Big Ten: Northwestern Wildcats
Have a great and safe Memorial Day weekend, everybody.
- Ohio State landed the third linebacker in its 2014 class in Akron's Dante Booker. Former Buckeye Ray Small apologized for his missteps.
- Brady Hoke doesn't know where Michigan's "Not in Ohio" footballs came from. Dave Brandon is not a fan of parity-based scheduling. Fitz Toussaint is fired up to regain his starting tailback job.
- Mark Hollis recalls the process of hiring Mark Dantonio at Michigan State. The son of former Spartans star Jim Morrissey is becoming a big-time prospect. Le'Veon Bell is drawing some rave reviews with the Pittsburgh Steelers.
- Bill O'Brien is comfortable with John Butler as his defensive coordinator. Eugene Lewis should help Penn State at receiver and in the return game. Adam Breneman won a national honor for his charity work.
- Eric Crouch expresses regrets about how he handled his NFL experience. A future Husker is trying to finish strong in his high school track career.
- A pair of twins who signed with Pitt could transfer to Purdue. A Q&A with Boilers offensive coordinator John Shoop.
- Landing Wes Lunt would be a boost for Tim Beckman and Illinois. Paul Myerberg previews the Illini, whom he ranks No. 110 in the country.
- Choosing the best Iowa players of the Kirk Ferentz era. How Big Ten division re-alignment will affect the pocketbooks of Hawkeyes' fans.
- Northwestern freshman running back Warren Long has West Coast roots, a talent for the guitar and an interest in becoming a barber.
- Wisconsin has a schedule built for success.
- Minnesota's Ra'Shede Hageman is getting some national notice.
Most indispensable players: Northwestern
May, 24, 2013
May 24
10:00
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
Now that spring practice is over, we're examining the most indispensable players on each Big Ten team for the 2013 season.
By indispensable, we don't necessarily mean best. We mean the players who would be hardest to replace between now and the start of the season if they got hurt or suspended or vaporized. That could be because of their value to the team, or because of a lack of depth at their position.
We'll pick two players from each team, usually offense and defense, but not always. The series wraps up with the Northwestern Wildcats.
Venric Mark, RB, Sr.
There is little doubt Mark finished the 2012 season as Northwestern's most valuable player, and he'll enter the 2013 campaign as the team's most indispensable piece. Although you can make a good case for multitalented quarterback Kain Colter or even center Brandon Vitabile, one of just two returning starters on a new-look offensive line, no player fundamentally changes games like Mark. Last fall, he became Northwestern's first 1,000-yard rusher since 2006 and averaged 6.2 yards a carry with 13 touchdowns as the team's featured back. He also earned All-America honors as a return man, scoring two punt return touchdowns and averaging 18.7 yards per runback. Mark finished with 2,166 all-purpose yards, just 29 yards shy of Damien Anderson's team record, and he helped make the kicking game, once a weakness for Northwestern, into a significant strength. Colter would be a big loss, too, but Northwestern has another capable, albeit different option, in Trevor Siemian. Although the team's depth at running back isn't bad, no one has Mark's breakaway ability on carries and returns. He'd be missed.
Ibraheim Campbell, S, Jr.
It's a tough call here as cornerback Nick VanHoose certainly seemed indispensable last season, when his absence because of injury potentially cost Northwestern games against Nebraska and Michigan. Veteran linebacker Damien Proby also would be a good pick given the team's inexperience at the position, and defensive end Tyler Scott has revived the pass rush. But Campbell has been the Wildcats' most productive defender the past two seasons, racking up 189 tackles, two interceptions and two forced fumbles. He's an integral part of Northwestern's run defense, which rose from 84th nationally in 2011 to 21st last season. Safeties are often called the quarterbacks of a defense, and Campbell certainly fills that role as he has grown into a strong leader. Northwestern is building better depth at both secondary spots, but cornerback isn't the vacuum it once was in Evanston. The Wildcats should be better equipped to play without VanHoose if he goes down this season. They would have a tougher time replacing all that Campbell brings to the defense.
More indispensable:
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Indiana
Michigan State
Ohio State
Iowa
Penn State
Illinois
Purdue
By indispensable, we don't necessarily mean best. We mean the players who would be hardest to replace between now and the start of the season if they got hurt or suspended or vaporized. That could be because of their value to the team, or because of a lack of depth at their position.
We'll pick two players from each team, usually offense and defense, but not always. The series wraps up with the Northwestern Wildcats.
Venric Mark, RB, Sr.
There is little doubt Mark finished the 2012 season as Northwestern's most valuable player, and he'll enter the 2013 campaign as the team's most indispensable piece. Although you can make a good case for multitalented quarterback Kain Colter or even center Brandon Vitabile, one of just two returning starters on a new-look offensive line, no player fundamentally changes games like Mark. Last fall, he became Northwestern's first 1,000-yard rusher since 2006 and averaged 6.2 yards a carry with 13 touchdowns as the team's featured back. He also earned All-America honors as a return man, scoring two punt return touchdowns and averaging 18.7 yards per runback. Mark finished with 2,166 all-purpose yards, just 29 yards shy of Damien Anderson's team record, and he helped make the kicking game, once a weakness for Northwestern, into a significant strength. Colter would be a big loss, too, but Northwestern has another capable, albeit different option, in Trevor Siemian. Although the team's depth at running back isn't bad, no one has Mark's breakaway ability on carries and returns. He'd be missed.
Ibraheim Campbell, S, Jr.
It's a tough call here as cornerback Nick VanHoose certainly seemed indispensable last season, when his absence because of injury potentially cost Northwestern games against Nebraska and Michigan. Veteran linebacker Damien Proby also would be a good pick given the team's inexperience at the position, and defensive end Tyler Scott has revived the pass rush. But Campbell has been the Wildcats' most productive defender the past two seasons, racking up 189 tackles, two interceptions and two forced fumbles. He's an integral part of Northwestern's run defense, which rose from 84th nationally in 2011 to 21st last season. Safeties are often called the quarterbacks of a defense, and Campbell certainly fills that role as he has grown into a strong leader. Northwestern is building better depth at both secondary spots, but cornerback isn't the vacuum it once was in Evanston. The Wildcats should be better equipped to play without VanHoose if he goes down this season. They would have a tougher time replacing all that Campbell brings to the defense.
More indispensable:
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Nebraska
Indiana
Michigan State
Ohio State
Iowa
Penn State
Illinois
Purdue
Big Ten homecoming kick times announced
May, 23, 2013
May 23
12:30
PM ET
By
Brian Bennett | ESPN.com
College football begins in fewer than 100 days, and now we have some more kickoff times announced for Big Ten games. The league has announced times for several 2013 homecoming contests around the league.
Here are the new announced homecoming kickoffs (all times ET):
Illinois: Oct. 26 vs. Michigan State, 3:30 p.m.
Indiana: Nov. 2 vs. Minnesota, 3:30 p.m.
Iowa: Oct. 5 vs. Michigan State, Noon
Michigan State: Oct. 12 vs. Indiana, Noon
Nebraska: Oct. 5 vs. Illinois, Noon
Purdue: Sept. 28 vs. Northern Illinois, Noon
Wisconsin: Oct. 12 vs. Northwestern, 3:30 p.m.
TV information for those games will be determined at a later date. Here are the two previously announced homecoming kickoffs:
Northwestern: Oct. 5 vs. Ohio State, 8 p.m. (ABC/ESPN2)
Penn State: Oct. 12 vs. Michigan, 5 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN 2)
That just leaves three schools, who are expected to announce their homecoming kickoff times tomorrow: Michigan (Oct. 5 vs Minnesota), Minnesota (Sept. 28 vs. Iowa) and Ohio State (Oct. 19 vs. Iowa).
Here are the new announced homecoming kickoffs (all times ET):
Illinois: Oct. 26 vs. Michigan State, 3:30 p.m.
Indiana: Nov. 2 vs. Minnesota, 3:30 p.m.
Iowa: Oct. 5 vs. Michigan State, Noon
Michigan State: Oct. 12 vs. Indiana, Noon
Nebraska: Oct. 5 vs. Illinois, Noon
Purdue: Sept. 28 vs. Northern Illinois, Noon
Wisconsin: Oct. 12 vs. Northwestern, 3:30 p.m.
TV information for those games will be determined at a later date. Here are the two previously announced homecoming kickoffs:
Northwestern: Oct. 5 vs. Ohio State, 8 p.m. (ABC/ESPN2)
Penn State: Oct. 12 vs. Michigan, 5 p.m. (ESPN/ESPN 2)
That just leaves three schools, who are expected to announce their homecoming kickoff times tomorrow: Michigan (Oct. 5 vs Minnesota), Minnesota (Sept. 28 vs. Iowa) and Ohio State (Oct. 19 vs. Iowa).
Four more days.
- Penn State's "JoeBots" could end up driving Bill O'Brien away, David Jones writes. O'Brien opened up for an HBO interview.
- Offensive lineman Kyle Kalis "took the next step" during spring practice for Michigan. At least one Michigan football makes it clear that it was not made in Ohio.
- Incoming freshman Gerald Holmes is an intriguing option at tailback for Michigan State. Damion Terry could help the Spartans' offense evolve.
- Kirk Ferentz remains committed to having a quarterback competition. Examining the Iowa linebacker position.
- Burning questions for Wisconsin this fall. Gary Andersen served up some burgers at Culver's and also some Badgers nuggets.
- Purdue is working on renovating the south end zone at Ross-Ade Stadium.
- Ex-Nebraska star David Humm is getting assistance from the new Huskers Greats Foundation. Tom Osborne will focus on charity work after his retirement.
- Should Northwestern freshman Godwin Igwebuike play running back or safety?
- Examining the cornerback position at Ohio State.
- Tim Beckman is excited to take the Illini back to Camp Rantoul this August.
- The Little Caesars Bowl could continue ... outdoors ... in Detroit ... in December.
- Five breakout candidates in the Big Ten.
We're less than 100 days away from the kickoff of the 2013 season. Hooray. Want another reason to celebrate? There's just one more season to go before the BCS officially dies and we get a new, four-team college football playoff.
As the BCS era -- which began with the 1998 regular season -- draws to a close, we're taking a look at the best achievements and worst failures of every league during that time. Here are five highs and lows from the Big Ten:
Low Five:
1. National title drought: There's no getting around this one. The Big Ten has just one crystal football in its trophy case, thanks to Ohio State's overtime victory over Miami in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl. Other than that, the league has been shut out, and the Buckeyes got blown out in both the 2007 and 2008 BCS title games despite entering those contests ranked No. 1. Worse, Ohio State is the only Big Ten team that has even played in a national championship game. Compare that to the SEC, which has had five teams play for it all, or the Big 12, which has had three.
2. Rose Bowl record: OK, you say, so the Big Ten hasn't won a lot of national titles, but the Rose Bowl is the league's true ultimate goal. Well, the news there hasn't been very good, either. Since the dawn of the BCS era, the Big Ten has gone just 3-9 in the Grandaddy, with just one win in Pasadena since the 1999 season: Ohio State's 2010 victory over Oregon. That was the Buckeyes' only Rose Bowl appearance in the BCS era, as their success resulted in them playing in other bowls and often led to the league's second-best team going to California.
3. Non-Ohio State signature brands: We mentioned the lack of national title-game appearances outside of Ohio State. That's where the league's other brand-name schools have to take some blame. Michigan and Penn State have combined for seven BCS bowl appearances, which is good, but neither has made it to the national-title game. The Wolverines lost three out of four Rose Bowls from 2004-2007 and took a major step backward with the Rich Rodriguez hire. The Nittany Lions weren't able to play for a third national title and were sidelined for the final two BCS years because of probation. Nebraska hasn't reached the big stage game since joining the league two years ago, which was the continuation of a BCS drought for the Huskers that has now reached 11 seasons.
4. Scandal makers: The Big Ten takes great pride in its image and integrity, but the league took a serious hit in those areas toward the end of the BCS era. Three major programs -- Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan -- all went on NCAA probation, and the conference's assistance in helping keep several Buckeyes eligible for the 2011 Sugar Bowl wound up blowing up in its face a few months later. It also was poor timing that the Big Ten named its divisions Legends and Leaders right around the same time its supposedly squeaky-clean marquee programs were dealing with NCAA problems.
5. Recent New Year's massacres: Those with short memories may forget that the Big Ten actually performed quite well in its non-BCS bowls against the SEC and other power leagues for much of the BCS era. But more recent results have obscured that fact. New Year's Day 2011 might have been the low-water mark, as the league went 0-5 and got outscored 138-45 in its three games against the SEC. The Big Ten went 1-4 on Jan. 2, 2012, with Michigan State's overtime victory over Georgia saving the day (though Michigan did win the Sugar Bowl the following night). The league was more competitive on New Year's Day 2013 but still needed Northwestern to come through to avoid going 0-5 again. The Big Ten is just 2-7 against the SEC in the last three years, and that has damaged the perception of the conference's overall strength.
High Five
1. Doubling up: The BCS, all in all, has been good to the Big Ten. The league has made 26 BCS bowl appearances, more than any other conference (and one more than the mighty SEC). Until last year, the Big Ten had a streak of seven consecutive years of earning a BCS at-large bid. The conference's large, eager and sun-starved fan bases helped, especially for some teams with less than stellar résumés (i.e., Illinois in 2007, Michigan in 2011). The extra exposure and millions of dollars from those appearances have benefited the Big Ten, even if the league's 12-14 BCS record is a little wanting.
2. Ohio State's BCS run: Let's try and forget the '07 and '08 title games. The Buckeyes still have made an impressive run through the BCS era, with more appearances (nine) than any other school in the country. That number would have reached 10 last year if not for probation. The Buckeyes are also tied with USC for the most wins in BCS games (six), although the 2011 Sugar Bowl victory over Arkansas was later vacated by the NCAA.
AP Photo/Morry GashThe Badgers have been to five Rose Bowls during the BCS era, winning two of them.3. Wisconsin's Rose parade: No Big Ten team has spent more time in Pasadena during the BCS era than Wisconsin, which has made five Rose Bowls, including the past three in a row. The Badgers own two of the conference's three Rose wins in that time with back-to-back victories in the 1999 and 2000 games. Their three consecutive losses there are disappointing, but it's better to have lost in the Grandaddy than to not have gone at all.
4. Money, money, money: Sure, the Big Ten lacks national championship rings or a glittering Rose Bowl record. But that hasn't stopped the conference from growing exponentially during the BCS era. Commissioner Jim Delany pioneered the idea of a league-only TV channel, and the Big Ten Network has been hugely profitable. The Big Ten is the richest conference in the land right now and is poised to rake in more dough with its next TV deal.
5. Rise of the middle class: If the Big Ten's signature brands outside of Ohio State failed to make a dent in the BCS title picture, at least some of the other league programs rose up and became contenders. Iowa went to two BCS games and won the 2010 Orange Bowl. Illinois sandwiched Sugar and Rose bowl bids around some otherwise disappointing seasons. Purdue got to the Rose Bowl in 2001. Michigan State is still looking for its first-ever BCS bowl but did win a share of the Big Ten title in 2010 and the inaugural Legends Division crown in 2011. Northwestern has been solid under Pat Fitzgerald and appears to be on an upward trajectory. Wisconsin has ascended into an annual conference power. While not every program has been able to maintain high levels of success, at least the Big Ten wasn't just the Big Two and Little Nine (or Ten, depending on the year) every season.
As the BCS era -- which began with the 1998 regular season -- draws to a close, we're taking a look at the best achievements and worst failures of every league during that time. Here are five highs and lows from the Big Ten:
Low Five:
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Charlie RiedelOhio State went into the 2007 and 2008 BCS title games ranked No. 1, but came out without the crystal trophy.
AP Photo/Charlie RiedelOhio State went into the 2007 and 2008 BCS title games ranked No. 1, but came out without the crystal trophy.2. Rose Bowl record: OK, you say, so the Big Ten hasn't won a lot of national titles, but the Rose Bowl is the league's true ultimate goal. Well, the news there hasn't been very good, either. Since the dawn of the BCS era, the Big Ten has gone just 3-9 in the Grandaddy, with just one win in Pasadena since the 1999 season: Ohio State's 2010 victory over Oregon. That was the Buckeyes' only Rose Bowl appearance in the BCS era, as their success resulted in them playing in other bowls and often led to the league's second-best team going to California.
3. Non-Ohio State signature brands: We mentioned the lack of national title-game appearances outside of Ohio State. That's where the league's other brand-name schools have to take some blame. Michigan and Penn State have combined for seven BCS bowl appearances, which is good, but neither has made it to the national-title game. The Wolverines lost three out of four Rose Bowls from 2004-2007 and took a major step backward with the Rich Rodriguez hire. The Nittany Lions weren't able to play for a third national title and were sidelined for the final two BCS years because of probation. Nebraska hasn't reached the big stage game since joining the league two years ago, which was the continuation of a BCS drought for the Huskers that has now reached 11 seasons.
4. Scandal makers: The Big Ten takes great pride in its image and integrity, but the league took a serious hit in those areas toward the end of the BCS era. Three major programs -- Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan -- all went on NCAA probation, and the conference's assistance in helping keep several Buckeyes eligible for the 2011 Sugar Bowl wound up blowing up in its face a few months later. It also was poor timing that the Big Ten named its divisions Legends and Leaders right around the same time its supposedly squeaky-clean marquee programs were dealing with NCAA problems.
5. Recent New Year's massacres: Those with short memories may forget that the Big Ten actually performed quite well in its non-BCS bowls against the SEC and other power leagues for much of the BCS era. But more recent results have obscured that fact. New Year's Day 2011 might have been the low-water mark, as the league went 0-5 and got outscored 138-45 in its three games against the SEC. The Big Ten went 1-4 on Jan. 2, 2012, with Michigan State's overtime victory over Georgia saving the day (though Michigan did win the Sugar Bowl the following night). The league was more competitive on New Year's Day 2013 but still needed Northwestern to come through to avoid going 0-5 again. The Big Ten is just 2-7 against the SEC in the last three years, and that has damaged the perception of the conference's overall strength.
High Five
1. Doubling up: The BCS, all in all, has been good to the Big Ten. The league has made 26 BCS bowl appearances, more than any other conference (and one more than the mighty SEC). Until last year, the Big Ten had a streak of seven consecutive years of earning a BCS at-large bid. The conference's large, eager and sun-starved fan bases helped, especially for some teams with less than stellar résumés (i.e., Illinois in 2007, Michigan in 2011). The extra exposure and millions of dollars from those appearances have benefited the Big Ten, even if the league's 12-14 BCS record is a little wanting.
2. Ohio State's BCS run: Let's try and forget the '07 and '08 title games. The Buckeyes still have made an impressive run through the BCS era, with more appearances (nine) than any other school in the country. That number would have reached 10 last year if not for probation. The Buckeyes are also tied with USC for the most wins in BCS games (six), although the 2011 Sugar Bowl victory over Arkansas was later vacated by the NCAA.
AP Photo/Morry GashThe Badgers have been to five Rose Bowls during the BCS era, winning two of them.4. Money, money, money: Sure, the Big Ten lacks national championship rings or a glittering Rose Bowl record. But that hasn't stopped the conference from growing exponentially during the BCS era. Commissioner Jim Delany pioneered the idea of a league-only TV channel, and the Big Ten Network has been hugely profitable. The Big Ten is the richest conference in the land right now and is poised to rake in more dough with its next TV deal.
5. Rise of the middle class: If the Big Ten's signature brands outside of Ohio State failed to make a dent in the BCS title picture, at least some of the other league programs rose up and became contenders. Iowa went to two BCS games and won the 2010 Orange Bowl. Illinois sandwiched Sugar and Rose bowl bids around some otherwise disappointing seasons. Purdue got to the Rose Bowl in 2001. Michigan State is still looking for its first-ever BCS bowl but did win a share of the Big Ten title in 2010 and the inaugural Legends Division crown in 2011. Northwestern has been solid under Pat Fitzgerald and appears to be on an upward trajectory. Wisconsin has ascended into an annual conference power. While not every program has been able to maintain high levels of success, at least the Big Ten wasn't just the Big Two and Little Nine (or Ten, depending on the year) every season.
Recent success drives Wildcats' recruiting
May, 21, 2013
May 21
3:30
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
Northwestern's recruiting wish list and sales pitch hasn't changed much in recent years.
Head coach Pat Fitzgerald and his staff still seek a certain fit: an academically oriented player who clicks with the program's culture and recognizes the benefits of playing Big Ten football miles from the city limits of the nation's third largest market. Northwestern's coaches talk about "not only a four-year decision but a 40-year decision, the rest-of-your-life type decision," Matt MacPherson, the team's recruiting coordinator and running backs coach, recently told ESPN.com.
Northwestern is still identifying and bringing players who fit, but more of its targets are higher-level prospects and more of its competitors are higher-level programs. The Wildcats are hitting their mark at an unprecedented rate, leading the Big Ten with 10 commitments for their 2014 class, which ranks 17th nationally in RecruitingNation's latest ratings.
Colleague Jared Shanker writes that Northwestern's recent success on the field has boosted its recruiting to the next level.
According to MacPherson, Northwestern's message to potential recruits remains the same, but the way they view the program has changed after five straight bowl appearances and, finally, a postseason win on Jan. 1 in the Gator Bowl.
"From what we do and how we do it, not a whole lot has changed," MacPherson said. "From the perception of where our program is, that's changed a bunch. People see us now as a perennial bowl team. ... You look at Northwestern and you talk about winning football games, a great education, being in Chicago. What's not to like? Tell me when that gets bad.
"There's always been the great education, there’s always been the great city of Chicago. Now you throw the football success on top of that, and it's just a great package that opens a lot of people's eyes."
Northwestern's coaches also are talking up a new $220 million on-campus facility, announced in September, that will house the football program along the shores of Lake Michigan. Athletic director Jim Phillips said last week that $70-80 million has been raised toward the project, and ground could be broken this fall.
Fitzgerald talked with Shanker about the "great momentum" currently around the program. MacPherson sees it on the recruiting trail.
"We are getting in some battles with some different programs than we have in the past," he said. "Obviously, that's a good thing. But at the end fo the day, you still have to do your evaluation and those guys you bring into your program have to be valuable players and be productive players for you. Is it great for our profile and be competing against teams that you see in the Rivals and the ESPN Insider ratings? Yeah, that's great. But it'll always go back to production once you get 'em on your team."
Head coach Pat Fitzgerald and his staff still seek a certain fit: an academically oriented player who clicks with the program's culture and recognizes the benefits of playing Big Ten football miles from the city limits of the nation's third largest market. Northwestern's coaches talk about "not only a four-year decision but a 40-year decision, the rest-of-your-life type decision," Matt MacPherson, the team's recruiting coordinator and running backs coach, recently told ESPN.com.
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Tony DingPat Fitzgerald has the Northwestern football program headed in the positive direction, winning games and attracting quality student athletes.
AP Photo/Tony DingPat Fitzgerald has the Northwestern football program headed in the positive direction, winning games and attracting quality student athletes.Colleague Jared Shanker writes that Northwestern's recent success on the field has boosted its recruiting to the next level.
The Wildcats went 10-3 in 2012 and ended the season No. 17 in the final AP poll. It was the first time that Northwestern had won 10 games in a season since 1995, when it went 10-1 and appeared in the Rose Bowl. It also marked the first time Northwestern finished a season ranked since 1996.
Fitzgerald was a linebacker on those '95 and '96 teams. He was an ambassador for recruits who signed in the winter of '97, one of Northwestern best classes ever.
Northwestern landed several national recruits in that class, much like it is doing in the 2014 class. Craig Albrecht, Chris Jones and Sam Simmons were all highly sought-after recruits who signed with Northwestern out of high school. Fitzgerald said then-coach Gary Barnett never broke the mold of what he was looking for in a recruit to bring in the higher-profile prospects.
Now Fitzgerald is following a similar path.
"[The 2014 recruits] stayed true to what fits our program," Fitzgerald said. "We feel great about all the young men, feel great we recruited the right fit. We respect you if you do it differently, but we're more focused on the right fit and if he fits the culture of our locker room."
According to MacPherson, Northwestern's message to potential recruits remains the same, but the way they view the program has changed after five straight bowl appearances and, finally, a postseason win on Jan. 1 in the Gator Bowl.
"From what we do and how we do it, not a whole lot has changed," MacPherson said. "From the perception of where our program is, that's changed a bunch. People see us now as a perennial bowl team. ... You look at Northwestern and you talk about winning football games, a great education, being in Chicago. What's not to like? Tell me when that gets bad.
"There's always been the great education, there’s always been the great city of Chicago. Now you throw the football success on top of that, and it's just a great package that opens a lot of people's eyes."
Northwestern's coaches also are talking up a new $220 million on-campus facility, announced in September, that will house the football program along the shores of Lake Michigan. Athletic director Jim Phillips said last week that $70-80 million has been raised toward the project, and ground could be broken this fall.
Fitzgerald talked with Shanker about the "great momentum" currently around the program. MacPherson sees it on the recruiting trail.
"We are getting in some battles with some different programs than we have in the past," he said. "Obviously, that's a good thing. But at the end fo the day, you still have to do your evaluation and those guys you bring into your program have to be valuable players and be productive players for you. Is it great for our profile and be competing against teams that you see in the Rivals and the ESPN Insider ratings? Yeah, that's great. But it'll always go back to production once you get 'em on your team."
100 days away ...
- Illinois is very much in the mix for Oklahoma State QB transfer Wes Lunt. Illini coach Tim Beckman and his assistants are social-media machines.
- A great look inside a week with Michigan offensive coordinator Al Borges. Michigan is in good shape to add standout CB recruit Jabrill Peppers. Former Wolverines star Mike Hart talks about the challenges that await incoming RB recruit Derrick Green.
- Top 2014 recruits are buying what Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald is selling, Jared Shanker writes. Incoming freshman Macan Wilson talks about why he picked the Wildcats.
- Junior college defensive lineman Robert Gregory hopes to arrive at Nebraska next month. Check out Huskers QB recruit Johnny Stanton.
- Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke is confident about the program's direction under new coach Darrell Hazell. Hazell meets with a group of local pastors.
- This is mostly basketball related, but colleague Myron Medcalf checks in with Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany.
- Christian Hackenberg will follow Penn State QB tradition and wear No. 14 for the Lions. Tom Dienhart breaks down Penn State's 2013 schedule. Lions coach Bill O'Brien is featured on HBO's "Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel."
- Michigan State coach Mark Dantonio discusses conflict resolution. Former Spartans LB Chris Norman chooses faith over football.
- Another great breakdown of Big Ten assistant coach salaries from Joe Rexrode. A look at how Maryland assistants' salaries stack up with the rest of the Big Ten.
- More on Iowa's coaches and their contracts.
- Indiana adds a big prep school lineman to its 2013 recruiting class.
- A Federal judge mulls whether Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's lawsuit against the NCAA will move forward.
- Some good news for TBDBITL. Ohio State coach Urban Meyer is looking rather busty.
- Tom Brady played for Michigan, but his son is sporting Minnesota Golden Gopher gear. A positive spin on Minnesota's tough upcoming schedules.
- New Wisconsin coach Gary Andersen and his staff cast a wide recruiting net.
- Please consider donating to the Red Cross or The Salvation Army to help the victims of Monday's tornado in Moore, Okla.
B1G Official Visit: No. 1 CB Peppers ready
May, 21, 2013
May 21
11:30
AM ET
By ESPN.com staff | ESPN.com
The no. 2 recruit in the country, Jabrill Peppers, will be announcing his decision live this Sunday at 5:15 p.m. on ESPNU. Tom VanHaaren stops by the show to break down the latest with Peppers and what the Michigan Wolverines’ chances are. Also, Jared Shanker joins the show to explain what’s behind the recent recruiting success of Northwestern.
Good news: We are just 100 days away from the start of college football.
To mark the occasion, we're pulling out a checklist today of things that Big Ten teams need to accomplish between now and the start of the season. It's not quite "The Final Countdown" (cue GOB Bluth), but we are inching ever so close to kickoff. Here's what needs to happen in the next 100 days:
1. Identify a starting quarterback at Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin: It seems as if there are an unusually high number of Big Ten teams who don't know for sure who their starting quarterbacks will be in the fall. (You could also add Illinois and Minnesota to this list, though it appears likely that Nathan Scheelhaase and Philip Nelson, respectively, would have to lose the job in the summer.) Iowa had a three-man race this spring that will probably come down to Jake Rudock and Cody Sokol in training camp. There's very little separation between Cameron Coffman, Nate Sudfeld and Tre Roberson at Indiana. Connor Cook continues to breathe down the neck of incumbent Andrew Maxwell at Michigan State. Tyler Ferguson claimed the starting job at Penn State during the spring, prompting Steven Bench to transfer, but highly touted recruit Christian Hackenberg will push for immediate time. Purdue will likely decide between senior Rob Henry and true freshman Danny Etling. Joel Stave and Curt Phillips separated themselves from the Wisconsin QB derby this spring, while incoming junior college transfer Tanner McEvoy could expand the race this summer. All these situations should work themselves out in August, but no team wants to be dealing with an unsettled quarterback competition once the season starts.
2. Solidify the defensive front sevens at Nebraska and Ohio State: The Huskers and Buckeyes stand out as two of the top Big Ten contenders in 2013, but both have serious questions at defensive line and linebacker. The issue is more dire at Nebraska, which struggled there last year and is replacing all but one starter from 2012. Summer arrivals, including junior college star Randy Gregory, could make an immediate impact, and players coming back from injury such as linebacker Zaire Anderson and defensive tackle Thad Randle will need to play up to potential. Ohio State is less concerned about its defense after the spring performance of defensive ends Noah Spence and Adolphus Washington, but linebacker Ryan Shazier is still the only returning starter in the front seven. Curtis Grant must finally live up to his talent to provide help to Shazier, and someone must assume John Simon's leadership role.
3. Locate the next great receivers: A few Big Ten teams, such as Nebraska, Penn State and Indiana, don't have to worry too much about who will catch the ball this year. But just about everybody else needs to find playmakers in the passing game. The top of that list includes Iowa, which couldn't generate a downfield passing attack last year; Illinois, which needs receivers to make new coordinator Bill Cubit's spread system work; Michigan State, whose young wideouts must improve on last year's shaky performance; Minnesota, which doesn't have many proven weapons to surround Nelson; and Wisconsin, which still must find a complement to Jared Abbrederis. Ohio State coach Urban Meyer is hoping some incoming freshmen augment a very thin receiver group, while Michigan needs to replace the production of Roy Roundtree. Purdue and Northwestern have lots of speedy options but could use the emergence of a true No. 1 target. Receiver was a weak spot as a whole in the Big Ten in 2012, and hopefully some players will improve through offseason voluntary passing drills.
4. Strengthen the running game at Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana and elsewhere: It's a cliché to say that you have to run the ball to win, but in the case of the Big Ten, that's always been true. That's why it's so vital for the Wolverines and Spartans -- who both expect to contend in the Legends Division -- to find answers in their rushing attacks. Michigan is replacing its entire starting interior offensive line after struggling to get a running game going outside of Denard Robinson last year. Fitz Toussaint is hoping to bounce back from a disappointing season and a leg injury, while hotshot freshman Derrick Green could get lots of carries right away. Michigan State's efforts to replace workhorse extraordinaire Le'Veon Bell this spring ended up with converted linebacker Riley Bullough emerging as the top back in a mediocre field. Three incoming freshmen will compete for time right away this summer. Indiana coach Kevin Wilson put a heavy emphasis on the running game this spring, hoping for more balance after his team led the league in passing and finished last in rushing last season. Iowa has depth for once at running back but needs to stay healthy there, as the ground game is the key to the Hawkeyes' entire offensive philosophy. Nebraska also can't afford injuries, as Ameer Abdullah and Imani Cross are the lone backs with any experience. Illinois averaged just 3.5 yards per carry as a team last year, a number that must improve. And while Purdue loved what it saw from Akeem Hunt this spring, he still must prove he can be an every-down back after attempting only 42 carries last season.
5. Mesh with new coaches: Wisconsin's Gary Andersen and Purdue's Darrell Hazell are the fresh faces among head coaches in the league, and while they did a great job of connecting with their players this spring, they still need to get their new systems fully in place. The Badgers will be using some new, 3-4 looks on defense, while Hazell wants a more physical and disciplined team than we've seen from the Boilermakers of late. Michigan State has a new offensive playcaller in Dave Warner, while Cubit was one of many staff changes at Illinois. Penn State's John Butler takes over from Ted Roof as the Lions' defensive coordinator. With only 15 spring practices so far to implement their styles, those new coaches have had to rely on a lot of classroom time and players learning on their own. That will have to continue this summer during voluntary workouts and then will intensify when preseason practice begins. For new coaches, it's a race against the calendar -- and the calendar says there are only 100 days until kickoff.
To mark the occasion, we're pulling out a checklist today of things that Big Ten teams need to accomplish between now and the start of the season. It's not quite "The Final Countdown" (cue GOB Bluth), but we are inching ever so close to kickoff. Here's what needs to happen in the next 100 days:
1. Identify a starting quarterback at Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin: It seems as if there are an unusually high number of Big Ten teams who don't know for sure who their starting quarterbacks will be in the fall. (You could also add Illinois and Minnesota to this list, though it appears likely that Nathan Scheelhaase and Philip Nelson, respectively, would have to lose the job in the summer.) Iowa had a three-man race this spring that will probably come down to Jake Rudock and Cody Sokol in training camp. There's very little separation between Cameron Coffman, Nate Sudfeld and Tre Roberson at Indiana. Connor Cook continues to breathe down the neck of incumbent Andrew Maxwell at Michigan State. Tyler Ferguson claimed the starting job at Penn State during the spring, prompting Steven Bench to transfer, but highly touted recruit Christian Hackenberg will push for immediate time. Purdue will likely decide between senior Rob Henry and true freshman Danny Etling. Joel Stave and Curt Phillips separated themselves from the Wisconsin QB derby this spring, while incoming junior college transfer Tanner McEvoy could expand the race this summer. All these situations should work themselves out in August, but no team wants to be dealing with an unsettled quarterback competition once the season starts.
2. Solidify the defensive front sevens at Nebraska and Ohio State: The Huskers and Buckeyes stand out as two of the top Big Ten contenders in 2013, but both have serious questions at defensive line and linebacker. The issue is more dire at Nebraska, which struggled there last year and is replacing all but one starter from 2012. Summer arrivals, including junior college star Randy Gregory, could make an immediate impact, and players coming back from injury such as linebacker Zaire Anderson and defensive tackle Thad Randle will need to play up to potential. Ohio State is less concerned about its defense after the spring performance of defensive ends Noah Spence and Adolphus Washington, but linebacker Ryan Shazier is still the only returning starter in the front seven. Curtis Grant must finally live up to his talent to provide help to Shazier, and someone must assume John Simon's leadership role.
3. Locate the next great receivers: A few Big Ten teams, such as Nebraska, Penn State and Indiana, don't have to worry too much about who will catch the ball this year. But just about everybody else needs to find playmakers in the passing game. The top of that list includes Iowa, which couldn't generate a downfield passing attack last year; Illinois, which needs receivers to make new coordinator Bill Cubit's spread system work; Michigan State, whose young wideouts must improve on last year's shaky performance; Minnesota, which doesn't have many proven weapons to surround Nelson; and Wisconsin, which still must find a complement to Jared Abbrederis. Ohio State coach Urban Meyer is hoping some incoming freshmen augment a very thin receiver group, while Michigan needs to replace the production of Roy Roundtree. Purdue and Northwestern have lots of speedy options but could use the emergence of a true No. 1 target. Receiver was a weak spot as a whole in the Big Ten in 2012, and hopefully some players will improve through offseason voluntary passing drills.
4. Strengthen the running game at Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana and elsewhere: It's a cliché to say that you have to run the ball to win, but in the case of the Big Ten, that's always been true. That's why it's so vital for the Wolverines and Spartans -- who both expect to contend in the Legends Division -- to find answers in their rushing attacks. Michigan is replacing its entire starting interior offensive line after struggling to get a running game going outside of Denard Robinson last year. Fitz Toussaint is hoping to bounce back from a disappointing season and a leg injury, while hotshot freshman Derrick Green could get lots of carries right away. Michigan State's efforts to replace workhorse extraordinaire Le'Veon Bell this spring ended up with converted linebacker Riley Bullough emerging as the top back in a mediocre field. Three incoming freshmen will compete for time right away this summer. Indiana coach Kevin Wilson put a heavy emphasis on the running game this spring, hoping for more balance after his team led the league in passing and finished last in rushing last season. Iowa has depth for once at running back but needs to stay healthy there, as the ground game is the key to the Hawkeyes' entire offensive philosophy. Nebraska also can't afford injuries, as Ameer Abdullah and Imani Cross are the lone backs with any experience. Illinois averaged just 3.5 yards per carry as a team last year, a number that must improve. And while Purdue loved what it saw from Akeem Hunt this spring, he still must prove he can be an every-down back after attempting only 42 carries last season.
5. Mesh with new coaches: Wisconsin's Gary Andersen and Purdue's Darrell Hazell are the fresh faces among head coaches in the league, and while they did a great job of connecting with their players this spring, they still need to get their new systems fully in place. The Badgers will be using some new, 3-4 looks on defense, while Hazell wants a more physical and disciplined team than we've seen from the Boilermakers of late. Michigan State has a new offensive playcaller in Dave Warner, while Cubit was one of many staff changes at Illinois. Penn State's John Butler takes over from Ted Roof as the Lions' defensive coordinator. With only 15 spring practices so far to implement their styles, those new coaches have had to rely on a lot of classroom time and players learning on their own. That will have to continue this summer during voluntary workouts and then will intensify when preseason practice begins. For new coaches, it's a race against the calendar -- and the calendar says there are only 100 days until kickoff.
I missed our correspondence during my vacation. Let's let the letters commence:
Alex from New York writes: As a Michigan fan, the release of the new schedules starting in 2014 is pretty infuriating. Both MSU and OSU on the road in a given year? Are you kidding me? Did Dave Brandon not bother fighting this at all? Couple this with some of the recent basketball schedulings, like giving OSU a home game against Michigan next year but not vice versa, it seems like sometimes the Big Ten is out to screw Michigan. I realize that I'm overreacting, but as far as football is concerned, I think this is unacceptable, especially having to play MSU on the road twice in two years. It makes for a great home schedule one year, and a very lackluster one the following year. What are your thoughts?
Brian Bennett: The Big Ten is out to get Michigan? I think Michigan State fans would find that funny. Playing at Michigan State and Ohio State in the same year is tough, but is it really more difficult than last season, when the Wolverines played at Nebraska and at Ohio State? With Penn State coming to Ann Arbor in 2014 and Michigan's other Big Ten road games being at Northwestern and at Rutgers, you can't say that's an especially difficult schedule. It stinks for Wolverines fans that the games against the Spartans, Buckeyes and Notre Dame will all be on the road next season, but Ohio State and Michigan State will come to the Big House in 2015. And the rotation could change again when the league goes to a nine-game schedule in 2016.
Dave from Nashville writes: Regarding the new 2014 B1G schedules: There's a lot to comment on, but I'm gonna focus right now on, wow, Ohio State has a crazy easy schedule. Toughest games at home? Arguably the best team in the B1G having its two cross-overs with arguably the West's two worst teams (final decision pending Iowa's Greg Davis-induced implosion). Seems the B1G is desperate to get a team into the first College Football Playoff. They have chosen their champion, and have laid the easiest path possible for them to reach it. Michigan seems like a back-up option for 2015 with the favorable schedule, but even they have to contend with a dangerous NW squad. Better get them in before "parity-based" scheduling and 9 conference games make it more difficult ...
Brian Bennett: It's disappointing that we won't see the Buckeyes play Nebraska, Wisconsin or Northwestern in 2014. Perhaps Minnesota will have improved enough by next year that it will give Ohio State a test in Minneapolis. The Buckeyes still have to go to Michigan State and Penn State, and they have Navy, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech in the nonconference, which is a major step up from their 2012 and 2013 out-of-league slate. Perhaps after playing Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraska as crossover opponents in 2011 and 2012, Ohio State was due for a break. Getting Michigan at home next year will also be key in the inaugural East Division race. While it's always dangerous to make assumptions on what will happen more than a year away, the Buckeyes do seem to have an advantageous position in 2014.
Mike from Madison, Wis., writes: So I just read the piece on how many of the B1G coaches and Jim Delany support to increase the win requirements to go to a bowl from the current 6-6 to 7-5. I agree with that and also the fact that a fan bases of a 6-6 team is less enthused to have to pay all the costs involved with going to a bowl game and that some fans and students ultimately don't go because its not worth it. However, I also agree with coaches that the extra game and more importantly practice time that goes along with a bowl game is greatly beneficial to a 6-6 team. I have an idea that will please everyone involved: 6-6 teams get cut from being in a bowl game. However, they are permitted to play an extra game with a school in their region and that the game would be held at the one of the school's football stadiums. Don't know how that would be decided but everyone involved wins. Coaches get their game and fans get it closer and cheaper.
Brian Bennett: I'm divided on my opinion about whether 6-6 teams should go bowling. On the one hand, I believe there are too many bowl games and that teams should have to accomplish more than merely going .500. How much, for example, did Purdue gain by going to a bowl last year, as the Boilermakers fired coach Danny Hope the day after they clinched postseason eligibility and then got embarrassed by Oklahoma State? On the other hand, bowls still provide us entertainment in December, and more college football is rarely a bad thing. I'm much more in favor of 6-6 teams going to bowls if they play a nine-game conference schedule. That's much more of an achievement, since programs can't simply schedule four nonconference patsies and then go 2-6 in the league and declare their season a success. I'm surprised a team like Indiana, which will have its hands full in the East Division, supports the seven-win requirement.
As for your idea, Mike, I'm not exactly sold. A large part of the appeal for a 6-6 team to go bowling is that the players get a nice trip somewhere warm and a bowl-like experience out of it. Who would have gotten fired up last year for, say, Purdue at Central Michigan or Iowa State at Minnesota last December in the cold?
Rob NitLion from Morristown, N.J., writes: Bennett! Long time since I last emailed you. Please PLEASE tell me that with the new bowl scheduling partnerships the B1G will no longer have 5 schools playing at the same time on New Year's Day...as a B1G fan, I cannot stand missing the Rose Bowl because there are other attractive B1G matchups at the same time. I'm hoping Delaney has found some way to facilitate changing the times or dates of some of these bowl games as to not have B1G fans scrambling to try to catch multiple games at the same time on New Year's Day. Even if your team isn't playing in the Rose Bowl, as a college football fan, specifically a B1G fan, who doesn't want to watch the Rose Bowl and all its Pagentry? I know the Capital One and Outback bowls are probably remaining in the B1G bowl line up, but do you foresee any chance that there are changes so the times are not conflicting with the Rose Bowl?
Brian Bennett: I don't think that avoiding overlapping times is a major concern for the Big Ten as it tries to find the best bowl lineup. However, it's inevitable that we'll see some changes in that regard as the new lineup and the new playoff structure take hold. The playoff semifinals are going to own New Year's Day, so we'll have to see how that affects when the other bowls decide to kick off. There could still be several Big Ten teams playing at once, especially with the league holding onto ties with the Capital One and Outback bowls and sharing a slot with the ACC on the Gator. But with access to the Orange Bowl and other moves, I doubt we'll see as big of a Big Ten logjam in the bowls.
Aaron from Minneapolis, Minn., writes: As a Minnesota fan, I generally like the direction that the conference is going with non-conference scheduling. But I've heard a lot about how Iowa is being handcuffed by their annual tilt with Iowa State, and I was just wondering why this is a big deal. Lots of annual non-conference rivalries are going by the wayside these days (Michigan-ND, Florida-Miami, Nebraska-Oklahoma, etc.). While I understand that an in-state game is big for fans, I can't imagine Iowa fans will suddenly be at a loss for bad blood with Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even a potentially budding rivalry with Nebraska each year. And even if the game is not played annually, two games every four years would open up much more breathing room for Iowa to continue to schedule strong opponents on a regular basis. Am I completely off base here?
Brian Bennett: You're not wildly off base, Aaron, especially because the Iowa-Iowa State game doesn't really move the needle nationally. Still, I think it would be a shame to see that series end. I'm a huge proponent of in-state rivalries, especially in a state like Iowa where there are only two major programs. It's one thing for Florida and Miami not to play, but at least Florida-Florida State and Florida State-Miami continues. These are the kinds of rivalry games that keep friends, co-workers and neighbors talking year round within the state. I'd rather see Iowa test itself by playing one other marquee game in the nonconference schedule than losing the Iowa State series, though I understand why that's difficult with a nine-game league schedule. And speaking of in-state rivalries ...
Erik S. from Tallahassee, Fla., writes: With the renewal of the PSU-Pitt rivalry in 2016 and the dedication both sides feel about making the game happen every year, I'm hopeful that we'll get to see more of these games after the upcoming four-year contract is over. My question is that in the years Penn State plays Pitt, will that game become Penn State's required "one marquee nonconference game" or do you think another "Big Five" conference team would make the slate in addition?
Brian Bennett: There were some very encouraging comments last week from both sides about the future of the Penn State-Pitt rivalry, one that I think ought to return to being an annual affair. Penn State will have to decide how it wants to schedule its three nonconference games after 2016, and complicating matters is the NCAA probation. Do the Nittany Lions want to take on tough opponents as they're coming out of the sanctions era, or do they want to help themselves ease back into bowl contention? When at full strength, I absolutely think Penn State is the type of program that can handle playing Pitt and one other marquee, or at least major-conference, opponent every year. Given Pitt's near-perennial habit of underachieving, simply playing the Panthers probably wouldn't be enough to make the Nittany Lions' strength-of-schedule argument a compelling one in most years.
Bear rom Waco, Texas, writes: Baylor/Big 12 fan here just wanting to say props for the Big Ten agreeing to schedule nine conference games and no FCS opponents. The Big Ten, like every other conference, has its problems, but I really respect that y'all want to make create the highest quality football match-ups possible. So thanks Big Ten from down in Waco!
Brian Bennett: I guess it's always good to have a bear on your side, rather than the other way around.
Alex from New York writes: As a Michigan fan, the release of the new schedules starting in 2014 is pretty infuriating. Both MSU and OSU on the road in a given year? Are you kidding me? Did Dave Brandon not bother fighting this at all? Couple this with some of the recent basketball schedulings, like giving OSU a home game against Michigan next year but not vice versa, it seems like sometimes the Big Ten is out to screw Michigan. I realize that I'm overreacting, but as far as football is concerned, I think this is unacceptable, especially having to play MSU on the road twice in two years. It makes for a great home schedule one year, and a very lackluster one the following year. What are your thoughts?
Brian Bennett: The Big Ten is out to get Michigan? I think Michigan State fans would find that funny. Playing at Michigan State and Ohio State in the same year is tough, but is it really more difficult than last season, when the Wolverines played at Nebraska and at Ohio State? With Penn State coming to Ann Arbor in 2014 and Michigan's other Big Ten road games being at Northwestern and at Rutgers, you can't say that's an especially difficult schedule. It stinks for Wolverines fans that the games against the Spartans, Buckeyes and Notre Dame will all be on the road next season, but Ohio State and Michigan State will come to the Big House in 2015. And the rotation could change again when the league goes to a nine-game schedule in 2016.
Dave from Nashville writes: Regarding the new 2014 B1G schedules: There's a lot to comment on, but I'm gonna focus right now on, wow, Ohio State has a crazy easy schedule. Toughest games at home? Arguably the best team in the B1G having its two cross-overs with arguably the West's two worst teams (final decision pending Iowa's Greg Davis-induced implosion). Seems the B1G is desperate to get a team into the first College Football Playoff. They have chosen their champion, and have laid the easiest path possible for them to reach it. Michigan seems like a back-up option for 2015 with the favorable schedule, but even they have to contend with a dangerous NW squad. Better get them in before "parity-based" scheduling and 9 conference games make it more difficult ...
Brian Bennett: It's disappointing that we won't see the Buckeyes play Nebraska, Wisconsin or Northwestern in 2014. Perhaps Minnesota will have improved enough by next year that it will give Ohio State a test in Minneapolis. The Buckeyes still have to go to Michigan State and Penn State, and they have Navy, Cincinnati and Virginia Tech in the nonconference, which is a major step up from their 2012 and 2013 out-of-league slate. Perhaps after playing Michigan, Michigan State and Nebraska as crossover opponents in 2011 and 2012, Ohio State was due for a break. Getting Michigan at home next year will also be key in the inaugural East Division race. While it's always dangerous to make assumptions on what will happen more than a year away, the Buckeyes do seem to have an advantageous position in 2014.
Mike from Madison, Wis., writes: So I just read the piece on how many of the B1G coaches and Jim Delany support to increase the win requirements to go to a bowl from the current 6-6 to 7-5. I agree with that and also the fact that a fan bases of a 6-6 team is less enthused to have to pay all the costs involved with going to a bowl game and that some fans and students ultimately don't go because its not worth it. However, I also agree with coaches that the extra game and more importantly practice time that goes along with a bowl game is greatly beneficial to a 6-6 team. I have an idea that will please everyone involved: 6-6 teams get cut from being in a bowl game. However, they are permitted to play an extra game with a school in their region and that the game would be held at the one of the school's football stadiums. Don't know how that would be decided but everyone involved wins. Coaches get their game and fans get it closer and cheaper.
Brian Bennett: I'm divided on my opinion about whether 6-6 teams should go bowling. On the one hand, I believe there are too many bowl games and that teams should have to accomplish more than merely going .500. How much, for example, did Purdue gain by going to a bowl last year, as the Boilermakers fired coach Danny Hope the day after they clinched postseason eligibility and then got embarrassed by Oklahoma State? On the other hand, bowls still provide us entertainment in December, and more college football is rarely a bad thing. I'm much more in favor of 6-6 teams going to bowls if they play a nine-game conference schedule. That's much more of an achievement, since programs can't simply schedule four nonconference patsies and then go 2-6 in the league and declare their season a success. I'm surprised a team like Indiana, which will have its hands full in the East Division, supports the seven-win requirement.
As for your idea, Mike, I'm not exactly sold. A large part of the appeal for a 6-6 team to go bowling is that the players get a nice trip somewhere warm and a bowl-like experience out of it. Who would have gotten fired up last year for, say, Purdue at Central Michigan or Iowa State at Minnesota last December in the cold?
Rob NitLion from Morristown, N.J., writes: Bennett! Long time since I last emailed you. Please PLEASE tell me that with the new bowl scheduling partnerships the B1G will no longer have 5 schools playing at the same time on New Year's Day...as a B1G fan, I cannot stand missing the Rose Bowl because there are other attractive B1G matchups at the same time. I'm hoping Delaney has found some way to facilitate changing the times or dates of some of these bowl games as to not have B1G fans scrambling to try to catch multiple games at the same time on New Year's Day. Even if your team isn't playing in the Rose Bowl, as a college football fan, specifically a B1G fan, who doesn't want to watch the Rose Bowl and all its Pagentry? I know the Capital One and Outback bowls are probably remaining in the B1G bowl line up, but do you foresee any chance that there are changes so the times are not conflicting with the Rose Bowl?
Brian Bennett: I don't think that avoiding overlapping times is a major concern for the Big Ten as it tries to find the best bowl lineup. However, it's inevitable that we'll see some changes in that regard as the new lineup and the new playoff structure take hold. The playoff semifinals are going to own New Year's Day, so we'll have to see how that affects when the other bowls decide to kick off. There could still be several Big Ten teams playing at once, especially with the league holding onto ties with the Capital One and Outback bowls and sharing a slot with the ACC on the Gator. But with access to the Orange Bowl and other moves, I doubt we'll see as big of a Big Ten logjam in the bowls.
Aaron from Minneapolis, Minn., writes: As a Minnesota fan, I generally like the direction that the conference is going with non-conference scheduling. But I've heard a lot about how Iowa is being handcuffed by their annual tilt with Iowa State, and I was just wondering why this is a big deal. Lots of annual non-conference rivalries are going by the wayside these days (Michigan-ND, Florida-Miami, Nebraska-Oklahoma, etc.). While I understand that an in-state game is big for fans, I can't imagine Iowa fans will suddenly be at a loss for bad blood with Wisconsin, Minnesota, and even a potentially budding rivalry with Nebraska each year. And even if the game is not played annually, two games every four years would open up much more breathing room for Iowa to continue to schedule strong opponents on a regular basis. Am I completely off base here?
Brian Bennett: You're not wildly off base, Aaron, especially because the Iowa-Iowa State game doesn't really move the needle nationally. Still, I think it would be a shame to see that series end. I'm a huge proponent of in-state rivalries, especially in a state like Iowa where there are only two major programs. It's one thing for Florida and Miami not to play, but at least Florida-Florida State and Florida State-Miami continues. These are the kinds of rivalry games that keep friends, co-workers and neighbors talking year round within the state. I'd rather see Iowa test itself by playing one other marquee game in the nonconference schedule than losing the Iowa State series, though I understand why that's difficult with a nine-game league schedule. And speaking of in-state rivalries ...
Erik S. from Tallahassee, Fla., writes: With the renewal of the PSU-Pitt rivalry in 2016 and the dedication both sides feel about making the game happen every year, I'm hopeful that we'll get to see more of these games after the upcoming four-year contract is over. My question is that in the years Penn State plays Pitt, will that game become Penn State's required "one marquee nonconference game" or do you think another "Big Five" conference team would make the slate in addition?
Brian Bennett: There were some very encouraging comments last week from both sides about the future of the Penn State-Pitt rivalry, one that I think ought to return to being an annual affair. Penn State will have to decide how it wants to schedule its three nonconference games after 2016, and complicating matters is the NCAA probation. Do the Nittany Lions want to take on tough opponents as they're coming out of the sanctions era, or do they want to help themselves ease back into bowl contention? When at full strength, I absolutely think Penn State is the type of program that can handle playing Pitt and one other marquee, or at least major-conference, opponent every year. Given Pitt's near-perennial habit of underachieving, simply playing the Panthers probably wouldn't be enough to make the Nittany Lions' strength-of-schedule argument a compelling one in most years.
Bear rom Waco, Texas, writes: Baylor/Big 12 fan here just wanting to say props for the Big Ten agreeing to schedule nine conference games and no FCS opponents. The Big Ten, like every other conference, has its problems, but I really respect that y'all want to make create the highest quality football match-ups possible. So thanks Big Ten from down in Waco!
Brian Bennett: I guess it's always good to have a bear on your side, rather than the other way around.
Serving up the links at lunch because, well, it's my job.
- Kirk Ferentz opens up in this Q&A with Bryce Miller.
- True freshman Dymonte Thomas has a chance to contribute right away in the Michigan secondary. The Wolverines' hopes of landing a transfer quarterback are dimming. Jake Long offered counsel to Taylor Lewan about his draft decision.
- Mark Dantonio talks about the business of recruiting. Michigan State is upgrading its practice field. The Spartans' offensive assistants got bigger raises than their defensive counterparts.
- Jon Tevlin tries to figure out how Minnesota lost money selling beer at football games. Philip Nelson has a lot to work on this summer.
- Nebraska's pursuit of a top 2014 wide receiver is one to watch closely. Tim Beck's value to the Cornhuskers is clear, Sam McKewon writes.
- Wisconsin admirably is upgrading its nonconference schedules, but that might not benefit the fans who pay for seats at Camp Randall Stadium.
- He might not be the No. 1 tailback, but Rod Smith should play a key role in Ohio State's offense. Breaking down the Buckeyes' linebackers.
- Northwestern incoming freshman quarterback Matt Alviti is excited for the future.
- Why so many are still fighting for Joe Paterno. Another impressive "run-on" joins the Nittany Lions.
- A preview of Illinois' 2014 season.
- Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke wants his teams to break out of mediocrity.
- Big Ten teams should cut out their September snoozers, Lee Barfknecht writes.
Wishing you a great weekend. Follow us on Twitter.
Josh A. from D.C. writes: First of all, I recognize that "parity-based" scheduling wasn't set to begin until 2016 -- along with the introduction of the 9 game B1G slate ... My question is, why? What were the primary obstacles to matching up OSU/UM/PSU with UW/UNL and Iowa in 2014 and 2015?
Adam Rittenberg: Josh, I hear you on this and wish there were a few more appealing crossovers. One issue in 2014/15 is that teams play only two crossover games, not three. It made sense for the Big Ten to have new members Rutgers and Maryland play crossovers with Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa. The league wants to give its new members as many showcase-type games as possible right away. The thinking also is that after 2016, we'll see more Michigan-Nebraska, Wisconsin-Ohio State, Iowa-Penn State, so there's less of a need to load up on them these next two seasons. I wish the Big Ten had sprinkled in a Nebraska-Ohio State series or a Wisconsin-Michigan series, but we will see more of those games soon enough.
Andrew from New York writes: Quick follow up to your story on how the divisions came about. I don't think many Michigan fans are upset about playing at East Lansing in back to back seasons so much as they are concerned about the fact that having OSU and MSU in a home/home, away/away alignment creates tremendous imbalances in the quality of home game slates from year to year. The 2014 home slate is probably the least attractive set of home games Michigan has ever played, with a sanction-ridden Penn State probably the best game. At a time when fans have to pay upwards of $1000 for season tickets (including required donation) that's a pretty bad deal. With that said, do you have a sense whether the MSU/OSU alignment is a permanent thing or just an 8-game schedule thing?
Adam Rittenberg: Andrew, I understand your complaint, but Michigan isn't the only Big Team with an unappealing home schedule for 2014. Ask Nebraska fans how they feel about the Huskers' home slate that year. Nothing is permanent regarding scheduling, and the next model, which kicks off in 2016, could break up the MSU/OSU home-road thing for Michigan. I agree that it's more beneficial for Michigan and its fans to split those games home and road, but as I noted in Thursday's second scheduling post, athletic directors have never asked for rivalry games to be split up home/away. That's not one of the league-wide scheduling principles on which the ADs agree. All Big Ten fans have to be open to scheduling models changing, because there has been so much recent change in the league. Michigan's schedule could go back to the old format regarding Michigan State and Ohio State, or it could flip back and forth in the next few scheduling models.
Joffre from San Diego writes: Adam,I just looked over your analysis of the 2014 B1G schedules and I'm a bit irked that my Lions don't play Nebraska in 2014. Moreover, the crossover game between the 11th and 12th members of the conference is no longer protected and that's something that all of Nittany Nation has to be displeased with. The Huskers got the best of us in 2011 after Joe (got fired a few days before the game, and last year we were adjusting under a new defensive coordinator (Ted Roof) which led to poor performances against running QBs (Braxton Miller, Taylor Martinez). Where do Penn State and Nebraska fit into the big picture now that they're no longer the "new kids on the block"?
Adam Rittenberg: Joffre, as you might or might not know, the Big Ten eliminated all protected crossover games aside from Purdue-Indiana when aligning the new East and West divisions. The goal is to protect as many rivalries within the division structure and create broader crossover rotations so that each team plays every other team at least once every four years. So Penn State and Nebraska no longer will play annually. The good news for you is that with parity-based scheduling coming in 2016, Penn State will play Nebraska -- as well as Wisconsin and Iowa -- more often than other West division teams in the first 18 years of the scheduling model. I liked the Huskers-Lions games as well, but I think it's more important to establish a structure that eliminates massive gaps between matchups like Illinois-Iowa, which last met in 2008 and won't meet again until 2014.
Tom from New Brunswick, N.J., writes: Hi Adam, a Nittany Lion in Rutgers country. With all of this talk about 7-5 vs 6-6 bowl eligibility, 9 game conference schedule, needing 7 home games for balancing a budget and out of conference rivalries tying up schedules it seems to me there is one solution that is inevitable...a 13 game regular season. How far away do you think this really is or is it a reality? It seems to me it would solve a lot of issues.
Adam Rittenberg: You know, Tom, I've thought a lot about the possibility of a 13-game schedule these past few months. The money is only going up, most leagues are playing more conference games and it seems like every major-conference school -- traditional power or bottom feeder, big stadium or small -- demands seven home games per year. There would be some pushback from university presidents, especially with so much recent attention on concussions in football. But these folks always have a hard time passing up money, and there's more of it to be made with a longer schedule. I don't think anything is imminent, but it's an issue worth monitoring going forward because of the issues you outline.
Rich from Des Moines, Iowa, writes: Adam, MAC teams can have a valid place on Big Ten teams' schedules so long as the rest of the non-conference games are scheduled correctly. They way I see it, given the financial realities that govern scheduling, Big Ten teams (and all upper-level conference teams for that matter) should schedule like this: 1 team from another big conference that is on about the same level as itself (Ohio State-Oklahoma; Iowa-Iowa State; Wisconsin-VaTech are good examples); 1 big conference team that is in the middle-tier (Nebraska-UCLA; Northwestern-California, etc.); and 1 game against a MAC team or similar opponent-preferably from inside the same state or nearby. A model for this is the MSU-EMU/CMU/WMU series, which is a great deal for all schools involved. I'm not saying Big Ten schools should make it a habit of playing at MAC schools like MSU is doing in this series, but scheduling in-state MAC teams is a good idea. Paramount is avoiding playing FCS schools or schools like UAB or Troy or any other low-hanging fruit from far away places. I think this scheduling philosophy results in maximizing the number of well-rounded, manageable schedules that meet financial obligations and produce interesting games with national appeal that Big Ten fans will enjoy. What do you think?
Adam Rittenberg: As always, some good thoughts here, Rich. The problem for athletic directors isn't so much the MAC game, but that second game against a major-conference foe. The UCLAs and Californias are going to want home-and-homes, and it's hard for athletic directors to structure things so they have two simultaneous non-league home-and-home series plus at least seven total home games per season. That's very difficult, especially with at least five guaranteed road games every other year as part of the Big Ten's nine-game league schedule. I'm fine with Big Ten-MAC games, as long as non-league schedules also include more marquee opponents. And while I'd love to see Big Ten teams adopt your model, too many ADs have told me they're resistant to that second major-conference series.
Steve Z. from Lafayette, Ind., writes: Is it just me, or is Northwestern getting screwed (again) with teams having Byes the week before playing NU? Five teams have bye before they play NU, and they are ALL division opponents!
Adam Rittenberg: Great observation, Steve, as that seems to be an odd trend for Northwestern in recent years. I don't think it's intentional, and bye-week avoidance, much like opening Big Ten play on the road year after year (read: Penn State), isn't among the scheduling principles the Big Ten athletic directors agreed on for the league office. While I understand the perception that Northwestern is getting screwed, if you look at recent results for teams coming off of open weeks, it's not nearly as favorable as you might imagine. In fact, many Big Ten teams seem to struggle more after a week off. Sure, it's a chance to get healthier, but there's no significant correlation with success.
Joel from Virginia Beach, Va., writes: I understand that the B1G has made a push to no longer schedule FCS games, and is encouraging a tougher non-conference slate, but with how the league has done the initial 2014 schedule, are there any plans to play league games earlier in the season? I think the brand will greatly benefit, by have exposure and big games (if only cross-over games) earlier in the schedule. I understand that there can be scheduling complications at this point, but there has to be some teams that this could work for? Or are we expecting more years of the MAC weekend slate?
Adam Rittenberg: Joel, the Big Ten is warming up to earlier league games, but the general attitude remains to play most if not all non-league games before entering the conference schedule. I doubt we'll see Big Ten teams open the season with league games any time soon, but putting 1-2 Big Ten games in Weeks 2 and 3 isn't a bad idea. The league certainly wants to avoid the MAC invitational weekends we've seen in the past, and hopefully, the directive to beef up non-league scheduling will create at least a few appealing games every Saturday in September. I agree that the league brand could be enhanced with a sprinkling of league games in Weeks 2 and 3 going forward.
Barry from Sheboygan, Wis., writes: I find it interesting that Purdue is considered an also-ran at basketball in the B1G. Note that Purdue has a winning record overall against every school in the B1G and has more B1G championships than every other school. Even recently, Purdue has been one of the top schools in the B1G. Just because we had an off year, it doesn't diminish what the school has accomplished over its history including the majority of the last 5 years.
Adam Rittenberg: Barry, that post was more about recruiting prowess than on-court success. I included Purdue among the Big Ten programs that could rise up to a nationally elite level in recruiting, but might not do so year after year. It had nothing to do with the Boilers' on-court success, which has been very impressive. Purdue finished No. 19 in RecruitingNation's basketball class rankings for 2012, but didn't make the Top 25 in 2011, 2010 or 2009. That speaks to my point -- Purdue has the ability to rise up in recruiting, but might not be among the nation's elite as often as other Big Ten programs.
T.C. from Philadelphia writes: Adam -- I just read your recent article on the Big Ten ADs new focus on game-day improvements and I just have one thing to say....Are you kidding me Michigan State??? Students didn't show up for the Iowa game in the rain last year because they couldn't text!?!? Hollis should have kept that one to himself, because that is embarrassing. Hopefully that was not the primary reason for most students not attending the game, because if it was, that says a lot about the students at MSU and their commitment to their football program. I graduated from PSU two years ago and I can say from experience that students at Penn State, Ohio State and other Big Ten schools would never even think about this is a reason to not attend a game. It rained all day and night for the Iowa/PSU game a few years ago when Iowa beat us at night ... My phone was broken the next day from the rain -- I never thought "oh man, I should have stayed home last night."
Adam Rittenberg: T.C., I doubt the rain was the only reason some Michigan State students stayed away that day, as the team also was off to a disappointing start after lofty preseason expectations. Hollis' greater point is that students/fans are looking for different things in their game-day experience now than 10-15 years ago. Having good Wi-Fi in the stadium is important, and not just for sportswriters like me who pin their livelihood on it. Supplying good video, audio and out-of-town scores is important as well. These schools need to make the in-game experience comparable with what you get at home. Penn State student support for games is among the best in the country, if not the best. But Michigan has had major problems getting its students to show up for noon kickoffs. Athletic director Dave Brandon this week called student turnout "unacceptable." So it's not just Michigan State. All schools have to be cognizant of what it will take to either bring students back to games or, in the case of Penn State, keep them there for years to come.
Josh A. from D.C. writes: First of all, I recognize that "parity-based" scheduling wasn't set to begin until 2016 -- along with the introduction of the 9 game B1G slate ... My question is, why? What were the primary obstacles to matching up OSU/UM/PSU with UW/UNL and Iowa in 2014 and 2015?
Adam Rittenberg: Josh, I hear you on this and wish there were a few more appealing crossovers. One issue in 2014/15 is that teams play only two crossover games, not three. It made sense for the Big Ten to have new members Rutgers and Maryland play crossovers with Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa. The league wants to give its new members as many showcase-type games as possible right away. The thinking also is that after 2016, we'll see more Michigan-Nebraska, Wisconsin-Ohio State, Iowa-Penn State, so there's less of a need to load up on them these next two seasons. I wish the Big Ten had sprinkled in a Nebraska-Ohio State series or a Wisconsin-Michigan series, but we will see more of those games soon enough.
Andrew from New York writes: Quick follow up to your story on how the divisions came about. I don't think many Michigan fans are upset about playing at East Lansing in back to back seasons so much as they are concerned about the fact that having OSU and MSU in a home/home, away/away alignment creates tremendous imbalances in the quality of home game slates from year to year. The 2014 home slate is probably the least attractive set of home games Michigan has ever played, with a sanction-ridden Penn State probably the best game. At a time when fans have to pay upwards of $1000 for season tickets (including required donation) that's a pretty bad deal. With that said, do you have a sense whether the MSU/OSU alignment is a permanent thing or just an 8-game schedule thing?
Adam Rittenberg: Andrew, I understand your complaint, but Michigan isn't the only Big Team with an unappealing home schedule for 2014. Ask Nebraska fans how they feel about the Huskers' home slate that year. Nothing is permanent regarding scheduling, and the next model, which kicks off in 2016, could break up the MSU/OSU home-road thing for Michigan. I agree that it's more beneficial for Michigan and its fans to split those games home and road, but as I noted in Thursday's second scheduling post, athletic directors have never asked for rivalry games to be split up home/away. That's not one of the league-wide scheduling principles on which the ADs agree. All Big Ten fans have to be open to scheduling models changing, because there has been so much recent change in the league. Michigan's schedule could go back to the old format regarding Michigan State and Ohio State, or it could flip back and forth in the next few scheduling models.
Joffre from San Diego writes: Adam,I just looked over your analysis of the 2014 B1G schedules and I'm a bit irked that my Lions don't play Nebraska in 2014. Moreover, the crossover game between the 11th and 12th members of the conference is no longer protected and that's something that all of Nittany Nation has to be displeased with. The Huskers got the best of us in 2011 after Joe (got fired a few days before the game, and last year we were adjusting under a new defensive coordinator (Ted Roof) which led to poor performances against running QBs (Braxton Miller, Taylor Martinez). Where do Penn State and Nebraska fit into the big picture now that they're no longer the "new kids on the block"?
Adam Rittenberg: Joffre, as you might or might not know, the Big Ten eliminated all protected crossover games aside from Purdue-Indiana when aligning the new East and West divisions. The goal is to protect as many rivalries within the division structure and create broader crossover rotations so that each team plays every other team at least once every four years. So Penn State and Nebraska no longer will play annually. The good news for you is that with parity-based scheduling coming in 2016, Penn State will play Nebraska -- as well as Wisconsin and Iowa -- more often than other West division teams in the first 18 years of the scheduling model. I liked the Huskers-Lions games as well, but I think it's more important to establish a structure that eliminates massive gaps between matchups like Illinois-Iowa, which last met in 2008 and won't meet again until 2014.
Tom from New Brunswick, N.J., writes: Hi Adam, a Nittany Lion in Rutgers country. With all of this talk about 7-5 vs 6-6 bowl eligibility, 9 game conference schedule, needing 7 home games for balancing a budget and out of conference rivalries tying up schedules it seems to me there is one solution that is inevitable...a 13 game regular season. How far away do you think this really is or is it a reality? It seems to me it would solve a lot of issues.
Adam Rittenberg: You know, Tom, I've thought a lot about the possibility of a 13-game schedule these past few months. The money is only going up, most leagues are playing more conference games and it seems like every major-conference school -- traditional power or bottom feeder, big stadium or small -- demands seven home games per year. There would be some pushback from university presidents, especially with so much recent attention on concussions in football. But these folks always have a hard time passing up money, and there's more of it to be made with a longer schedule. I don't think anything is imminent, but it's an issue worth monitoring going forward because of the issues you outline.
Rich from Des Moines, Iowa, writes: Adam, MAC teams can have a valid place on Big Ten teams' schedules so long as the rest of the non-conference games are scheduled correctly. They way I see it, given the financial realities that govern scheduling, Big Ten teams (and all upper-level conference teams for that matter) should schedule like this: 1 team from another big conference that is on about the same level as itself (Ohio State-Oklahoma; Iowa-Iowa State; Wisconsin-VaTech are good examples); 1 big conference team that is in the middle-tier (Nebraska-UCLA; Northwestern-California, etc.); and 1 game against a MAC team or similar opponent-preferably from inside the same state or nearby. A model for this is the MSU-EMU/CMU/WMU series, which is a great deal for all schools involved. I'm not saying Big Ten schools should make it a habit of playing at MAC schools like MSU is doing in this series, but scheduling in-state MAC teams is a good idea. Paramount is avoiding playing FCS schools or schools like UAB or Troy or any other low-hanging fruit from far away places. I think this scheduling philosophy results in maximizing the number of well-rounded, manageable schedules that meet financial obligations and produce interesting games with national appeal that Big Ten fans will enjoy. What do you think?
Adam Rittenberg: As always, some good thoughts here, Rich. The problem for athletic directors isn't so much the MAC game, but that second game against a major-conference foe. The UCLAs and Californias are going to want home-and-homes, and it's hard for athletic directors to structure things so they have two simultaneous non-league home-and-home series plus at least seven total home games per season. That's very difficult, especially with at least five guaranteed road games every other year as part of the Big Ten's nine-game league schedule. I'm fine with Big Ten-MAC games, as long as non-league schedules also include more marquee opponents. And while I'd love to see Big Ten teams adopt your model, too many ADs have told me they're resistant to that second major-conference series.
Steve Z. from Lafayette, Ind., writes: Is it just me, or is Northwestern getting screwed (again) with teams having Byes the week before playing NU? Five teams have bye before they play NU, and they are ALL division opponents!
Adam Rittenberg: Great observation, Steve, as that seems to be an odd trend for Northwestern in recent years. I don't think it's intentional, and bye-week avoidance, much like opening Big Ten play on the road year after year (read: Penn State), isn't among the scheduling principles the Big Ten athletic directors agreed on for the league office. While I understand the perception that Northwestern is getting screwed, if you look at recent results for teams coming off of open weeks, it's not nearly as favorable as you might imagine. In fact, many Big Ten teams seem to struggle more after a week off. Sure, it's a chance to get healthier, but there's no significant correlation with success.
Joel from Virginia Beach, Va., writes: I understand that the B1G has made a push to no longer schedule FCS games, and is encouraging a tougher non-conference slate, but with how the league has done the initial 2014 schedule, are there any plans to play league games earlier in the season? I think the brand will greatly benefit, by have exposure and big games (if only cross-over games) earlier in the schedule. I understand that there can be scheduling complications at this point, but there has to be some teams that this could work for? Or are we expecting more years of the MAC weekend slate?
Adam Rittenberg: Joel, the Big Ten is warming up to earlier league games, but the general attitude remains to play most if not all non-league games before entering the conference schedule. I doubt we'll see Big Ten teams open the season with league games any time soon, but putting 1-2 Big Ten games in Weeks 2 and 3 isn't a bad idea. The league certainly wants to avoid the MAC invitational weekends we've seen in the past, and hopefully, the directive to beef up non-league scheduling will create at least a few appealing games every Saturday in September. I agree that the league brand could be enhanced with a sprinkling of league games in Weeks 2 and 3 going forward.
Barry from Sheboygan, Wis., writes: I find it interesting that Purdue is considered an also-ran at basketball in the B1G. Note that Purdue has a winning record overall against every school in the B1G and has more B1G championships than every other school. Even recently, Purdue has been one of the top schools in the B1G. Just because we had an off year, it doesn't diminish what the school has accomplished over its history including the majority of the last 5 years.
Adam Rittenberg: Barry, that post was more about recruiting prowess than on-court success. I included Purdue among the Big Ten programs that could rise up to a nationally elite level in recruiting, but might not do so year after year. It had nothing to do with the Boilers' on-court success, which has been very impressive. Purdue finished No. 19 in RecruitingNation's basketball class rankings for 2012, but didn't make the Top 25 in 2011, 2010 or 2009. That speaks to my point -- Purdue has the ability to rise up in recruiting, but might not be among the nation's elite as often as other Big Ten programs.
T.C. from Philadelphia writes: Adam -- I just read your recent article on the Big Ten ADs new focus on game-day improvements and I just have one thing to say....Are you kidding me Michigan State??? Students didn't show up for the Iowa game in the rain last year because they couldn't text!?!? Hollis should have kept that one to himself, because that is embarrassing. Hopefully that was not the primary reason for most students not attending the game, because if it was, that says a lot about the students at MSU and their commitment to their football program. I graduated from PSU two years ago and I can say from experience that students at Penn State, Ohio State and other Big Ten schools would never even think about this is a reason to not attend a game. It rained all day and night for the Iowa/PSU game a few years ago when Iowa beat us at night ... My phone was broken the next day from the rain -- I never thought "oh man, I should have stayed home last night."
Adam Rittenberg: T.C., I doubt the rain was the only reason some Michigan State students stayed away that day, as the team also was off to a disappointing start after lofty preseason expectations. Hollis' greater point is that students/fans are looking for different things in their game-day experience now than 10-15 years ago. Having good Wi-Fi in the stadium is important, and not just for sportswriters like me who pin their livelihood on it. Supplying good video, audio and out-of-town scores is important as well. These schools need to make the in-game experience comparable with what you get at home. Penn State student support for games is among the best in the country, if not the best. But Michigan has had major problems getting its students to show up for noon kickoffs. Athletic director Dave Brandon this week called student turnout "unacceptable." So it's not just Michigan State. All schools have to be cognizant of what it will take to either bring students back to games or, in the case of Penn State, keep them there for years to come.
Michigan tops latest recruiting rankings
May, 17, 2013
May 17
1:00
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
It's still early, but the tide could be turning a little for Big Ten recruiting.
The league undoubtedly has moved down a few pegs on the recruiting ladder in recent years, a drop that can be tied to poor on-field performance, a lack of national titles or plain ol' geography. But the outlook for the 2014 recruiting class looks good for the league, at least on May 17.
Michigan tops RecruitingNation's latest class rankings, rising two spots to No. 1 after securing a commitment from ESPN 150 defensive end Lawrence Marshall last weekend. The Wolverines have eight ESPN 150 commits in the fold in a nine-man class so far.
Ohio State and Penn State hold steady at Nos. 13 and 14 in the rankings. The Buckeyes almost surely will rise as they bring in more recruits, and Penn State, despite the sanctions and reduced scholarships, is well on its way to compiling a strong 2014 class. The Lions have an ESPN 150 prospect in athlete De'Andre Thompkins and two other four-star selections.
The big surprise in the league is Northwestern, which has risen two spots to No. 17 in the class rankings. The Wildcats have 10 commits, the most in the Big Ten, and are more than halfway done with a class that should be the best in coach Pat Fitzgerald's tenure. Northwestern's recent pickups include running backs Justin Jackson and Auston Anderson, as well as offensive lineman Blake Hance.
No other Big Ten teams are currently in the top 25, but Michigan State, Wisconsin and Iowa aren't too far off and should rise once they pick up more pledges.
For more on recruiting, go here and here.
The league undoubtedly has moved down a few pegs on the recruiting ladder in recent years, a drop that can be tied to poor on-field performance, a lack of national titles or plain ol' geography. But the outlook for the 2014 recruiting class looks good for the league, at least on May 17.
Michigan tops RecruitingNation's latest class rankings, rising two spots to No. 1 after securing a commitment from ESPN 150 defensive end Lawrence Marshall last weekend. The Wolverines have eight ESPN 150 commits in the fold in a nine-man class so far.
Ohio State and Penn State hold steady at Nos. 13 and 14 in the rankings. The Buckeyes almost surely will rise as they bring in more recruits, and Penn State, despite the sanctions and reduced scholarships, is well on its way to compiling a strong 2014 class. The Lions have an ESPN 150 prospect in athlete De'Andre Thompkins and two other four-star selections.
The big surprise in the league is Northwestern, which has risen two spots to No. 17 in the class rankings. The Wildcats have 10 commits, the most in the Big Ten, and are more than halfway done with a class that should be the best in coach Pat Fitzgerald's tenure. Northwestern's recent pickups include running backs Justin Jackson and Auston Anderson, as well as offensive lineman Blake Hance.
No other Big Ten teams are currently in the top 25, but Michigan State, Wisconsin and Iowa aren't too far off and should rise once they pick up more pledges.
For more on recruiting, go here and here.
Tan, rested and ready after a week in Aruba. Well, maybe not tan.
- Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon says the 2014 home game against Penn State could be a night game. Brandon says student no-shows at the Big House are "unacceptable."
- Mark Hollis talks about keeping the Michigan State-Notre Dame game alive. Mark Dantonio says the Spartans "re-assessed" recruit turned rapper Jay Harris.
- Sixteen significant changes made by Bill O'Brien at Penn State. O'Brien's job is still more than just football. Matt McGloin signed with the Raiders.
- What sticks out about Nebraska's 2014 slate is who's not on it. Logan Rath took a different path toward walking on for the Huskers.
- Northwestern got a commitment from an offensive tackle.
- Ohio State's 2014 schedule looks unimposing. Examining the base pass plays in the Buckeyes' offense.
- Purdue will travel to Indiana in back-to-back years for the first time ever.
- Wisconsin picked up a running back from Utah, but he'll go on a Mormon mission before coming to Madison. The Badgers will get an early look at the new guys in the Big Ten in 2014.
- The stars are aligning for a 2014 resurgence by Iowa. The Hawkeyes skip many of the Big Ten powers that year.
- Minnesota's Derrick Wells and Cedric Thompson are mentoring high school students. Analyzing the Gophers' 2014 schedule.
- The 2014 schedule didn't make things easy for Illinois.
- Winners and losers in the 2014 schedule. Tom Dienhart breaks down the '14 slate.
Seven from B1G on Lott Trophy watch list
May, 17, 2013
May 17
11:00
AM ET
By
Brian Bennett | ESPN.com
Is it really already time for preseason watch lists? I guess football must be getting near.
The Lott IMPACT Trophy has released its 2013 watch list, and it includes seven Big Ten players on the initial group of 42 nominees. The award goes to the defensive player who makes the biggest impact for his team on and off the field.
The Big Ten players on the list are:
Borland and Bullough also made the 2012 watch list. Notre Dame's Manti Te'o won the award last year, and Wisconsin's J.J. Watt (2010) was the last winner from the Big Ten.
The Lott IMPACT Trophy has released its 2013 watch list, and it includes seven Big Ten players on the initial group of 42 nominees. The award goes to the defensive player who makes the biggest impact for his team on and off the field.
The Big Ten players on the list are:
- Chris Borland, LB, Wisconsin
- Max Bullough, LB, Michigan State
- Ibraheim Campbell, DB, Northwestern
- James Morris, LB, Iowa
- Damien Proby, LB, Northwestern
- Bradley Roby, CB, Ohio State
- Ryan Shazier, LB, Ohio State
Borland and Bullough also made the 2012 watch list. Notre Dame's Manti Te'o won the award last year, and Wisconsin's J.J. Watt (2010) was the last winner from the Big Ten.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Adam Rittenberg
Rittenberg joined ESPN.com in 2008 after four years at the Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald, where he covered sports at Notre Dame, Northwestern, DePaul and several other colleges. He lives in Chicago.
Brian Bennett
Bennett joined ESPN.com in August 2008 after nine years at The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., where he covered college sports and the University of Louisville beat. He lives in Louisville.
BIG TEN TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
Michigan: WolverineNation
Follow everything Michigan at WolverineNation: Michigan Wolverines football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
RECRUITING NATION
Ohio State: BuckeyeNation
Follow everything Ohio State at BuckeyeNation: Ohio State Buckeyes football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
