lulz wrote:
Champollion wrote:No worries, Nebraska will save the honor of the Big 10 next year!
They can't even beat a 6-6 Pac-10 team.
I don't think they'll be saving anything.
Nebraska knows the Big 10 is weak. That's why Nebraska is running away from the Big 12 and joining a conference it thinks it can win in.
I counted 7 Big 10 teams playing in bowl games this season; 5 on New Year's Day alone.
May have been more - did Purdue or Minnesota play in bowls?
That doesn't smack of weak football to me.
Bumping my chest for the
BIG ONE/LITTLE ELEVEN CONFERENCE
at halftime!!!!!
Ohio State cheats thats why they are good every year. Penn State will dominate once JoePa is no longer coaching and Tony Dungy restores the roar.
Isn't there 30 bowl games for 120 DI-A teams ? Half the teams get to go to a bowl game. That's why we need a playoffs brackets with 12 Conf Champs, single elimination.
Ohio State is simply the best!
silly old fossil wrote:
I counted 7 Big 10 teams playing in bowl games this season; 5 on New Year's Day alone.
May have been more - did Purdue or Minnesota play in bowls?
That doesn't smack of weak football to me.
Getting into a bowl game isn't too impressive by itself: win 6 games against FBS teams and you're pretty much in unless your team has such a weak fanbase that you won't draw a good crowd for the game (or if your fanbase isn't impressive enough and a matchup including your team won't create much interest). With 4 non-conference games for most conferences, that means they only need to win two conference games to get in if they take 4 non-conference pushovers instead of a real challenge. How does that make a team, and the amount of those teams for a league, good?
Answer: it doesn't.
Flagpole wrote:
Embarrassing because Wisconsin does have better players
Nope, teams in the south (SEC and Big 12 South, plus TCU and now SMU) and on the west coast (Pac 10) that have the resources (facilities, coaching) are getting better players than teams in snowy states (Big 10, Big 12 North, northern Big East schools) and that trend will continue for some time to come. College players will prefer to practice and play outside in nice weather, all other things being equal.
5UCK IT SEC!!!!!!!!!
Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. The party is over.
Gordon Geeeeeeeee wrote:
5UCK IT SEC!!!!!!!!!
Hope you enjoyed it while it lasted. The party is over.
LOL
Way to go, Big Ten! Your best/2nd best team (one of the two) just knocked off the third or fourth best SEC team@!!!!
LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN!
watchout wrote:
LOL
Way to go, Big Ten! Your best/2nd best team (one of the two) just knocked off the third or fourth best SEC team@!!!!
LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN!
I would love to have seen what you would have written had Ohio State lost. Can't have it both ways, BIOTCHHHHHHH
watchout wrote:
LOL
Way to go, Big Ten! Your best/2nd best team (one of the two) just knocked off the third or fourth best SEC team@!!!!
LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN!
Good try. Arkansas was the SEC #2 team according to BCS rankings.
I prefer to look at the Sagarin ratings, as I think they are a much more valuable source of info. Arkansas was the #3 SEC team, but only #12 in the predictor, while OSU was the #1 Big Ten team, but #6 in the predictor.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Obviously, with no playoff, trying to figure who woulda/coulda/shoulda beat who is mostly guesswork. But one thing that I wish could be factored in is the cumulative effect of playing good teams (with future NFL players hitting you every Saturday). TCU, Boise State, even App State have shown that a good, well-coached team can beat a big school on any given one-off Saturday. But I doubt seriously that they could go through a whole season like that without getting beaten up. I thought Arkansas would win, but they made too many mistakes. Still, their only losses all season were to Alabama and Auburn, and they beat LSU, MSU, and SC. Were they the 2nd or 3rd best team in the SEC west? Who cares? There's no doubt that their strength of schedule was legit. I continue to believe that if you put somebody like Boise in the SEC, they would be somewhere between a Kentucky and a SC; a team that can win 8 or so in their good years, and always a trap game if you catch them off a bye week or overconfident. But in the SEC, you can have a top-20 national recruiting class and be in the bottom half of the conference. Breaking into the upper echelon of that group is just brutal.
Sagarin wrote:
I prefer to look at the Sagarin ratings, as I think they are a much more valuable source of info. Arkansas was the #3 SEC team, but only #12 in the predictor, while OSU was the #1 Big Ten team, but #6 in the predictor.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm?loc=interstitialskip
May be the first time I agree 100% with what you are saying here. While Ohio State stumbled against Wisconsin, it is clear the Buckeyes were the class of the Big Ten this season (though not by much). Also, Arkansas is NOT at the same level in the SEC as the Buckeyes are in the Big Ten. That the Buckeyes eeked out a win (which I'm happy about of course) over a just barely above-the-middle-of-the-pack SEC team just doesn't mean much. I NEVER make excuses about why MY team lost a game for I ALWAYS believe the best team wins, but when my team WINS, I don't mind looking at all the ways they could have LOST. Buckeyes were VERY fortunate that blocked kick didn't turn into a touchdown. Buckeyes were VERY fortunate the Arkansas receivers seemed to not know how to catch perfectly-thrown balls and that their defenders couldn't intercept a horrible pass from Pryor.
Had the Buckeyes beaten Auburn or LSU or even Alabama (who I think is better than their record indicates this year), then I think an argument could be made that the SEC isn't as big and bad as ever, BUT since the barely hung on (after a horrible second half) to beat Arkansas, like I said before the game, it really means little.
Samuel L Jackson wrote:
watchout wrote:LOL
Way to go, Big Ten! Your best/2nd best team (one of the two) just knocked off the third or fourth best SEC team@!!!!
LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN!
I would love to have seen what you would have written had Ohio State lost. Can't have it both ways, BIOTCHHHHHHH
Umm, if Ohio State lost, I would have said "Wow, the Big Ten sucks!"
Ohio State should have won that game. They were the better team (they are a Top-5 team IMO, and Arkansas is probably around #15 for me)
Drizzy wrote:
watchout wrote:LOL
Way to go, Big Ten! Your best/2nd best team (one of the two) just knocked off the third or fourth best SEC team@!!!!
LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN! LONG LIVE THE BIG TEN!
Good try. Arkansas was the SEC #2 team according to BCS rankings.
All hail the almighty BCS!
I think we can all agree Auburn was the #1 team in the SEC, yes?
IMO, Alabama has been the #2 team in the SEC all year. I know they finished with one more loss than both Arkansas and LSU, but neither of those teams were as good as Alabama (win/loss records aren't everything). I think that has shown to be true so far in the bowl games... Alabama has definitely had the best bowl game for the SEC so far, though I expect Auburn will look even better in the Championship game.
For what it's worth... here would be my top 9, BASED ON THE TEAMS THAT HAVE FINISHED THEIR SEASON SO FAR.
(Top 3 are really interchangeable, but I gave TCU the benefit of doubt since they were undefeated... I probably wouldn't bet on them against the other two teams though)
1. TCU (13-0) - Undefeated; won the Rose Bowl 21-19 over #7 Wisconsin
2. Ohio State (12-1) - Lone loss was to #7 Wisconsin in October; won the Sugar Bowl 31-26 over Arkansas
3. Stanford (12-1) - Lone loss was to Oregon in October; won Orange Bowl 40-12 over #6 Virginia Tech
4. Oklahoma (12-2) - Lost to a good Missouri team and a solid Texas A&M team... but also beat very good teams in #10 Florida State, Oklahoma State and Nebraska and rolled over UConn in the Fiesta Bowl 48-20
5. Boise State (12-1) - Lost in OT to a good Nevada team, but also beat #6 Virginia Tech and rolled in their bowl game against a solid team (Utah)
6. Virginia Tech (11-3) - Laid an egg in WK2, but came on strong only to fall in the end to #3 Stanford in the Orange Bowl 12-40
7. Wisconsin (11-2) - Mediocre most the year (barely edging ASU and Iowa by 1 point each, though Iowa is probably a top-25 team) and lost to Michigan State, but as a saving grace did beat Ohio State in October. Played probably their second best game of the year in their bowl game, losing 19-21 to TCU in the Rose Bowl.
8. Alabama (10-3) - All their losses were to very good teams, and the only one by more than a touchdown was to South Carolina (a top-20 team). Losing by 3 @ LSU and by 1 vs. Auburn says a lot for how good this team could easily have been seen as by the media. Rolled over Florida, Mississippi State and Michigan State as well as winning @ Arkansas.
9. Michigan State (11-2) - Tied #2 Ohio State and #7 Wisconsin at the top of the Big Ten standings. Beat #7 Wisconsin by 10 but also got blown out twice (vs. top-25 team Iowa and #8 Alabama)
... Arkansas would be in the #10-16 range right now.
gamecock wrote:
Obviously, with no playoff, trying to figure who woulda/coulda/shoulda beat who is mostly guesswork. But one thing that I wish could be factored in is the cumulative effect of playing good teams (with future NFL players hitting you every Saturday). TCU, Boise State, even App State have shown that a good, well-coached team can beat a big school on any given one-off Saturday. But I doubt seriously that they could go through a whole season like that without getting beaten up. I thought Arkansas would win, but they made too many mistakes. Still, their only losses all season were to Alabama and Auburn, and they beat LSU, MSU, and SC. Were they the 2nd or 3rd best team in the SEC west? Who cares? There's no doubt that their strength of schedule was legit. I continue to believe that if you put somebody like Boise in the SEC, they would be somewhere between a Kentucky and a SC; a team that can win 8 or so in their good years, and always a trap game if you catch them off a bye week or overconfident. But in the SEC, you can have a top-20 national recruiting class and be in the bottom half of the conference. Breaking into the upper echelon of that group is just brutal.
Well done -- great post!
Flagpole, I agree that OSU was probably the class of the Big-10, but it is hard to think that after seeing the way Wisco owned the line offensively & defensively against them.
Also, I do not like to use dropped passes as a barometer of "what could have been". On target passes, missed assignments, poor blocks, etc. are just as important. To point out one element simply because it is the easiest to spot is inappropriate in my eyes.
Flagpole wrote:
[quote]
May be the first time I agree 100% with what you are saying here. While Ohio State stumbled against Wisconsin, it is clear the Buckeyes were the class of the Big Ten this season (though not by much). Also, Arkansas is NOT at the same level in the SEC as the Buckeyes are in the Big Ten. That the Buckeyes eeked out a win (which I'm happy about of course) over a just barely above-the-middle-of-the-pack SEC team just doesn't mean much. I NEVER make excuses about why MY team lost a game for I ALWAYS believe the best team wins, but when my team WINS, I don't mind looking at all the ways they could have LOST. Buckeyes were VERY fortunate that blocked kick didn't turn into a touchdown. Buckeyes were VERY fortunate the Arkansas receivers seemed to not know how to catch perfectly-thrown balls and that their defenders couldn't intercept a horrible pass from Pryor.
Had the Buckeyes beaten Auburn or LSU or even Alabama (who I think is better than their record indicates this year), then I think an argument could be made that the SEC isn't as big and bad as ever, BUT since the barely hung on (after a horrible second half) to beat Arkansas, like I said before the game, it really means little.
Flaggy, I mostly agree... excpet for the meaning "little." It means a lot symbolically. We're a few years removed from playing LSU and Texas in BCS games (the 1st being a title game), and I'd argue that Ohio State outplayed Texas in '08, and was at least on par with LSU in '07. If a few plays go the other way in those games (Robiske's drop in the end zone vs. LSU, for example, or the missed tackle at the end of the Texas game), and the results are very different. Buckeye fans know this, but to the rest of the country... who cares.
As they played out, those games - along with the FLA blowout in '06 (Bucks outplayed bigtime, no argument here)were the perfect "evidence" that the Buckeyes don't belong, are constantly overrated, products of a weak schedule and lousy conference, etc. They were fuel to the fire, so to speak, and the Big 10 critics like Mark May and Colin Blowhard were all too quick to sit back, smirk, and say "told you so."
SO, since in this game the breaks tended to go the Buckeyes way - at least in the MOST critical situations, and since the game was essentially a match between evenly talented teams.. the fact that the Buckeyes came out on top is monumental.
Sure, the game hinged on a play or two. But so did the LSU game. And the Texas game. And the USC game last year. The Bucks lost those games, the nation noticed, and Columbus was ridiculed.
Not this time. It was an important victory, regardless of how it was achieved.
Ohio Rulz wrote:
Flaggy, I mostly agree... excpet for the meaning "little." It means a lot symbolically. We're a few years removed from playing LSU and Texas in BCS games (the 1st being a title game), and I'd argue that Ohio State outplayed Texas in '08, and was at least on par with LSU in '07. If a few plays go the other way in those games (Robiske's drop in the end zone vs. LSU, for example, or the missed tackle at the end of the Texas game), and the results are very different. Buckeye fans know this, but to the rest of the country... who cares.
As they played out, those games - along with the FLA blowout in '06 (Bucks outplayed bigtime, no argument here)were the perfect "evidence" that the Buckeyes don't belong, are constantly overrated, products of a weak schedule and lousy conference, etc. They were fuel to the fire, so to speak, and the Big 10 critics like Mark May and Colin Blowhard were all too quick to sit back, smirk, and say "told you so."
SO, since in this game the breaks tended to go the Buckeyes way - at least in the MOST critical situations, and since the game was essentially a match between evenly talented teams.. the fact that the Buckeyes came out on top is monumental.
Sure, the game hinged on a play or two. But so did the LSU game. And the Texas game. And the USC game last year. The Bucks lost those games, the nation noticed, and Columbus was ridiculed.
Not this time. It was an important victory, regardless of how it was achieved.
Wow! That makes at least two very intelligent posts in the same thread. I will back away so that it doesn't return to normal standards.