Skip to main content

The "Big" Ten Conference? Not so much this Saturday...

With a 45-14 loss late last night against Arizona State, Illinois concluded the Big Ten's lousy day, as the conference finished 6-6 and 1-6 against major conference opponents (and Notre Dame). Sadly, the day could have been worse.

Iowa fell to in-state rival Iowa State at home, 9-6. It was the Cyclones' first win in Iowa City in 10 years. Thirteenth ranked Wisconsin was upset in Corvallis by Oregon State, 10-7. Purdue lost on the road to Notre Dame by the final score of 20-17. Penn State dropped to 0-2 with a 17-16 loss on the road against Virginia. Sixteenth ranked Nebraska fell to UCLA 36-30 at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, as the Bruins racked up over 650 yards of offense against the anything-but-Blackshirt defense of the Cornhuskers. As I already mentioned, Illinois is trailing Arizona State in Tempe at the half by the score of 28-7.

The Big Ten now only has five unbeatens and two of those are Indiana and Minnesota, whom took care of Division I-AA teams this past weekend in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The other three are Michigan State, who beat up on Central Michigan, Northwestern, who came back to beat Vanderbilt, 23-13 and Ohio State, who defeated Central Florida, 31-16. The only other victory by the conference was anything but impressive. -Air Force was one touchdown drive away from beating Michigan, eventually falling to the Wolverines in Ann Arbor by the final score of 31-25.

The Big Ten has not impressed me so far this season. Even in week 1, Wisconsin and Iowa needed late scores to sneak past Northern Iowa and Northern Illinois. Michigan State almost fell at home to Boise State. Northwestern needed a late score to defeat Syracuse. Michigan was dominated by Alabama. Penn State fell to Ohio.

To this point, the teams that have looked the best to me are (in random order): Michigan State, Ohio State, Michigan and Nebraska, with Purdue and Northwestern vying to play the role of sleeper. Due to a team infraction, Ohio State is ineligible to play in the conference championship game or a bowl game this year. Michigan got clobbered by Alabama in their first game and needed a late stop against Air Force on Saturday to prevent themselves from starting 0-2 on the year. Nebraska looked pretty impressive offensively in their opening week win versus Southern Mississippi before falling to UCLA last night. Both these teams look fairly similar to one another - explosive on offense, led by dual-threat quarterbacks in Denard Robinson for Michigan and Taylor Martinez for Nebraska. The quarterbacks are very quick, but inconsistent with throwing the football. The defenses make me immediately think of two words - high school. Michigan State appears to be solid defensively and in the running game, led by tailback Le'Veon Bell. Their passing game is a question mark, however. Ohio State has looked fairly solid on both sides of the ball in their first two games, but quarterback Braxton Miller has been running the ball far too much. He may go without many big hits in the Buckeyes' fairly soft non-conference games, but will be more prone to getting nicked up once the Buckeyes head into conference play. The Ohio State tailbacks will need to help Miller some in the ground game to prevent him from getting hurt.

While the ACC and Big East appear to be anything but stellar once again, the Big Ten looks like they may be vying for the Razzy-like crown worn at season's end by the worst major conference in college football. The Big XII, Pac-12 and SEC, at this point in the season, appear to be leaps and bounds better than the three before-mentioned. It's still very early, but the Big Ten will need to fare very well in their remaining non-conference games and especially in their bowl games to make up for its lackluster start to the season.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/scoreboard?confId=5&seasonYear=2012&seasonType=2&weekNumber=2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"