The BIG. Outside of having three teams ranked in the Top 6, the rest of the conference is mediocre to bad. The conference is currently the very definition of “top-heavy.” Michigan and Illinois are flirting at the bottom of the Top 25, but they have a low ceiling.

The BIG Blows

The B1G is no better than the PAC-12 was. In fact, the PAC-12 was probably deeper. You just have inflated rankings due to the media bias.

Most years, the PAC-12 had a couple of really strong teams (Washington and Oregon the final season, Stanford and Oregon during the Chip Kelly years) and anyone in the conference could beat you, if you didn’t show up, especially on the road. USC has been down for a long time (and that didn’t help the image of the PAC-12) but under Coach Carroll they were the best program in college football. Ohio State is as good as any program in the nation right now (I’m not sold on Indiana and we’ll see how good our Ducks are).

Is anyone worried about losing to Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern, etc al. Heck some teams can’t even score an offensive touchdown. It’s funny watching some of the top teams from new conferences going into the State of Arizona and losing. That Stanford can beat you, if you don’t bring it.

Edited 9 hours ago9 hr by OregonDucks

Maybe the B1G needed the PAC as much as we needed them?

53 minutes ago, 1Ducker1 said:

Maybe the B1G needed the PAC as much as we needed them?

There was certainly special, though completely underestimated about the Pac-12.

This is a strange year. Penn State probably exercised too much patience (which isn't always a bad thing) with James Franklin and they finally crashed. However, I don't see them being down for long. They'll get a good coach and be back in the top 3-4 teams in the B1G. The patience they showed with Franklin will help them attract a really good HC who can concentrate on building his program and not being worried about losing his job in the first couple of years. They will also spare no money for resources.

Indiana is a strange situation. Cignetti is a great coach, but he likes to rely on developing 3-star recruits while backfilling with role players from the portal. I almost get a Kalen DeBoer-at-Washington feel about Cignetti because he does really well with his former players (from JMU) and other people's players. They always say you need the Jimmy's and Joe's to win championships. Can he get highly ranked recruits to come to Bloomington? Time will tell. I see them as having a few great years mixed with years of 7, 8, 9 win seasons.

Wisconsin needs two things to happen in order to get back in the top 25. First, they need to spend money. Second, they need to hire the right coach who fits their DNA. Pat Fitzgerald would be a great fit in my opinion. However, nothing is going to change until they get into the arms race. Big O-linemen and great RB's are no longer going to come to Madison because of their reputation for producing NFL prospects at those positions. They're going to follow the money.

USC and UW are doing fine. No need for them to make improvements.

Darren...thank you for the article reminding us of the puzzle that is the Big-10. You are quite right, in that it is top-heavy, and the depth is very pedestrian. So I wondered, "why" so many of these teams are in an exalted status of being in the Big-10, when their track record would not justify it?

Answer: Because their alumni bases are HUGE. I had to check this and share...

School: Enrollment--Alumni Base

Oregon 24,000--250,000

Maryland 41,000--414,000 Big jump over Oregon and it gets worse

Michigan 52,000--700,000 Over double the Ducks already

Minnesota 56,000--641,000 The Gophers have more enrollment than Michigan?

Illinois 59,000 Unknown

Ohio State 67,000--600,000

Rutgers 70,000--600,000 What? Rutgers has the same alumni base, and more enrollment than Ohio State?

Penn State 89,000--788,000 It is the primary school in a big state...

Wisconsin 164,000--502,000 That enrollment number is spread over 13 universities in the UW system.

These are staggering numbers to me...so why would they want little Oregon? Minnesota is bigger than Michigan? Rutgers is bigger than Ohio State? Penn State is crazy-big, and Wisconsin is a forehead slap.

So Darren....you are right about the mediocre teams, but let's count our blessings, as those so-so teams (like that Rutgers team we just plastered) bring a ton of EYES to the TV ratings, and they have massive stadiums to serve their huge alumni base.

This tells me two things:

This is actually a perfect scenario, as we can beat a ton of teams that bring massive dollars to our games and telecasts. They have money and mediocrity--perfect cannon fodder!

Second? Damn...is Oregon punching above their weight class or what?

I've always been a bit surprised at the lack of investments from some schools in the B1G. I get that for some of these schools have other sports like basketball or hockey that are very important to their fanbases, but for instance a school like Minnesota, which is a massive institution just doesn't seem to have a lot of money in football. It took them forever to get their own stadium, and while Minnesota isn't exactly swarming with recruits, it is the only game in town.

Wisconsin I wouldn't include in the disappointing programs since for much of this century they have been in and around a top 25 program, classic school that once ever 5 years had a really good team, you could probably include Iowa in this.

Illinois is another one, massive school, only state school that has major college football, St. Louis, Chicagoland, you can't find the talent or the money to make that next jump? I know in this case Notre Dame is huge contributor to this, but I feel like if there was the commitment to football that is another program that could be much better.

Maryland should be better as a program, you have D.C, Baltimore, Virginia, close to New Jersey as well for a recruiting bed, I'm sure there is some money in that alumni base (heck Scott Van Pelt should have tons from ESPN😂).

You will always have basement dwellers, but a few of these programs have to be considered underachieving overall. Funnily enough the one program I would not expect to be better is Indiana. You have Notre Dame in the state, and your entire state is traditionally obsessed with basketball.

I do think when you talk about Oregon, we are unique in college football, and while our athletic department should be praised for its ability to maximize our strengths, nobody else has the benefit of being Nike's testbed for innovations, nobody has our branding, and nobody has the single donor like Phil Knight.

We are one single donor away from being right where OSU and WSU are now. Credit Oregon for making the hiring choices, the innovations, the marketing, all of that, but none of it happens without Uncle Phil. Anyone of the universities mentioned above could have been us if they had a figure and company behind them (Maryland has UnderArmor...but c'mon that's not the same as Nike)

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by spartan2785

49 minutes ago, Charles Fischer said:

Penn State 89,000--788,000 It is the primary school in a big state...

I wonder if Penn State’s numbers include all of the state’s campuses, not just the flagship in University Park. It didn’t feel like that much bigger of a campus to me compared to a UCLA or a Washington.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by OregonDucks

6 hours ago, OregonDucks said:

The B1G is no better than the PAC-12 was. In fact, the PAC-12 was probably deeper. You just have inflated rankings due to the media bias.

Most years, the PAC-12 had a couple of really strong teams (Washington and Oregon the final season, Stanford and Oregon during the Chip Kelly years) and anyone in the conference could beat you, if you didn’t show up, especially on the road. USC has been down for a long time (and that didn’t help the image of the PAC-12) but under Coach Carroll they were the best program in college football. Ohio State is as good as any program in the nation right now (I’m not sold on Indiana and we’ll see how good our Ducks are).

Is anyone worried about losing to Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern, etc al. Heck some teams can’t even score an offensive touchdown. It’s funny watching some of the top teams from new conferences going into the State of Arizona and losing. That Stanford can beat you, if you don’t bring it.

Yes, before expansion two years ago, if it wasn't for the recent elite consistency of Ohio State (one year of Michigan), the B1G would be the current Big 12. But, it's all about the tv eyeballs.

2 hours ago, 1Ducker1 said:

Maybe the B1G needed the PAC as much as we needed them?

Sure looks like it. The Ducks brought some weight to the conference.

1 hour ago, DrJacksPlaidPants said:

This is a strange year. Penn State probably exercised too much patience (which isn't always a bad thing) with James Franklin and they finally crashed. However, I don't see them being down for long. They'll get a good coach and be back in the top 3-4 teams in the B1G. The patience they showed with Franklin will help them attract a really good HC who can concentrate on building his program and not being worried about losing his job in the first couple of years. They will also spare no money for resources.

Indiana is a strange situation. Cignetti is a great coach, but he likes to rely on developing 3-star recruits while backfilling with role players from the portal. I almost get a Kalen DeBoer-at-Washington feel about Cignetti because he does really well with his former players (from JMU) and other people's players. They always say you need the Jimmy's and Joe's to win championships. Can he get highly ranked recruits to come to Bloomington? Time will tell. I see them as having a few great years mixed with years of 7, 8, 9 win seasons.

Wisconsin needs two things to happen in order to get back in the top 25. First, they need to spend money. Second, they need to hire the right coach who fits their DNA. Pat Fitzgerald would be a great fit in my opinion. However, nothing is going to change until they get into the arms race. Big O-linemen and great RB's are no longer going to come to Madison because of their reputation for producing NFL prospects at those positions. They're going to follow the money.

USC and UW are doing fine. No need for them to make improvements.

Yeah, Wisconsin is interesting, we'll see if they can play the new NIL game of college football.

1 hour ago, Charles Fischer said:

Darren...thank you for the article reminding us of the puzzle that is the Big-10. You are quite right, in that it is top-heavy, and the depth is very pedestrian. So I wondered, "why" so many of these teams are in an exalted status of being in the Big-10, when their track record would not justify it?

Answer: Because their alumni bases are HUGE. I had to check this and share...

School: Enrollment--Alumni Base

Oregon 24,000--250,000

Maryland 41,000--414,000 Big jump over Oregon and it gets worse

Michigan 52,000--700,000 Over double the Ducks already

Minnesota 56,000--641,000 The Gophers have more enrollment than Michigan?

Illinois 59,000 Unknown

Ohio State 67,000--600,000

Rutgers 70,000--600,000 What? Rutgers has the same alumni base, and more enrollment than Ohio State?

Penn State 89,000--788,000 It is the primary school in a big state...

Wisconsin 164,000--502,000 That enrollment number is spread over 13 universities in the UW system.

These are staggering numbers to me...so why would they want little Oregon? Minnesota is bigger than Michigan? Rutgers is bigger than Ohio State? Penn State is crazy-big, and Wisconsin is a forehead slap.

So Darren....you are right about the mediocre teams, but let's count our blessings, as those so-so teams (like that Rutgers team we just plastered) bring a ton of EYES to the TV ratings, and they have massive stadiums to serve their huge alumni base.

This tells me two things:

This is actually a perfect scenario, as we can beat a ton of teams that bring massive dollars to our games and telecasts. They have money and mediocrity--perfect cannon fodder!

Second? Damn...is Oregon punching above their weight class or what?

Ah yes, Uncle Phil, the great equalizer!

35 minutes ago, spartan2785 said:

I've always been a bit surprised at the lack of investments from some schools in the B1G. I get that for some of these schools have other sports like basketball or hockey that are very important to their fanbases, but for instance a school like Minnesota, which is a massive institution just doesn't seem to have a lot of money in football. It took them forever to get their own stadium, and while Minnesota isn't exactly swarming with recruits, it is the only game in town.

Wisconsin I wouldn't include in the disappointing programs since for much of this century they have been in and around a top 25 program, classic school that once ever 5 years had a really good team, you could probably include Iowa in this.

Illinois is another one, massive school, only state school that has major college football, St. Louis, Chicagoland, you can't find the talent or the money to make that next jump? I know in this case Notre Dame is huge contributor to this, but I feel like if there was the commitment to football that is another program that could be much better.

Maryland should be better as a program, you have D.C, Baltimore, Virginia, close to New Jersey as well for a recruiting bed, I'm sure there is some money in that alumni base (heck Scott Van Pelt should have tons from ESPN😂).

You will always have basement dwellers, but a few of these programs have to be considered underachieving overall. Funnily enough the one program I would not expect to be better is Indiana. You have Notre Dame in the state, and your entire state is traditionally obsessed with basketball.

I do think when you talk about Oregon, we are unique in college football, and while our athletic department should be praised for its ability to maximize our strengths, nobody else has the benefit of being Nike's testbed for innovations, nobody has our branding, and nobody has the single donor like Phil Knight.

We are one single donor away from being right where OSU and WSU are now. Credit Oregon for making the hiring choices, the innovations, the marketing, all of that, but none of it happens without Uncle Phil. Anyone of the universities mentioned above could have been us if they had a figure and company behind them (Maryland has UnderArmor...but c'mon that's not the same as Nike)

The Gophers!? The only game in town?! My left foot!!!

It's difficult to compare OBD in the PAC to OBD in the B1G because the team of today is very different from the team Mario coached. We have substantially bigger, faster and better players than Mario had. The coaching staff is the best ever at Oregon, by far. We have never had the depth at skill player positions and defensive backs that we have today.

And, we are a real player in NIL, which means Bo Nix, Dillon Gabriel, and current players like Kenyon Sadiq, Dakorian Moore and many in the trenches on both sides of the ball. The thread about the QB room on this site tells us we have six QB's who would be starting at other PAC of old schools plus there is farmed out Saopolotele who was a Duck only long enough to realize he was not going to play much for a while. If we want him back, he'll be here, in my opinion.

We are not the only program that has improved in the B1G, obviously, but the PAC companions that made the move with us have not improved. Regardless of what conference your team lands in, the message in college football today is get better or fail.

Thanks, Darren.

With so few P4 games out of conference, it's difficult to get a top-to-bottom read of any conference. The SEC's mid to lower-level teams will be ranked notwithstanding losses to SEC opponents.

Two-loss Texas, LSU, and Tennessee are ranked. Two-loss Minnesota, Iowa, Washington, Northwestern, Nebraska, and USC are not ranked. SEC folks will defend the rankings, and not without justification, all day long. However, AP voters will give the nod to brand names, like the ranked two-loss SEC teams.

FWIW - Minnesota has a W over ranked Nebraska, Nebraska has a W over 21 Cincinnati, two weeks ago, SC blew out No. 25 Michigan. UW's two losses came against No. 1 Ohio State and a ranked Michigan team on the road. 2-loss Iowa suffered a 3-point loss on the road at Iowa State, and shut down the Indiana offense. Northwestern? With the first game loss at Tulane, I got nothin'. 😁

Man versus Machine - After Week 8, Massey Rankings include No. 1 Ohio State, No. 2 Indiana, No. 5 OBD, No. 14 Michigan, No. 17 USC, No. 20 Iowa, No. 22 Washington, No. 26 Illinois, and No. 30 Nebraska. Half of the conference is ranked in the top 30. The B1G is behind only the other Power 2 conference, the SEC.

In 2025, the SEC went 2-1 versus the B1G. Ohio State defeated Texas in Columbus, Oklahoma defeated Michigan in Norman, and Wisconsin no-showed against Bama in Tuscaloosa, as is the case versus every Baggers' B1G opponent in 2025.

In 2024-25, Tennessee and Texas lost to Ohio State. No.1 Michigan defeated No. 4 Alabama in the Rose Bowl on 1/1/2024. In the 2024 postseason, 5-loss Michigan defeated Alabama, and 3-loss Illinois defeated South Carolina. The B1G was 11-6 in the postseason. The SEC went 6-10.

In today's CFB, a program's past does not define its current ability. Ohio State is the favorite to win the Natty, no surprise. But Indiana also has favorable odds.

I very much enjoyed the read, but I don't believe the B1G is any lower than the 2nd-best conference in CFB. With 18 teams in the conference, a few are going to stink.

PS - I believe Purdue has its guy in Barry Odom. Wisconsin is a Jeff Bromh or equivalent hire, away from success. Paul Chyrst should not have been fired.