Too much ink has been spilled in making the obvious point that there are now two power conferences in college football. The ACC and Big East are, clearly, little better than the mid-major conferences at this point, and the Big Ten is well on its way. The Pac-10 has one legitimate power, one solid team (Oregon), and eight enormous question marks. So this is factually true, and anyone other than a huge Wisconsin or Clemson fan can probably concede the point. I’m more concerned with why that’s true. Why are the SEC and Big XII now the only serious power conferences? I can think of at least three reasons.
-
Traditional power + solid management = the top of the conference. Any power conference needs the top of the conference to perform and do so consistently. The SEC has Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn as strong programs under effective, consistent management. Tennessee is struggling. These are the bluebloods. The Big XII is actually somewhat thin here: Oklahoma and Texas are way up, while Nebraska and Texas A&M are struggling. The Pac-10 has a strong squad with big tradition in USC. Ohio State qualifies in the Big Ten, and Penn State probably does too. In the ACC, there are probably no teams that qualify. In the Big East, West Virginia is the only team that comes close, and I don’t even really see that. There is simply more tradition and allure in the Pac-10, Big Ten, Big XII, the ACC, and the SEC, which makes recruiting and facility improvements much less daunting. The Big Ten and ACC have a number of traditional powers underachieving (Miami, Florida State, Clemson, Michigan, and Iowa, to name a few). This alone makes it very difficult to make up the difference. This, of course, is an obvious point, but too many people buy into the BCS/non-BCS distinction without considering the reality that if a conference’s power teams are having trouble, it is very difficult to make up the gap. The resurgence of Missouri and Kansas has redeemed the Big XII North, but the difficulties of Nebraska and Colorado made the Big XII North a joke as recently as 2006. Generally, you need your heavyweights to answer the bell.
-
A total lack of innovation. This is really the problem with the Big Ten. Rich Rodriguez will be a great coach in that league, and the reason is because nobody has had a new idea in that league in a long, long time. The top teams have had playmakers lately, but they don’t get the ball in creative ways. Consider the difference between the way that Florida used its playmakers and Ohio State used theirs two years ago. Big Ten offenses look slow and clueless when faced with superior opposition. There are exceptions, but the difference is real, and Ohio State’s misfortunes just happen to be the most obvious example. The Big Ten can still slug it out in the trenches, but sometimes you need to do a little more. The same is true of ACC teams and most of the Pac-10: these offenses are not innovative. I don’t mean they should chase the spread wherever it leads or embrace whatever the fad is. Oklahoma has run at least four different offenses in the Stoops era: a Mike Leach/Steve Spurrier Fun n’ Gun (1999-2001), a pro style attack, a spread/zone blocking scheme, and the no huddle adaptation of this year. You don’t need to fit a particular mold, but you do need to be doing different things and coming up with ideas. Texas doesn’t do anything too crazy, but they’re always tinkering, always changing.
-
Talent issues. The Big Ten, most of the ACC, and most of the Big East don’t recruit well in the best talent pools, which are basically CA, TX, FL, and the deep South. This is where the best high school talent goes and they’re all going to SEC schools, Big XII schools, and USC. Watch Rich Rodriguez: he will use his more national name and style to bring top talent to Michigan, and they will begin to dominate their league.
This debate really doesn’t mean much in the big picture. These things are going to change: the Big Ten and ACC will adapt, their traditional powers will be back, and other things will change around the country. Who knows what program is headed for a fall? Of the top national title contenders this year (USC, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Missouri), over half weren’t anywhere near that ten years ago. So there’s no need to decide that the sport has permanently shifted. However, the amazing difficulties faced by SEC and Big XII teams should make any pollster think twice about voting a Big XII or Big East team ahead of a remotely comparable team from either of those conferences. It’s not just that the SEC/Big XII teams have to beat three elite opponents instead of none or one: it’s that every single week is harder. Instead of going to Minnesota, you have to go to Oklahoma State or Ole Miss. Instead of facing UConn, you’ve got to play Arkansas or Kansas State. Instead of playing Arizona, you’re looking at Texas Tech or South Carolina. It’s just a tougher league, and it’s tougher every single day. Hell, even Baylor, the worst team in the Big XII, absolutely dominated the worst team in the Pac-10. The best college football is being played east of the Rockies and south of the Mason-Dixon line, with the exception of south central Los Angeles.
