• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

How good is the B1G, and how much better will it be in 2019?

241 days to go ..... :cool:

0Yg9VnV.png
 
Last edited:
It seems interesting that you bring up their QB's as their strength but then only fire back the holes you see that we have. Purdue loses 14 of their two deep on offense including 8 starters and 4 offensive lineman. Coan looked good handing off the ball. He completed 6-11 passes with one interception and 2 more that should have been intercepted. They are losing 2 offensive lineman starters too and quite truthful.....don't have much in the receivers corps. Certainly no one in the Spillman category. Yes they do have Johnathon Taylor. But even with him and a two year returning QB they only managed to go 7-5 in the regular season.
I agree about Purdue. They lose a lot on offense and I don't know if they have recruited well enough to reload in that area. They recruited well for 2019, but before that it was so-so. I'm guessing this year will be a rebuilding year on offense for them. I think we beat them next season.

You would think Northwestern would be down next year given what they are losing to graduation, but IMO Pat Fitzgerald does more with less than any coach in the West - maybe in the entire league. Every year I look at the recruiting rankings and say "no way Northwestern can match up with us", but every year they do just that. Still, if it hadn't of been for stupid penalties in the last 5 minutes, NU wins that 2018 game. In year two of the Frost system I think we beat them.

Minnesota got better on defense when they changed coordinators. I believe NU has more talent regardless of who the coordinator is, and we beat them at their house next season. But it might be much closer than this years game.

Wisconsin is still Wisconsin. They rushed for 370 yards against our defense. They held us to 111 yards rushing. They are still much tougher than NU on the line of scrimmage, and I'm not sure we will match up any better on either side of the line next season. I'm going with Wisconsin to win again next season.

Illinois is......Illinois.
 



Watch what a "partially committed Urb and tOSU" do to Washington, and then tell me that they'd be lacking in focus. If anything, his retiring would have greatly improved their chances.
Just about what I figured would happen to Urb and tOSU. Beat up on an out-manned squad from a weak power 5 conference. Then lose concentration and can’t even beat the Vegas spread. This years OSU team is talented but not in the conversation for a national title. Similar for the B1G, just not able to stand up to the SEC. Maybe when NU resurrects it’s program. Or when the other NU (Northwestern) takes the next leap. They have one heck of a good coach. Michigan, Penn St, Purdue— disappointing but not unexpected.
 
I've waited until the bowls were over before saying anything more so that I could look at the whole and re-evaluate. Based on what I initially expected, it was the B1G vs SEC games where I was the most wrong. Michigan, Purdue, and Penn State were huge disappointments; Florida, Auburn, and Kentucky looked much better than I had expected. On the other hand, Iowa exceeded my expectations, and/or Mississippi State was not as good as advertised. Overall, the SEC was the best conference, followed by the B1G, followed by ... ?

B1G vs SEC, top to bottom
How do you compare the strengths of one conference versus another? In the 70s and 80s the Big 8 was Nebraska & Oklahoma and the 6 Dwarfs, so if (like in '87) Nebraska and Oklahoma finish the regular season in the top of the polls, but the other teams are awful, how do you rank the conference? The Big 10 used to always claim that they were so evenly matched that nobody could make it through the season unscathed, and I have to admit now that there was probably more validity to that than I gave them credit at the time. Unless you can come up with something better, perhaps the best way is to rank the teams in each conference, top to bottom, and see who'd win the most games. If (as seems reasonable) you think that the top teams' games should count for more, you could weight them, so #1 vs #1 is worth 14 points while #14 vs #14 would be worth 1 point. I'd been thinking about this a lot from early November onward, but I never put it online to see what others thought. Here it is now, so tell me what you think.

If you fold both B1G divisions together based solely on 1) conference record and 2) head-to-head results, the only tie remaining would be Nebraska and Maryland who both had 3 conference wins and beat Minnesota. I gave Maryland the higher ranking based on overall record.

Here's what the final standings would have looked like with the individual team's final overall record listed next to it before the CCG or bowl games:

Ohio State, 11-1
Michigan, 10-2
Northwestern, 8-5
Penn State, 9-3
Wisconsin, 7-5
Michigan State, 7-5
Purdue, 6-6
Iowa, 8-4
Maryland, 5-7
Nebraska, 4-8
Minnesota, 6-6
Indiana, 5-7
Illinois, 4-8
Rutgers, 1-11

If you fold both SEC divisions together based solely on 1) conference record, 2) head-to-head results, and then 3) national rankings, here's what the final standings would have looked like with the individual team's regular season overall record listed next to it:

Alabama, 12-0
Georgia, 11-1
Texas A&M, 8-4
Kentucky, 9-3
Florida, 9-3
LSU, 9-3
Mississippi State, 8-4
South Carolina, 7-5
Missouri, 8-4
Auburn, 7-5
Vanderbilt, 6-6
Tennessee, 5-7
Ole Miss, 5-7
Arkansas, 2-10

If we matched up the B1G vs SEC based on the rankings above, it would have looked like this (with the higher ranked team and/or who would have been favored to win in bold):

Ohio State vs Alabama
Michigan vs Georgia
Northwestern vs Texas A&M
Penn State
vs Kentucky
Wisconsin vs Florida
Michigan State vs LSU
Purdue vs Mississippi State
Iowa
vs South Carolina
Maryland vs Missouri
Nebraska vs Auburn
Minnesota vs Vanderbilt (tossup?)
Indiana vs Tennessee (tossup?)
Illinois vs Ole Miss
Rutgers vs Arkansas

Based on the rankings, the SEC would have been expected to win 10, lose 2, and have 2 toss-ups. If we split the toss-ups 50/50, the SEC would have been expected to have won 11 and lost 3 of those games. Is that reasonable? Again, I would have picked Michigan and Penn State to have been two likely wins, but now they look like a joke.

I'm curious what others think. As a side-note, I was absolutely appalled to realize just how bad the SEC's non-conference schedule actually is. Go and look for yourself. The B1G would have looked much improved if they had also played 8 conference games and played the same cupcakes for non-conference games. It's a sham.
 
Last edited:



I've waited until the bowls were over before saying anything more so that I could look at the whole and re-evaluate. Based on what I initially expected, it was the B1G vs SEC games where I was the most wrong. Michigan, Purdue, and Penn State were huge disappointments; Florida, Auburn, and Kentucky looked much better than I had expected. On the other hand, Iowa exceeded my expectations, and/or Mississippi State was not as good as advertised. Overall, the SEC was the best conference, followed by the B1G, followed by ... ?

B1G vs SEC, top to bottom
How do you compare the strengths of one conference versus another? In the 70s and 80s the Big 8 was Nebraska & Oklahoma and the 6 Dwarfs, so if (like in '87) Nebraska and Oklahoma finish the regular season in the top of the polls, but the other teams are awful, how do you rank the conference? The Big 10 used to always claim that they were so evenly matched that nobody could make it through the season unscathed, and I have to admit now that there was probably more validity to that than I gave them credit at the time. Unless you can come up with something better, perhaps the best way is to rank the teams in each conference, top to bottom, and see who'd win the most games. If (as seems reasonable) you think that the top teams' games should count for more, you could weight them, so #1 vs #1 is worth 14 points while #14 vs #14 would be worth 1 point. I'd been thinking about this a lot from early November onward, but I never put it online to see what others thought. Here it is now, so tell me what you think.

If you fold both B1G divisions together based solely on 1) conference record and 2) head-to-head results, the only tie remaining would be Nebraska and Maryland who both had 3 conference wins and beat Minnesota. I gave Maryland the higher ranking based on overall record.

Here's what the final standings would have looked like with the individual team's final overall record listed next to it before the CCG or bowl games:

Ohio State, 11-1
Michigan, 10-2
Northwestern, 8-5
Penn State, 9-3
Wisconsin, 7-5
Michigan State, 7-5
Purdue, 6-6
Iowa, 8-4
Maryland, 5-7
Nebraska, 4-8
Minnesota, 6-6
Indiana, 5-7
Illinois, 4-8
Rutgers, 1-11

If you fold both SEC divisions together based solely on 1) conference record, 2) head-to-head results, and then 3) national rankings, here's what the final standings would have looked like with the individual team's regular season overall record listed next to it:

Alabama, 12-0
Georgia, 11-1
Texas A&M, 8-4
Kentucky, 9-3
Florida, 9-3
LSU, 9-3
Mississippi State, 8-4
South Carolina, 7-5
Missouri, 8-4
Auburn, 7-5
Vanderbilt, 6-6
Tennessee, 5-7
Ole Miss, 5-7
Arkansas, 2-10

If we matched up the B1G vs SEC based on the rankings above, it would have looked like this (with the higher ranked team and/or who would have been favored to win in bold):

Ohio State vs Alabama
Michigan vs Georgia
Northwestern vs Texas A&M
Penn State
vs Kentucky
Wisconsin vs Florida
Michigan State vs LSU
Purdue vs Mississippi State
Iowa
vs South Carolina
Maryland vs Missouri
Nebraska vs Auburn
Minnesota vs Vanderbilt (tossup?)
Indiana vs Tennessee (tossup?)
Illinois vs Ole Miss
Rutgers vs Arkansas

Based on the rankings, the SEC would have been expected to win 10, lose 2, and have 2 toss-ups. If we split the toss-ups 50/50, the SEC would have been expected to have won 11 and lost 3 of those games. Is that reasonable? Again, I would have picked Michigan and Penn State to have been two likely wins, but now they look like a joke.

I'm curious what others think. As a side-note, I was absolutely appalled to realize just how bad the SEC's non-conference schedule actually is. Go and look for yourself. The B1G would have looked much improved if they had also played 8 conference games and played the same cupcakes for non-conference games. It's a sham.

Since the SEC is perceived as being the best conference, it doesn’t matter who they play in their non-conference schedule. The opinion-makers (ESPN, who has a vested interest) promote the conference relentlessly. Since they only play 8 conference games and they know it won’t matter who they play in non-conference, they do what they do because it offers the best chance for getting into the play-off and, as a matter of fact, the best chance to get two teams into the playoff.

Having said all of that, I largely agree with your rankings and who would have been more likely to win those matchups. Though sometimes teams match up in such a way that the team with more talent isn’t the better team in an individual matchup. For example, the way Wisconsin played in their bowl game may have given Florida all kinds of fits. And Nebraska was a pretty tough out at the end of the year in spite of their record and you’d have to say that Coach Frost has an idea of how to win against Auburn.

But over all, more talent makes for more better teams and the SEC has the geographic footprint to be able to locally recruit more talent. Not to mention a proclivity for recruiting and roster-management strategies that the Big 10 does not consider ethical. Add those things to the relentless promotion by ESPN and you’d have to ask the questions, “Why wouldn’t the SEC be better?”
 
Having said all of that, I largely agree with your rankings and who would have been more likely to win those matchups.
Fwiw, I didn't actually pick who I thought would win those games. The teams in bold were the ones who I'm pretty sure would be favored to win. After the bowl games, I have to rethink a lot of what I thought because teams like Auburn and Florida clearly have tons of talent and have underperformed, but Mississippi State and South Carolina looked bad, and I'm still not at all sure how good A&M and LSU are. Georgia vs Michigan would be a tough game to call, I think. I'd personally pick Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, and Illinois to win because all were better than their records. Those would almost all be games worth watching, top to bottom.
 
Fwiw, I didn't actually pick who I thought would win those games. The teams in bold were the ones who I'm pretty sure would be favored to win. After the bowl games, I have to rethink a lot of what I thought because teams like Auburn and Florida clearly have tons of talent and have underperformed, but Mississippi State and South Carolina looked bad, and I'm still not at all sure how good A&M and LSU are. Georgia vs Michigan would be a tough game to call, I think. I'd personally pick Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, and Illinois to win because all were better than their records. Those would almost all be games worth watching, top to bottom.

I see. I may have misunderstood. And yes, most of those games would be interesting and compelling.
 

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top