The English Premier League and the Big Ten

[Sean Miller Fan]

As Iceland was finishing off England in the Round of 16, ESPN's English commentators, Ian Darke and Steve McManaman were trying to make sense of what was happening. Ian Darke mentioned that England had the richest league in the world while Iceland did not have a fully professional league (just semi-pro I believe). Then, Steve McManaman said something that really resonated. He said, "Its the richest league, Ian, but its never been the best." Now this is a man who played in the EPL, played for England, but also played for Real Madrid. He is an English homer if there ever was one, but also a realist. And the thing is, he is rights.

There is certainly a lot of people in the soccer business who will tell you that the top flights in Germany and Spain are better than England's top flight......but how can this be? The EPL is a worldwide brand. Even here in the US, it gets better TV ratings on NBCSN than the NHL, who plays on the same network. Kids, all around the world grow up watching the EPL. Their TV and merchandising revenues are beyond compare. Besides a few giants in other countries like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, PSG, etc, clubs in other countries simply cannot compete for players with the middle tier and bottom tier of the EPL. They are just too rich. Football in England is so big that even its 2nd division is probably one of the Top 10-15 richest leagues in the world (I am guessing at that one, I admit I could be off).

So, why is this and why am I posting it on a Pitt site? Well, this reminds me of Big Ten football. For decades, the Big Ten has been the richest league but has won very few major titles and people don't even associate the Big Ten with being "the best." Well, how can this be?

Here is my answer and its pretty simple. The core of English football are English players. In fact, English clubs have to have at least 8 "home grown" players on their rosters at all times.....and most of the middle and bottom-tier clubs have many more than that because they don't have the money or resources to scout worldwide like the Man U's and Chelsea's. But, for whatever reason, English footballers are simply not as good as their counterparts in Spain, Germany, France, and Italy and haven't been for a long time. They were passed long ago. Why this is, is a whole other debate that I wont get into but it really cannot be argued that the German player or the Spanish player, on average is simply more talented than the English player. However, in saying that, since the EPL is such an established brand with 5 giant clubs and a worldwide audience, it makes the most money.......and the core of the league are still English players. So, while we watch Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy, and Raheem Sterling play for their clubs and think these guys are superstars, they are that, partly because they are English and are playing in an English league comprised of inferior English players (but also yes, a whole bunch of world-class talent). So, a lot of people think of the EPL as the best because it has Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, and Tottenham but since the core of the league is English players, the league, as a whole cannot complete with La Liga and the Bundesliga. You see this bare itself out in Champions League and Europa League play and obviously in the World Club and European Championships.

As for the Big Ten, its always going to be the richest, but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football player is not as good as the Southeast/Texas football player. The core of the Big Ten is made up of Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football players and there is no getting away from that. It always will be. No matter how much money you give them, most B10 schools are going to recruit the Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Of course, OSU can recruit nationally and have been smart to do so. Harbaugh is smart enough to follow suit and has written a new book on national recruiting with satellite camps. Both know they cant compete with the SEC, Texas, and OU by recruiting the Midwest. Players aren't as good there and there aren't enough of them.

So, while everyone freaks out about how the Big Ten is making all this money, they need to realize that money does not make Midwestern players better. Just as money hasn't made English footballers any better. Culturally, they are not as good as their peers and even though the EPL and Big Ten are the richest leagues in their respective sports, they most likely will never be the best.

 

[michnittlion]

That's a fair analogy.

The B1G can still compete for National Championships, however.

If one counts 1994 Penn State as a National Champion (I'm a Penn Stater, so why not ), the analogy goes even further.

The B1G has had 4 National Champions in the 11+ team era (1994 PSU, 1997 U-M, 2002 OSU, 2014 OSU).

The EPL has had 4 Champions League winners since 1993 (1999 Man U, 2005 Liverpool, 2008 Man U, 2012 Chelsea).

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

That's a fair analogy.

The B1G can still compete for National Championships, however.

If one counts 1994 Penn State as a National Champion (I'm a Penn Stater, so why not ), the analogy goes even further.

The B1G has had 4 National Champions in the 11+ team era (1994 PSU, 1997 U-M, 2002 OSU, 2014 OSU).

The EPL has had 4 Champions League winners since 1993 (1999 Man U, 2005 Liverpool, 2008 Man U, 2012 Chelsea).

Except that PSU didnt win the 1994 NC. Some publications gave Pitt a few more NCs in the 1980s, can we count those.

Also, OSU lost to Miami in 02, then the refs extended the game with one of the worst PI calls of all time. And I believe Michigan's NC was split. Even OSU's 14 NC was controversial. Through they won it on the field, TCU deserved that last bid but the fact that the B12 did not name "one true champion," the committee took the easy way out.

 

[pittdan77]

PSU got jobbed in '94. Difficult to deny that.

One of the knocks against PSU moving to the B1G when it happened, was that it almost automatically meant the best your school could do was the Rose Bowl and most B1G schools seemed to make the Rose Bowl a goal. And that's why PSU got jobbed in '94. Never had the chance to play for the championship.

2006 had to hurt worse for PSU. That Michigan game...

 

[michnittlion]

PSU got jobbed in '94. Difficult to deny that.

One of the knocks against PSU moving to the B1G when it happened, was that it almost automatically meant the best your school could do was the Rose Bowl and most B1G schools seemed to make the Rose Bowl a goal. And that's why PSU got jobbed in '94. Never had the chance to play for the championship.

2006 had to hurt worse for PSU. That Michigan game...

I grew up in the 1980s in Michigan. The attitude of B1G schools then was pretty short-minded. Who cares about the National Championship, all that matters is going to Pasadena!

Thankfully the B1G schools changed their tune. PSU moving to the conference, and what happened in 1994 --- they played at least some role in that.

FWIW: the PSU/Michigan game was 2005. The offense really caught fire in a memorable 4th quarter, but PSU really blew some opportunities in the first 3 quarters --- they scored 3 points. 2 missed Field Goals and a fumble within Michigan territory. The made field goal came after a 1st-and-goal from the Michigan 5. Seize the opportunities earlier in the game, and there is no room for a Michigan comeback at the end.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Your points are well taken, SMF. I was thinking the exact same thing as the clock was melting away on England versus Iceland. England is international soccer's equivalent of the Big 10 conference - A boatload of money but not as many results.

Honestly, it is spooky how similarly I was thinking to the way you are thinking here.

However, just as a point of clarification, the English Permier League averaged approximately 500,000 viewers per game on NBCSN this year (+7% from 2015).

Conversely, according to Sports Media Watch, the NHL averaged nearly 4 million per per game for the Stanley Cup Final - the only numbers I could find. Those numbers are down 29% from last year's SCF and 23% from the 2014 Cup final. In other words, they are not exactly flattering numbers to hockey. However, they still show the disparity in interest here.

According to the Washington Post, the most-watched EPL match of the season was Manchester United vs. Liverpool on Sept. 12, with 1.25 million on NBC. The highest cable audience was for Manchester United vs. Leicester City on May 1: 908,000 on NBCSN.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

PSU got jobbed in '94. Difficult to deny that.

One of the knocks against PSU moving to the B1G when it happened, was that it almost automatically meant the best your school could do was the Rose Bowl and most B1G schools seemed to make the Rose Bowl a goal. And that's why PSU got jobbed in '94. Never had the chance to play for the championship.

2006 had to hurt worse for PSU. That Michigan game...

First let me say about Penn State did get hosed in 1994. At the very least they should've been co-national champions with Nebraska.

That would've been a hell of a game. In the end I think Penn State would've beaten Nebraska because I don't think the Cornhuskers could've stopped them. That was a great college offense.

However, you cannot count them as the 1994 national champions because they were not recognized as the national champions by any of the major governing bodies of the day.

So while I agree that what happened was unjust, it is dishonest to just disregard what the two major governing bodies decided because it doesn't fit into what do you think should have happened. It doesn't work that way.

Remember, SMU was similarly cheated out of the 1982 crown when it was the only undefeated team and still somehow ended up ranked behind one-loss Penn State. They too should have been co-national champions. SMU played in the Southwest Conference – that was every bit the equal to what Penn State was playing at the time. That was wrong.

I don't think that '82 Penn State team could've handled the Pony Express era SMU teams. That was the best college backfield I have ever seen. That is why I have always believed that everything evened out for Penn State.

 

[Piranha]

That's a fair analogy.

The B1G can still compete for National Championships, however.

If one counts 1994 Penn State as a National Champion (I'm a Penn Stater, so why not ), the analogy goes even further.

The B1G has had 4 National Champions in the 11+ team era (1994 PSU, 1997 U-M, 2002 OSU, 2014 OSU).

The EPL has had 4 Champions League winners since 1993 (1999 Man U, 2005 Liverpool, 2008 Man U, 2012 Chelsea).

UM and OSU are the only Big 10 Ten champions in the last 25 years. #2 or #3 does not count as champion.

 

[michnittlion]

Penn State did get hosed in 1994. At the very least they should've been co-national champions with Nebraska.

That would've been a hell of a game. In the end I think Penn State would've beaten Nebraska because I don't think the Cornhuskers could've stopped them. That was a great college offense.

Then again, SMU was similarly cheated out of the 1982 crown when it was the only undefeated team and still somehow ended up ranked behind one-loss Penn State. They too should have been co-national champions. SMU played in the Southwest Conference – that was every bit the equal to what Penn State was playing at the time. That was wrong.

I don't think that '82 Penn State team could've handled the Pony Express era SMU teams. That was the best college backfield I have ever seen. That is why I have always believed that everything evened out for Penn State.

I know that SMU claims a 1982 national championship. They also claim 1981, FWIW.

I do disagree as regards the strength of schedule SMU played in the SWC. Texas was good, Arkansas was good, everyone else was not good.

I only use this site because of the availability of the numbers, not necessarily because I am vouching for the algorithm. But I do think it is noteworthy. Per cfbreference.com, even after playing a Top-10 Pitt team in the Cotton Bowl, SMU had the 73rd strongest schedule in college football in 1982. In comparison, Penn State ranked 3rd. That's a big difference.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/southern-methodist/1982.html

 

[pittdan77]

I know that SMU claims a 1982 national championship. They also claim 1981, FWIW.

I do disagree as regards the strength of schedule SMU played in the SWC. Texas was good, Arkansas was good, everyone else was not good.

I only use this site because of the availability of the numbers, not necessarily because I am vouching for the algorithm. But I do think it is noteworthy. Per cfbreference.com, even after playing a Top-10 Pitt team in the Cotton Bowl, SMU had the 73rd strongest schedule in college football in 1982. In comparison, Penn State ranked 3rd. That's a big difference.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/southern-methodist/1982.html

Well, that's why we have a playoff now. LOL

 

[michnittlion]

Well, that's why we have a playoff now. LOL

True.

I was alive (but at an age where I wasn't paying attention ) in 1982.

But from what I can tell, even in the BCS era, SMU would likely not have been invited to the Championship game. It would have been undefeated Georgia vs. 1-loss PSU regardless. SMU's tie vs. a good but non-elite Arkansas team really hurt them. SMU would have been 1 among 4 (along with Nebraska) if there were the current-day four-team playoff.

 

[Piranha]

The 1994 PS Schedule had 6 teams that finished with a .500 or worse record, and the best record of an opponent was 9-4.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

However, just as a point of clarification, the English Permier League averaged approximately 500,000 viewers per game on NBCSN this year (+7% from 2015).

Conversely, according to Sports Media Watch, the NHL averaged nearly 4 million per per game for the Stanley Cup Final - the only numbers I could find.

Yes, to be fair, NHL playoffs (including Stanley Cup finals) does significantly better on NBCSN than EPL regular season. I was talking about EPL regular season vs NHL regular season since EPL doesnt have playoffs.......or home team markets to provide a big ratings boost.

But that wasnt the point I was trying to make.

 

[Piranha]

The 2008 Utah team went undefeated (13-0) and beat 3 very good teams. A 10 win BYU team, 11 win TCU squad, and thumped a 12 win Bama team in the Sugar Bowl.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I know that SMU claims a 1982 national championship. They also claim 1981, FWIW.

I do disagree as regards the strength of schedule SMU played in the SWC. Texas was good, Arkansas was good, everyone else was not good.

I only use this site because of the availability of the numbers, not necessarily because I am vouching for the algorithm. But I do think it is noteworthy. Per cfbreference.com, even after playing a Top-10 Pitt team in the Cotton Bowl, SMU had the 73rd strongest schedule in college football in 1982. In comparison, Penn State ranked 3rd. That's a big difference.

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/southern-methodist/1982.html

I don't know what the strength of schedule was and I don't care.

What I do know is that in almost every case in that era if two teams from what were considered "major conferences" or are the "major Eastern Independents" were very close, they would simply split the national championship. The coaches poll would go one way and the writers poll would go the other.

For example, we saw it in 2003 with USC and LSU, 1997 with Michigan and Nebraska, 1989 with Georgia Tech in Colorado, 1978 with Alabama and USC, 1974 with Oklahoma and USC, and 1973 with Notre Dame and Alabama.

The only two examples that I can think of during that period where they did not do that were 1982 and 1994 - both involving Penn State.

 

[michnittlion]

I don't know what the strength of schedule was and I don't care.

What I do know is that in almost every case in that era if two teams from what were considered "major conferences" or are the "major Eastern Independents" were very close, they would simply split the national championship. The coaches poll would go one way and the writers poll would go the other.

For example, we saw it in 2003 with USC and LSU, 1997 with Michigan and Nebraska, 1989 with Georgia Tech in Colorado, 1978 with Alabama and USC, 1974 with Oklahoma and USC, and 1973 with Notre Dame and Alabama.

The only two examples that I can think of during that period where they did not do that were 1982 and 1994 - both involving Penn State.

But it did play a factor. The SWC only had two good teams, neither of which was elite. SMU was simply unable to go 2-0 against the only 2 good teams on their regular season schedule. And SMU's OOC was at a "K-State in the mid-1990s, Baylor in 2014" level. Tulane, UTEP and North Texas.

Advanced football analytics are what they are, and people are free to either use them or ignore them. But S&P+ is one of the more respected advanced football analytics out there, among people who do believe in the analytics. And per S&P+, SMU, despite their 11-0-1 record, was ranked twenty-eighth (!!!) in all of college football in 1982.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2016/5/26/11764420/1982-college-football-season-penn-state-nebraska

I don't think I'm simply being a Penn State-homer. Yes, I didn't live the 1982 college football season, like many of you did. I only say this by looking at numbers and by reading stories. But, IMO, SMU didn't deserve national championship consideration in 1982. None at all.

Now, as for Nebraska, they do have a legitimate complaint about 1982. And I won't argue with those that say 1994 was "payback" for that.

 

[Piranha]

But it did play a factor. The SWC only had two good teams, neither of which was elite. SMU was simply unable to go 2-0 against the only 2 good teams on their regular season schedule. And SMU's OOC was at a "K-State in the mid-1990s" level. Tulane, UTEP and North Texas.

Advanced football analytics are what they are, and people are free to either use them or ignore them. But S&P+ is one of the more respected advanced football analytics out there. And per S&P+, SMU, despite their 11-0-1 record, was ranked twenty-eighth (!!!) in all of college football in 1982.

I don't think I'm simply being a Penn State-homer. Yes, I didn't live the 1982 college football season, like many of you did. I only say this by looking at numbers and by reading stories. But, IMO, SMU didn't deserve national championship consideration in 1982. None at all.

Now, as for Nebraska, they do have a legitimate complaint about 1982. And I won't argue with those that say 1994 was "payback" for that.

You want to give the 1994 championship to a team that beat 6 teams with a .500 or worse record, and the best team they beat had a 9-4 record. You are a hypocrite.

 

[michnittlion]

You want to give the 1994 championship to a team that beat 6 teams with a .500 or worse record, and the best team they beat had a 9-4 record. You are a hypocrite.

Again, take the metrics for what they are, but Penn State in 1994:

(1) had the 8th strongest strength-of-schedule (per cfbreference.com), which is considerably higher than Nebraska's 40th ranked strength-of-schedule.

(2) ranked 1st in S&P+.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/20...lege-football-nebraska-tom-osborne-penn-state

1994 was a bit of an odd year, in that things were a bit top-heavy. A team could have 4 losses yet STILL rank 11th in the season's final poll. Penn State had decisive victories over #11, #13, and #14 (the latter was the infamous 49-point victory over OSU), and a road win against #12.

PSU in 1994 had a credible resume, and Penn State's "argument" in 1994 is much stronger, IMO, than SMU's "argument" in 1982.

 

[Piranha]

The 1982 PS team had no business winning the title. They got thumped by Bama, and Nebraska was screwed in their game at PS. The officials were hand picked by JokePa. The one guy (Guman) was notorious. Nebraska ended up 12-1 that year.

1994 PS team would have had a beef if they beat someone with a better record than 9-4 and half the schedule was not .500 or below. A lot of teams over the years were more deserving and did not get picked #1

 

[Joe Pa Thetic]

The top teams in La Liga and the Bundesliga probably are better than the top of the EPL, but both La Liga and the Bundesliga are horribly top-heavy. In La Liga, Real Madrid has been La Liga champions 30 times since the World War II; Barcelona has won La Liga 23 times in the same period. Over the past 70 years, one of two clubs been league champions in Spain 3/4 of the time. In Germany, Bayern Munich, has been Bundesliga champions 24 times over the 45 years.

The EPL may not very competitive compared to North American sports, but it is vastly more competitive than the other elite leagues of Europe. Leicester City winning the EPL this year was viewed as a miracle; but I think the EPL is the only league of the big three leagues where something like that could ever happen.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

The top teams in La Liga and the Bundesliga probably are better than the top of the EPL, but both La Liga and the Bundesliga are horribly top-heavy. In La Liga, Real Madrid has been La Liga champions 30 times since the World War II; Barcelona has won La Liga 23 times in the same period. Over the past 70 years, one of two clubs been league champions in Spain 3/4 of the time. In Germany, Bayern Munich, has been Bundesliga champions 24 times over the 45 years.

The EPL may not very competitive compared to North American sports, but it is vastly more competitive than the other elite leagues of Europe. Leicester City winning the EPL this year was viewed as a miracle; but I think the EPL is the only league of the big three leagues where something like that could ever happen.

There are more giants in the EPL but the middle and bottom tier of La Liga and the Bundesliga are better than the middle and bottom tier of the EPL. That's the point. Though they are paid less, the 15th place team in Spain, comprised mostly of lesser paid Spanish players are better than the 15th place team in England, which is comprised of higher paid mostly English players.

This is similar to the 8th best SEC team being bettet than the 8th best Big Ten team despite generally making less money. Its because the SE player is better than the MW player and money cant change that.

 

[OnSHATterday]

That's a fair analogy.

The B1G can still compete for National Championships, however.

If one counts 1994 Penn State as a National Champion (I'm a Penn Stater, so why not ), the analogy goes even further.

The B1G has had 4 National Champions in the 11+ team era (1994 PSU, 1997 U-M, 2002 OSU, 2014 OSU).

The EPL has had 4 Champions League winners since 1993 (1999 Man U, 2005 Liverpool, 2008 Man U, 2012 Chelsea).

Anecdotally I like the comparison, but from a statistical standpoint I don't think it's a fair analogy to throw those 4's out there.

Getting to the champions league final is one of the most difficult feats in sports. With that being said, English clubs are far more competitive when the stat is "champions league finals appearances" over the same time frame, which I think tells a better stat when you've played a group stage and a 2-legged round of 16, quarter, and semi final round against the best clubs in the world before a 1-game championship:

Spain 14
Italy 11
England 9
Germany 8

Elite college football teams usually go all year without facing each other and crossing over conferences. College football is 2 years removed from an algorithm picking the 2 teams for the championship game, and in the era of 11+ in the Big Ten, there have been 45 teams "picked" as national champions by one poll or another and only 25 seasons.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

But it did play a factor. The SWC only had two good teams, neither of which was elite. SMU was simply unable to go 2-0 against the only 2 good teams on their regular season schedule. And SMU's OOC was at a "K-State in the mid-1990s, Baylor in 2014" level. Tulane, UTEP and North Texas.

Advanced football analytics are what they are, and people are free to either use them or ignore them. But S&P+ is one of the more respected advanced football analytics out there, among people who do believe in the analytics. And per S&P+, SMU, despite their 11-0-1 record, was ranked twenty-eighth (!!!) in all of college football in 1982.

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2016/5/26/11764420/1982-college-football-season-penn-state-nebraska

I don't think I'm simply being a Penn State-homer. Yes, I didn't live the 1982 college football season, like many of you did. I only say this by looking at numbers and by reading stories. But, IMO, SMU didn't deserve national championship consideration in 1982. None at all.

Now, as for Nebraska, they do have a legitimate complaint about 1982. And I won't argue with those that say 1994 was "payback" for that.

I appreciate where you're coming from and can see why it might make sense to you looking at it from a 2016 perspective. However, in those days no one was talking about analytics.

It was purely perception driven and the perception was that SMU was cheating (and they were – but they were also far from alone) and should not be rewarded for it.

That's why the Mustangs were voted No. 2 despite the fact that they were the only team from a major conference (or independent) that finished the season undefeated.

It had nothing to do with the Mustangs' strength of schedule, real or perceived. It was all about angered coaches and a selectively self righteous media horde collectively deciding that SMU was simply unworthy.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

As Iceland was finishing off England in the Round of 16, ESPN's English commentators, Ian Darke and Steve McManaman were trying to make sense of what was happening. Ian Darke mentioned that England had the richest league in the world while Iceland did not have a fully professional league (just semi-pro I believe). Then, Steve McManaman said something that really resonated. He said, "Its the richest league, Ian, but its never been the best." Now this is a man who played in the EPL, played for England, but also played for Real Madrid. He is an English homer if there ever was one, but also a realist. And the thing is, he is rights.

There is certainly a lot of people in the soccer business who will tell you that the top flights in Germany and Spain are better than England's top flight......but how can this be? The EPL is a worldwide brand. Even here in the US, it gets better TV ratings on NBCSN than the NHL, who plays on the same network. Kids, all around the world grow up watching the EPL. Their TV and merchandising revenues are beyond compare. Besides a few giants in other countries like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, PSG, etc, clubs in other countries simply cannot compete for players with the middle tier and bottom tier of the EPL. They are just too rich. Football in England is so big that even its 2nd division is probably one of the Top 10-15 richest leagues in the world (I am guessing at that one, I admit I could be off).

So, why is this and why am I posting it on a Pitt site? Well, this reminds me of Big Ten football. For decades, the Big Ten has been the richest league but has won very few major titles and people don't even associate the Big Ten with being "the best." Well, how can this be?

Here is my answer and its pretty simple. The core of English football are English players. In fact, English clubs have to have at least 8 "home grown" players on their rosters at all times.....and most of the middle and bottom-tier clubs have many more than that because they don't have the money or resources to scout worldwide like the Man U's and Chelsea's. But, for whatever reason, English footballers are simply not as good as their counterparts in Spain, Germany, France, and Italy and haven't been for a long time. They were passed long ago. Why this is, is a whole other debate that I wont get into but it really cannot be argued that the German player or the Spanish player, on average is simply more talented than the English player. However, in saying that, since the EPL is such an established brand with 5 giant clubs and a worldwide audience, it makes the most money.......and the core of the league are still English players. So, while we watch Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy, and Raheem Sterling play for their clubs and think these guys are superstars, they are that, partly because they are English and are playing in an English league comprised of inferior English players (but also yes, a whole bunch of world-class talent). So, a lot of people think of the EPL as the best because it has Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, and Tottenham but since the core of the league is English players, the league, as a whole cannot complete with La Liga and the Bundesliga. You see this bare itself out in Champions League and Europa League play and obviously in the World Club and European Championships.

As for the Big Ten, its always going to be the richest, but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football player is not as good as the Southeast/Texas football player. The core of the Big Ten is made up of Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football players and there is no getting away from that. It always will be. No matter how much money you give them, most B10 schools are going to recruit the Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Of course, OSU can recruit nationally and have been smart to do so. Harbaugh is smart enough to follow suit and has written a new book on national recruiting with satellite camps. Both know they cant compete with the SEC, Texas, and OU by recruiting the Midwest. Players aren't as good there and there aren't enough of them.

So, while everyone freaks out about how the Big Ten is making all this money, they need to realize that money does not make Midwestern players better. Just as money hasn't made English footballers any better. Culturally, they are not as good as their peers and even though the EPL and Big Ten are the richest leagues in their respective sports, they most likely will never be the best.

Interesting. One only needed to look at the French National Team yesterday. I would say 2/3's of them were black, African mostly in origin.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Mind you, I shed no tears for SMU now or then. They were BRAZEN cheaters.

I'm just saying that so too was Oklahoma...and USC...and Alabama...and the WHOLE SWC. And yet no one was taking national championships away from those schools because bell cows are treated differently than the rest of us.

Had the University of Texas, which played against almost that exact same schedule, also finished 11–0 -1, I will guarantee you there would've been split national champions.

 

[topdecktiger]

There are more giants in the EPL but the middle and bottom tier of La Liga and the Bundesliga are better than the middle and bottom tier of the EPL. That's the point. Though they are paid less, the 15th place team in Spain, comprised mostly of lesser paid Spanish players are better than the 15th place team in England, which is comprised of higher paid mostly English players.

This is similar to the 8th best SEC team being bettet than the 8th best Big Ten team despite generally making less money. Its because the SE player is better than the MW player and money cant change that.

That's actually the opposite of what most observers say. Typically, it's said that the Premier League is better towards the middle and bottom, and some of the other leagues are better at the top. It really doesn't make sense to say the Premier League has more "giants" when you look at the results for the Champions League and Europa league.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

That's actually the opposite of what most observers say. Typically, it's said that the Premier League is better towards the middle and bottom, and some of the other leagues are better at the top. It really doesn't make sense to say the Premier League has more "giants" when you look at the results for the Champions League and Europa league.

They are richer in the middle and the bottom, but not better......because like I said their players are English.

 

[topdecktiger]

They are richer in the middle and the bottom, but not better......because like I said their players are English.

So then what's your rationale for claiming the Premier League has more "giants?" The results from the Champions League and Europa League don't suggest that. I looked it up, and England's best CL team is Liverpool, which is 5th all time in the CL. Manchester United is 8th. By contrast, Spain has 2 teams in the top 10, Italy 3, and Germany 1. Same thing in the Europa League. Doesn't sound to me like England has more top teams. It sounds like Spain and Italy have more top teams, with England slightly ahead of Germany. (Of course in recent years it seems Germany and Italy have switched places, although it seems Italy is more accomplished historically.)

 

[DUNNELLONFLBUCK]

As Iceland was finishing off England in the Round of 16, ESPN's English commentators, Ian Darke and Steve McManaman were trying to make sense of what was happening. Ian Darke mentioned that England had the richest league in the world while Iceland did not have a fully professional league (just semi-pro I believe). Then, Steve McManaman said something that really resonated. He said, "Its the richest league, Ian, but its never been the best." Now this is a man who played in the EPL, played for England, but also played for Real Madrid. He is an English homer if there ever was one, but also a realist. And the thing is, he is rights.

There is certainly a lot of people in the soccer business who will tell you that the top flights in Germany and Spain are better than England's top flight......but how can this be? The EPL is a worldwide brand. Even here in the US, it gets better TV ratings on NBCSN than the NHL, who plays on the same network. Kids, all around the world grow up watching the EPL. Their TV and merchandising revenues are beyond compare. Besides a few giants in other countries like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, PSG, etc, clubs in other countries simply cannot compete for players with the middle tier and bottom tier of the EPL. They are just too rich. Football in England is so big that even its 2nd division is probably one of the Top 10-15 richest leagues in the world (I am guessing at that one, I admit I could be off).

So, why is this and why am I posting it on a Pitt site? Well, this reminds me of Big Ten football. For decades, the Big Ten has been the richest league but has won very few major titles and people don't even associate the Big Ten with being "the best." Well, how can this be?

Here is my answer and its pretty simple. The core of English football are English players. In fact, English clubs have to have at least 8 "home grown" players on their rosters at all times.....and most of the middle and bottom-tier clubs have many more than that because they don't have the money or resources to scout worldwide like the Man U's and Chelsea's. But, for whatever reason, English footballers are simply not as good as their counterparts in Spain, Germany, France, and Italy and haven't been for a long time. They were passed long ago. Why this is, is a whole other debate that I wont get into but it really cannot be argued that the German player or the Spanish player, on average is simply more talented than the English player. However, in saying that, since the EPL is such an established brand with 5 giant clubs and a worldwide audience, it makes the most money.......and the core of the league are still English players. So, while we watch Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy, and Raheem Sterling play for their clubs and think these guys are superstars, they are that, partly because they are English and are playing in an English league comprised of inferior English players (but also yes, a whole bunch of world-class talent). So, a lot of people think of the EPL as the best because it has Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, and Tottenham but since the core of the league is English players, the league, as a whole cannot complete with La Liga and the Bundesliga. You see this bare itself out in Champions League and Europa League play and obviously in the World Club and European Championships.

As for the Big Ten, its always going to be the richest, but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football player is not as good as the Southeast/Texas football player. The core of the Big Ten is made up of Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football players and there is no getting away from that. It always will be. No matter how much money you give them, most B10 schools are going to recruit the Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Of course, OSU can recruit nationally and have been smart to do so. Harbaugh is smart enough to follow suit and has written a new book on national recruiting with satellite camps. Both know they cant compete with the SEC, Texas, and OU by recruiting the Midwest. Players aren't as good there and there aren't enough of them.

So, while everyone freaks out about how the Big Ten is making all this money, they need to realize that money does not make Midwestern players better. Just as money hasn't made English footballers any better. Culturally, they are not as good as their peers and even though the EPL and Big Ten are the richest leagues in their respective sports, they most likely will never be the best.

Whats this say about pitt?

 

[paulbl99]

First let me say about Penn State did get hosed in 1994. At the very least they should've been co-national champions with Nebraska.

That would've been a hell of a game. In the end I think Penn State would've beaten Nebraska because I don't think the Cornhuskers could've stopped them. That was a great college offense.

However, you cannot count them as the 1994 national champions because they were not recognized as the national champions by any of the major governing bodies of the day.

So while I agree that what happened was unjust, it is dishonest to just disregard what the two major governing bodies decided because it doesn't fit into what do you think should have happened. It doesn't work that way.

Remember, SMU was similarly cheated out of the 1982 crown when it was the only undefeated team and still somehow ended up ranked behind one-loss Penn State. They too should have been co-national champions. SMU played in the Southwest Conference – that was every bit the equal to what Penn State was playing at the time. That was wrong.

I don't think that '82 Penn State team could've handled the Pony Express era SMU teams. That was the best college backfield I have ever seen. That is why I have always believed that everything evened out for Penn State.

State would have kicked the living S out of Nebraska in 94,
But everybody liked Dr Tom and at the end of the day not too many liked Grandpa Munster.

His 68 69 and 94 teams were great teams ....
86 was a very good team but at that time he could really coach and just put Jimmy Johnson in a wood shed. Coaching wise.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Interesting. One only needed to look at the French National Team yesterday. I would say 2/3's of them were black, African mostly in origin.

Which brings up another point. Some people will tell you that soccer is a "poor kid's sport," that poorer kids make better players. They have that drive to make it, similar to baseball players from the DR or inner city kids in the USA. France has a large population of citizens of African descent including North African (mostly Algerians). These players typically grow up in poor, ethnic neighborhoods and make up a disproportionate percentage of the French National Team. The MVP of the EPL this year was a Frenchman who was born in France to Algerian parents and plays internationally for Algeria. Zinedine Zidane was also Algerian.

I've always thought that French football would make a great socio-economic study that would hit on various issues.

 

[paulbl99]

As Iceland was finishing off England in the Round of 16, ESPN's English commentators, Ian Darke and Steve McManaman were trying to make sense of what was happening. Ian Darke mentioned that England had the richest league in the world while Iceland did not have a fully professional league (just semi-pro I believe). Then, Steve McManaman said something that really resonated. He said, "Its the richest league, Ian, but its never been the best." Now this is a man who played in the EPL, played for England, but also played for Real Madrid. He is an English homer if there ever was one, but also a realist. And the thing is, he is rights.

There is certainly a lot of people in the soccer business who will tell you that the top flights in Germany and Spain are better than England's top flight......but how can this be? The EPL is a worldwide brand. Even here in the US, it gets better TV ratings on NBCSN than the NHL, who plays on the same network. Kids, all around the world grow up watching the EPL. Their TV and merchandising revenues are beyond compare. Besides a few giants in other countries like Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, PSG, etc, clubs in other countries simply cannot compete for players with the middle tier and bottom tier of the EPL. They are just too rich. Football in England is so big that even its 2nd division is probably one of the Top 10-15 richest leagues in the world (I am guessing at that one, I admit I could be off).

So, why is this and why am I posting it on a Pitt site? Well, this reminds me of Big Ten football. For decades, the Big Ten has been the richest league but has won very few major titles and people don't even associate the Big Ten with being "the best." Well, how can this be?

Here is my answer and its pretty simple. The core of English football are English players. In fact, English clubs have to have at least 8 "home grown" players on their rosters at all times.....and most of the middle and bottom-tier clubs have many more than that because they don't have the money or resources to scout worldwide like the Man U's and Chelsea's. But, for whatever reason, English footballers are simply not as good as their counterparts in Spain, Germany, France, and Italy and haven't been for a long time. They were passed long ago. Why this is, is a whole other debate that I wont get into but it really cannot be argued that the German player or the Spanish player, on average is simply more talented than the English player. However, in saying that, since the EPL is such an established brand with 5 giant clubs and a worldwide audience, it makes the most money.......and the core of the league are still English players. So, while we watch Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy, and Raheem Sterling play for their clubs and think these guys are superstars, they are that, partly because they are English and are playing in an English league comprised of inferior English players (but also yes, a whole bunch of world-class talent). So, a lot of people think of the EPL as the best because it has Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, and Tottenham but since the core of the league is English players, the league, as a whole cannot complete with La Liga and the Bundesliga. You see this bare itself out in Champions League and Europa League play and obviously in the World Club and European Championships.

As for the Big Ten, its always going to be the richest, but the fact remains that for whatever reason, the Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football player is not as good as the Southeast/Texas football player. The core of the Big Ten is made up of Midwestern/mid-Atlantic football players and there is no getting away from that. It always will be. No matter how much money you give them, most B10 schools are going to recruit the Midwest and mid-Atlantic. Of course, OSU can recruit nationally and have been smart to do so. Harbaugh is smart enough to follow suit and has written a new book on national recruiting with satellite camps. Both know they cant compete with the SEC, Texas, and OU by recruiting the Midwest. Players aren't as good there and there aren't enough of them.

So, while everyone freaks out about how the Big Ten is making all this money, they need to realize that money does not make Midwestern players better. Just as money hasn't made English footballers any better. Culturally, they are not as good as their peers and even though the EPL and Big Ten are the richest leagues in their respective sports, they most likely will never be the best.

Full disclosure
Did fall asleep before finishing.

But........

English league is so good I watch it occasionally for short periods of time.

And I don't like soccer

 

[Eph97]

I disagree with your premise. OSU with mainly Ohio players beat a supposedly unbeatable Miami team in 2002. Yes, regardless of the controversy in the end they outplayed them the whole game and would have easily won if not for Tressel being overly conservative with the lead. Also, if Southern/Texas talent is so great than why has Texas won only 1 national title in the last 40 years?