It’s no secret the reputation of Big Ten football has taken a beating over the last half-decade or so and the criticism comes with good reason. Over that span of time, no team from the county’s oldest conference has managed to even participate in a National Championship game, let alone win one, and the record of its teams in other high-profile bowl games remains spotty at best (Ohio State was the most recent title game participant back in 2007. Coincidentally, the Buckeyes were also the last Big Ten team to win the game in 2002.). And despite the recent, sporadic successes of a select few programs, there remains little evidence the conference is ready to re-emerge as the national power it once was. Despite all that, the cause of this fall from grace continues to be misappropriated to some lack of offensive innovation or an unwillingness to change. While the lack of varied offenses in Big Ten country is undoubtedly true, it seems a touch ridiculous to attribute that as the main reason teams like Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State have lagged behind programs such as Alabama, USC or LSU. Simply put (and I realize I may have buried the lead here), the biggest and only difference between these programs is the number of top-level athletes occupying the rosters.
For a moment, consider describing each of the three “premier” programs listed above. You’d likely first reflect upon the speed and toughness associated with the stout defenses they’ve produced over the last ten years. And what about the offenses? Alabama has won three of the last four BCS National Championship games and they certainly haven’t done it with a high-octane spread attack. To the contrary, the Crimson Tide have run an offense that if you didn’t know any better, might very well have come from the playbook of a 1960s Big Ten program. How about LSU, a program that consistently contends for the SEC title and is regularly viewed as one of the top five teams in the nation? Once again, we find an incredible defense melded with a rather conservative, pro-style offense. The dominance of USC during the Pete Carroll led years was a similar situation albeit with quarterbacks possessing a touch more name recognition. So if three of the best programs in the country believe winning football games at the college level still starts with great defense and a running game, why is it the Big Ten continues to be torn apart for their lack of offensive innovation? The only reason SEC football is currently superior to the Big Ten is simple … talent! Year-in and year-out, programs like ‘Bama, Georgia, and LSU out-recruit the likes of Ohio State and Michigan. And while recruiting sites like Scout and Rivals can at times be spotty, the general consensus remains that the SEC is far more consistent at wrangling the nation’s top high school talent in bulk. Thus, the solution to the Big Ten’s woes appears fairly simple … recruit at a higher level. While it may not be as simple in practice given the SEC’s apparent advantage in terms of top-level talent occupying the region, it’s the only way schools in the Big Ten can ever again find themselves on level footing with the big boys of the South. And let’s STOP crying out for these programs to change their offense. Not everyone is Oregon and running a spread still requires the need to recruit top-level athletes. At the end of the day, it’s all a matter of convincing the top 17 and 18-year old football athletes in this country that the North isn’t such a bad place after all.
0 Comments
OK, folks, it’s a serious blog day after having had a bit of revelation over one of my favorite childhood teams last night … enjoy!
It’s time for the Milwaukee Bucks to trade and move on from Brandon Jennings and Monta Ellis. There … I said it. It’s not that Jennings and Ellis have done anything overtly wrong. It’s just that it’s not working. For those of you who disagree, or to strengthen the arguments of those that agree, let’s take a look at why this team, as it’s currently constructed, is destined to fail. When you’re a small-market NBA team like the Bucks, the deck is inherently stacked against you. Professional basketball, more so than any other major American sport, tends to favor the flash and lights of megamarkets like New York, Los Angeles or Chicago to the hard work and modesty of Memphis, Milwaukee or Minneapolis (maybe it’s something about cities beginning with ‘M’?). That’s not to say the NBA is deliberately attempting to sabotage small market teams as some fans might suggest (although I’m not dismissing that claim either). The fact of the matter is that several organic variables make it difficult for the small market teams to succeed. For one, basketball is played in the winter making even the most desirable of small-market cities located above the Mason-Dixon line extremely frigid that time of year. It should shock no one that climate plays at least a small role in determining where top-notch free agents might potentially sign. And while it’s not always the case, financial concerns tend to haunt small-market squads far more than their big city brethren. Deep-pocketed owners in smaller cities may very well be willing to shell out big money for top talent … but how long are they willing to sustain that model should it not quickly result in a championship? Small market cities tend to have far less lucrative television contracts due to their inherently smaller fan bases (i.e. smaller cities have fewer people which means smaller fan bases … no matter how rabid base is). Finally, professional basketball teams are the smallest –roster wise-- of the four major North American sports meaning a relatively small contingent of superstars can change the face of a franchise overnight. The Miami Heat serve as a glaring reminder of how a couple of superstars coming together can create one of the greatest sports juggernauts in recent history. This would be far more difficult to do in a sport such as baseball where the 45-man roster requires the owner to shell out exorbitant amounts of money simply to field a team. So what does all this have to do with the current state of the Milwaukee Bucks? It tells us something drastic must be done if the Bucks are to have a championship-caliber team anytime in the next century. The odds of landing big time free agents are slim to none without greatly overpaying and the NBA Draft has turned into a Vegas crapshoot of projecting which 19-year-old has the greatest upside. Right now, the Bucks have two key, potential free agents at the end of the season. One is homegrown talent Brandon Jennings and the other recently acquired (as in last season) shooting guard Monta Ellis. While both are nice players, Milwaukee is once again stuck in the NBA’s version of purgatory – battling for a bottom-four seed and hoping just to advance to the second round of the playoffs—not missing-the-playoffs terrible … but not good either. Without drastic measures being taken, teams in this position tend to hover there for several years with no hope of landing a top draft pick … one of few remaining ways to bring a top talent to a small market. Thus, it’s time for the Bucks to move on from the days of Jennings and Ellis in hope of a better future. Trade them … and do it as soon as possible. Even if the draft proves to not be the fertile recruiting ground the Bucks may hope for, perhaps their newly acquired talent in a trade could benefit the franchise. We hear it all too often … a change of scenery may do that player some good. And in many instances it turns out to hold at least some truth. And that’s not to say this entire plan couldn’t backfire and leave the Bucks reeling for several years … but what’s the alternative? A comfortable level of mediocrity? As fans, that’s a tough pill to swallow no matter how difficult you know the task to be. And I, for one, am ready to potentially sacrifice a few 38 to 45 win seasons in hopes of once again reliving the excitement and vigor that came with cheering Glenn Robinson, Ray Allen and Sam Cassell. What about you? |
Archives |