And when, exactly, did the Big Ten ask for your advice?

Sean Jackson, a CFN blogger, had a coherent (that was about it) write up on how the Big Ten can be better in 2008. Now, I won’t get into the fact that he’s just one of the many talking about the Big Ten as if it’s the MAC or even the Big East circa 2004. Jackson just made some fundamental mistakes in his assessment of the conference going into 2008, mistakes which should have been, at the very least, addressed by CFN before publishing the article.

“It’s essential that the Big Ten establishes a tone early in the season especially for the younger teams such as Michigan, Penn State, and Michigan State. If the younger teams can develop confidence from the beginning of the year, it’ll make the Big Ten much more competitive. If not then history will repeat itself.”

Young? I’m not one to defend those two other teams from Michigan, but to lump Penn State, Michigan and Michigan State in the “young” category is just not correct. Penn State may return as many as 18 starters for 2008, and many more with starting experience. The Lions have an upperclassmen-laden depth chart this fall, and Jackson clearly gives away his failure to do even minimal research by labeling Penn State as a “younger” team in the Big Ten.

Michigan’s defense is shaping up to be one of the better in the conference in 2008, with the entire line returning, an excellent leader in MLB Obi Ezeh, two returning starting corners, and two safeties with starting/meaningful experience.

The Spartans return EIGHT starters on offense, including fantastic back Javon Ringer and signal caller Brian Hoyer. Meanwhile, the defense has six starters coming back, and three more with starting experience. I’ve even called for Michigan State to finish third in the Big Ten this year!

“For the past two years it’s been Ohio State, then Wisconsin and Michigan dueling for second. Illinois emerged last year as a pleasant surprise adding a fourth team to the mix, but from then on it gets ugly pretty quick. Want to prove the media wrong? Want to field teams in the BCS that will compete? Then the core of the conference needs to get better. Teams need to start challenging and keeping up with Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Illinois, in order to make this conference better.”

Has Jackson even watched a Big Ten football game the past two seasons? If I remember correctly, Illinois was 2-10 the year before last, and 2-10 the year before that! He also falls into the pack mentality by failing to recall that the past two seasons, Big Ten BCS teams have played USC twice, Florida, and LSU. I’m not so sure any other conference would do much better against those opponents. The only team that proved it deserved a shot against those two eventual national champions was USC, who’s still (as much as we’d like to ignore it after Vince Young tore them apart in ’05) in the middle of an incredible dynasty of dominance.

Just try to tell me that Oklahoma (which was blown out by Big East “weakling” West Virginia) should have played LSU last year, or Virginia Tech, or even Kansas (which lost to Missou) or Missouri (which lost--twice--to Oklahoma). USC was the only other choice to play in the BCS National Championship Game, and while they probably could have beaten LSU, the Trojans lost to Stanford at home, so the voters never would have gone for placing them ahead of Ohio State. And if you want to take the “voter-bias” point further, West Virginia should have also been given serious consideration, but because of the largely false assumption that the Big East can’t compete, the Mountaineers were left out.*

I don’t think that I’m as upset at Jackson, as it seems. It’s just this snowballing effect since Ohio State lost the 2007 national championship to an LSU team that was supposed to win it from the beginning. Jackson and CFN are just the latest to fall victim to this black hole of sensationalism in college football. There’s nothing wrong with the Big Ten. The SEC isn’t faster than holy hell. USC is still the best football team over the last six years. And don’t worry, next season the media will latch onto something else that will have one half of college football fans whining, and the other half cheering. If everything was so easily explained in this sport, why would any of us even care to watch?

*I won't include Illinois in this part of the conversation, due to the fact that the Rose Bowl goons made the horrible decision to invite the Illini to Pasadena last season. Yeah, the team was January-bowl good, but not hey-let's-play-USC good. The Big Ten should have only had one BCS representative in 2007, period.