Big Ten mailbag Part II

Posted by ESPN.com’s Adam Rittenberg

It’s time for the second half of today’s mailbag.

But first, a couple of housekeeping items. There has been some confusion about a recent post, where I wrote that Iowa’s recent trips to the Outback Bowl wouldn’t be held against the Hawkeyes for possible selection this season. This wasn’t a shot at Iowa. It referred to the fact that bowls sometimes like to select new teams rather than ones they have hosted recently. But from everyone I’ve spoken to, the Outback Bowl would have no trouble selecting Iowa again, and I’m sure the Hawkeyes would represent well.

Also, one user brought up the fact that there were no Big Ten power rankings this week. With no games last Saturday, the power rankings didn’t change from after Week 13. 

OK, on to your questions. 

Jamal from Baltimore writes: Adam, great work on the blog, I’ve been reading it all season. I’ve heard some internet rumors (take those for whatever they’re worth) that Penn State defensive coordinator Tom Bradley may be looking into the Syracuse opening. Do you think the ‘Cuse would hire Bradley? Would it really leave Penn State, and would it be because of administration’s desire to have a national search for head coach when JoePa retires?

Adam Rittenberg: If I were Syracuse AD Daryl Gross, I’d definitely give Bradley a call. Bradley should be Joe Paterno’s successor at Penn State, but the longer the school drags its feet in naming him coach-in-waiting, the more he has to start looking out for No. 1. Now I don’t believe Bradley is at the top of Syracuse’s list, but he should get a look and absolutely deserves to be a head coach somewhere (Penn State!). He seems very happy at Penn State, but he has to be wondering why a succession plan hasn’t been put in place like it has elsewhere. He’s the obvious choice there, but someone is holding up the process, whether it’s the administration or Paterno. 

Suzanne from Miami writes: Hey Adam, Maybe you can answer this question in Part 2. If UCLA pulls a ridiculous upset this weekend and Oregon State goes to the Rose Bowl, will that push USC out of BCS bowl and keep Ohio State in? Bowl games don’t usually like picking teams that have just lost, correct?

Adam Rittenberg: It’s an interesting question, Suzanne. My sense is that USC would still get a BCS at-large berth despite the loss. But it could go either way. The Trojans have the head-to-head win against Ohio State, but anyone with any football sense can see this Ohio State team is much better than the one that visited the L.A. Coliseum on Sept. 13. Also, USC would have a bad loss on its résumé, while Ohio State’s only two losses are against Top 10 teams (USC and Penn State). Both teams are very attractive to bowl games, even at 10-2, so it would create an interesting situation. My concern is that Ohio State’s recent BCS title game performances would be held against it in determining the at-large spot. Boise State also could be in play should USC lose. 

Dan from Minneapolis writes: Adam, Why is Oklahoma not getting penalized like Ohio State did for recent Bowl Performances? Just like OSU, they are awesome in their conference, but have failed the last 4 times on the big bowl stage. OSU at least has a winning BCS record. Shouldn’t OU’s performance have played a vital role because you know it would have had it been Ohio State. I for one, really want a competitive BCS Championship game and if OU is in it, I am afraid it will be another blow-out

Adam Rittenberg: Overall conference strength helped the Sooners this season, and they won a couple of national showcase games (Texas Tech, Oklahoma State). But you’re absolutely right. Oklahoma has been a bad big-game team in recent years, and a strong performance in the BCS title game will be critical for Bob Stoops. The same holds true for Jim Tressel and Ohio State in what should be a BCS bowl appearance. Despite all the debate, the BCS is setting up to have some very competitive games. But Oklahoma should and will be ripped like Ohio State if it stumbles again this season.

Mike from White Lake writes: Interesting to see three assistants from MSU make your MAC coaching list. I would be surprised to see [Don] Treadwell go this year with his son Blake joining the squad next year as one of the Midwest’s top OL. He might very well be redshirted but I wonder if that may encourage Treadwell to stay a couple of years and hold out for a better head coching job down the line. Your thoughts?

Adam Rittenberg: I did see that about Treadwell’s son coming to Michigan State, and it could be a factor in Don remaining there. But head-coaching opportunities don’t come along too often, and there are a bunch of vacancies right now in the MAC. If your ultimate goal is to be a head coach, you have to capitalize when the opportunity presents itself. It could go either way with Treadwell, but I would think he’ll at least talk to one or more of those schools. Michigan State’s coaching staff had a phenomenal season, getting a team with so-so talent to 9-3 and third place in the Big Ten. Those assistants deserve to get a look for top jobs.

Ross from Minneapolis writes: In today’s mailbag, you said that Northwestern deserves a better bowl than Iowa “by any measure on on the field.” And while it is true that NW beat Iowa, I think there are plenty of on-field factors that cut in Iowa’s favor. * Northwestern has a one-game advantage in the overall record, but should we really ignore the fact that they played a ridiculously easy non-conference schedule (a I-AA school and three I-A schools with losing records in Syracuse, Duke, and Ohio)? Iowa’s non-conference schedule wasn’t anything great, but it did include a road game against Pitt, a far better team than any that Northwestern played. Had Iowa played NW’s cupcake non-conference schedule, I think they would have the same overall records. * They each played one elite level opponent. Iowa beat Penn State, while Northwestern got run off the field by Ohio State. * Iowa’s four losses came by a combined margin of 12 points, while Northwestern’s three losses came by a whopping 54 points. * Against common opponents: — Michigan State: both teams lost, but Iowa’s loss was by 3 in East Lansing, while Northwestern lost by 17 in Evanston — Indiana: Iowa beat them by 35 in Bloomington, while Northwestern lost by 2 in Bloomington — Purdue: Northwestern beat them by 22 in Evanston, while Iowa beat them by only 5 in Iowa City — Minnesota: Iowa beat them by 55 in Minneapolis, while Northwestern beat them by only 7 in Minneapolis — Illinois: Northwestern beat them 17 in Evanston, while Iowa lost to them by 3 in Champaign Total against common opponents: Iowa was 3-2 with a +89 point differential. Northwestern was 3-2 with a +27 point differential. I understand why Northwestern fans are upset, but unless you want to base the decision solely on one head-to-head result, I don’t think on-field results are cut and dried at all. In fact, you can make a pretty compelling case that Iowa’s body of work in B10 play is more impressive than Northwestern’s body of work in B10 play.

Adam Rittenberg: These are fair points, Ross, and should be taken into account when evaluating the two teams. Iowa’s nonconference schedule was tougher with the Pitt game, which would have been a nice win for the Hawkeyes. And Iowa is the only team among the Big Ten’s second tier — Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa — with a win against an elite opponent. But I really don’t think the head-to-head matchup should be minimized. What type of message does that send in a sport where every game is supposedly meaningful? If the roles were reversed and Iowa had beaten Northwestern in Evanston, Hawkeyes fans would demand that their team get a better bowl than Northwestern. We can throw out common opponents, margin of victory, margin of defeat and other factors. But the head-to-head matchup trumps all of those. The bottom line is both of these teams had strong seasons, and Iowa really hit its stride from mid-October on. The Hawkeyes likely will go to the Outback Bowl and give an SEC team all it can handle. Northwestern likely will go to the Alamo Bowl and face an extremely tough test from the Big 12. Both teams have opportunities to validate their seasons and represent the league well. 

Adam from Indianapolis writes: I posted this as a comment to your first mailbag session today, but I wanted to make sure that you saw it. In that session, you wrote “should USC jump into the title game, the Rose Bowl likely would take a team not from the Pac-10″. Not only is likely for the Rose Bowl to choose outside of the Pac-10, it is near impossible for a Pac-10 choice to even be possible. In order for a team to be eligible for at large selection, it must have 9 wins AND be in the top 14 of the BCS standings. Oregon would be the only other Pac-10 team that could be eligible, and it would take even more voter collusion than occurred this week (for Texas) to move the Ducks up to the top 14 from its current position of 19th. Perhaps you already knew this (or overlooked it), however your comment implied that a non Pac-10 team would have preference, which is not the case. The Rose Bowl would do anything to protect its sacred Big Ten/Pac-10 match up, and would choose a Pac-10 replacement if it could.

Adam Rittenberg: Thanks for the note, Adam. You’re right, and I should have been more definitive. It would be almost impossible for the Rose Bowl to take a Pac-10 team if USC goes to the title game. Oregon is 19th in the BCS standings, and the Ducks won’t move up too much after this weekend. It would be Big Ten vs. Big 12/SEC in the Rose Bowl should the Trojans head to Miami.

J.J. from Minneapolis writes: Adam: What are the chances of the Gophers going to the Champs Sports Bowl? If we do go there, who will we play? End the suspense please!!!

Adam Rittenberg: It will be either Wisconsin or Minnesota in the Champs Sports Bowl, and the decision largely depends on what Wisconsin wants to do. If the Badgers would prefer not to go to a fifth straight Florida bowl, they could voice their concern to the Champs Sports people and target a trip to the Insight Bowl in Arizona. This is pretty unlikely, though. My latest projections have Wisconsin in Champs Sports and Minnesota in Insight. The likely Champs Sports opponents include Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson.

Craig from Cambridge, Ill., writes: I was watching College Game Day Final Saturday night and was surprised by one of the guys’ comments while discussing who should be the Big Twelve South champion. Somebody (I don’t remember who) jokingly threw out, “they out to decided it by graduation rate”. I got a laugh out of it at the time, but while laying in bed I put some more thought into it. The NCAA will defend any change to it’s FBS college football system because change would negatively affect the student atheletes. With than in mind, shouldn’t the NCAA and the conferences reward their student atheletes by using graduation rates as tie breakers? In this instance Texas Tech would win the tie breaker by virtue of it’s higher graduation rate, instead of which team a bunch of computers and pollsters think is better. How about in the Big Ten where co-champions abound? This would definately put STUDENT back in student athelete.

Adam Rittenberg: Now that would be a great idea, Craig. It would force some of the football factories out there to actually care about graduating their players. I’ll bring it up to Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany the next time I chat with him. Then again, the Big Ten tiebreakers aren’t as absurd as the Big 12’s.  

Go to Source