"As John Riggins once said, you drive for show and you putt for dough … Big 10 hasn’t won a championship since MSU in 2000. Sorry that’s not a one game sample size."
Now that is one of those statements that makes astute readers think. I assume every regular reader of this board knows that the Big Ten since the day of its founding has been the wealthiest college sports conference. For most of that history of well more than 100 years the BT has been much wealthier than the second wealthiest conference. It is only in the last handful of years as the SEC has become so deeply excellent in football, far beyond the dominance of any conference ever, that it has come close to equaling the wealth of the BT. And now the BT is in panic mode because the SEC adding Texas and OU definitely will become richer while making certain that BT football can never be as good top to bottom as the SEC.
The BT dearly loves its money and the status that goes with being the richest. It also dearly loves to use its media power to preen before the world as if it is indeed the best. The reality is that while the BT never can become less wealthy than 2nd richest, it also never can hope to equal the depth of football quality that the SEC unless it expands to as many as 24 teams with ND and major schools in CA, FL, GA, and the upper South. Only then could BT money and media control potentially deliver football depth of quality to match the SEC.
For a moment, let's step away from football to get back to basketball, which is the sport discussed in the thread from which the NDDad quote comes. If the BT's super wealth actually were able to deliver consistent top quality, surely it would do so in basketball. Where is the actual evidence? That fact of no National Champion since 2000 is very large fact. A drought of more than 20 years cannot be just about bad luck. But if being the richest league matters significantly and if the BT not winning it all were just bad luck at failing in one game, the Championship Game, then we would see over the following 22 Finals Four at least 22 total BT teams, at least a third of which had lost in the Championship Game, as well as more than another 22 that lost in the Elite 8. That would mean the BT has averaged 1 Final Four team per year and more than 2 Elite 8 teams per year.
Is that what we have seen? Of course not.
Not let's get back to football: the costliest sport and the most wealth producing. If being the richest means a good deal in terms of winning versus others with less money, then we should see BT dominance across time in football, the sport where money is biggest. And let's go back much farther than 2000, so we can see over the span of some 3 generations. Let's start with 1970 so we have a clear decade marker after the end of 1 platoon football and of segregation from Maryland all the way through Texas. And let's make direct comparison to the ACC, the little 'basketball' conference filled with smaller schools. If money means all that much, then the BT should have at least 3 times - maybe even 5 times - more National Champs in football than the ACC does.
Michigan - 1997; Ohio St 2002; Ohio St 2014.
So the richest league has a grand total of 3 over more than 50 years. That's some major football dominance right there, folks. That shows you the endless power of money to deliver quality teams. It also shows you the superiority of the Big Ten in the biggest sport. No wonder there are ND fans who assert that ACC football is boring because it is not nearly as good as BT football. Those same ND fans tend to speculate that if things continue to move so that ND must go full football membership in a conference, that the BT is the only choice because its huge money could not be passed by.
So how about the ACC, with easily the smallest student body average among P5 conferences, the only 'Major' conference to be assumed to be a 'basketball conference' rather than a 'football conference.'
Clemson - 1981; Georgia Tech - 1990; FSU - 1993; FSU - 1999; FSU - 2013; Clemson - 2016; Clemson - 2018.
So the smaller, poorer ACC, in what is not even the ACC's best sport, has more than double the National Champions that the super large, super rich Big Ten has produced?
Just how weak is BT football? Yes, BT football is filthy rich, and it has humongous hordes of goofy fans across the midwest, but its product is mediocre as can be.
Now that is one of those statements that makes astute readers think. I assume every regular reader of this board knows that the Big Ten since the day of its founding has been the wealthiest college sports conference. For most of that history of well more than 100 years the BT has been much wealthier than the second wealthiest conference. It is only in the last handful of years as the SEC has become so deeply excellent in football, far beyond the dominance of any conference ever, that it has come close to equaling the wealth of the BT. And now the BT is in panic mode because the SEC adding Texas and OU definitely will become richer while making certain that BT football can never be as good top to bottom as the SEC.
The BT dearly loves its money and the status that goes with being the richest. It also dearly loves to use its media power to preen before the world as if it is indeed the best. The reality is that while the BT never can become less wealthy than 2nd richest, it also never can hope to equal the depth of football quality that the SEC unless it expands to as many as 24 teams with ND and major schools in CA, FL, GA, and the upper South. Only then could BT money and media control potentially deliver football depth of quality to match the SEC.
For a moment, let's step away from football to get back to basketball, which is the sport discussed in the thread from which the NDDad quote comes. If the BT's super wealth actually were able to deliver consistent top quality, surely it would do so in basketball. Where is the actual evidence? That fact of no National Champion since 2000 is very large fact. A drought of more than 20 years cannot be just about bad luck. But if being the richest league matters significantly and if the BT not winning it all were just bad luck at failing in one game, the Championship Game, then we would see over the following 22 Finals Four at least 22 total BT teams, at least a third of which had lost in the Championship Game, as well as more than another 22 that lost in the Elite 8. That would mean the BT has averaged 1 Final Four team per year and more than 2 Elite 8 teams per year.
Is that what we have seen? Of course not.
Not let's get back to football: the costliest sport and the most wealth producing. If being the richest means a good deal in terms of winning versus others with less money, then we should see BT dominance across time in football, the sport where money is biggest. And let's go back much farther than 2000, so we can see over the span of some 3 generations. Let's start with 1970 so we have a clear decade marker after the end of 1 platoon football and of segregation from Maryland all the way through Texas. And let's make direct comparison to the ACC, the little 'basketball' conference filled with smaller schools. If money means all that much, then the BT should have at least 3 times - maybe even 5 times - more National Champs in football than the ACC does.
Michigan - 1997; Ohio St 2002; Ohio St 2014.
So the richest league has a grand total of 3 over more than 50 years. That's some major football dominance right there, folks. That shows you the endless power of money to deliver quality teams. It also shows you the superiority of the Big Ten in the biggest sport. No wonder there are ND fans who assert that ACC football is boring because it is not nearly as good as BT football. Those same ND fans tend to speculate that if things continue to move so that ND must go full football membership in a conference, that the BT is the only choice because its huge money could not be passed by.
So how about the ACC, with easily the smallest student body average among P5 conferences, the only 'Major' conference to be assumed to be a 'basketball conference' rather than a 'football conference.'
Clemson - 1981; Georgia Tech - 1990; FSU - 1993; FSU - 1999; FSU - 2013; Clemson - 2016; Clemson - 2018.
So the smaller, poorer ACC, in what is not even the ACC's best sport, has more than double the National Champions that the super large, super rich Big Ten has produced?
Just how weak is BT football? Yes, BT football is filthy rich, and it has humongous hordes of goofy fans across the midwest, but its product is mediocre as can be.
