Big Ten only signs 37 of top 300 kids

Donate To GopherHole
G

Go4

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
4,237
Reaction score
955
Points
113
No wonder Tressell said Big Ten needs to step it up

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>A breakdown of where ESPN's Top 300 have signed so far: 116 (SEC), 49 (ACC), 40 (Pac 12), 37 (Big 10), 33 (Big 12), 10 (Independent).</p>— GopherHole.com (@GopherHole) <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHole/statuses/431138715285876736">February 5, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Go4 said:
No wonder Tressell said Big Ten needs to step it up
Click to expand...

So, pretty much on par with every conference except the SEC.

They also need to look at where the recruits come from for this to be meaningful in any way, particularly when geographic proximity is the single biggest determinant (among many) in where recruits choose to play.
 

dpodoll68 said:
So, pretty much on par with every conference except the SEC.

They also need to look at where the recruits come from for this to be meaningful in any way, particularly when geographic proximity is the single biggest determinant (among many) in where recruits choose to play.
Click to expand...

well, i really only follow minnesota high school, and 2 of the top 3 kids from here went sec, so there's the start.
 

Go4 said:
No wonder Tressell said Big Ten needs to step it up

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>A breakdown of where ESPN's Top 300 have signed so far: 116 (SEC), 49 (ACC), 40 (Pac 12), 37 (Big 10), 33 (Big 12), 10 (Independent).</p>— GopherHole.com (@GopherHole) <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHole/statuses/431138715285876736">February 5, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Wasn't that Urban...
 

Do people on this board still think the Big Ten can compete with the SEC, or that the SEC is constantly overrated every season?
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
Do people on this board still think the Big Ten can compete with the SEC, or that the SEC is constantly overrated every season?
Click to expand...

Yes. To be honest, there isn't going to be that big of a difference between major conference D1 teams, and there isn't going to be a huge difference between the #50 ranked recruit and the #500 ranked recruit. It's evident every year in bowl games that are always close game regardless of the conference a team is from.

A recruit's rank is nothing but a number, for the most part. Go back and look through previous classes, plenty of no names in the top 100.
 

mcal24 said:
Yes. To be honest, there isn't going to be that big of a difference between major conference D1 teams, and there isn't going to be a huge difference between the #50 ranked recruit and the #500 ranked recruit. It's evident every year in bowl games that are always close game regardless of the conference a team is from.

A recruit's rank is nothing but a number, for the most part. Go back and look through previous classes, plenty of no names in the top 100.
Click to expand...

By citing bowl games, you realize the Big Ten hasn't been very good in the bowls for a long time, right? Close losses don't count for much.
 

dpodoll68 said:
So, pretty much on par with every conference except the SEC.

They also need to look at where the recruits come from for this to be meaningful in any way, particularly when geographic proximity is the single biggest determinant (among many) in where recruits choose to play.
Click to expand...

so you're saying Ragnow should be signing with Crown College?
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
By citing bowl games, you realize the Big Ten hasn't been very good in the bowls for a long time, right? Close losses don't count for much.
Click to expand...

Close losses mean they can compete on the same level as these SEC teams despite lower ranked classes.
 



mcal24 said:
Close losses mean they can compete on the same level as these SEC teams despite lower ranked classes.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but isn't the goal to win, not be competitive?

If you aren't winning, but merely being competitive for a decade or more, doesn't that tell you something about the Big Ten compared to the SEC?
 


Gopherguy0723 said:
That may be true, but isn't the goal to win, not be competitive?

If you aren't winning, but merely being competitive for a decade or more, doesn't that tell you something about the Big Ten compared to the SEC?
Click to expand...

Just trying to show that rankings don't mean much. SEC gets by far the best recruits but isn't on a completely different level than the Big Ten.
 

mcal24 said:
Just trying to show that rankings don't mean much. SEC gets by far the best recruits but isn't on a completely different level than the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but if the SEC consistently outclasses the Big Ten in the bowls, doesn't that tell you that the SEC is on a different level than the Big Ten?

I don't understand how you can say the Big Ten is right there with the SEC when the SEC gets three times more high profile recruits, produces more high round NFL talent, and wins many more bowl games than the Big Ten.

To each his own I guess.
 



Stars don't matter. Stars are the only thing that matter. Bowl games don't matter. Bowl games are the only thing that matter. SSDD!
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Stars don't matter. Stars are the only thing that matter. Bowl games don't matter. Bowl games are the only thing that matter. SSDD!
Click to expand...

Actually conference WINS and losses are the ONLY things that MATTER.
 

GopherinPhilly said:
Stars don't matter. Stars are the only thing that matter. Bowl games don't matter. Bowl games are the only thing that matter. SSDD!
Click to expand...

Stars matter en masse, not on a case-by-case basis. Bowl games always matter. But I suppose bowl games will matter less with the playoffs starting next season. :)
 

Nate said:
Actually conference WINS and losses are the ONLY things that MATTER.
Click to expand...

I think I've read that before.

But it was buried in a 4 page post so I am not certain.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Yeah, but if the SEC consistently outclasses the Big Ten in the bowls, doesn't that tell you that the SEC is on a different level than the Big Ten?

I don't understand how you can say the Big Ten is right there with the SEC when the SEC gets three times more high profile recruits, produces more high round NFL talent, and wins many more bowl games than the Big Ten.

To each his own I guess.
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly the SEC gets more high profile commits, that's what this whole thread is about. My point is it doesn't make that big of a difference.

Bowl games between the Big Ten and SEC since 2006 are 12-8 SEC by the way and 21-17 since '98. Doesn't sound too bad to me. That's why I say they are on the same level. Can't argue the facts.
 

mcal24 said:
Yes, clearly the SEC gets more high profile commits, that's what this whole thread is about. My point is it doesn't make that big of a difference.

Bowl games between the Big Ten and SEC since 2006 are 12-8 SEC by the way and 21-17 since '98. Doesn't sound too bad to me. That's why I say they are on the same level. Can't argue the facts.
Click to expand...

No, but you can manipulate them. How often does the top Big Ten team play the top SEC team? The answer would be almost never because the Big Ten hasn't competed for many national championships while the SEC has played for at least 8 in a row, and won 7 in a row. In fact, since 1998 the SEC has had 11 teams compete in the national title game, the Big Ten has had 3. The SEC won 9 championships in your time frame and failed to win it 1 out of the 10 title games they competed in. The Big Ten won 1 and lost 2 both to SEC teams.

In your time frame, the SEC has won 9 titles to the Big Ten's 1, and won 55% of its games against the Big Ten. What makes that 55% even more impressive is that most of the time, the top SEC team didn't contribute to that record against the Big Ten. So the SEC has won more games than the Big Ten in bowl games, head-to-head and in aggregate in your time frame, without the best SEC team playing against a Big Ten team. I suspect that the top SEC team would have beaten the Big Ten team of your choice in any given year almost every time. That's only logical. If the SEC is superior, then its best team would likely beat Big Ten teams.

It's not really debatable. The Big Ten is not marginally worse than the SEC. It's moderately-significantly worse.
 

mcal24 said:
Just trying to show that rankings don't mean much. SEC gets by far the best recruits but isn't on a completely different level than the Big Ten.
Click to expand...

yes, the SEC is on a different level
 

It's not ideal to look just at the National Championship games. If you do, the argument should be rephrased, "over the last 10 or [insert your date range] years, which conference has produced the best team?". If that's the question. The answer is SEC, hands down. Case closed.

But to ignore the SEC/B1G matchup records (12-8, and 21-17) the poster mentioned would be stupid. Vanderbilt or Indiana? Kentucky or Purdue?

It's like saying that the AFC East was the best division in the NFL during the Patriots run, forgetting about the Bills and Dolphins.

We are getting out recruited by the SEC 3-1 and winning about half the games. That was his point.
 

BarnBoy said:
It's not ideal to look just at the National Championship games. If you do, the argument should be rephrased, "over the last 10 or [insert your date range] years, which conference has produced the best team?". If that's the question. The answer is SEC, hands down. Case closed.

But to ignore the SEC/B1G matchup records (12-8, and 21-17) the poster mentioned would be stupid. Vanderbilt or Indiana? Kentucky or Purdue?

It's like saying that the AFC East was the best division in the NFL during the Patriots run, forgetting about the Bills and Dolphins.

We are getting out recruited by the SEC 3-1 and winning about half the games. That was his point.
Click to expand...

You have to consider the fact that the SEC has won 55% of the games without their best team playing the Big Ten due to their championship success. If you ignore that fact, then you're not painting an accurate picture.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
You have to consider the fact that the SEC has won 55% of the games without their best team playing the Big Ten due to their championship success. If you ignore that fact, then you're not painting an accurate picture.
Click to expand...

Ohio State (3) and Nebraska (1) would argue with that. But yes, you are correct.

But we can't go on "what would have happened".. we can only go on record: 21-17.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
You have to consider the fact that the SEC has won 55% of the games without their best team playing the Big Ten due to their championship success. If you ignore that fact, then you're not painting an accurate picture.
Click to expand...

And there also is not a huge difference between SEC #1 and #2 teams. The separation is typically just who wins head to head, with the winner going to the national championship, loser is out with 1 or 2 losses.

The Big Ten champ always plays Pac 12 in Rose Bowl too...
 

mcal24 said:
Yes. To be honest, there isn't going to be that big of a difference between major conference D1 teams, and there isn't going to be a huge difference between the #50 ranked recruit and the #500 ranked recruit. It's evident every year in bowl games that are always close game regardless of the conference a team is from.

A recruit's rank is nothing but a number, for the most part. Go back and look through previous classes, plenty of no names in the top 100.
Click to expand...

The bolded section of your text is where it all breaks down. The bowl games pick similar schools in ability. Therefore, the games will be exciting to watch. The Bowls don't pick lopsided talent to get lopsided results. Your reasoning here is in need of a re-examination.
 

The B!G still has the lead in National Championships, and of those schools, Minnesota is in second place in the B!G, even above Ohio St. I'm betting the long term trend is still with the B!G. The last 20 years is just a bump in the road for the juggernaut that has paused to catch its breath.
 


The SEC, in its present state for football, is superior to the BIG in talent and results. Recruiting plays a part in that, and part of the recruiting success is borne upon recent successes (the other part is likely geography). It is what it is. Hopefully, we are able to pull some upsets in the near future which will tilt recruiting towards the BIG, and allow us to take advantage of some of our built in advantages (superior academics, in-house revenue streams, etc.)
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
You have to consider the fact that the SEC has won 55% of the games without their best team playing the Big Ten due to their championship success. If you ignore that fact, then you're not painting an accurate picture.
Click to expand...

You also have to consider that the SEC plays a majority of their bowl games in their own backyard, right in the middle of SEC country.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom