Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks If you continually have teams like Michigan State play BC and Illinois play USC on the road they cannot be expected to win. The SEC as good as it is played one BCS conference champion; the big 10 played two plus Michigan State (who is 7th in the conference) played a top 15 team. If other conference has similar lopsided scheduled games they would h ...[text shortened]... e and that's why I think one needs to look at more than just record when comparing conferences.
You're a complete joke; I'm sure you'll be making the same excuses come January 2009. If your conference can't compete at the top levels, that's their tough luck. To say a Top 15 team "can't be expected to win" in any game just shows how pathetic your attitude and those of the other Big Ten fans are. Of course, every year you'll claim your conference champ deserves a shot at the BCS Championship (two years ago Big Ten idiots here wanted two Big Ten teams to play in the title game!) but then once the inevitable crushing happens, you'll whine and cry about how "unfair" it was.
Just three years ago, Texas and Vince Young went to the Rose Bowl to play USC for the national championship. Unlike the top Big Ten teams which get destroyed ever year, they managed to win. It seems an insurmountable task only for Big Ten schools.
First of all you limit the argument to just 5 years. In 1997 and 2002 the Big 10 did win the National Championship and are argueably the dominant conference of that period. It is no longer the best conference but it is still better than half the BCS conferences.
Secondly, I did not say a top 15 team cannot be expected to win. I said I would not expect the 7th team in a conference to beat a top 15 team. If there is no other bowl game that matches a team well in the bottom half of their conference against a top 15 team. One ought to look at more than wins and losses when this continually happens. It makes no sence that just because a Vince Young Texas team could beat USC means that the 3rd best team in the Big 10 should win at USC. The parallel would be that Ohio State should win in USC.
Finally, the argumenet that since Ohio State lost the National Championship, the whole Big 10 sucks makes absolutely no sense at all. Most years the Big 10 and Ohio State play top teams out of conference and if they win them the Big 10 gets the shot any team would. Two years ago, Ohio State won against Texas in Texas and then beat an undefeated team Michigan (who won at also a #2 Notre Dame). Ohio State did not win the Championship but to say they or Michigan weren't top teams is just untrue.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks First of all you limit the argument to just 5 years. In 1997 and 2002 the Big 10 did win the National Championship and are argueably the dominant conference of that period. It is no longer the best conference but it is still better than half the BCS conferences.
Secondly, I did not say a top 15 team cannot be expected to win. I said I would not e ...[text shortened]... tate did not win the Championship but to say they or Michigan weren't top teams is just untrue.
You can't even see his point about Texas going into USC's "home field advanantage" as you like to call it, and as underdogs, they beat USC. Great teams rise to the occasion. Notre Dame durning their heyday used to play USC in the Rose Bowl, or Michigan in Ann Arbor or Miami in the Orange Bowl or Texas in the Cotton Bowl. Somehow they won against the odds. Your arguement has no merit. Get a grip!!
Every team in a bowl isn't a great team but if you want to use bowl games to compare conferences you need to seed teams correctly.
There is no way Illinois (big 10 third seed) at USC (pac 10 one seed) is a game that can be determined to see which conference is better. If USC played Ohio State then you'd be matching top seeds or if Illinois played Oregon State then you'd be matching three seeds.
Michigan State wasn't even a mediocire Big 10 team: only Minesota had a worse big ten record and only Minnesota finished the year with more overall losses. They play the ACC Atlantic conference winner in a bowl game.
Even Wisconsin Big 10 (4 seed) played Tennessee which is in a three way tie for best record in the SEC.
Who a team plays matters alot. Michigan, Penn State and Purdue all played against more evenly seeded opponents (even if the first two were in their oppornents home state) and won.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks Every team in a bowl isn't a great team but if you want to use bowl games to compare conferences you need to seed teams correctly.
There is no way Illinois (big 10 third seed) at USC (pac 10 one seed) is a game that can be determined to see which conference is better. If USC played Ohio State then you'd be matching top seeds or if Illinois pla evenly seeded opponents (even if the first two were in their oppornents home state) and won.
The Illini played in the Rose Bowl last year only because OSU was in the BCS Championship and the Rose Bowl didn't want to break tradition of a Big 10/Pac 10 matchup. They could have and should have matched up USC vs. Georgia which clearly would have been a better game that what the fans got. I don't think anybody thought the Illini had a legit chance against USC.
Bowls matchups are decided on one thing and that's $$$. You want to know why Michigan State had to play a Top 15 team in the Champs Sports Bowl? It's because BC fans do not travel well, PERIOD! If so, they would have ended up in the Chick-fil-A or Gator Bowl where they deserved to be if their record was the sole factor in determining bowl bids.
Purdue played an even opponent, CMU from the MAC? Purdue beat them by 3 TD's during the regular season. Clemson put 70 on CMU last year. CMU might be the MAC champs, but to say they are pretty even with a middle of the road Big 10 team is a bit much. But then again, App. State did go into the Big House and beat Michigan. Talk about no having the home field advantage and everything against you in that one. LOL!
It seems I have to correct the delusions of Big Ten fans both in January and during the year. As to the claim that the Big Ten played teams with better records in the bowls and that explain the league's losing record I wrote this on January 2, 2008:
The facts are that the combined records for Big Ten teams in the bowl games BEFORE the games was almost identical to the record of their opponents: 55-29 v. 59-28. Wisconsin, Penn State and Indiana had better records than their foes and Purdue was 7-5 against MAC Central Michigan's 8-5 (and Purdue had killed them during the year). In 2 of the 3 other games, the Big Ten team had one less win; only in the BC-Michigan State game was there a substantial difference.
If you dump the two supposed mismatches (BC-Michigan State, Purdue-C. Michigan), the records are Big Ten 41-19 Opponents 41-20. Yet the Big Ten went 2-3 in those games and were badly beaten in 2 of them while the other 3 games were all close.
If Ohio State wins, you can say the Big Ten did OK. If they lose, it's another sub-par performance esp. compared to the other power conferences.
Your "when we dump these games" the match-ups were even arguement" is just not true. If we dump games that are expected to be blow outs, there is no way Illinois at USC should be included. It would be shocking if the 3rd best team in a conference beat the #1 team in a BCS conference in their backyard. In fact, no other bowl stacks the 3rd best team against a BCS conference winner. This is precisely why I you need to look at more than just record.
The big 10 had bowl three teams that were each two games below .500 in conferene in bowl games. Simply Indiana, Purdue, and Michigan State lost 63.5% of their conference games. These teams stink compared to average Big 10 teams. So I am not sure what you can infer when they lose bowl games against teams that don't have sub .500 conference records? Nevertheless, Purdue played a terrible non-BCS team and won and Michigan State played a top 15 team and kept it within a field goal. It might be 1-2 in those three games but by no means is that a terrible perfomance when you consider matchups.
As for the other 4 games, they were split. Not super-impressive but far from being a joke. Both wins (Michigan and Penn State) are in the other teams home state. Ohio State loses the national championship game; Wisconsin (the big 10 4th seed) loses against a team that is tied for 1st in conference SEC record.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks Your "when we dump these games" the match-ups were even arguement" is just not true. If we dump games that are expected to be blow outs, there is no way Illinois at USC should be included. It would be shocking if the 3rd best team in a conference beat the #1 team in a BCS conference in their backyard. In fact, no other bowl stacks the 3rd best te ...[text shortened]... in (the big 10 4th seed) loses against a team that is tied for 1st in conference SEC record.
Your BS spin never stops. The 4th best team in the PAC-10 beat the tied for 2nd team in the Big Ten by 32 points in the Big Ten team's home field! I guess "there's no way" THAT could happen!
The Big Ten wanted a team to go to the Rose Bowl and only Illinois was eligible. The same Illinois team beat Ohio State in Columbus but according to you "had no chance against USC". If that is so, USC should have been playing LSU for the national championship and Ohio State could have been drubbed by Arizona State in the Rose Bowl.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks Your "when we dump these games" the match-ups were even arguement" is just not true. If we dump games that are expected to be blow outs, there is no way Illinois at USC should be included. It would be shocking if the 3rd best team in a conference beat the #1 team in a BCS conference in their backyard. In fact, no other bowl stacks the 3rd best te ...[text shortened]... in (the big 10 4th seed) loses against a team that is tied for 1st in conference SEC record.
Listen to yourself. Based on what you just said, it would be impossible for Illinois to beat Ohio State or Michigan and we know that is not impossible. Both have been #1 teams in a BCS conference. *shakes head wondering what kind of dumb arguement you will come up with next* I suppose we should just quit playing the games at all because the #1 team can never be beaten by anyone seeded lower, so there it is!! Brilliant!!
If you're trying to get Big Ten fans to change allegiance, it will never work. I'll always be a Big Ten fan. I've lived in Arizona for several (20) years but I still hate the Pac Ten. I like ASU the best of them because I'm only minutes from the campus and go to many of their events. But ASU against a Big Ten school? No chance I'm rooting for ASU.
My rooting interest?
1. Big Ten
2. SEC - except Florida
3. Mountain West
4. WAC
5. Big 12
6. Big East
7. ACC
8. Pac Ten
The bowl games are stacked against the Big 10. This is a better explanation for why the bowl record is bad (but not like Notre Dame losing its last million games) than the whole conference sucks.
A three seed (Illinois) on the road against a one seed (USC) is not a game you will win the majority of the time. Tennessee who is the SEC's third team or Florida SEC's fourth team were not impressive at all in their bowl games and I would fully expect them to get thrashed in that game. As I would Cinncinnati (big East three) etc.
The Big 10 won games on the road: Penn State beat A & M in Texas; Michigan beat Florida in Florida. There is a significance to winning to winning on the road and in all systems except college football you get half of your games with the advantage of being the home team. When you toss in the truly ridiculous games (Michigan State at BC), I think there is an explanation for the Big 10s record other than the whole conference stinks.
If bottom eligible teams in conferences like the SEC played BC or another top 15 teams they would lose the overhwheleming majority of the time. Instead Mississipi State plays UCF.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks The bowl games are stacked against the Big 10. This is a better explanation for why the bowl record is bad (but not like Notre Dame losing its last million games) than the whole conference sucks.
A three seed (Illinois) on the road against a one seed (USC) is not a game you will win the majority of the time. Tennessee who is the SEC's third team ...[text shortened]... they would lose the overhwheleming majority of the time. Instead Mississipi State plays UCF.
You want some cheese to go with that whine???
The Big Ten has not been a strong conference for a while now. Get over it. Geez, do you REALLY believe they intentionally stack bowl games against the Big Ten schools? Okay, listen, I will cut you in on the deal of a lifetime. There is this oasis in Arizona. The flew the London Bridge over to get traffic across the gorgeous man made lake. They are going to develop the land any day now with multi-million dollar homes. I really shouldn't do this, but I can let you have 10,000 acres for only $1,000.00 per acre. But you have to send me a cashier's check today. Hurry, this offer expires tonight at midnight.
Originally posted by shortcircuit You want some cheese to go with that whine???
The Big Ten has not been a strong conference for a while now. Get over it. Geez, do you REALLY believe they intentionally stack bowl games against the Big Ten schools? Okay, listen, I will cut you in on the deal of a lifetime. There is this oasis in Arizona. The flew the London Bridge over to get traffic ...[text shortened]... ut you have to send me a cashier's check today. Hurry, this offer expires tonight at midnight.
I am not suprised by your land offer. It makes as much sense as your argument that the Big 10 gets fair bowl games.
Illinois at USC and Michigan State vs a top 15 Boston College team. It a joke. Then add in the home/ away factor. The Big 10 year in year has the toughest bowl schedule.
Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks I am not suprised by your land offer. It makes as much sense as your argument that the Big 10 gets fair bowl games.
Illinois at USC and Michigan State vs a top 15 Boston College team. It a joke. Then add in the home/ away factor. The Big 10 year in year has the toughest bowl schedule.
LMAO!!!!! 4 games you had a better record; 4 games you had a worse record (including the Purdue-C. Michigan game). Yup, really unfair.
If Illinois stunk so bad, how come they beat your best team in that team's home field?
BTW, for about the tenth time, Illinois was not "at" USC; USC DOES NOT play its home games in Pasadena.
Also BTW, no Big Ten team is ever forced to accept bowl invitations; if they don't like where they are invited to they can always decline to play.
Since climate, fan base and proximity to normal games determine home and away, when a team travels 2000 miles to play USC in the Rose Bowl it certainly is a road.
I don't have a problem with the bowl games that are played. I object to you looking at games that one might expect to be lopsided seeing nothing other than the winner and the loser and then concluding that Big 10 stinks.
Sports Illustrated predictions/college football
13 Aug '08 14:05
Back to Top