ESPN College Football

What's on your mind today?

Luke from Cincinnati writes: Ohio State always pays its debts. No conference team has beaten Ohio State twice in a row since Wisconsin in 2003-2004. Revenge played a big factor in the Buckeye's win against Wisconsin last year, even though the team went 6-7 for the year. Do you think this is the year the Ohio State loses to the same conference team to back? How much of a factor does revenge normally play into most games? The Buckeyes seem to thrive on it.

Adam Rittenberg: Very interesting topic, Luke. There's a better chance Ohio State's run without consecutive losses to the same Big Ten squad ends this year, simply because the Buckeyes had five league losses in 2011. Remember, they lost a total of five Big Ten contests between 2005-2010, so there weren't many opportunities for the streak to end. Of the five league games Ohio State lost last fall, the Buckeyes must travel to both Michigan State and Penn State. The Michigan State game will be very tough, and you'd have to think the Spartans have the best chance to end Ohio State's run. Penn State could be tricky as well, as the game falls in November. Michigan should be Ohio State's toughest home test, followed by Nebraska. Purdue has given the Buckeyes fits in West Lafayette, but the Boilers will have a tough time winning in C-Bus. As far as revenge, it plays a role, particularly in rivalry games like Michigan. Ohio State certainly wants to avenge the Nebraska loss after blowing such a big lead in Lincoln last season.

---

Alden from Chicago writes: Adam, as a Spartan who attended both Michigan State-Wisconsin meetings in 2011 I am very disappointed with the schedule announcement in that the schools have a 4-year break from 2013-16. Living in Chicago around many Wisconsin fans I've felt a great rivalry budding here. The October and the B1G Championship games were absolutely two of the best football games I've seen and I've developed a genuine distaste for the Badgers. With both teams on top of their divisions there's still a good chance of meeting in the Championship game at least couple times during the break, which would continue adding ill will between the schools. I?m afraid though that without a regular season meeting the rivalry could sputter in the coming years and that would be a shame. What are your thoughts on this?

Adam Rittenberg: I agree it's a shame, Alden. Same goes for a four-year break with Ohio State and Nebraska, and Wisconsin and Iowa not playing yet again in 2015 and 2016. These are some of the downsides of having division play, 12 teams and protected crossover games. Each team is going to have a four-year gap with another squad -- just the way it is. Wisconsin's situation is a bit unique in that it loses geographical rivals by being in the Leaders division. The Wisconsin-Iowa series doesn't take place every year. Wisconsin doesn't play Michigan State or Michigan every year. The only protected game is Minnesota, which is a historic rivalry but one that lacks the significance of recent Wisconsin games with both Michigan State and Iowa.

---

Whit from the Czech Republic writes: This is probably a very naive hope, but is there any chance the Big Ten divisions will eventually be realigned into an East/West geographical split? I saw your posting of the schedules, and I was very disappointed to see that MSU will not play Wisconsin for four years, and same with Nebraska and OSU. In my view, if the divisions went to geography, the "protected crossovers" could be scrapped (since all traditional rivalries, I think, would be intact) and teams from opposite divisions could play each other at least five times out of every ten years. While that wouldn't assure yearly matchups between MSU/Wisconsin and OSU/Nebraska, it would at least assure that every four-year football player would get two chances against each opponent from the other division.

Adam Rittenberg: Whit, you're definitely not alone in this belief. The Big Ten split the divisions based on competitive balance and had branding very much in mind when it assigned Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State. The protected crossover component was included because you can't have Ohio State and Michigan in opposite divisions without having them play each year. If Ohio State and Michigan were in the same division, could the Big Ten get rid of protected crossovers entirely? It's very possible. And that would reduce the gaps when teams play one another. It's something the league certainly could reassess down the road, but I don't see any changes on the horizon.

---

Touchdown! Davis from Lincoln, Neb., writes: Adam, cool ditty you wrote looking at future schedules and crossover games. So, good sir, what's your over/under on Nebraska winning 9.5 regular season games in 2012? As a fan, I'm assuming Nebraska will run the table and win the National Championship vs. Oklahoma in the most amazing National Title game ever (can you imagine a Nebraska v. Oklahoma title game, with all the past tradition and story lines?). Objectively, I'm hoping we go 10-2 in the regular season. Quick schedule breakdown... Non Conference: I think Southern Miss is a decent/good team but we win by 20+. The UCLA game might be a crap shoot, although I think we ultimately win regardless (and I'm excited to watch a game played in the Rose Bowl). Conference: Vs. Wisconsin, @ Ohio State, Vs. Michigan, @ Michigan State. I think if Nebraska loses two games, it's among these teams. I don't believe we'll lose to Northwestern again, even though it's a road game and I respect their team. Nebraska Vs. Michigan is my game of the year. It maybe has been said before, but I believe the ultimate conference champion this year is coming from the Legends division, and it's between Michigan, Michigan State, and Nebraska. I'm really interested to watch Ohio State this year with Meyer, etc. Your thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: I agree with you that the Big Ten champ comes out of the Legends division. Michigan State, Michigan and Nebraska are obviously the top contenders there. Nebraska has to defend its home turf to reach 10 wins this season, and I agree that the Michigan game is huge. But if Nebraska really wants to make a statement in the Big Ten, it absolutely has to record a signature road win. The two big opportunities are at Ohio State and at Michigan State. Nebraska needs to win one of those games for this season to be deemed a success. If Nebraska goes 10-2 with losses in East Lansing and Columbus, is the season a step forward? Maybe a little step, but Nebraska will only announce itself as a potential Big Ten power when it wins a huge game on the road. The Penn State win was nice, but Penn State had an inflated record, and obviously there were unique circumstances surrounding that game.

---

Alex from Shanghai writes: Hey Adam, greetings from China! Kind of disappointed that I can't get my lunch links until the middle of the night over here, but what can you do? For Michigan fans, it traditionally goes without saying that the OSU game is the most important game on the schedule, no exceptions. But do you see a different situation this coming year? It can, and perhaps even should be argued that the Michigan State game is more important. Michigan fans such as myself would love nothing more than to shut Mark Dantonio up and get that 4-year losing streak off our backs. This is also coupled with the fact that this game could very well determine the Legends Division title, and that its Michigan's only home game of any national relevance as of today. As much as it pains me to say, I think the MSU game, at least for the 2012 season, is more important than the OSU game. What are your thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: Alex, thanks for the note! We'll see about posting a midnight edition of lunch links, so you could get them at the right time (I'll make Bennett do it). In terms of reaching the Big Ten title, the Michigan State game certainly could be more significant for Michigan. It's a division game, which is critical, and it's also a division home game. Both division champions in 2011 -- Wisconsin and Michigan State -- were undefeated at home and obviously won their division home contests. I think this pattern will continue in the coming seasons. The Ohio State game always will be huge for Michigan. While it was great for the Wolverines to end the losing streak, they'll get more mileage from a win in Columbus against what will be a better Ohio State team, not to mention a squad playing its last game of the season because of the bowl ban. But Michigan could be in the position Michigan State was last year, having locked up the division title before the final Saturday of regular-season play. The bottom line is both games should matter a lot for Michigan, but in terms of reaching Indianapolis, the MSU game is absolutely critical.

---

Hunter from Jackson, Mich., writes: I noticed your comment about November night games, and i couldnt agree more. Do you think it would ever be possible for the Big Ten to allow November games under the lights? And to push a non-conference game to the end of the season? I would personally love to see SEC teams like Alabama or LSU that are used to playing in that heat to march into Camp Randall, Spartan Stadium, Happy Valley etc. in below freezing temps. It would have a huge impact on the game.

Adam Rittenberg: Hunter, I think the Big Ten eventually will change its policy when there's significant turnover in the athletic director ranks. Most of the old guard seems to be lukewarm on night games, and Purdue's Morgan Burke actually turned down a night game against Michigan this year. But the popularity of night football around the country, coupled with the fact it looks so good on TV, should eventually lead to a change in policy. Sure, the weather is a concern, but they play November night games in every other conference, including the MAC and the Big East. The Big Ten's view is archaic, and it should change. As far as moving up a league game to September, the momentum for this seems to have slowed significantly following the Pac-12 scheduling agreement. Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema and former Illinois coach Ron Zook seemed to favor a schedule that more closely resembled those in the SEC, but the Big Ten schedules between now and 2016 have only four league contests -- two in 2013, two in 2014 -- played during the month of September.

---

Matt from Minnesota writes: Adam -- When I heard the anouncement of the Big12 SEC bowl, my first thought was the playoff was dead. Doesn't this really setup the plus one model. The winner or the Pac12/B1G will play the Big12/SEC winner for the NC. It makes since. I pushes out the Big East, ACC and the independents. It keeps the Rose Bowl. It allow the four main conference to Bid out the NC Game and split the revenue. Don't you think this would work?

Adam Rittenberg: Matt, I guess it's possible, and The (Cedar Rapids) Gazette's Scott Dochterman wrote about this very topic today. I still don't know if pushing out Notre Dame or the ACC ends up happening, as there would be some significant pushback from those squads. As Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman recently told me, he and others in his position still favor the plus-one over a four-team playoff within the bowls. But it seems like the presidents could be swayed to accept a true four-team playoff. I also don't know if a league like the SEC, which has had so many top-5 teams, would advocate for a plus-one instead of a four-team playoff where it could have multiple entries. The SEC and Big 12 definitely made a power move with this bowl game, but I don't see it translating directly to a plus-one.

---

John from Charlotte, N.C., writes: Adam, While definitely not important to on field performance, I love a good pre-game field entrance. It gets the crowd fired up for the game and seemingly the home team ready for the kickoff. How would you rank the B1G's teams field entrance or pregame routines? Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Adam Rittenberg: Big fan of pregame entrances, too, John. I always love Iowa's entrance to "Back in Black," followed by "The Swarm." In my mind, former Hawkeyes D-lineman Adrian Clayborn will always be at the front of the line. I've only seen Nebraska's "Tunnel Walk" take place once in person, but it's quickly becoming one of my favorites. Michigan's entrance with the banner touching is classic college football.

CHICAGO -- When the college football playoff push kicked off, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith planted himself in the campus-sites camp.

Smith favored having the semifinals on the campuses of the higher-seeded teams. The setup would give Big Ten teams like Ohio State an advantage they've never enjoyed in the current BCS/bowl setup -- nationally significant games on Midwest soil in late December or early January. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was among the first major college football figures to stump for campus sites this winter.

"We've shifted," Smith told ESPN.com on Tuesday. "I was originally for campus sites, and I still go back there mentally every now and then as discussions occur, but the bowls have a really good system set up to host."

The reasons for the Big Ten's shift are well known by now. Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne said Tuesday that a playoff outside of the existing bowls would "pretty much destroy the bowl system." Preserving and protecting the Rose Bowl is paramount to Delany and the rest of the Big Ten brass.

Smith also thinks there are operational advantages to keeping the biggest games at bowl sites.

"There are certain schools that would put it on and host it extremely well," he said. "Others might be challenged with that. Bowls have done this a long time. They have great local organizing committees. ... And it's good for the game."

The strongest counterargument is that campus sites would ease the burden on college football fans. Rather than make separate trips for a league title game, a national semifinal and a national championship game, fans of some teams could have one of those games closer to their homes.

Another apparent plus for Big Ten backers is the potential weather advantage Big Ten teams could exploit by hosting games. Unlike squads in the South and West, Big Ten teams are conditioned to play cold-weather football, but they typically face the best from the SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12 in ideal conditions at places like the Rose Bowl, the Mercedes-Benz Superdome and University of Phoenix Stadium.

The thought of a college football playoff in the snow is both novel and exciting to some Big Ten fans. But Smith actually sees it as a drawback.

Brace yourselves, Woody and Bo ...

"Let's say Ohio State is hosting and it's January or December, and let's say it is 5 degrees," Smith said. "Is that right for the game? We're not pro. We need to figure out what's best for the game, and I think a fast surface, good weather is important for the game. It's important for the kids."

Delany, Osborne and others acknowledge that campus sites could favor the Big Ten, which hasn't won a national championship since after the 2002 season. But in surveying presidents, athletic directors, coaches and even players, the overwhelming majority favored the bowl sites.

"It would be a competitive advantage to have semifinal games at home fields," Osborne said. "... but the bowls have been good to us."

The sentiment isn't sitting well with some folks. The Big Ten might have been alone in advocating for campus sites, but it's fair to ask if the Big Ten gave up on the crusade far too easily.

Yahoo! Sports' Dan Wetzel writes today:

Somewhere Mike Slive of the SEC and Larry Scott of the Pac-12 are kicking back with a cackle of delight. These guys are angling for every possible edge while the Big Ten and the Rose Bowl sit in adjacent bathtubs, holding hands and waiting for the moment to be right.

Wait, the rest of college football has to be asking, you're not even going to fight and try to make us look like wimps for arguing against football in the cold?

Wait, you seriously are going to ask the same fan base to travel three times in a month -- Big Ten title game, semifinals and championship game, the last two at least via airplane? And you think we won't end up with the majority of the crowd?

The Rose Bowl's power over the Big Ten is something to behold. It makes normally intelligent men say ridiculous things.

Of the Big Ten groups advocating for playoffs at bowl sites, the coaches' position makes the least sense. These are guys who typically capitalize on every possible advantage presented to them. But they seem to value their players' bowl experience over the possibility of making Alabama or USC play them in the snow.

Why should the Big Ten care if TCU and Oregon have small stadiums and can't accommodate the media and the corporate sponsors? The Big Ten, for the most part, doesn't have those problems.

In my recent interview with Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, I asked him why so many powerful people in the Midwest care so much about bowl games located so far away.

"It's part of the tradition of college football," Perlman said. "It is a good experience for student-athletes. It makes more sense in terms of ending the season than some kind of playoff. It helps the communities that have been supportive of intercollegiate football for a long time."

What about the local communities Big Ten schools can serve by keeping games on campus?

Wetzel writes:

There's no question Big Ten fans love the Rose Bowl, although not as much as they once did. They also like to win, also would like to shut the SEC up and also really like showing off their legendary stadiums and great cities, fighting against the idea that they live in some inhospitable, rusted-out region.

Plenty of them could use the economic impact of staging these massive events in the Midwest too.

That's not going to happen. The campus-sites ship has sailed. Perhaps it's a tradeoff the Big Ten made to ultimately ensure strong playoff access for league champions.

If and when the Big Ten champion qualifies for a playoff, however, it will more than likely play a virtual road game. The team will have to fight like heck to win.

A lot harder than the league did to have meaningful games on campus.

CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany didn't reveal the future college football playoff model Tuesday, but he made it clear the process is shifting from what the format will be to how it will be determined and who will participate.

Although Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman recently told ESPN.com he and other presidents prefer a plus-one model, a true four-team playoff is much more likely. And the format almost certainly will take place within the existing bowls. That's the model that Delany, the Big Ten's athletic directors and the league's football coaches prefer.

"I had a conference call with our football coaches about a week ago," Delany said Tuesday at the league's spring meetings. "What they said to me was the 'how' is even more important than the 'what.' They were in favor of the Rose Bowl, the bowl system. They felt it was the least slippery slope. They understood on-campus events could be competitively favorable to them, but they were very clear that the events ought to occur in the context of the bowl system."

Delany maintained no format is set -- the commissioners have been asked to present two models to their constituencies -- but he suggested one isn't far from being finalized when he stated, "It will be demonstrably clear how flexible and how open the Rose Bowl has been in this process." The conference commissioners hope to finalize a format by July 1 and could do so at a June 20 meeting in Chicago.

What will take longer, of course, is how the teams are selected, always a hot topic in college football and one that will only get hotter. Delany wants to make that part of the process as transparent as possible.

"Regardless of how we go, it's going to be difficult for coaches and fans and programs and conferences to absorb," he said. "The conversation about the how and the who needs to be really open. Let's get coaches in the room and talk it out. Let's get commissioners in the room and talk it out. Let's do it in front of the media.

"Let's [let] everyone see the difficulty of these decisions and then let's make decisions and live with it."

Delany added that while the BCS has tried to do the right thing, it hasn't explained itself well at times.

"That would mean if we're going to use computers, people are more up front about what's in those computers," he said. "It would mean perhaps the pollsters that we have would have to refrain from ranking teams before they ever play. It would mean we would have to honestly discuss strength of schedule and how we measure it. ... If a computer guy is unwilling to explain to me and everybody else what's in his program, I don't think it ought to be part of the process. If a coach is arguing for championships, I'd like to hear the rationale behind that. If someone is arguing that you don't have to win championships and they're willing to live with a poll that is not even transparent, I'd like to hear that.

"And I'd like to hear coaches talk about the influence that a poll-only process, how that plays out in the nonconference scheduling."

Delany favors a "hybrid model" with a "quality-control cap" for selections: where the best conference champions are "honored" but allowances are made for elite teams that haven't won their leagues and/or divisions, as well as top independents like Notre Dame. He clarified his recent remarks to the Associated Press that many interpreted as a shot at reigning national champion Alabama, which didn't win the SEC or the West division but crushed LSU in the title game.

"I wasn't concluding that those teams ought not to be included," Delany said. "I was simply stating a case for some sort of hybrid combination. I know it might not have been taken that way, and I could have been clearer. But I have heard from my in-laws in Knoxville, Chattanooga and Birmingham that they don't like [former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer's plan, to have only league champions in a playoff] and they wanted to clearly understand what I was trying to say."

Delany called the polls "good indicators" but, like several Big Ten athletic directors, wants to further explore the possibility of a selection committee and how to balance the interest of independents and at-large teams. And he wants to do so in a transparent forum.

He added that the model could be finalized before the selection component.

"What has everybody been focused on? The model," Delany said. "But these other issues are very significant. Our coaches, 'Jim, we'd like to hear about the what, but what about the how and the who?'"

Answering those questions is the next step in the playoff process.

Big Ten spring meetings take place Tuesday-Wednesday in Chicago. I'll be on hand throughout, so be sure and check the blog for updates.

Onto the links.

• Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman admits the school made the wrong call in hiring RichRod. Wolverines coach Brady Hoke reminisces about Bo Schembechler.
• Iowa athletic director Gary Barta favors increasing the bowl eligibility requirement to seven victories.
• Former Nebraska running back Aaron Green is transferring to TCU. Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman hasn't shied away from talking athletics during his tenure. The Lincoln Journal Star looks at Nebraska's most memorable touchdowns, from 1 yard to 100.
• Texas A&M edges Nebraska to host an ESPN "College GameDay" commercial.
• The system is the star at Wisconsin, which will make it easier to replace some star power, SI.com's Andy Staples writes.
• Ohio State's shift from quarters to semesters will impact the team's preseason preparation. Tom Herman's recruiting connections in Texas have put Ohio State in the mix for some top prospects.
• A look inside Bill O'Brien's offensive playbook at Penn State.
• A Michigan State verbal commit could be swayed to stay and play at home in Texas. Another Spartans recruit draws high marks at the Elite 11 tryout.
• Illinois quarterback recruit Aaron Bailey is a humble star. Illini fans can meet coach Tim Beckman this week.
• Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany needs to get over his SEC obsession, David Climer writes.
• Former Michigan State star Jerel Worthy calls Wisconsin's offensive line the best he faced in college. Former Wisconsin center Peter Konz is bringing back the "Dirty Bird" to the Atlanta Falcons.
• Juco defender Randy Gregory remains committed to Purdue. Boilers great Jim Carter, he of "Touchdown Twins" fame, died last week at 100.
• BTN.com's Tom Dienhart breaks down Northwestern's 2012 schedule.

Catching up on Big Ten news from the weekend ...

Huskers' assistant chooses not to testify

Nebraska assistant coach Ron Brown has decided not to testify against a proposal in Lincoln that would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Brown, who in March spoke out against a similar proposal in Omaha, told the Lincoln Journal Star that the media attention surrounding his involvement swayed him from testifying at a meeting today. His position on the proposal remains the same, and his job isn't in jeopardy.

The proposal in Lincoln would add gender identity and sexual orientation to the classes of people protected against discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations.

"Everything inside of me said, 'I don't want the media to stop me from going,'" Brown told the Journal Star. "Then I realized it was going to be a circus, and everybody already knows how I think. My views stand the same. As I prayed about it, I thought it was not in the Lord's will for me to testify."

Although Brown has drawn criticism from regional and national media, he would have been allowed by the university and his boss, head coach Bo Pelini, to testify at Monday's meeting. Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman said Brown's beliefs don't reflect those of the university, but the university allows its employees to express their opinions.

Pelini told the Journal Star, "I hired Ron Brown because of who he is and the type of person he is. He's never brought negative attention to our program."

Brown also wrote a letter to Journal Star readers explaining his position. It read in part: "I have and will embrace every player I coach, gay or straight ... but I won't embrace a legal policy that supports a lifestyle that God calls sin." Brown signed the letter, "Ron Brown, private citizen of Nebraska."

Wisconsin's Ball cited during block party


Montee Ball clearly loves the college life, but the Wisconsin star got swept up in it a bit too much this weekend. Ball was among hundreds of people cited Saturday during the Mifflin Street Block Party. The Badgers running back was on the porch of a resident who didn't want him there.

Police said Ball, who received a $429 fine, was cooperative during the process, and alcohol wasn't an issue with his citation.

A Wisconsin spokesman told the Associated Press that head coach Bret Bielema likely would address the incident with Ball, who has had no major disciplinary issues during his career.

Big Ten prospects in action at Columbus NFTC

For those recruitniks out there, and I know there are plenty of you, be sure and check out ESPN's coverage from the Nike Football Training Camp on Saturday in Columbus.

It was a good event for some Michigan and Ohio State recruits, and it marked a showcase for two high schools, one in Michigan, one in Ohio.

Michigan quarterback recruit Shane Morris earned MVP honors at the Columbus Elite 11 regional. Several other Big Ten quarterback recruits, including Matt Alviti (Northwestern) and Danny Etling (Purdue), competed in C-Bus.

In other recruiting news, Nebraska and Illinois both picked up lineman recruits for the 2013 class.

Hoping you have a great weekend.

Ryan from Maryville, Mo., writes: I keep hearing various media pundits claiming that home sites for a college playoff wouldn't work. Shouldn't these people, conference presidents, commisioners, and media members be focusing more on the benefits associated with home sites? The stadium size argument is moot, the need for guaranteed ticket sales would be eliminated, travel costs for fans and teams would be less, almost every stadium now has luxury boxes, tv revenue is a non factor, and the atmosphere would be amazing. I don't get it, why not? Sure there's bound to be some minor logistical hurdles but nothing impossible.

Adam Rittenberg: You're preaching to the choir, Ryan. And you're absolutely right that the drumbeat should be louder for some of these games to take place on campus. Yes, there are some facilities that would provide challenges, including TV production (not as much space for as many cameras). That's quite significant, given the dollars TV puts up to broadcasts these events. But from the fan perspective, on-campus sites are infinitely better. And in most cases, there's plenty of room to hold the supplementary events. The media contingent would make do. We have done that for years, and finding enough room for us shouldn't be a significant factor at all. Yes, a playoff game at TCU might be a bit tough. But how often is that going to happen? Maybe once every six years? In most cases, the host venues would be more than capable of hosting these events. I was a bit surprised to hear Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman say a playoff will be "kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event," and then not advocate more for on-campus games.

---

The Roaming Badger from South Bend writes: Hi Adam, I've been thinking about your blog post about leveraging draft success into recruiting success. I know every team wants more superstars, but I feel the Badgers problem isn't necessarily a lack of stars, but a lack of depth. Do you think the Badgers would be better off bringing up the top of the class by spending their energy to add a couple of 5 star recruits every year or focusing on bringing up the bottom of the class and signing more 3/4 star recruits than 2 star guys?

Adam Rittenberg: This is a really good point, Badger. You can say Wisconsin's three losses stemmed from a lack of depth in areas like special teams and the secondary. Wisconsin would really be helped by adding more top-line defensive backs in the coming years, but you always want to build greater depth so there's not such a drop-off in the kicking game. The lack of depth undoubtedly shows up in the all-important third phase for UW. So my answer is both: aim for more elite prospects, but also make sure the overall depth is improving. Not sure it's a question of prioritizing one over the other. You can do both.

---

Steven from Colorado Springs, Colo., writes: With Urban Meyer and Ohio State running a more spread/speed oriented offense. Do you think this will change how other Big Ten teams recruit? For instance more hybrid linebackers like Nebraska recruited before this year.

Adam Rittenberg: I don't think so, Steven. There's a belief that the spread is now just coming to the Big Ten. Teams like Purdue and Northwestern have used it for more than a decade. And the majority of teams now run some version of the spread. But you still have power teams like Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa, and Penn State will be a pro-style offense under Bill O'Brien. Nebraska's coaches have been open about the need to recruit more linebackers in the coming years. If they felt they could keep their previous defensive structure in the Big Ten, they would. But they know they need to change it up. Big Ten defenses need speed, but they'll always need size, too. So, I don't think you'll see a fundamental shift in how teams recruit.

---

Greg from Norristown, Pa., writes: Hey Adam, you keep saying that MSU will most likely be the best defense in the league this year. But in your recent post about Mauti and Massaro you say PSU's front seven might be the best in the league this year. Is PSU's secondary the only thing holding it back from stealing that "best defense" title from MSU? The starters in the secondary actually look fairly good, but I totally get the lack of depth back there, especially at safety, causing people to have a lack of confidence in PSU's overall defensive potential.

Adam Rittenberg: Yes, Greg, Michigan State's strength in the secondary is the difference between those teams. The Spartans have the most dynamic lineman of the two squads in end William Gholston, but Penn State has an edge at linebacker with Gerald Hodges and Michael Mauti leading the way. Michigan State's secondary, led by cornerback Johnny Adams, gives it an edge. Michigan State has recruited and developed defensive backs extremely well under head coach Mark Dantonio. Players like safety Isaiah Lewis and corner Darqueze Dennard could have big years this fall. Penn State has some nice pieces in Malcolm Willis and Stephon Morris, but the overall depth is a concern.

---

Fake Harry Husker writes: Adam, I challenge the vast and far reaching tentacles of the mothership at ESPN to find just ONE former or current player from Nebraska that feels that they were mistreated in any fashion by Ron Brown due to his religious views. Have any of the kids that he has coached thru the years actually been impacted in a negative manner by Ron Brown? Does Ron Brown actually discriminate on the basis of a players sexual orientation? I challenge Wojo or any pundit at ESPN to sit down and interview former or current players to find out if Ron Brown is actually a "bigot" that forced his beliefs down their throats. As with any story, there are two sides that need to be told. It is unfair and frankly untolerable that ESPN continues to only tell one side of the Ron Brown story. Take the challenge, Adam, and interview those former and current players and provide the quotes that detail the terrible bigoted ogre that is Ron Brown.

Adam Rittenberg: Harry, I don't think the issue is whether Brown discriminates against his players. From what I know, his players love him and regard him as an excellent figure in their lives. It's not about them. The question is whether Brown, as an employee of a state institution and a member of a high-profile football program, should be using his position to trumpet his views on a controversial topic as much as he does. No one cares if Brown is in the private sector and wants to voice his views. But the reason he gets all these opportunities to voice his opinion is because he's a longtime Nebraska football assistant coach, plain and simple. There's definitely a question about whether he's abusing that position.

---

Wes from Indianapolis writes: Do you agree with my thinking that Indiana can be a much improved team and still not win a B1G game again this season? It would appear that their "talent equal" opponents are all road games this season (NW, Illy, and Purdont, with the possible exception of Iowa) and all the "only talent equal would be those carrying the water bucket" opponents are all home games (Sparty, Bucky, and Wisky) Do you concur or have I suffered through too many bad seasons? Thank you for all your good work.

Adam Rittenberg: Wes, while another winless Big Ten campaign is possible, I think the Hoosiers break through this year. It's never easy to win on the road, but Evanston, Champaign and West Lafayette aren't the most hostile venues in the Big Ten. Indiana will put up points this year. The question, as always, is whether the Hoosiers can stop anyone on defense. If the defense takes just a few steps toward respectability, Indiana should be able to get over the hump in one or more of those games. That said, the home schedule looks challenging, especially if Iowa improves on its performance from 2011. Remember that Indiana came very close to beating Iowa in 2010 in Bloomington, and Wisconsin wasn't overly dominant in its last trip to Memorial Stadium.

---

Steve from Washington D.C. writes: Hey Adam, I have a proposal for the playoff system that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. Why can't the two semifinals be played the week after the conference championships, and before the bowls are selected? That way the losers of the semifinals could still be selected for BCS bowls, and the winners would play in a real national championship game. I just think this would preserve the tradition of having every top team in a bowl, while having a true national champion selected by a playoff system. It would also preserve the B1G/Pac-12 Rose bowl if neither has a team in the national championship. What do you think?

Adam Rittenberg: Steve, while this would be great, I think the push back would be conflicts with final exams. I know some schools on the quarter system have finals the second week of December, and there's no way the presidents would approve a plan that would have football teams practicing during finals week. It wouldn't be as big an issue for schools on the semester system, but because you have finals taking place anywhere between, say, Dec. 7 and Dec. 23, depending on the school, it really takes that time frame out of consideration. We can roll our eyes and say the academics excuse is merely convenient for the presidents to protect their beloved bowls, but the reality is they will never go for something where teams are practicing during finals week.

The sense coming out of last week's BCS meetings is that college football soon will adopt a four-team playoff model with two designated semifinals and a championship game.

But don't count out the so-called "plus-one," where the top two teams are selected after the bowl games and face one another for the national championship about a week later.

The plus-one is still very much alive, University of Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman told ESPN.com on Thursday. Perlman, who serves on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, said that during informal discussions between Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents and chancellors, the plus-one model has the most support.

"It is clear the presidents will still make the final decision," Perlman told ESPN.com "We've had some informal meetings, the Big Ten presidents and the Pac-12 presidents, and I think we're largely aligned in thinking a plus-one with a different ranking after the bowl games to select No. 1 and 2 would be acceptable. Our second choice would probably be a four-team playoff inside the bowls. Our highest priority is to preserve the status of the Rose Bowl and our connection to it."

He later added: "I don't think we would be very enthusiastic about any of the other options."

That includes a proposal to have semifinal games played on campus, which Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has supported. The plan seemed to lose steam last week at the BCS meetings in Florida, but SI.com reported Monday that it remains on the table.

"I don't think that's acceptable to us at this point," Perlman said of the campus-sites plan. "There would be some advantages to the Big Ten in doing it that way, but the end result would be that the bowl system and the Rose Bowl would be kind of like the NIT in basketball. If you have a playoff system outside the bowls, it would do serious damage to the bowls. ... I don't think anybody would pay attention to the bowls."

Perlman has long opposed a college football playoff and hasn't changed his position, saying Thursday, "I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with." But like many, he acknowledges changes will be made, and in his view, the plus-one is the simplest option and the best option. It preserves the bowl system and keeps player welfare in mind.

"We play enough football games," he said.

Some more notes from my conversation with the Nebraska chancellor:

• The selection for a plus-one or a four-team playoff is tricky, and Perlman has no preferred model because, in his view, there isn't one. "If you don't like computers, then you'll think it's wrong," he said. "If you don't like committees, you'll think it's wrong. I think we'll just pick one, the system that seems to have the most fan confidence, and use it. I don't think it's possible to pick the two best teams in the country to play. In football, that just doesn't work."
• Any type of change to the postseason structure increases the burden for fans. "I don't think it's overblown," he said. "That's one of the reasons why I've never been in favor of a playoff to start with. In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event. While we'd probably do well, given the television revenues, I don't know that it's a favorite of the fans of the schools who participate."
• Nebraska fans and some local media members don't seem as enthralled by the Rose Bowl as those in other parts of the Big Ten. But Perlman certainly falls in line with the view shared by Delany and the other Big Ten presidents and chancellors. Here's what he said when asked about the potential of having nationally significant games in or close to the Big Ten footprint at neutral sites: "If the last game was bid out, it would certainly be advantageous for us. But on the other hand, would Nebraska fans, in the first week in January, rather travel to Pasadena or Indianapolis? There clearly is a competitive advantage if you're playing in the Rose Bowl against a Pac-12 team, or if you're playing in the Sugar Bowl against LSU or in the Orange Bowl against Florida. But so what? It’s a bowl game. That's just the lay of the land."
• Although his playoff stance hasn't changed, he thinks elements of the BCS can be improved, such as the elimination of the automatic-qualifying status which has "created incentives for some pretty strange conference realignments that wouldn't have taken place otherwise." Like Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne, Perlman favors a system that creates better matchups in the major bowls and eliminates some of the clunkers we've seen recently. "With some tweaks," Perlman said, "you could create a series of games in five or six bowls that would be compelling, and would possibly end up producing a No. 1 or a No. 2 team."
• Perlman favors a model that reclaims New Year's Day but ends before the start of the winter academic term. He also supports the proposal to give conference champions the most consideration for the title game or the semifinals. "You ought to be able to win your conference to be a national champion," he said.

While many of you disagree with Perlman's view, as do I, he deserves credit for actually speaking up about this topic. Brian Bennett and I reached out to more than half the Big Ten's presidents and chancellors for interviews and were repeatedly turned down.

The Big Ten presidents hold their annual spring meeting June 3 at league headquarters, and the Collegiate Commissioners Association meets June 20 in Chicago.

"At some point, the commissioners will make a recommendation or a series of recommendations to us," Perlman said, "and we will meet and make the [final] decision hopefully before July 1."

The Big Ten downplayed Nebraska's ouster from the Association of American Universities this spring, and the league continued to roll out the red carpet for Big Red during its transition to the league.

There wasn't much the league could do, as Nebraska was just two months away from officially entering the Big Ten.

But the importance of AAU membership didn't waver for the Big Ten's academic leaders. It's very fair to ask whether the Big Ten would have admitted Nebraska had the school lost its AAU membership before June 2010.

Now there's this: according to a Lincoln Journal Star report, two Big Ten schools apparently didn't think Nebraska belonged in the AAU.

Nebraska failed to garner the 21 votes it needed last April to remain in the Association of American Universities, a confederation of more than 60 top research institutions that collectively nets more than half of all federal research funds and awards more than half of the doctoral degrees in the nation. It was confirmed that UNL fell three votes short.

Emails and letters obtained by the Journal Star after a series of open-records requests indicate that Wisconsin and Michigan did not support UNL during its turbulent and unsuccessful AAU membership review earlier this year.

Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman wrote in an April 11 email to his vice chancellors that the school "lost two Big Ten colleagues -- Wisconsin and Michigan." The voting was secret, so Perlman couldn't confirm whether Wisconsin and Michigan opposed Nebraska, but after trying to garner votes from AAU members during a meeting in Washington, the chancellor certainly held that belief.

Carolyn "Biddy" Martin, the former Wisconsin chancellor who voted on Nebraska, since has left to become president of Amherst College. Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman remains in her role.

"It's not fair to say Wisconsin voted against Nebraska," Perlman told the Journal Star. "It's the president of Wisconsin, who is no longer the president of Wisconsin, and the president of Michigan."

Perlman said he didn't feel betrayed by the Wisconsin and Michigan administrators.

"I guess I was disappointed," he said.

The story provides many more details about Nebraska's departure from the AAU, but the Big Ten connection is notable, if nothing else. Perlman not surprisingly downplays what allegedly happened, saying he's "not concerned at all" and is "moving forward."

INDIANAPOLIS -- Rules violations and reform have been the key buzz words in the college football offseason. Now it's time to see if more talk can produce any substantial change.

A group of more than 50 university presidents, plus a handful of athletic directors, conference commissioners and other officials convene this afternoon in Indianapolis for a two-day retreat to discuss how to reform college sports. The issues that are officially on the agenda are fiscal sustainability, academic performance of student-athletes and integrity.

"I don't want to be melodramatic, but this meeting is very important," NCAA president Mark Emmert told ESPN.com's Dana O'Neil. "We do have serious challenges, and we do need to make some serious reforms. I don't think there is any debate about that. I want us to be able to build a consensus around those things that are most important for the NCAA to pay attention to and then address those things quickly."

Here are the Big Ten representatives at this week's retreat:

• Gordon Gee, Ohio State president

• Michael McRobbie, Indiana president

• Harvey Perlman, Nebraska chancellor

• Lou Anna Simon, Michigan State president

• Graham Spanier, Penn State president

• Jo Potuto, Nebraska faculty athletic representative, Nebraska

Gee will be spending a lot of time in Indy this week; Ohio State's case before the infractions committee will be held here on Friday.

The key question from this whole retreat will be whether the group comes up with specific recommendations and changes, or if like many university and NCAA endeavors, it simply leads to more reports and committees. The Big Ten, led by commissioner Jim Delany, has been out front in the call for changes to NCAA rules and practices, including cost-of-attendance increases to athletic scholarships. The league has some powerful people at the retreat to push forward those ideas.

I'll be here for both days and reporting on the developments. Stay tuned.

Bo Pelini won't be trading his signature ballcap for one of these on Friday.

The Nebraska coach has no big plans to celebrate the Huskers' official arrival as a member of the Big Ten. Yes, I know you're all shocked.

"It doesn't signify anything for me," Pelini said. "It's just a date, as far as I'm concerned."

Friday will be a slightly bigger deal to Nebraska fans and to the school. After being approved for admission into the Big Ten more than a year ago, Nebraska can finally call itself an official member of the league.

The school will recognize the occasion with a brief, informal ceremony at 9 a.m. local time Friday. Chancellor Harvey Perlman will make a celebratory announcement and read some welcoming statements from key figures from the Big Ten. Gov. Dave Heineman will be on hand to sign a proclamation recognizing Nebraska's entry into the Big Ten.

The event will be held at the Van Brunt Visitors Center at the city campus and is open to the public.

Programming note: Brian and I will be celebrating Nebraska's Big Ten arrival throughout Friday, so be sure and check the blog early and often.

Throughout Nebraska's transition to the Big Ten, top school officials have praised the league as one where all of its members stand on equal footing.

This point often has come up when discussing why Nebraska left the Big 12 last June.

"We appreciate the stability, we appreciate the collegiality we've seen within the Big Ten," Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told me in February. "There is a good deal of concern about the welfare, the health of the league, as opposed to individual desires to get a bigger piece of the pie."

At the root of the Big Ten's "collegiality" is the league's philosophy on revenue distribution. The Big Ten shares its revenue equally among all members. The Big 12, meanwhile, has distributed revenue based on television appearances, although the league is adopting a more equitable model.

Nebraska has indicated it prefers the Big Ten model and got fed up with inequalities in the Big 12, particularly issues concerning a university located in Austin, Texas.

But Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe has a different take on Nebraska, Texas and his league's revenue-distribution model.

He recently shared it with colleague David Ubben:

"What’s interesting though, and maybe even a little bit curious to me is that Texas and Nebraska were aligned almost exactly on every issue, including the revenue distribution piece and putting all the rights into the conference," Beebe said. "So it’s kind of interesting when I read about comments about Nebraska now being pleased about being in a conference where they put all their rights in and divide money equally. That’s the exact opposite position that they took for years in this conference."

Interesting.

Beebe also tells Ubben about the issues Nebraska and particularly Osborne had with the Big 12 and several recent decisions by the league. But Beebe's assertion that Nebraska being aligned with Texas on revenue distribution likely will get folks' attention in Lincoln.

Remember what Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman said last June in announcing the school's move to the Big Ten? Perlman was referring to the ultimatum given to Nebraska to pledge its allegiance to the Big 12.

"I said, ‘There's only one way that you can fully commit, long term, to a conference, and that is you assign media rights to your athletic contests to the conference for the long term,'" Perlman said. "And I asked, 'Were the members willing to do that?' The University of Texas made it clear they were not willing to do that."

So which is it? Did Nebraska like the Big 12's revenue distribution model or not?

Perhaps Nebraska preferred the model until it began getting a smaller piece of the pie.

Either way, Nebraska will soon be an equal revenue partner in the Big Ten. And I doubt there will be many complaints about it.

Chatting right now, and it's not too late to join.

Today's links are split up into two categories: Ohio State and everything else.

OHIO STATE LINKS

• The latest problem for Terrelle Pryor: he has been driving on a suspended license, NBC4 Columbus reports.
• The NCAA once again is on Ohio State's campus to interview players, WBNS-TV reports.
• Some good news for the Buckeyes as interim head coach Luke Fickell keeps a key recruit on board, Ken Gordon and Tim May write in The Columbus Dispatch.
• Pryor's future at Ohio State remains very much in doubt, Doug Lesmerises writes in The Cleveland Plain Dealer. Lesmerises also wonders whether Tressel will have a street named after him in Columbus.
• Jim Tressel is the latest to learn that coaching Ohio State rarely ends well, SI.com's Michael Rosenberg writes.
• Ohio State players deserve a good portion of the blame for this mess, Bob Hunter writes in The Dispatch.
• Texas coach Mack Brown thinks Tressel is a Hall of Famer, Randy Riggs writes in The Austin American-Statesman.
• Tressel paid the price for being lost in the stars, Jena McGregor writes in the Washington Post.
• Eleven Warriors looks at the newspaper front pages following Tressel's resignation.

OTHER BIG TEN LINKS

• A decision on future Big Ten football championship games could come as early as Sunday, Teddy Greenstein writes in the Chicago Tribune.
• A Big Ten chancellor (Nebraska's Harvey Perlman) and a league athletic director (Penn State's Tim Curley) are named to the NCAA's Division I Bowl Licensing Task Force.
• Illinois' new chancellor could be part of its search for a new athletic director, Julie Wurth writes in The (Champaign) News-Gazette.
• Iowa coach Kirk Ferentz weighs in on Tressel's departure, Clete Campbell writes in the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald.
• Michigan picks up its 13th commitment for the 2012 class.
• Wisconsin might be the new favorite in the Leaders division, Steve M. Sipple writes in the Lincoln Journal Star. Bret Bielema could gain more than any other Big Ten coach from Tressel's departure, Tom Mulhern writes in the Wisconsin State Journal.
• Joe Rexrode and Chris Spielman think Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio won't want the Ohio State job.
• Pryor's decision not to go to Penn State was a blessing in disguise, Steve Heiser writes in The York Dispatch.
• The Big Ten Network unveils a new logo and brand identity.
• The Ohio State situation is a learning tool for both Michigan and Michigan State, Drew Sharp writes in the Detroit Free Press.

Looking at my inbox, some of you might have missed this from Friday, but I did get a comment from the Big Ten on Nebraska losing its membership to the AAU.

Here's a statement from Big Ten associate commissioner Jennifer Heppel:

"Nebraska is a substantial academic institution. It was when its application to join the Big Ten Conference was unanimously approved by the Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors and it is today. The Big Ten Conference does not have control over other organizations' actions. We're excited for July 1st."

No surprise here as the Big Ten continues to support Nebraska, which officially enters the league July 1. Nebraska will be the only non-AAU member in the Big Ten.

Nebraska's predicament with the AAU -- chancellor Harvey Perlman told the Lincoln Journal Star that the school had been at risk of losing its membership for 10 years -- had to be on the Big Ten's radar, which suggests that other factors, like the school's nationally known football program, contributed to the move to the league.

It will be interesting to hear what commissioner Jim Delany and others around the league have to say about Nebraska losing AAU status. I'll post reaction as soon as I get it, so stay tuned.

During the Big Ten's expansion study, league officials often listed membership in the American Association of Universities as a trait they'd like in any new member. All the current Big Ten members are part of the AAU, and the league had hoped to keep it that way.

The exception of course would be Notre Dame, a non-AAU institution the Big Ten twice pursued during the past 15 years.

Nebraska fit the bill when it was admitted to the Big Ten on June 11. But not any more.

The AAU recently voted to terminate Nebraska's membership in the organization after the school failed to meet certain requirements. Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman emailed faculty and staff Friday to inform them about the vote.

From the Omaha World-Herald:

"We have known we were at risk of this for ten years, and successfully fought off a similar threat in 2000," Perlman said. "I had hoped our extraordinary accomplishments and steep trajectory would have made us less vulnerable, but the AAU's approach to the review made this result inevitable."

UNL joined the AAU in 1909. Perlman said UNL has ranked at the bottom of the AAU's members for more than a decade based on the group's ranking system, which ranks all research universities. That ranking system consists of four criteria: research expenditures, National Academy members, faculty awards (from a specified list) and citations.

Those criteria are weighted based on the number of tenure-track faculty at a particular university. Based on those criteria, a number of non-AAU institutions ranked higher than 15 AAU institutions, including UNL, Perlman said.

Perlman told the World-Herald that he didn't think the loss of AAU membership would affect Nebraska's admission into the Big Ten, which officially takes place July 1.

But here's what Perlman said about the AAU and the Big Ten shortly after Nebraska was admitted to the league.

"All the Big Ten schools are AAU members. I doubt that our application would've been accepted had we not been a member of the organization."

The Huskers' nationally known football program might have had a little to do with it, too.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, speaking at last year's spring meetings as expansion was heating up, had this to say about the Big Ten and its AAU ties: "AAU membership is a part of who we are. It’s an important part of who we are."

While this shouldn't impact Nebraska's transition to the league or its involvement in the league's internal academic consortium (Committee on Institutional Cooperation), it is, as Perlman told the World-Herald, "in the short-term, an embarrassment."

Penn State president Graham Spanier has been named chairman of the BCS presidential oversight committee.

Coincidentally, Spanier replaces his new Big Ten colleague Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman as chairman. According to a news release, the oversight committee "manages the BCS with particular focus on policy, format, revenue distribution, and contractual obligations."

"The BCS system enjoys strong support from the Presidential Oversight Committee, and Dr. Spanier is the perfect person to lead the committee," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said in a statement. "He knows that college football is thriving because it has the best season anywhere, delivers the national championship game, and preserves the appeal and pageantry of the bowl system."

Spanier is a founding member of the BCS Oversight Committee and has represented the Big Ten since its inception. He also has served as the chairman of the Big Ten's Council of Presidents/Chancellors.