LiveBall Sports

Quick, pick the better conference: Big East or Big Ten?

Most people would agree that the Big Ten has been down the last year and a half (after all, Penn State did win it).  But the same people would likely argue that the gap between the Big Ten and the Big East is bigger than the gap between the Big East and the Mountain West.  There’s being down, like the Big Ten, and then there’s being out, like the Big East.  It’s a basketball conference, it’s not a profitable conference, it’s made up of programs that were C-USA programs less than ten years ago.

But you know what: while you might be able to look at where traditional powers Pitt and Michigan are and determine that both typify the state of their conferences, while noting that the depth of the Big Ten is stronger.

But when you talk about quality programs, I don’t want to hear about Ohio State or Penn State.  Because this year, Cincinnati is better than both of them.

Prior to his left arm injury tonight, Cincinnati QB Tony Pike was a legitimate leading candidate for the Heisman.  Who is the best player in the Big Ten, again?  Tate Forcier?  Can’t be.  Terrell Pryor?  Not yet.  Darryl Clark?  Barf.  The best offensive player in the big ten right now is either Penn State RB Evan Royster, Illinois WR Arrelious Benn, Wisconsin RB John Clay, or Iowa OL Kyle Calloway.

There’s star power in the Big Ten, but it’s all hype.  Meanwhile, the Big East as a conference is in under the radar, despite having West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, and Cincinnati making up 1/2 of the conference.  Pittsburgh is a historical powerhouse who is a fringe top 25 team this year.  But because of Louisville, UConn, and Syracuse (which has it’s own star power if not any additional success), this is a weak conference?  I’m sorry, that’s not adding up.  Cincinnati is a better program than any in the Big Ten (possible exception Ohio State) and the Pac Ten (exception: SC).  If the Big East isn’t deep, it’s not deep because it has only 8 teams in it.  Which is not an argument.

Not only is the Big East not the worst conference in Division 1′s FBS division, and not only is it not an extension of a mid-major conference, it’s probably stronger than the two conferences that comprise the Rose Bowl game.  There’s tradition, and then there’s empty hype.  For all the detractors of the Big East, well, their arguments are empty indeed.

I think every analyst is in agreement that this year’s battle between USC and Notre Dame is the equivalent of the super bowl for Notre Dame this year, which means it’s pretty much like every other USC game in the Weis era.  Yet, here we are talking about the historical significance of Saturday’s showdown in South Bend.  This leaves the big question: what’s different this year?

Would a win make Notre Dame a national championship threat?  Not really.  Is this a more critical game for USC than the Ohio State game from four weeks ago, or even last year’s Notre Dame game?  I don’t see it.  Is this a game that Charlie Weis needs to win to keep his job at Notre Dame?  Couldn’t hurt.  Is Pete Carroll’s legacy at USC tarnished at all if he falls to 7-2 against the Irish?  Not in the slightest.

Historical significance?  Perhaps overstating it, but this is still a big, big game.

Here’s the difference: this year, it’s every bit as critical for USC as it is for Notre Dame.  That’s not usually the case, at least in recent years.  The last two seasons, USC has cruised through this match-up with a sense of urgency completely unmatched by Notre Dame.  In 2005, the teams were pretty evenly matched, and USC won a classic.  In 2006, USC was the best they’ve been in recent years, and Notre Dame couldn’t match up, which was surprising.  Since then, it’s been a largely irrelevant game, didn’t garner a whole lot of national publicity (again, relatively speaking), and was never a competitive game.

It’s different this year because USC knows that the last two years, they were able to win on talent and preparation alone.  This year, that should get them roughly to halftime.  They also have to outscheme the Irish, protect the football, and play stronger in the fourth quarter than their opponents.  You know, the fourth quarter that’s been largely irrelevant.

Notre Dame has had major issues with run defense this year, and it’s a completely different defense when playing with a lead than playing from behind.  I’ll say this: if Notre Dame at any point leads this game by double digits, they’ll win the game.  I just don’t think that they’ll be able to have a convincing double-digit lead if they don’t have it by their third possession.  If the key for USC is to win the fourth quarter, then Notre Dame needs to win the first quarter so that the second half becomes an uphill climb for the Trojans instead of a level playing field.

Let’s be clear: on a level, neutral playing field, USC still wins this game 9 out of 10 times, no matter how improved Notre Dame is.  But no rule says that the Irish have to play USC fairly.  They can come out, rattle Matt Barkley early, score points as quickly as possible, and make USC throw the ball to come back.  That’s how modern football teams use homefield advantage.  It’s also not what the Irish have done over the last two and a half years at home.

Do we have reason to believe that Notre Dame could look like the team of four years ago, and beat down on a Trojan team that might be weaker than it’s been since 2002?  It’s reasonable to expect some aspects of dominance that have been dormant for years to appear this week for the Irish.  Either way, they’ll have to hope from some help from the past to break the seven game USC winning streak this Saturday.