I had a friend growing up, a good friend of mine, who, as a Michigan resident, was a fan of Michigan State university. Him and his dad would watch the games, and the roller coaster of emotion than came into that house was more stressful than amusing to me, at least at that point in my life.
However on the rare occasion when my friend and I would talk about our beloved Big Ten conference (I'm an Indiana University fan, by way of my father), it rarely went well, for he had such a pessimistic, defeated attitude towards the Big Ten as it matched up to other conferences. He would go on and on, saying how outclassed the Big Ten teams were against the might of the ACC, SEC and Big 12. We'd argue about it, neither one of us really getting headway with the other on our respective points.
Him and I don't talk much these days, which is sad, because if we did, I would have some pretty damn good evidence to back myself up. The Big Ten has fought with tooth and nail to gain respect once more in the world of college basketball, restoring pride to what was once a great basketball conference. Six teams are currently ranked from the conference, including two in the top five all season. My friend's beloved Spartans sit precariously at No.18 as of this writing, and I think even he would be forced to admit that this conference can ball with the best and come out ahead.
A strong showing of this improving conference has been the Big Ten-ACC Challenge every year, in which teams from either conference play one game against an opponent from the other conference. ACC, a powerful basketball conference for many years now, has been unable to beat the Big Ten in the challenge since 2008, which shows good promise for years to come.
The difference has been a mix of dynamic new talent entering the conference in the form of talented young recruits and seasoned, successful coaches. Players such as Brandon Paul, Trey Burke and Cody Zeller are stars that the Big Ten has needed so desperately in recently years, and having quality coaches such as Tom Crean, Tom Izzo, John Beilein has put the conference into the upper echelon of college basketball, where they can compete and win against the best.
As the season progresses and March draws closer, teams will buckle down and focus on the end goal, postseason play. This conference should have a strong showing at the Big Dance, and with the talent shown thus far, could potentially send a team to challenge for the national title. Will it be Indiana, the preseason No.1? Or Michigan, the team of young guns that has been incredibly strong this season? Minneosta? Illinois? Michigan State? It remains to be seen who will succeed later in the season, but from the standpoint of this committed fan, the Big Ten has never looked stronger, and that gives me hope that it will stay this way.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
It's About Time for A Change
I saw something I didn't like during last night's National Championship game between Notre Dame and Alabama, and it definitely wasn't Katherine Webb.
I saw a "game" between college football's "best" teams turned into a drubbing early and often. I saw a game where both teams seemingly deserved to be playing but as it quickly became apparent, were not at all evenly matched. Notre Dame, despite the strong season they had and the tough schedule they played, was hopelessly outclassed against the offensive strength of Alabama. Even the vaunted Irish defense, led by Heisman contender Manti T'eo looked lost and outmatched.
Some people might not be bothered by that at all. Some will simply chalk it up as Alabama being underrated and Notre Dame, overrated. And perhaps that is the real reason behind the disparity. However, the issue I see here is that the National Championship carries the expectation of pitting the country's two best teams against each other, and that in turn carries the expectation of a close game, or at the very least, a matchup that will be a game for at least a decent portion of the night. The premier event of a sport should not, ideally, be such a lopsided defeat, and it points to flaws in the system that two teams so unevenly matched could play in the championship game.
As we welcome in the new era of college football and the supposed 4 team playoff, more questions arise. What 4 teams make the playoffs? Who will decide these 4 teams and how then can we be truly sure that two evenly matched teams meet in the championship? In the current landscape of college football, there are 4 major football conferences, the Big 12, the Big 10, the SEC, and the Pac-10. Teams in these conferences all play different types of football, and so while a 12-0 Pac-10 team might seem favored to roll over a 7-5 Big 10 team, the game might end up completely different because of varying conference difficulty levels, play styles, etc.
I've never been an advocate of the BCS system. I hated, always have. I think it unfairly benefits bigger schools and holds down up and coming conferences. With that being said, and while trying to avoid being too critical of what I view as change in the right direction, a four team playoff is also not valid. I think a 12 team playoff, in which every Football Bowl Subdivision conference (counting the Independents) sent their conference winner into a playoff bracket and, through eliminating other teams, got a legitimate shot at reaching the National Championship. Not only would this extend the college football season that fans know and love, it would fairly allow each conference its due shot at reaching the elusive title game.
An obvious benefit to me is that whichever two teams made it to the championship would have played against high quality teams form other conferences and will have been tested by fire and proven themselves for the biggest stage in college football.
The first hurdle in the plan is the bracket layout. With 12 teams, the bracket is unequal after the first round of games, and I have a solution than seems largely fair to me that would have the four major conferences mentioned above play each other in the first round, and should they win and advance, the two remaining major conference teams will enjoy a second round bye, and then play the winner of their respective "minor" conference brackets for their championship berth. Is this fair to all schools? Not completely, but it is no secret that the 4 major conferences play the toughest competition of any schools in the FBS, and so it is not unfair to factor in this detail when considering how to balance the bracket.
All in all, the current system requires good hard change, as only one National Championship game since 2006 has ended with a margin in the single digits. While that doesn't necessarily mean these games weren't close at some point. it stands to reason that the current system does not seem to consistently place evenly matched teams in the championship game, and if the best two teams aren't playing in that game, then what is the point of it even being played?
I saw a "game" between college football's "best" teams turned into a drubbing early and often. I saw a game where both teams seemingly deserved to be playing but as it quickly became apparent, were not at all evenly matched. Notre Dame, despite the strong season they had and the tough schedule they played, was hopelessly outclassed against the offensive strength of Alabama. Even the vaunted Irish defense, led by Heisman contender Manti T'eo looked lost and outmatched.
Some people might not be bothered by that at all. Some will simply chalk it up as Alabama being underrated and Notre Dame, overrated. And perhaps that is the real reason behind the disparity. However, the issue I see here is that the National Championship carries the expectation of pitting the country's two best teams against each other, and that in turn carries the expectation of a close game, or at the very least, a matchup that will be a game for at least a decent portion of the night. The premier event of a sport should not, ideally, be such a lopsided defeat, and it points to flaws in the system that two teams so unevenly matched could play in the championship game.
As we welcome in the new era of college football and the supposed 4 team playoff, more questions arise. What 4 teams make the playoffs? Who will decide these 4 teams and how then can we be truly sure that two evenly matched teams meet in the championship? In the current landscape of college football, there are 4 major football conferences, the Big 12, the Big 10, the SEC, and the Pac-10. Teams in these conferences all play different types of football, and so while a 12-0 Pac-10 team might seem favored to roll over a 7-5 Big 10 team, the game might end up completely different because of varying conference difficulty levels, play styles, etc.
I've never been an advocate of the BCS system. I hated, always have. I think it unfairly benefits bigger schools and holds down up and coming conferences. With that being said, and while trying to avoid being too critical of what I view as change in the right direction, a four team playoff is also not valid. I think a 12 team playoff, in which every Football Bowl Subdivision conference (counting the Independents) sent their conference winner into a playoff bracket and, through eliminating other teams, got a legitimate shot at reaching the National Championship. Not only would this extend the college football season that fans know and love, it would fairly allow each conference its due shot at reaching the elusive title game.
An obvious benefit to me is that whichever two teams made it to the championship would have played against high quality teams form other conferences and will have been tested by fire and proven themselves for the biggest stage in college football.
The first hurdle in the plan is the bracket layout. With 12 teams, the bracket is unequal after the first round of games, and I have a solution than seems largely fair to me that would have the four major conferences mentioned above play each other in the first round, and should they win and advance, the two remaining major conference teams will enjoy a second round bye, and then play the winner of their respective "minor" conference brackets for their championship berth. Is this fair to all schools? Not completely, but it is no secret that the 4 major conferences play the toughest competition of any schools in the FBS, and so it is not unfair to factor in this detail when considering how to balance the bracket.
All in all, the current system requires good hard change, as only one National Championship game since 2006 has ended with a margin in the single digits. While that doesn't necessarily mean these games weren't close at some point. it stands to reason that the current system does not seem to consistently place evenly matched teams in the championship game, and if the best two teams aren't playing in that game, then what is the point of it even being played?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)