Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Big Ten Wednesday mailbag
By Brian Bennett
It's time for the second Big Ten mailbag in three days. Lucky you. And here's one last call for comments from Maryland and Rutgers fans. The response from Rutgers fans has been terrific. Step it up a bit, Maryland supporters.
On to your questions ...
Samuel from Iowa City writes: Brian, with Rutgers and Maryland joining the league, what kind of time frame do you think we're looking at before it becomes apparent whether adding them is/isn't paying the dividends the honchos expect?
Brian Bennett: Well, let's first remember that these moves were more about demographics and markets more than the on-field football product, Samuel. So in that sense, we'll need to judge the expansion success of lack thereof based on a lot more than just won-loss records. The first measurement should come as soon as next year, when negotiations begin on the new Big Ten TV contract. The league figures to cash in big regardless, but the addition of markets like the New York/New Jersey and Maryland/Virginia/D.C. areas could mean an even more serious windfall. And the other big thing to look at is recruiting. The Big Ten hopes these moves open up new talent pipelines for its teams, and I think within five years, we should be able to see whether the league is signing more players from the East Coast.
Of course, it would also be nice if the Scarlet Knights and Terrapins are going to bowl games and contending for league titles, but that would be mostly gravy for the league.
Tim from Raleigh writes: As we saw the other day, Gary Andersen interviewed for the Cleveland HC position (possibly offered?), but then didn't pursue it. That doesn't surprise me at all that he'd turn that down. I can't image him ever going to the NFL. Andersen seems to really care about his players and developing them into good football players as well as good people in general. NFL players are old enough that they probably don't want their coach mentoring them in day to day life, which he would want to do. He also doesn't strike me as a man that cares that much about the extra million or so he'd get in the NFL. Thoughts?
Brian Bennett: I think some might have made a mountain out of a molehill from the Andersen news, which is understandable considering how surprising it was and how little else is going on in college football right now. We don't know how far along the talks between the Browns and Andersen got, but it sounds like there was merely some gauging of interest. The Browns took their sweet time in hiring a new coach and apparently turned over every rock. I have a hard time believing Andersen -- who is a very good coach but doesn't have any NFL experience or even a long track record as a college head coach -- was near the top of the Browns' wish list. And I surely don't blame Andersen for listening when an NFL team comes calling.
The encouraging thing is that by all indications, Andersen kept Barry Alvarez informed during the process and didn't use the opportunity to try and leverage the Badgers for a big raise or other concessions. It's not realistic to assume Andersen will stay in Madison the rest of his career if he piles up successful seasons. But I don't think he's actively looking to leave, either, especially with his son, Chasen, just entering the program.
Redenbacher V. from Sandusky, Ohio, writes: In regards to your entry outlining Mark Schlabach's updated rankings for next year: I was not surprised he moved Michigan up 3 spots. They will continue to rise in the rankings throughout the offseason and as they play nonconference patsies as they do every season. Everyone will forget the ills of the past season and give the Wolverines the benefit of doubt. By the time August 30th gets here, they will be ranked between 14-18. If they manage to beat another perennially over-ranked team in Notre Dame, they will likely climb into the top 10 before falling apart all over again during the conference season. How many times does this cycle have to repeat itself before the Wolverines stop receiving the benefit of doubt?
Brian Bennett: While I don't really agree with Mark's ranking of Michigan, I also know it's not easy finding teams to fill out those last four or five spots on the ballot, especially at this point in the season. (Though I'd put Nebraska there ahead of the Wolverines). This also isn't a phenomenon that's limited to Michigan. Every year, we see "brand-name" schools get overrated in preseason polls. How many seasons have programs like Notre Dame, Texas, Florida and Miami lived off their reputations? Michigan will get a quick test out of the gate at Notre Dame in Week 2. If the Wolverines can win in South Bend, there's a good chance for a 6-0 start heading into an Oct. 11 home game against Penn State.
Polls shouldn't really matter for anything more than discussion going forward with the new playoff system and selection committee in place. They really don't matter in February. But it gives us something fun to talk about.
Sparty from Marquette, Mich., writes: Most of the coordinator talk surrounding MSU is regarding when Pat Narduzzi will leave. On the opposite end of the spectrum, do you think Mark Dantonio will make room on his staff for Don Treadwell now that he's back on the job market?
Brian Bennett: Dantonio has an obvious affinity for Treadwell, who was his offensive coordinator from 2004 to 2010 at Cincinnati and Michigan State. Dantonio also was not happy when Miami (Ohio) fired Treadwell less than three seasons into his tenure as head coach last year. But right now there are no openings on the Spartans staff, and after the way the Michigan State offense developed under coordinator Dave Warner (and, yes, Jim Bollman), Dantonio has no reason to shake things up. If an opening occurred on the offensive side, I could definitely see him turning toward Treadwell. But right now, that's not happening.
John S. from Lindale, Ga., writes: As a lifelong Michigan fan, there's something different to me about the teams of the last five or six years, something other than mediocrity. It is as if these teams, with the exception of the 2011 team, lack the belief they can win. That seems to have been the case with the RichRod teams, as well as the teams of the last three years, with the previously noted exception. My question is this: Do you think with Coach Hoke that what has happened is there's a coach in place who wants to be at Michigan, understanding the history and tradition of success, more than a coach who is capable of replicating that success? I wonder if, perhaps, Brady Hoke has been confused with someone who is capable of replicating the success of the past, simply because he understands the context in which that success was achieved. In other words, is Brady Hoke someone who appreciates the history, but who isn't necessarily capable of matching it?
Brian Bennett: John, you raise some interesting questions. There's no question that Hoke's status as a "Michigan man" fueled his early popularity, and there would likely be a lot more heat on him entering Year 4 if he was more of an outsider. Hoke was very successful at previous stops as a head coach, but I think he still has a lot to prove as a coach at the highest level. As to whether the Wolverines lack a belief they can win, I'm not sure about that. Yes, the 2013 team lost several close games, but they've also won some of those in Hoke's tenure. The biggest difference, to me, from the 2011 squad to the past two years was an apparent lack of standout leaders who could will the team to win, like Mike Martin and David Molk.
But we might not even be having this discussion if Michigan had just played a little bit better. The most pressing concern for the Wolverines and Hoke going forward is whether the program can do a much better job of coaching and developing all the star-studded recruits it has brought in.
Eddie from Kansas City writes: When will the B1G ever get around to scheduling conf games each of the first 4 weeks of the season like other conferences (2020)?
Brian Bennett: Eddie, you must have missed all the offseason scheduling news we wrote about last year. September conference games are on the way. There will be one in 2014 when Penn State visits Rutgers on Sept. 13, though that was a previously scheduled nonconference game that turned into a league contest when the Big Ten added the Scarlet Knights. Ohio State and Indiana will play in the 2017 season opener, and there will be two other Big Ten games in Week 3 of that year. We won't get many others before then because of previously scheduled nonconference games, but when the nine-game league schedule begins, you will see that happening on a more regular basis. I can't wait.