The Game was moved from the final Saturday of the regular season. I do think the Big Ten has to continue to evaluate the division alignments because teams like Wisconsin and Michigan State are on the rise. Will Nebraska ever get back to the national elite status it enjoyed in the 1990s? Can Penn State be a nationally elite team every year? These are all questions the Big Ten must consider as it monitors the two divisions, tries to balance out the power and evaluates which brand names are strong now and in the future.
Derek from Madison, Wis., writes: Adam, I am a teacher, and when my students don't understand an idea, I find that using examples helps a lot. That being said, let's give an example of the B1G's playoff idea, using last year's scenario (the very scenario that SEC fans claim supports their playoff idea). The playoff last year according to the B1G's plan would have included Alabama, LSU, OK state, and Oregon. Under the SEC's plan it would have included Alabama, LSU, OK State, and Stanford. The only difference is that the B1G's plan rewarded Oregon for their head to head win over Stanford, and their conference championship. The SEC's plan would have relied on computers and subjective opinions to say "Stanford is better than Oregon, thus they're in the playoff."
Adam Rittenberg: Bingo, Derek. The Big Ten's proposal would have rewarded a conference champion that absolutely humiliated a team ranked ahead of it in the final BCS standings. Now the SEC's counter to this is that the selection procedures will be changed, with a committee potentially incorporated into the process. But the difficulty of separating No. 4 from No. 5 would remain, in my view. Giving a league champion at No. 5 access over a non-league champion at No. 4 is just fine in my book.
Jake from Seattle writes: Hi Adam. I was hoping to get your perspective on some conventional wisdom that I don't think is entirely accurate. Contrary to what many think (including your co-blogger), I believe the Badgers have a more favorable schedule this year than they did last year. I realize Nebraska and Penn St. have a large number of returning starters, but we beat these teams by a combined 93-24 last year. And while I acknowledge the Badgers are not as good on the road, nor will they be as talented as last year (likely they'll be similar to the run-heavy 2010 team led by Scott Tolzien), to me these away games appear completely winnable. More so than last year's away games. (As for the Oregon State game, no walk in the park, but a very winnable game.) MSU and OSU worry me a lot, but both of those games are at Camp Randall this year. Tough slate for sure, but how many games do you see the Badgers not being favored to win?
Adam Rittenberg: Jake, I think it's a toss-up in schedule difficulty between 2011 and 2012. The Oregon State trip could be very tricky, as Big Ten teams typically struggle in Pac-12 territory in September. I definitely agree, though, that having Michigan State and Ohio State at Camp Randall is a big boost for Bucky. Spartan Stadium has been a total house of horrors for Wisconsin under Bret Bielema, and the Badgers, like most Big Ten teams, have struggled mightily in Columbus throughout their history. The Nebraska trip is tough because Big Red will have revenge on its mind after the beat-down last year in Madison. Penn State will be a better team when Wisconsin visits than it will be in September, but the Lions might not be pushing Wisconsin for the division title like they were last year in Madison. You could say Wisconsin will be slight to heavy favorites in every game but Nebraska and maybe Michigan State, but the Badgers also have more toss-up games (Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, maybe Purdue, maybe Oregon State) than they had a year ago.
Samuel from Iowa City, Iowa, writes: Adam, just got done reading the chat transcript. Patrick from Chicago's question caught my eye. It was about brand-name programs and what it takes to reach that level. My question is the reserve. What does it take a program to lose its brand-name status? The obvious example is ND football, which has been wilting for a long time now but still manages to retain not only its name recognition, but power and prestige in the college football universe. Do true name-brand programs EVER really die?Thanks!
Adam Rittenberg: Samuel, this is a fascinating debate, and Notre Dame is a great case study. I guess the answer will come when Notre Dame negotiates its next TV contract. Will the Irish be as coveted as they once were? Will their national following, history and tradition merit such prime TV billing, despite two mostly unremarkable decades? Notre Dame always will have a lot of fans, and the Notre Dame brand, in my view, always will resonate more than most. But I don't think the brand can be what it was for a long period without elite success on the field. In the Big Ten, I don't think the Ohio State and Michigan brands will ever diminish too much. Nebraska is an interesting study because it had such incredible success in the 1990s but might have a tough time ever recapturing it. Penn State is a major national brand, but Joe Paterno was a huge reason why. Then you have emerging brands like Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa. Whether or not those brands have ceilings hinges on whether Wisconsin, MSU and Iowa can consistently win at the highest level of the sport.
Hayden from Lavista, Neb., writes: Hey Adam, Husker fan and very big sports enthusiast here, I have been wondering for weeks now about QBs in the B1G. I keep stumbling across articles saying that Dennard Robinson is a clear cut favorite to be the best B1G QB, and Braxton Miller is a clear cut no. 2. How come Taylor Martinez is not higher than Miller and not really in peoples contention for the best in the B1G? From what I saw last year yes Taylor Martinez had a bad throwing motion, but he has been working on fixing it and I know you have seen practices so if this is true, then why is no one raving about T-Magic? For people to say T-mart can't be the no. 1 QB in the B1G is ridiculous. His stats were very identical to Robinsons stats last year and the only really big passing differences I saw was the Interceptions in the stats. While Martinez had what I believe was 6 games with out an int while Robinson had 3. Finally, it seems when I watched the games this year that T-mart was throw to his receivers routes. But, when I watched Dennard it seemed he would just throw the ball up in the air and hope his receivers would come down with it.
Adam Rittenberg: Hayden, I wouldn't read too much into any article proclaiming this quarterback or that quarterback to be without a doubt the best in the Big Ten. This is really a league of flawed or unproven quarterbacks. We haven't done our quarterback rankings yet, but I might have Iowa's James Vandenberg at No. 1. He's the league's best pure passer who has logged significant field time. Robinson is a very exciting player who can do things few quarterbacks can. But he's far from a finished product as a passer, just like Martinez. Miller clearly has potential and seems to be a great fit for the spread offense, but he barely threw the ball last year. Martinez can be an extremely effective runner, but his career path, as you know, will be determined by how much he can improve as a passer. The bottom line is the Big Ten has no fail-safe, sure-fire star quarterbacks entering the season.
Tristan H. from Oakland, Calif., writes: Adam,Playoff selection shouldn?t be so complicated. Ideally, the top 4 teams in the country would go every year. However, there are too few games to be statistically conclusive about any rankings, and there are always a number of many teams that could argue that they are 3rd or 4th in the country. Something beyond the somewhat arbitrary BCS rankings is necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff.A conference championship does just this. It's a useful measuring stick that is separate from the BCS rankings; not only can you assess a team's regular season success, but you can see how they do when a shot at the national championship is explicitly on the line.My question boils down to this: how do proponents of a top-4 team playoff defend their position when the one thing everyone can agree about the BCS is that their rankings are inherently flawed? Thanks!Go Penn State! Go Michigan!
Adam Rittenberg: A lot of really good points here. The "best four teams" plan sounds great and simple and straightforward, and that's why it has so much support. But as you point out, identifying the best four teams is easier said than done. I think it's a lot easier to identify the top two or three and separate them, versus separating No. 4 from No. 5, which I think will be very difficult in most seasons. What I'd like to avoid is a conference champ with one close loss being left out because of the poor perception of its league. The SEC obviously doesn't have to worry about this, but the other leagues do. What if Wisconsin's only loss last year came on the Hail Mary play and the Badgers finished the season at 12-1? I could see Wisconsin being left out of the "best four" simply because of the Big Ten's poor national reputation and nothing else. There would be an arbitrary gap between No. 5 Wisconsin and a non-champion from another league, but Wisconsin would be left out because it plays in the Big Ten. That's not right in my book.
Again, the Big Ten's hybrid plan doesn't penalize a deserving non-champion like No. 2 Alabama last year. But it would give a worthy conference champion an opportunity over a No. 4 team that didn't win its conference or division.
Tony from Twin Cities writes: Adam - I was surprisde that you chose MSU as Iowa's most important game. I was expecting it to be Nebraska, hands down. 1) its a home, division game, 2) Iowa has stumbled down the stretch the last few years and needs to finish strong going into a bowl, 3) if Iowa/NU is going to be the next great rivalry, then Iowa needs to be more competitive than last year, 4) Iowa will have a national audience with very little competition for viewers.Feel free to cite me in your revision. You're welcome.
Adam Rittenberg: Sorry, Tony, no revision coming. Nebraska might be an important game for Iowa beyond just the rivalry factor, but if the Hawkeyes lose in East Lansing and later in Ann Arbor, they'll basically be out of the Legends Division race. The Nebraska game most likely will matter only for bowl positioning. I agree that division home games are vital, but if Iowa is going to make any noise in the Legends in 2012, it must play very good football in the state of Michigan. As for your last point, who cares how many people watch the game if all it will determine is whether or not Iowa goes to the Meineke Car Care Bowl of Texas?
Adrian from Minneapolis writes: First off, great article regarding the B1G's position on the playoff. I found Chris' (ESPN's SEC blogger) response article a bit from the hip and too school-yard ("You don't agree with me? What, you chicken?") without ever actually addressing the B1G's stance.The key to having this playoff thing work is removing the largest voices (in terms of both quantity and volume) of dissent. The B1G's playoff model provides the most well-rounded solution currently available. It addresses the ever constant "But the polls are bias toward " by forcing some conference diversity while leaving the door open with the wild-card for either an independent or a deserving conference non-champion.Everyone wants the top 4 teams in the playoffs. However, the entire reason there is a playoff around the corner is because it's not an easy task to identify the top 2 teams, and identifying the top 4 is not going to be any easier. With so many teams playing nearly uncaparable schedules, ensuring a certain level of conference diversity is a must to any successful playoff system. If we do not do that, we might as well just expand to 68 teams and call it January Madness.
Adam Rittenberg: I love my guy C-Low, but he, like most SEC folks, chose to ignore what I was pointing out (the Big Ten wants a hybrid model, not a conference-champs-only model) and simply restate the SEC's "best four teams" argument. Yes, we get it, you want the best four teams. And yes, we get it, you are the best conference. All hail the mighty SEC. Seriously, is there a group of Americans less secure with their own success than those in SEC Country?
Anyway, your points are valid, and I do think it would be nice to have conference diversity in a college football playoff. By that I mean more than two conferences. I think it's fine to have a playoff with both Alabama and LSU from last year, or with both Oklahoma and Texas from 2008, or with both Ohio State and Michigan from 2006. But I don't know if a playoff with two SEC teams and two Big 12 teams -- or, God forbid, two Big Ten teams and two Pac-12 teams -- will resonate nationally. Maybe it will. Again, I just think people aren't truly thinking it through about the difficulty of selecting the best four teams.
Jonathan from Westerville, Ohio, writes: You saw the alum, fan and supporter backlash a year ago, but would the Big Ten office ever think about realigning (in the future) with Ohio State and Michigan in the same division? Reason being, I don't trust college administrators and AD's not moving "The Game" off the final weekend in the future.
Adam Rittenberg: Jonathan, I can see where your mistrust comes from, as athletic directors are being more creative with scheduling now than ever before. Much of that is good and results in attractive games like Michigan-Alabama, but it would be a shame if The Game was moved from the final Saturday of the regular season. I do think the Big Ten has to continue to evaluate the division alignments because teams like Wisconsin and Michigan State are on the rise. Will Nebraska ever get back to the national elite status it enjoyed in the 1990s? Can Penn State be a nationally elite team every year? These are all questions the Big Ten must consider as it monitors the two divisions, tries to balance out the power and evaluates which brand names are strong now and in the future.
Derek from Madison, Wis., writes: Adam, I am a teacher, and when my students don't understand an idea, I find that using examples helps a lot. That being said, let's give an example of the B1G's playoff idea, using last year's scenario (the very scenario that SEC fans claim supports their playoff idea). The playoff last year according to the B1G's plan would have included Alabama, LSU, OK state, and Oregon. Under the SEC's plan it would have included Alabama, LSU, OK State, and Stanford. The only difference is that the B1G's plan rewarded Oregon for their head to head win over Stanford, and their conference championship. The SEC's plan would have relied on computers and subjective opinions to say "Stanford is better than Oregon, thus they're in the playoff."
Adam Rittenberg: Bingo, Derek. The Big Ten's proposal would have rewarded a conference champion that absolutely humiliated a team ranked ahead of it in the final BCS standings. Now the SEC's counter to this is that the selection procedures will be changed, with a committee potentially incorporated into the process. But the difficulty of separating No. 4 from No. 5 would remain, in my view. Giving a league champion at No. 5 access over a non-league champion at No. 4 is just fine in my book.
Jake from Seattle writes: Hi Adam. I was hoping to get your perspective on some conventional wisdom that I don't think is entirely accurate. Contrary to what many think (including your co-blogger), I believe the Badgers have a more favorable schedule this year than they did last year. I realize Nebraska and Penn St. have a large number of returning starters, but we beat these teams by a combined 93-24 last year. And while I acknowledge the Badgers are not as good on the road, nor will they be as talented as last year (likely they'll be similar to the run-heavy 2010 team led by Scott Tolzien), to me these away games appear completely winnable. More so than last year's away games. (As for the Oregon State game, no walk in the park, but a very winnable game.) MSU and OSU worry me a lot, but both of those games are at Camp Randall this year. Tough slate for sure, but how many games do you see the Badgers not being favored to win?
Adam Rittenberg: Jake, I think it's a toss-up in schedule difficulty between 2011 and 2012. The Oregon State trip could be very tricky, as Big Ten teams typically struggle in Pac-12 territory in September. I definitely agree, though, that having Michigan State and Ohio State at Camp Randall is a big boost for Bucky. Spartan Stadium has been a total house of horrors for Wisconsin under Bret Bielema, and the Badgers, like most Big Ten teams, have struggled mightily in Columbus throughout their history. The Nebraska trip is tough because Big Red will have revenge on its mind after the beat-down last year in Madison. Penn State will be a better team when Wisconsin visits than it will be in September, but the Lions might not be pushing Wisconsin for the division title like they were last year in Madison. You could say Wisconsin will be slight to heavy favorites in every game but Nebraska and maybe Michigan State, but the Badgers also have more toss-up games (Ohio State, Michigan State, Penn State, maybe Purdue, maybe Oregon State) than they had a year ago.
Samuel from Iowa City, Iowa, writes: Adam, just got done reading the chat transcript. Patrick from Chicago's question caught my eye. It was about brand-name programs and what it takes to reach that level. My question is the reserve. What does it take a program to lose its brand-name status? The obvious example is ND football, which has been wilting for a long time now but still manages to retain not only its name recognition, but power and prestige in the college football universe. Do true name-brand programs EVER really die?Thanks!
Adam Rittenberg: Samuel, this is a fascinating debate, and Notre Dame is a great case study. I guess the answer will come when Notre Dame negotiates its next TV contract. Will the Irish be as coveted as they once were? Will their national following, history and tradition merit such prime TV billing, despite two mostly unremarkable decades? Notre Dame always will have a lot of fans, and the Notre Dame brand, in my view, always will resonate more than most. But I don't think the brand can be what it was for a long period without elite success on the field. In the Big Ten, I don't think the Ohio State and Michigan brands will ever diminish too much. Nebraska is an interesting study because it had such incredible success in the 1990s but might have a tough time ever recapturing it. Penn State is a major national brand, but Joe Paterno was a huge reason why. Then you have emerging brands like Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa. Whether or not those brands have ceilings hinges on whether Wisconsin, MSU and Iowa can consistently win at the highest level of the sport.
Hayden from Lavista, Neb., writes: Hey Adam, Husker fan and very big sports enthusiast here, I have been wondering for weeks now about QBs in the B1G. I keep stumbling across articles saying that Dennard Robinson is a clear cut favorite to be the best B1G QB, and Braxton Miller is a clear cut no. 2. How come Taylor Martinez is not higher than Miller and not really in peoples contention for the best in the B1G? From what I saw last year yes Taylor Martinez had a bad throwing motion, but he has been working on fixing it and I know you have seen practices so if this is true, then why is no one raving about T-Magic? For people to say T-mart can't be the no. 1 QB in the B1G is ridiculous. His stats were very identical to Robinsons stats last year and the only really big passing differences I saw was the Interceptions in the stats. While Martinez had what I believe was 6 games with out an int while Robinson had 3. Finally, it seems when I watched the games this year that T-mart was throw to his receivers routes. But, when I watched Dennard it seemed he would just throw the ball up in the air and hope his receivers would come down with it.
Adam Rittenberg: Hayden, I wouldn't read too much into any article proclaiming this quarterback or that quarterback to be without a doubt the best in the Big Ten. This is really a league of flawed or unproven quarterbacks. We haven't done our quarterback rankings yet, but I might have Iowa's James Vandenberg at No. 1. He's the league's best pure passer who has logged significant field time. Robinson is a very exciting player who can do things few quarterbacks can. But he's far from a finished product as a passer, just like Martinez. Miller clearly has potential and seems to be a great fit for the spread offense, but he barely threw the ball last year. Martinez can be an extremely effective runner, but his career path, as you know, will be determined by how much he can improve as a passer. The bottom line is the Big Ten has no fail-safe, sure-fire star quarterbacks entering the season.
Adam Rittenberg | email
College Football- ESPN.com Big Ten blogger
- Joined ESPN.com in 2008
- Wrote for Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Adam Rittenberg
Rittenberg joined ESPN.com in 2008 after four years at the Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald, where he covered sports at Notre Dame, Northwestern, DePaul and several other colleges. He lives in Chicago.
Brian Bennett
Bennett joined ESPN.com in August 2008 after nine years at The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., where he covered college sports and the University of Louisville beat. He lives in Louisville.
BIG TEN TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
Michigan: WolverineNation
Follow everything Michigan at WolverineNation: Michigan Wolverines football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
RECRUITING NATION
Ohio State: BuckeyeNation
Follow everything Ohio State at BuckeyeNation: Ohio State Buckeyes football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
You must be signed in to post a comment