I grew up in the Midwest and attended a Big Ten school (two
of them actually) so take this for what it’s worth. But there’s a reason why I
concluded decades ago that the Rose Bowl was the surest bet in sports—always take
the Pac 10 team—and it wasn’t because I thought the Pac 10 was simply the
better conference.
Put simply, the traditional Rose Bowl matchup pits a warm
weather conference school against a cold weather conference in warm, ideal
conditions. It’s also a home game for the Pac 10; literally for UCLA, more or
less for the other schools. Arguably the likely worst weather locations in the
Pac10 is better than the best weather locations in the Big Ten (leaving
Maryland out of it). No surprise then that Big Ten teams tend to be of the run
the ball variety while their counterparts out west are more balanced between
run and pass.
And I would guess the differences are even more significant
if we looked at high school football in the respective territories. Fall Friday
nights in California, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington are a little more
congenial than they are in say Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin. It would be
astonishing if the pool of quarterbacks in the West wasn’t deeper than it is in
the Midwest.
The point, if indeed I actually have one, is usually made on
Sundays. After New Year’s Day the call goes out that Big Ten football isn’t
very good. Then on Sunday, the Packers play and we are informed that no one
wants to face them in the playoffs in Green Bay because January, Green Bay. If
the Rose Bowl was played in say Soldier Field and The Polaris Bowl was played
outdoors in Minneapolis on Jan. 1 we’d probably see the Big Ten winning more
often.
No comments:
Post a Comment