Earle Bruce is a great man and a great coach, and is still an important part of Ohio State athletics. He and Bo Pelini had the same problem: 9-3 every year. They sure don't make them like Earle anymore.
The only people not letting you move on are the delusional rabble of idiots claiming Paterno was innocent.
- I think I've grown to hate Penn State more than Michigan. Michigan fans are delusional about football, but Penn State fans' delusion is much more sinister. Not all of them - but enough of them - still don't get it.
- Plenty of three star recruits become great players in college and the NFL, and plenty of five star recruits become embarrassments for off-field issues and poor production. I don't understand the fascination with recruiting.
- I've heard every argument in favor of keeping Purdue in the Big Ten, and I believe collectively they have zero merit.
- I appreciate the coverage here on Eleven Warriors tremendously. The historical reviews of past seasons have been great. However, I'd gladly trade every article about tweets from campus for one about football mechanics and playbook analysis. Twitter is a waste.
- Fans are allowed to be frustrated and criticize players and coaches. We also have a right to be annoyed with a sloppy win that was made more difficult than it needed to be.
Between this and Matta's recent frank comments about this past season, I'm feeling more optimistic about the basketball team. I readily admit I've been pretty critical of Thad the last couple of years but I expect better chemistry this coming season.
"Ponderosa men's room" is spot on.
Georgia Tech seems to fit with the Big Ten's expansion strategy: a very good school in the huge Atlanta market, plus it gives the conference a footprint in the south.
I think expectations are too high when it's no longer fun. I remember thinking after we lost to USC in 2009 that it just wasn't fun anymore so I had to change my outlook. Last season was disappointing but I didn't lose sleep over it, like I did after that loss.
Yeah I don't really begrudge them that, I know some years had multiple champions, but ultimately one team won the Rose Bowl and one didn't. I'll say it's nice to live in an age when we can call our championships undisputed.
I looked into the 1958 season for the rest of the conference and learned a few things about Michigan State. They claim a national championship in 1957 despite not winning the Big Ten. Ohio State, if you'll recall from yesterday, actually won the national championship that year. Coming off their fake national championship, Michigan State started the season ranked 4, but ended up going 0-5-1 in Big Ten play. Also funny but not related to 1958 is the fact that Michigan State has been outscored 87-7 in their two meetings against Alabama.
Ha, no sarcasm required, I've made no secret of my disdain for the BMs (which does not stand for Boilermakers). I'll refrain from opening that can of worms here and now. For now I'll just concede that we've undoubtedly had some exciting games against Purdue.
Let's take a moment to appreciate the abolition of the tie in college football. It got me thinking about overtime victories all-time. Please correct me if I missed any, but OSU looks to be 8-2 all time in overtime with some pretty big victories among those 8 wins. No surprise in who has taken us to overtime the most >:(
2014, Penn State, W 31-24 (2 OT)
2012, Purdue, W 29-22
2012, Wisconsin, W 21-14
2011, Purdue, L 23-26
2009, Iowa, W 27-24
2004, Northwestern, L 27-33
2003, Purdue, W 16-13
2003, NC State, W 44-38 (3 OT)
2002, Miami, W 31-24 (2 OT)
2002, Illinois, W 23-16
Purdue. Let me explain my reasoning, and try to counter the arguments in favor of them:
- The Big Ten's strategy for the future of college football seems to be to focus on either historical powerhouses (Nebraska), or big markets (Rutgers and Maryland). Purdue is not a historical powerhouse by any stretch of the imagination, in any sport. 9 of their 12 Big Ten Football Championships predate the end of World War II. And without Purdue, I don't think the fan base in Indiana (the 16th most populous state) will lose interest in Big Ten sports. Many of the them are already Notre Dame fans anyway. Purdue's relegation fits with the Big Ten's future goals.
- Fair or not, the Big Ten's revenues are staggering, and would only stand to increase by replacing Purdue with almost any other school. Purdue's 2014-15 revenue was $75,637,694, good for 44th of Division I schools (source: http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/). But this puts them at 13th out of the 14 Big Ten schools, ahead of only Rutgers, whose draw from the New York market appears to be the Big Ten's reason for keeping them around. Nearly half of this is from the Big Ten revenue payout (source: http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/18/big-ten-revenue-shares-jump-to-32-million-per-school/). With just the relegation of Purdue, each school's payout would increase. But consider a comparable replacement to Purdue: Georgia Tech, whose revenues were very close ($77,202,758), but would certainly demand a higher overall media contract with a huge southern market.
- "But Purdue brings in research dollars." As big as college athletics numbers are, $10 billion in research is conducted every year at members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (source: https://www.cic.net/research). This figure includes the University of Chicago, whose membership in the CIC - but not as an athletic member of the Big Ten - facilitates their research. There is no school in the Big Ten on the level of a WVU, for example, the lowest ranked university by US News and World Report (source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/wvu-3827), and we pride ourselves in the academic strength of the conference. Purdue is ranked 61st, making it a very school (source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/purdue-1825) and an asset, not to the Big Ten, but to the CIC. The replacement of Purdue by a better school (again, such as Georgia Tech, ranked 36) would not dilute the academic reputation of the conference (source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/georgia-institute-of-technology-139755/overall-rankings). By rightly keeping Purdue as a CIC member, it only improves the research and academics of the Big Ten's athletic members.
"But Purdue founded the Big Ten." Here's where I have to get a little snarky - "because that's the way we've always done things" is a terrible reason to do something. In 1896, when the Big Ten was founded, Purdue University made sense. They had a stronger athletic program, and they were geographically closer in a time when travel was much more difficult and inefficient. Today, I believe Purdue's location is a weakness, not a strength. Again, consider Georgia Tech, located near the busiest airport in the world. It's not hard to travel there for any team, even the furthest teams, in the conference. Additionally, Purdue's athletic performance is more on par with the MAC than the Big Ten. Purdue's last power five bowl victory was in 2002, and they have not finished a season ranked since 2003 (source: http://www.purduesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/m-footbl-bowl-history.html).
Finally, there is precedent on relegating a school: the old Big East, seeing the writing on the wall about schools ready to bail, kicked out Temple University for poor performance (source: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1914&dat=20010303&id=MqZGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZvMMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6146,584870&hl=en). Soon after, Virginia Tech and Miami left for the ACC because they could do better. The Big Ten can do better than Purdue.
I want to be clear on my stance because I still get so many arguments: I support replacing Purdue with another school, not just kicking them out and leaving it at that. Similarly, I support keeping Purdue in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, since their research and academic contributions are not irrelevant. Honestly, I try to rationally entertain every argument for keeping them around that I hear, but I just don't think any argument is strong enough to support keeping them around. It's time to send Purdue packing.
What's the story with extra points back then? Why was the success rate so low? Was the play markedly different back then, compared to today?
Thanks again for these perspectives.
I don't disagree that academics are important - I have no beef with Northwestern, for example, because Northwestern makes other important contributions to the league besides just being a good school. Most importantly, Northwestern adds the gigantic Chicago market - clearly, the Big Ten has shown that these large markets are a major part of the future of the conference, which was the rationale behind adding Rutgers and Maryland (which is why I believe Georgia Tech is the ideal replacement for Purdue, but that's another story for another thread).
Academically, the Big Ten is filled with other great universities that are excellent academically. If Purdue's only selling point is that it's attractive academically, why in the world would an athlete choose Purdue simply because of this reason, when lots of other Big Ten universities are just as good (if not better) and also field respectable athletic teams on top of that?
You argue that sports have little to do with membership in a research league. Exactly - that's why Purdue should remain a key member of the CIC. The Big Ten itself is more than a research league - at the end of the day, Fox, CBS, the Big Ten Network, and ESPN didn't just complete a multibillion dollar deal to televise research. Please understand that this opinion is coming from someone who greatly values education and is extremely proud of my own education at Ohio State as well.
I could not disagree more with the historical rationale of Purdue's membership in the Big Ten (I think "because that's the way we've always done things" is not a valid reason to keep doing things the same way), and I also don't agree with the idealistic belief that the Big Ten should "stand behind" the league a members. Why? To be nice? College sports - again, sports, not academics and research - are becoming more of a business and economic force every season. Purdue's contribution in this aspect is insufficient, especially when there are so many other better options that would improve on this contribution and jump at the chance to join our league athletically.
It doesn't look like we're going to see eye to eye on this one. At the end of the day we're both Buckeye fans so we've got that going for us at least. Thanks for your perspective.
My disagreement was with the idea that they are "at least trying to be more competitive." I don't think they're even trying.
Additionally, I believe the argument that being a founding member entitles them to current membership is completely invalid. Chicago was a founding member of the Big Ten and Sewanee University was a founding member of the SEC, but this does not entitle them to current membership. The Midwest, the Big Ten, and college athletics were vastly different in 1896. Purdue no longer fits with the future of the conference.
Finally, Purdue's research expenses have absolutely no bearing on athletics, which is why I support Purdue staying on as a member of CIC. The Big Ten can do better.
I respectfully disagree - by Purdue trustee Michael Berghoff's own admission, "We want to be competitive in the middle," (source in link). They're aiming for middle of the road in the Big Ten, which is like aiming to be the best team in the MAC. Additionally, $2 billion spent on student support, research infrastructure, and faculty support makes them an ideal member of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation or AAU, but it does not mean they have earned their cut of the staggering Big Ten media deals and bowl package payouts. Look no further than the University of Chicago for an example of a university whose reputation makes it an ideal academic peer and CIC/AAU member, but it's just not in the same league athletically. Their ineptitude was a funny punchline for a decade or so, but today, with the amount of money, popularity, and exposure at stake, Purdue University does not deserve to be an athletic member of the Big Ten.
I get such strong disagreement every time I voice this opinion, that I really do carefully consider every counterargument and reply that's provided in support of the old Boilermakers. The reality is I still have never heard a valid argument in favor of Purdue's presence as an athletic member of this league.
...And it would be rewronged in 2009. I'll never get over that loss to USC.
What exactly were the logistics of getting a team from Columbus to Los Angeles in 1937? How long did it take? How much did it cost?
Thanks for these, they're very interesting and I really like the old programs too. That rule about consecutive incomplete passes in the endzone resulting in a touchback is crazy, I have never heard that before.
(FYI, in your section about Northwestern, it looks like you put our record against Northwestern, 10-5, as the final score.)
Well then I believe the Big Ten should get in the business of kicking out teams.
The University of Chicago is still in the CIC but left the Big Ten as an athletic member. Purdue could remain in the CIC but as far as athletics go, a replacement school such as Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Virginia, or Virginia Tech, for example, would also bring in big research dollars while simultaneously having something resembling a functioning athletic department. Forgive my snarkiness, I appreciate your response, but I still believe there is absolutely no reason for Purdue to be an athletic member of the Big Ten.
There is no reason for Purdue to still be in the Big Ten. "But they have a good engineering program." "But their 19XX team finished ranked #21." Kick. Them. Out.
Brown University named a row of portable toilets after Gordon Gee: http://blogdailyherald.com/2011/04/15/celebrating-the-fifth-anniversary-of-the-e-gordon-gee-lavatory-complex/
59-0 over Mt. Union is impressive, but will the Buckeyes ever thrash a quality Big Ten opponent 59-0?
I can't wait to buy my commemorative Sports Illustrated "How Deep it Went" or "Busted" with the BU logo.