Sports Illustrated predictions/college football

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
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.

Did you expect that OSU-LSU would be lopsided? Or Indiana-Oklahoma State (Indy had a better record)?

Anyway, the Big Ten is 14-22 over the last five years in bowl games, so last year was hardly a fluke. The conference is now inferior to the SEC and PAC-10 (definitely) and probably the Big 12 and Big East as well. It's teams might be able to hang in the ACC.

What determines home and away is whether a team is playing at their home field. USC was not. Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp?

I did not expect Indiana, a team that was 3-5 in their own conference to beat anyone. Everyone beats Indiana (including most of the Big 10), it just has no significance that a team with a better conference record beats them.
USC playing in the Rose Bowl is a home game just like in Indiana basketball in the tournament would be a home game in Indianappolis.
The Big 10 is much better than the Big East. If matched up the top 5 teams (instead of having ridiclous games like the Bowl games normally are) Ohio State vs. West Virginia. Michigan vs. Conneticut. Illinois vs. Cincinnati, Wisconsin vs. South Florida. Penn State vs. Rutgers. I would expect the Big 10 would win most if not all of them.
Similarly, I would expect the Big 10 to win most of their games against the ACC. (Michigan vs. Boston College is the even matchup not Michigan State vs. Boston Collge like was played).

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
I did not expect Indiana, a team that was 3-5 in their own conference to beat anyone. Everyone beats Indiana (including most of the Big 10), it just has no significance that a team with a better conference record beats them.
USC playing in the Rose Bowl is a home game just like in Indiana basketball in the tournament would be a home game in India ...[text shortened]... an vs. Boston College is the even matchup not Michigan State vs. Boston Collge like was played).

USC in the Rose Bowl and the Hoosiers in Indianapolis are not "home" games, they are neutral site games. Just because they have the majority of the crowd behind them doesn't make it home field. Using your logic, two schools would have to meet exactly halfway between to be a fair playing field.

Again, bowl matchups are based on money and money alone. Whichever school will bring the most fans that will stay the longest and spend money is the school that a bowl game will pick. That's why BC continuously gets shuffled to the bottom of the deck when bowls pick from the ACC and the same reason Clemson usually gets the nod ahead of them. The Tigers bring fans, BC doesn't.

As far as the Big10 vs. ACC, I think it would be a lot more even than you think. I think most of these matchups are pretty much toss ups.

Ohio State vs Virginia Tech - OSU
Michigan vs. Boston College - BC
Illiniois vs. Clemson - Clemson
Wisconsin vs. Wake Forest - Wisconsin
Penn State vs. Virginia - Penn State

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
I did not expect Indiana, a team that was 3-5 in their own conference to beat anyone. Everyone beats Indiana (including most of the Big 10), it just has no significance that a team with a better conference record beats them.
USC playing in the Rose Bowl is a home game just like in Indiana basketball in the tournament would be a home game in India ...[text shortened]... an vs. Boston College is the even matchup not Michigan State vs. Boston Collge like was played).

If 8 teams go to bowls from one conference, it's pretty much mathematically certain that some of them will have losing conference records. Your excuses are really pathetic; the fact remains that Oklahoma State had a worse record than Indiana but trounced them. Why that is meaningless in discussing the relative strengths of the conferences is a mystery to me.

Your expectations on how Big Ten teams would do in games have been proven to be laughably inaccurate.

Indiana and Michigan State both had a 3-5 record in the Big 10. They consistent lost to Big 10 teams. Indiana played a team with a .500 conference record. Michigan State played a top 15 team. Michigan State even played well and kept the game within one score. There is no reasonable way to look at these two ridiculous match ups and decide the Big 10 stinks.
The Big 10 last year wasn't great but again look at the match ups of the top 5 teams and I think it is pretty clear that the Big 10 is better than the Big East and the ACC.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
Indiana and Michigan State both had a 3-5 record in the Big 10. They consistent lost to Big 10 teams. Indiana played a team with a .500 conference record. Michigan State played a top 15 team. Michigan State even played well and kept the game within one score. There is no reasonable way to look at these two ridiculous match ups and decide the 5 teams and I think it is pretty clear that the Big 10 is better than the Big East and the ACC.

Are Indiana and Michigan State in the Big Ten? Yes. Then the caliber of these teams is relevant to discussing how good the Big Ten is. Oklahoma State HAD A WORSE RECORD THAN INDIANA. Read what I've just put in CAPS and understand it; you've ignored it the other three times I mentioned it. Oklahoma State ROUTED INDIANA. Read what I've just put in CAPS and understand it; you've ignored it the other three times I mentioned it. This fact is relevant to how weak the Big Ten is.

BC won, period. Michigan State also lost Ohio State by only 7, to Michigan by 4 and to Wisconsin by 3. So the Spartans were a quality opponent for BC.

The Big 10 is inferior to the conferences mentioned. Your speculations about the match ups between the top five teams in the Big Ten and Big East doesn't mean jack; it's just another Big Ten fan claiming that their teams would be expected to win games that they probably wouldn't. The top five in the Big Ten went 2-3 in the bowls and two of them got blasted. The Big East went 3-2 and one of their teams won a BCS bowl (in a rout against the #4 ranked team). Those are facts, not speculation.

You have excellent capitalization skills but you ignore the fact that Indiana and Michigan State were both 3-5 in the Big 10. They both consistently lost in the Big 10 and so I think them losing outside the Big 10 reflect nothing. The only thing that is significant is that Michigan State finished within one score of BC. When teams below .500 in a conference do that against a top 15 teams (that was ranked as high as #2 it is a positive reflection for the conference).
You continually ignore which teams play bowl games, who they play and where they play. If you want to compare equally matched games like BC vs. Michigan (both #2s) you can see that the big 10 has a huge edge. Your argument is just dumb: BC beat the 7th best team in the Big 10 by one score. It proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

SEC is the best. ROLL TIDE!!!