I think a big part of that major down period was the result of a lot of the Big Ten schools de-emphasizing athletics at that time.
So, the Big 2 weren't really that good. The other 8 were just plain bad and gave the Big 2 inflated records.
What are your thoughts?
There was some of that even at the Big2. In the 1961 season Ohio State won the league, final records:
- 6-0 Ohio State (didn't play MN, MSU, PU)
- 6-1 Minnesota (lost to UW; didn't play tOSU, IU)
- 5-2 Michigan State (lost to MN, PU; didn't play tOSU, IA)
- 4-2 Purdue (lost to MN, M; didn't play tOSU, UW)
- 4-3 Wisconsin (lost to tOSU, MSU, IA; didn't play PU, M)
- 3-3 Michigan
- 2-4 Iowa
- 2-4 Northwestern
- 0-6 Indiana
- 0-7 Illinois
Wow what a goofy schedule. The Buckeyes, Wolverines, Hawkeyes, Wildcats, and Hoosiers played six games (missing three) while everybody else played seven (missing two). Ohio State won the league with their undefeated record but that isn't very convincing since they didn't play the teams with the next three best records. Anyway, the BigTen/Pac/Rose Bowl contract had expired so the Buckeyes were not contractually obligated to go to the Rose Bowl and the tOSU Faculty Council voted to decline the Rose Bowl's invitation. Thus, the Rose Bowl invited runner-up Minnesota who beat UCLA 21-3.
What makes this even odder is that, at the time, the BigTen had a no repeat rule in effect so if the Gophers had won the league they wouldn't have been eligible because they lost the previous seasons' Rose Bowl to the Huskies.
Sorry for the diversion, back to your underlying question:
First, I don't think the Big2 were all that bad. As I've elaborated in the past I firmly believe that the Buckeyes and Wolverines (in that order) were the two best teams in the country in 1973. They tied in Ann Arbor and the Buckeyes drilled USC (42-21) in the Rose Bowl. Later, in the 1975 season the Buckeyes pounded UCLA 41-20 in the Rose Bowl (stadium, not game) in October then inexplicably lost to those very same Bruins in the Rose Bowl (Stadium and game) a few months later, 23-10.
Also, if you look at scores, the BigTen reps were generally competitive. The two BigTen wins were both blowouts (tOSU by 21 over USC in the 1974 Rose Bowl and Michigan by 17 over Washington in the 1981 Rose Bowl). Then there were:
- Three one point losses (tOSU, M2x)
- One three point loss (tOSU)
- Four seven point losses (M4x)
- An eight point loss (M)
- Two 10 point losses (tOSU, M)
- A 13 point loss (tOSU)
- A 17 point loss (Iowa)
- A 25 point loss (tOSU)
- A 28 point loss (Iowa)
- A 36 point loss (Illinois)
Three of the worst four losses including the worst two losses were by "little 8" teams that made it. The Buckeyes and Wolverines combined for NINE one score losses and only one loss by more than two scores. I think that suggests that the Big 2 weren't all that bad.
I think we also have to give some credit to the Pac. Most of these losses were to very good opponents. The victorious Pac teams came into the Rose Bowl ranked:
- #1
- #3 thrice
- #5 thrice
- #7
- #11
- #12 twice
- #13 twice
- #16
- #18
- unranked
Also, I think the PAC's natural home field advantage contributed. The 16 PAC winners in that period were:
- USC x7
- UCLA x4
- Stanford x2 (the Indians back then)
- Washington x2
- ASU
So 11 of the 16 losses were to teams from LA and a total of 13 were to teams from California. That is basically a road game. The thing is that this obviously doesn't explain why the Pac sucked in the 50's then was dominant in the 70's.
Finally, I think the era was different. I'm sure that Woody and Bo and their players wanted to win the Rose Bowl but remember that at the beginning of this Bowls were still seen as exhibitions by a lot of people. That and the intense focus on THE GAME and winning the BigTen, I think, made it nearly impossible to be at maximum intensity for a game that just wasn't as important to the people involved.
