Finishing out the week before an exciting slate of Big Ten games. Don't forget to follow us on Twitter, especially on Saturdays.
Let's get to that mail ...
Mikey from Seattle writes: Great piece on B1G football revenue not translating to championships. I don't disagree with Dave Brandon's comment that football success is driven by things like tradition, culture, momentum, luck, recruiting, and consistency. However, if you look at all BCS National Champs, all but one (Oklahoma in 2000) come from traditional high school "hotbeds" -- Southeast, Texas, California, Ohio. (Note: most of the losing teams come from these areas, too.) So why doesn't the B1G use its significant revenue and resources to develop THE best youth/HS football programs in the country? While B1G can't influence demographic trends, it seems like it would be in their best long-term interests, increase athletic revenues, decrease escalating recruiting expenses, elevate conference perception to invest in their cash cow while giving back to their communities.
Adam Rittenberg: Some interesting thoughts, Mikey. Keep in mind that the Big Ten distributes almost all of its revenue to the schools, which all would have to be on board with such a program to make it work. Most of these schools have athletic departments that are losing money or receiving subsidies, so it would be hard for them to part with revenue just for the off chance that it boosts one sport (football). I also wonder how much a college athletic conference could affect the way high school/youth programs do things in an entire region of the country. Would we see more spring football programs? More 7-on-7 football like there is in Texas and Florida? I think the better investment is for recruiting the South and Southeast. Big Ten schools must devote more of their recruiting budget toward those areas of the country and hire and pay assistants who can pluck some good players from states such as Georgia, Texas and Florida year after year.
Jim from New Jersey writes: I do not say this is the only difference between the Big Ten and the SEC, but someone needs to be brave enough to say it in the press and no one does! The quality and type of kid that goes to an SEC school is not the same quality of a Big Ten kid academically. Bottom line. The SEC schools have much looser admission programs and standards and the kids are not the same. Bottom line, the Big Ten chooses to not take the same type of player. If the Big Ten wants a crystal ball, they need to lower admission standards.
Adam Rittenberg: Jim, I've alluded to this before, and I agree that on the whole, Big Ten schools have tougher admissions standards for football players than SEC schools. But there are enough elite athletes with strong academic profiles to win at the national level. Look at what Stanford has done and continues to do. A lot of the SEC's top players had Big Ten offers, so they would have been admitted to Big Ten schools but chose to go elsewhere. Big Ten fans often cite admission standards and oversigning as two big differences between the Big Ten and the SEC. I agree they're factors, but the Big Ten's larger issue, in my view, is more strategic. Big Ten schools must continually examine where they're investing time and energy in recruiting and how they're branding themselves to recruits.
Megan from Columbus, Ohio, writes: Hi Adam, love the work that you and Brian do! You have helped me discover what I want to do when I go to college. Anyway, I was wondering if you think Braxton Miller will be coming back for his senior year or not? Since his injury has him out of the Heisman talk (for now), do you think that will play a part of his decision?
Adam Rittenberg: Thanks, Megan. Is it too late to talk you out of it? Kidding, kidding. I expect Miller to return next season and continue to develop his game. Ohio State offensive coordinator Tom Herman told me this summer that Miller likely won't reach his full potential until the 2014 season, as he continues to evolve as a passer and as a decision-maker. He's not considered a top NFL draft prospect at quarterback right now, but he could become one depending on how he improves. Unless you're a clear first-round pick or play a position like running back with a short shelf-life because of injury risk, you probably should stay in school. I believe Miller will.
Ryan from Crooksville, Ohio, writes: All right, of all the things people could criticize the last few weeks about Michigan, why is it that the worst criticisms are about the defense? I mean, honestly, if our quarterback wasn't giving away seven points a game (and that's just the points the other teams got directly from him) and setting the opponents up in great field position a lot, Michigan's points allowed would conceivably be a lot less than they are. I honestly don't understand why the defense is taking as much heat as some people are giving it. They make key stops when they need to and they seem to play better red-zone defense than any other team I've seen this year. And as a Wolverines fan living in Buckeye country, I have to hear it more than most. Hoping to get your thoughts on it.
Adam Rittenberg: Ryan, I guess we've been reading/hearing different things about Michigan, because Devin Gardner's turnover issues have been the top story line about the Wolverines the past two weeks. Every radio show I've been on has asked what's wrong with No. 7/98 and whether he can reclaim the form he showed against Notre Dame. Michigan's defense has been OK -- not great, but adequate -- and hardly the team's biggest issue. I'm a little concerned about the lack of star power on the Wolverines' defense. Who will be the reliable playmakers game in and game out? Linebacker Jake Ryan could be that guy when he returns from injury later this month.
Doc from Phoenix writes: Adam, as an unapologetic Huskers fan and forever the optimist, I am curious about your current best-case scenario for Nebraska the rest of the way out. I see the best case for the Huskers as running the regular season table (despite some shaky defensive performances) and losing to OSU in the Big Ten championship. If that scenario plays out, do you see Nebraska getting an at-large bid to a BCS bowl? Whether or not OSU makes the National Championship game, Nebraska would be 11-2 with their only losses being to Ohio State and UCLA (a potential top-10 team). I could see the Rose Bowl reaching for Nebraska if Ohio State made the National Championship game to keep the Big Ten presence in the game, but I have doubt if other BCS bowl would feel the same way with the national perception of the Nebraska program being down of late. Given the reaching "best-case scenario," where would you put the Huskers come December/January?
Adam Rittenberg: Doc, while I could see Nebraska running the table, I highly doubt it. The Huskers crumbled against the only really good team they've faced so far, and their November schedule features Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State and a clearly improved Iowa team on Black Friday. While I expect Nebraska to beat Illinois on Saturday, Purdue next week and Minnesota on Oct. 26, the Huskers will have to elevate their play consistently in November for one of the more brutal stretches any Big Ten team will face. Can they win out? Sure. But I don't see it. If the scenario plays out as you present it, a lot would depend on if there are other Big Ten teams eligible for BCS at-large selection. We've seen in the past that the league title game loser often is in a worse sport for at-large selection than a team that finishes the season, say, 10-2 on a roll.
Rob from Morristown, N.J., writes: Adam, is Michigan State's defense REALLY as good as you and Brian make them out to be on a weekly basis (in every one one of your blog posts that mentions MSU, you talk about their stellar defense). Is it possible that their very good defensive numbers are due to the fact that they have played an FCS team, two of the worst offensive FBS teams in the country in USF and Western Michigan (ranked Nos. 121 and 122 in scoring offense, respectively) and a ND team starting a senior QB who lost the starting job to a freshman last season and lost their top two rushers off last year's BCS team? Maybe the "hype" is based off of last year's squad and is not necessarily indicative of this year's defense? I admit I have not watched much MSU football, but I think there is a good chance we realize the MSU defense isn't actually THAT good once they start playing some of the better offensive B1G teams. Your witness...
Adam Rittenberg: Rob, you make a lot of fair points here. Michigan State has faced some of the weaker offensive teams in the country. But to this point, the Spartans can only be evaluated on who they face, and they're showing the suffocating play we've grown accustomed to from that unit. If this defense hadn't been among the nation's elite the past two seasons, we're probably not having this discussion. So yes, past performance plays a role because Michigan State has established a culture of elite defense that appears, albeit against weak competition, to be continuing this season. Context is important here, but I also should be careful not to overvalue Michigan State's defense until it faces better offense. But I really like the personnel and the coaching the Spartans have on that side of the ball. We'll certainly learn more in the coming weeks.
Chris from Middleton, Wis., writes: Adam, which do you believe in when it comes to Wisconsin losing close games and their continued battle to go from good to great? 1) It shows how difficult it is to compete with the likes of Michigan and Ohio State's established programs. 2) Wisconsin is more closely scrutinized for penalties thus their success is handcuffed. 3) The gods are critical of football in general at Wisconsin. 4) Wisconsin players are overachievers that have reached their own personal mountain top. 5) If Wisconsin played ASU and Ohio State at home this year, they would be headed for the national championship game.
Adam Rittenberg: Is there an option 6? If so, I would go with Wisconsin being a team not built to play from behind. The Badgers are a methodical, power-driven offense focused on the run game. They bleed clock and their opponents' will by pounding away with huge offensive linemen and talented ball carriers. But they're not a team that runs the two-minute drill well. They don't have enough at receiver -- a problem for several years. The Arizona State game was an odd and unfortunate case because the officials totally botched the call at the end. The football gods aren't out to get Wisconsin, and the Badgers have shown they can win big games. But they're a team better off grabbing the lead and holding on than mounting a late comeback.
Andrew from Hilldale, Mich., writes: Recently there was an ESPN video posted on the blog suggesting that Ohio State's rep has been hurt by weak conference competition. One of the analysts also argued that OSU has beaten up the B1G only to get "slaughtered" in big games against faster nonconference opponents. Is that really a fair argument considering that the last two big bowl games they played -- the Rose Bowl against a very fast Oregon and forfeited Sugar Bowl against the SEC's very own Arkansas -- were solid wins on the field. It seems to me that, since the 2011 Sugar Bowl, they haven't really played any big nonconference games, and certainly none that would count as slaughters.
Adam Rittenberg: Unfortunately, Ohio State still gets painted as a bad big-game team because of the losses to Florida and LSU in the 2007 and 2008 BCS championship games. It's a lazy argument, quite frankly, because those games occurred more than half a decade ago, which is an eternity in college football. If you want to argue that Ohio State won't get into the national title game because the Big Ten is so weak, that's fine. The Big Ten has done little to change its national perception this season. But don't blame it on games that happened so long ago, just because you weren't entertained for the national championship. Vacated wins or not, Ohio State has won its past two big games, as you point out. And I expect the Buckeyes to be a better team than they are now when early January rolls around. Whether they make it to Pasadena for the big one remains to be seen.
Joe from Central PA writes: Hi, Adam. I'm a big PSU fan and although I didn't blame Silas Redd one bit for the decision he made to transfer, you have to wonder if he's second-guessing that now. If he was looking for a pro football career, I would think B'OB was more the coach to help him with that. It's a shame ... all of it really because I believe Silas is a nice/good kid. I really do hope he makes it to the NFL if that is what he wants to do.
Adam Rittenberg: Joe, I couldn't agree more about Silas being a really nice guy, and I still expect him to go on and have a good NFL career. But you have to wonder whether he'd be better off at Penn State, working in O'Brien's pro-style offense. Look at what Penn State has done with a running back like Zach Zwinak, who isn't as naturally gifted as Redd. From a coaching standpoint, he definitely took a step back by leaving Penn State for USC. Then again, it's hard to blame a guy for going to a team that entered the 2012 season with national title aspirations.
John from New York writes: Do you think that the reason that Venric Mark has been out these last three weeks relates solely to his injury? Pat Fitzgerald has seemed a little shifty when discussing Mark's status, including an assertion that Mark was "day-to-day" about one hour before the kickoff against Maine. I can see Fitzgerald wanting to spring Mark on OSU, depriving them of video of Mark from this season.
Adam Rittenberg: John, Mark never was going to play against Maine, although he probably could have. Northwestern wanted to get his hamstring issue as close to 100 percent as possible before the Big Ten season kicked off against Ohio State. Once the Wildcats got through the Syracuse game, they really didn't need Mark to go 4-0, although it would have been nice for him and Kain Colter to get some more game reps together. It will be interesting to see how much the Colter-Mark zone read game can boost Northwestern's offense against the Buckeyes.