Which bowl games are good conference litmus tests?

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 30, 2007, 5:42 am

There are plenty of bowl games that pit teams from different conferences against one another, but don't help you compare the conferences because the teams are not similarly situated. Which ones do you think do show something about conference strength?

Tennessee / Wisconsin-- I think this is the biggy. Both teams are one notch below the elite tier, both teams have won a lot of games, and fans retain a healthy skepticism about the quality of both.

Texas Tech / Virginia

West Virginia / Oklahoma

LSU / Ohio State (obviously)

Texas / Arizona State

As for games which I don't think are very meaningful:

Illinois / USC-- USC is obviously better and doesn't get much for beating Illinois, unless it's a huge blowout

Missouri / Arkansas-- Missouri is better, and hasn't had major offseason turmoil

Penn State / Texas A&M-- same, but insert "Penn State" for "Missouri"

Michigan / Florida-- Florida outclasses the Wolverines and plays exactly the offense that gives them trouble. Michigan does have a lot of talent and can prove something with a win.

Winnow, I'm sorry I didn't pick any Pac Ten games as meaningful, except for the one that Arizona State already lost. It's just the facts. Your bowl participants are: 6-7 UCLA (lost to BYU), Arizona State (gave up 52 to Texas), Oregon State (beat a 6-7 team), Cal (plays Air Force, from the Mountain West), Oregon with an injured Dixon, and USC against an outmatched Illinois. No real good matchups there.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » December 30, 2007, 5:57 am

From what I'm gathering, no one gives a shit about the 32 college bowls for the most part. The system is broken, the kids are off for like a month before the big bowls. There's no real national champion.

The only thing worthwhile is within your own conference anymore. USC lost to Pac Ten teams. They'd crush OhioSU, yet will play a "meaningless" game against Illinois. Who cares? Maybe some alumni boosters and whoever is responsible for selling commercial time. Michigan's going to lose but who cares? They're outclassed as well. Hell, Texas would beat OhioSU if they played the way they did against ASU.

There needs to be an eight team playoff to make the college football post season worthwhile. That would take three weeks and as it stands, college football teams sit around for more than three weeks between the end of the season and bowl games.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » December 30, 2007, 12:12 pm

I don't recommend filling those three weeks with a playoff format at all. The major reason for that time off is finals. These are students, and to bring all of the distractions that a playoff would cause would be setting them up for failing tests...or cheating like the Florida State situation.

As for nobody giving a shit about the bowls, I am guessing that is because of ASU's performance. Cross-conference games between teams that rarely, or ever in the case of ASU-Texas, meet are great. It allows people to see how their team matches up to others from across the country. Granted, many bowls have exclusive deals with two conferences, which can be the cause of less interest in an area due to teams that the fans there don't care about. I have no problem watching every possible bowl game, because it gives me a better idea what is out there. It helps me to be less of an uninformed ass than some other people when it comes to determining strength of teams or conferences. I may be a "homer" when it comes to Texas, and in some cases the Big 12, but I will also root for other teams. My interest lies in the game of college football. I don't think that any one game would justify ranking one conference above another, but seeing the number four team in one conference pick apart the co-champion of another seems to be a little revealing to me.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » December 30, 2007, 12:53 pm

From what I'm gathering, no one gives a shit about the 32 college bowls for the most part.

I disagree. There's huge national interest in the BCS games, and in my experience, football schools care strongly about their teams bowl performance if it's a meaningful game.

Try telling West Virginia that nobody gives a shit about bowl games after they stomped Georgia in the Sugar Bowl two years ago to elevate both themselves and the Big East to national credibility.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » December 30, 2007, 2:37 pm

Boogahz wrote:I don't recommend filling those three weeks with a playoff format at all. The major reason for that time off is finals. These are students, and to bring all of the distractions that a playoff would cause would be setting them up for failing tests...or cheating like the Florida State situation.

Yet somehow those D2 and 3 schools, many of which have academic programs much harder than your Florida States and Ohio States, manage to do a full playoff every season without massive cheating scandals cropping up. This argument is 100% bullshit.

Set up properly (eliminate preseason suck games, have everyone start their season in the beginning of September and have all conference title games the weekend before Thanksgiving) we could have 2 weeks of playoffs (an 8 team field), a week off for finals, a week off for Christmahaunnakwanza, and a real title game the first weekend of the new year.

This would also prevent shitcocks like Capt. Sweatervest from scheduling bye weeks before all 2 of his tough games.

Keep the shitty little bowls nobody except for the teams involved care about (and sometimes, not even them... I'm looking at you Boston College) around as consolation for the teams who get left out.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » December 30, 2007, 5:42 pm

I don't recommend filling those three weeks with a playoff format at all. The major reason for that time off is finals. These are students, and to bring all of the distractions that a playoff would cause would be setting them up for failing tests...or cheating like the Florida State situation.

I agree with Sueven. I am sure those kids are not out practicing that whole time, they are studying and becoming great students, while Baseball, Basketball and lower level football programs somehow are able to manage both.

I also love the "We cannot extend the season" arguement. I am getting old, so maybe I have forgotten, but we now have several bowl games AFTER Jan 1 and a championship a week after Jan 1. Isn't that exactly what they used to rail against?It also seems like the real start of bowl season was pushed back weeks.

8 teams, playoffs and keep your crappy bowl system so that UCF can play MissSt in the "I don't give a shit" Bowl would be a great compromise. It stuns me that the morons running the NCAA have not seen the potential windfall of this system. Those greedy bastards seem to figure out every other way to squeeze the most dollars possible out of their Monopoly.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » December 30, 2007, 5:48 pm

Try telling West Virginia that nobody gives a shit about bowl games after they stomped Georgia in the Sugar Bowl two years ago to elevate both themselves and the Big East to national credibility.

Ok, so one game in 32? I also would argue that they game did not make me think that the Big East was credible, it made me think Georgia was beaten by Virginia. Even the Boise State win over Oklahoma game did not make me think their conference had arrived. It was an amazing game, but a once in a lifetime win.

So now, without looking it up,

Who won the Meinke Car Care Bowl last year?

Who won the Roady's Humanitarian?

Who won the Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl?

Who won the Brut Sun Bowl?

Unless you are from that school no one gives a shit.

P.S. If you know the answers to this, then get out and get some exercise.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » December 31, 2007, 1:07 pm

masteen wrote:This would also prevent shitcocks like Capt. Sweatervest from scheduling bye weeks before all 2 of his tough games.

Huh? We are like the only team in the nation to not have a single bye week during the season.

Nice attempt though.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » December 31, 2007, 6:18 pm

Georgia Tech clearly does not want to be in Boise today.

For the record, isn't The Mountain West Conference in line to win the trophy for the conference with the best Bowl record?

That would rest my case that the bowl games are meaningless.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 1, 2008, 11:50 am

P.S. If you know the answers to this, then get out and get some exercise.

Come on now. Who won the second round games in the NCAA basketball tournament's East Regional last year?

I can tell you last year's BCS games off the top of my head:

Florida beats Ohio State- Ted Ginn scores a TD on the opening kickoff, then it's a Florida rout
USC beats Michigan- USC domination
Boise State beats Oklahoma- everyone knows what happened in this game
Louisville beats Wake Forest- the Big East gets its revenge on the conference that raided it
Louisiana State humiliates Notre Dame- Notre Dame is again exposed as a fraud in a blowout

That's the top ten. Off the top of your head, I bet you can't name the elite eight teams from last years tournament (which was both more recent and the desired playoff format). You certainly can't give me a brief description of what happened in the games. I would be surprised if you could even name the final four.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 1, 2008, 4:24 pm

Come on now. Who won the second round games in the NCAA basketball tournament's East Regional last year?

No one cares.

The finals is all that matters. The same would be true of the football tourney. For the record Ohio State played Florida in the title game. UCLA lost to Florida for the second time in 2 years despite "wanting revenge". I cannot remember the 4th team of the final four though, so you got me there.

My point was that bowl games were meaningless and do not show a conferences relative strength since many larger programs are disappointed with the bowl they are in and perform like they do not care. Witness GT yesterday. In the NCAA tourney you get a better picture of conference strength since all are trying to win the tourney. I cannot really say that is the case with bowl games.

I have also already stated several times, that top to bottom, the major conferences are pretty close in terms of talent. The Big 10 is down a little this year, but next year they could be the best conference in the country. It really depends on the recruiting classes, coaching changes and media perception.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 1, 2008, 4:37 pm

No one cares.

The finals is all that matters. The same would be true of the football tourney. For the record Ohio State played Florida in the title game. UCLA lost to Florida for the second time in 2 years despite "wanting revenge". I cannot remember the 4th team of the final four though, so you got me there.

That's my point-- the Meineke Car Care Bowl is the equivalent of a second-round NCAA tournament game, and it's thoroughly unsurprising that nobody knows who played in it, whether it's part of a bowl system or part of a playoff system. The BCS games are like the last round or two of the NCAA tournament, and they're better-remembered than their basketball playoff equivalents. This needs to be tempered by the fact that college football is more popular than college basketball, but still, most sports fans pay attention to march madness.

And it was Georgetown, by the way.

My point was that bowl games were meaningless and do not show a conferences relative strength since many larger programs are disappointed with the bowl they are in and perform like they do not care. Witness GT yesterday. In the NCAA tourney you get a better picture of conference strength since all are trying to win the tourney. I cannot really say that is the case with bowl games.

I agree completely with this. You can't just take a conference's bowl record, compare it to the bowl records of other conferences, and expect that to mean anything. That's the point of this post-- to look for the games featuring evenly matched teams who should be excited for the game and do allow for interesting comparisons.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 1, 2008, 4:50 pm

The Big 10 is down a little this year, but next year they could be the best conference in the country. It really depends on the recruiting classes, coaching changes and media perception.

This is one of the main reasons I prefer College Football over the NFL.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 1, 2008, 4:55 pm

Well, according to my list of relevant games:

Big 12 scores 1 point over Pac Ten (Texas > ASU)
SEC scores 1 point over Big Ten (Tennessee > Wisconsin)

With more to be played

noel · Post by **noel** » January 1, 2008, 10:28 pm

This USC Illinois game is pretty hard to watch. It looks like a scrimmage between varsity and frosh high-school teams.

It's a shame USC didn't get the opportunity to wipe the floor with a better team.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 1, 2008, 10:40 pm

Yeah for about 5 minutes the Illini looked like the team that beat Ohio State, but otherwise this was a complete blowout.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 1, 2008, 10:50 pm

Winnow, I'm sorry I didn't pick any Pac Ten games as meaningful, except for the one that Arizona State already lost. It's just the facts. Your bowl participants are: 6-7 UCLA (lost to BYU), Arizona State (gave up 52 to Texas), Oregon State (beat a 6-7 team), Cal (plays Air Force, from the Mountain West), Oregon with an injured Dixon, and USC against an outmatched Illinois. No real good matchups there.

UCLA - complete turmoil with no coach and quarterback injuries almost beat a team that had won 10 games and will finish in the top 20. A blocked field goal and they win despite the issues. Look at virtually every other team in the bowl games with coaches who were fired (resigned) only Michigan really played well, and they still had their coaching staff for the game.

ASU - Sucked..Period...

Oregon State - beat a 6-7 team that also won games against 2 teams that should finish in the top 10 this year.

Cal - Beat a Mountian West team, something 4 other teams did not. They also came into the game with no real enthusiasm. I actually had picked AF to blow them out, they actually surprised me.

Oregon - With a potential Heisman winner out they still BLEW OUT their opponent with a freshman quarterback.

USC - Complete destruction of the Illini. It looked like they were toying with them.

Overall, not a bad finish for the conference.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 1, 2008, 11:04 pm

Yeah, pretty decent performance by the Pac Ten (except for Arizona State, which sucked goat balls). Especially Oregon.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 1, 2008, 11:44 pm

Illinois 17
USC 49

Isn't Illinois the team that beat OhioSU?

BCS is a scam.

And Michigan, who got stomped at home by Oregon, beats one of those "ooooh scary" SEC teams.

USC = National Champs or should be playing LSU for it at least. USC toys with a team that actually beat OhioSU and those sticker clowns are playing for the National Title. What a joke.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 1, 2008, 11:54 pm

Stanford beat USC
Notre Dame beat Stanford
therefore
Notre Dame wins the National Championship
QED

Thanks Winnow logic!

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 2, 2008, 12:03 am

This is what pisses me off about the Pac 10. These idiot "traditionalist" could have given us USC/Georgia and Hawaii could have played the Illini and it would have meant better games overall. Another option could have had Missouri playing USC.

Either would have been better then the shitty games we are getting. The Pac 10 did this to itself. If they had handled Georgia or Missouri that soundly, they would have had a shot at a split National title, instead they get a Rose Bowl win over a significantly overmatched opponent.

I wish these idiots would wake up to the new century. In trying to maintain a longstanding tradition, they have cheapened the value of the game.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 2, 2008, 12:18 am

Tyek wrote:This is what pisses me off about the Pac 10. These idiot "traditionalist" could have given us USC/Georgia and Hawaii could have played the Illini and it would have meant better games overall. Another option could have had Missouri playing USC.

Either would have been better then the shitty games we are getting. The Pac 10 did this to itself. If they had handled Georgia or Missouri that soundly, they would have had a shot at a split National title, instead they get a Rose Bowl win over a significantly overmatched opponent.

I wish these idiots would wake up to the new century. In trying to maintain a longstanding tradition, they have cheapened the value of the game.

This is where I wish the "BCS Bowls" would nix the whole traditional conference participant bullshit. The Rose Bowl means shit to me personally. Oh, wow, Pac10 vs Big10. I feel that if the bowls want to participate in the BCS mix, they should drop that aspect of their invitation process.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 2, 2008, 12:29 am

I agree with Tyek and Boog. It's really just the Rose Bowl and the two affiliated conferences who are responsible.

noel · Post by **noel** » January 2, 2008, 12:32 am

Totally agree. The Rose Bowl was basically unwatchable.

I'm not even convinced the National championship is going to be a watchable [read: competitive] game. I really hope that it is, but I'm not sold on OSU this year.

At least all of LSU's losses were brutally close in overtime.

Post by **Sylvus** » January 2, 2008, 12:33 am

Really? I feel like LSU at least has a chance in the Championship.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 2, 2008, 12:40 am

Sueven wrote:Stanford beat USC
Notre Dame beat Stanford
therefore
Notre Dame wins the National Championship
QED

Thanks Winnow logic!

Illinois and OhioSU played head to head.

Notre Dame and Stanford didn't play OhioSU head to head or the Buckeyes would have two more losses and then would have lost to ASU in some shit bowl.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 2, 2008, 12:52 am

Man you must be embarrassed about how ASU turned out.

I'll stop harping on it.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 2, 2008, 12:55 am

Sueven wrote:Man you must be embarrassed about how ASU turned out.

I'll stop harping on it.

Why embarrassed? They were better this year than anyone predicted at the beginning of the year. It was a great first year for Erickson with more hope than Episode IV of Star Wars on the way.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 2, 2008, 1:06 am

Well, transitioning from your national championship talk to a 2-3 finish which featured losses to each and every quality team on your schedule isn't ideal...

You have quite a talent for setting enormous expectations and then ignoring them when you fail to reach them...

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 2, 2008, 1:10 am

Actually in his mind they already won the national championship. Check out his line of thinking with the Suns.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 2, 2008, 9:01 am

Winnow wrote:Why embarrassed? They were better this year than anyone predicted at the beginning of the year. It was a great first year for Erickson with more hope than Episode IV of Star Wars on the way.

You're kidding, right? You guys loaded your schedule with cake opponents and beat them. The first time you play a team with a modicum of talent (i'm excluding cal fyi) you shit the bed. Grats, you beat Stanford who beat USC, I'm sure that win got you a few tugs in the shower and all, but to say you had a great year is a bit of a stretch.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 2, 2008, 10:02 am

Zamtuk wrote:
You're kidding, right? You guys loaded your schedule with cake opponents and beat them. The first time you play a team with a modicum of talent (i'm excluding cal fyi) you shit the bed. Grats, you beat Stanford who beat USC, I'm sure that win got you a few tugs in the shower and all, but to say you had a great year is a bit of a stretch.

And what has OhioSU done if they lose to LSU? (mindful of their ranking and expectations before the season)

OhioSU is a worse failure than ASU this year if they lose considering expectations. They've done nothing to deserve a shot at the National Championship and now it's up to an SEC team to prove it instead of a Pac Ten team that would embarrass the Buckeyes for sure.

I sure hope LSU doesn't screw this up.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 2, 2008, 3:07 pm

Winnow wrote:OhioSU is a worse failure than ASU this year if they lose considering expectations.

OK wow, now you're really using REALLY twisted logic. Now ASU can be better than OSU by OSU losing the national championship game?

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » January 2, 2008, 4:00 pm

Ashur wrote:
Winnow wrote:OhioSU is a worse failure than ASU this year if they lose considering expectations.
OK wow, now you're really using REALLY twisted logic. Now ASU can be better than OSU by OSU losing the national championship game?

No, you're twisting his words to miss his point, which ironically is something Winnow is an expert at doing. He's talking EXPECTATIONS not actual results. It boils down to people expected OSU to be one of best and anything less than a win at this point is a bit of a let down whereas no one expected ASU to be anything but a speed bump in the path of better teams and they exceeded that and played some decent football at times. ASU won a moral victory by breaking into the top 10 rankings for a while where OSU was expected to be top 3 and losing at this point to a 2 loss LSU team makes them look a little weaker.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » January 2, 2008, 4:52 pm

Wulfran wrote:
Ashur wrote:
Winnow wrote:OhioSU is a worse failure than ASU this year if they lose considering expectations.
OK wow, now you're really using REALLY twisted logic. Now ASU can be better than OSU by OSU losing the national championship game?

No, you're twisting his words to miss his point, which ironically is something Winnow is an expert at doing. He's talking EXPECTATIONS not actual results. It boils down to people expected OSU to be one of best and anything less than a win at this point is a bit of a let down whereas no one expected ASU to be anything but a speed bump in the path of better teams and they exceeded that and played some decent football at times. ASU won a moral victory by breaking into the top 10 rankings for a while where OSU was expected to be top 3 and losing at this point to a 2 loss LSU team makes them look a little weaker.

Actually everyone was expecting OSU to have a large down year with losing a ton of offensive firepower. They were only ranked 12th coming into the season.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » January 2, 2008, 6:22 pm

Winnow wrote: Michigan's going to lose but who cares? They're outclassed as well.

Wrong again.

Btw, ASU fucking sucks hobo balls.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 2, 2008, 10:10 pm

It boils down to people expected OSU to be one of best and anything less than a win at this point is a bit of a let down

Sabek is right, this was supposed to be a rebuilding year for OSU (you know, after they lost their heisman trophy QB and most of the rest of their offense)

Btw, ASU fucking sucks hobo balls.

Word

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 2, 2008, 11:25 pm

Wulfran is correct.

Take a look at the Big Ten's bowl record this year if OhioSU loses...business as usual for the Big Ten (11)!

Here's some trivia. What was the last year Michigan beat a Pac 10 team?

Answer: Beat Washington back in 2002 in the regular season.

Nice! Half a decade ago. Not bad!

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 3, 2008, 12:11 am

Right now we are 3-4, that's not too bad considering we were the worst conference in the nation. How many awesome Pac Ten were bowl eligible? And Michigan beat Florida. Who has any of the Pac Ten teams beat this year? (haha illinois)

And Wulfran is not right. No one expected us to go to the national championship, not even us students. (though I said it was a possibility due to our lax schedule) I know we are a premier team and all, but his was our down year, much like I suspect USC to have one next year.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 3, 2008, 12:24 am

When was the last year Arizona State beat:

Team/Record against/date of last win/Big 10 team's season record after last win
Ohio State 0-2 record = never
Penn State 0-1 record = never
Indiana - never played
Michigan State 1-1 record = 9/13/1986 (6-5)
Minnesota 1-0 record = 9/20/1969 (4-5-1)
Michigan 1-0 record = 1/1/1987 (11-2)
Purdue 1-0 record = 12/31/2004 (7-5)
Iowa 2-1 record = 9/18/2004 (10-2)
Wisconsin 2-0 record = 9/21/1968 (0-10)
Illinois 2-0 record = 9/10/1988 (6-5-1)
Northwestern 4-0 record = 9/17/2005 (7-5)

If you want to look back to see what Arizona State has accomplished, the Iowa win record is one of the few to be proud of. Otherwise, the 60's and 80's weren't all that bad.

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 3, 2008, 1:06 am

(haha illinois)

Ummm I understand you are trying to make a point, but you do realize the same team you are laughing about beat OSU on the Buckeye's home field. Frankly, the game was not as close as the 7 points showed. That same team that beat you looked like a JV team against USC.

The Pac 10 went 4-2, You guys need to win the LSU game to go .500. Is it really worth bragging that your lower tier teams went to bowl games and in most cases lost? If you lose to LSU, then the arguement could be made that you didn't even deserve 4 teams going to bowls.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 3, 2008, 1:43 am

Personally, I could care less about conference records. Watching West-By-God-Virginia tear through Oklahoma is fucking fun!

Morgrym · Post by **Morgrym** » January 3, 2008, 10:44 am

Boogahz wrote:Personally, I could care less about conference records. Watching West-By-God-Virginia tear through Oklahoma is fucking fun!

Hellz Yeah!

I think they should be #1 and that Rich "Dick" Goingtothebighouseformoney screwed them against Pitt and called plays that destroyed them on purpose. OK beat the #1 team and got hosed with a #5 ranking, WVU destroyed OK...you do the math

Then again, I am biased.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 3, 2008, 12:44 pm

Boogahz wrote:When was the last year Arizona State beat:

Michigan 1-0 record = 1/1/1987 (11-2)

If you want to look back to see what Arizona State has accomplished, the Iowa win record is one of the few to be proud of. Otherwise, the 60's and 80's weren't all that bad.

That was the Rose Bowl. ASU is 1-1 in the Rose Bowl vs the Big Ten. That's not bad for being the 10th best team in the Pac 10.

Beat Michigan and lost to OhioSU in the last minute of the game which is respectable.

OhioSU will lose twice to USC over the next two years and then go back into hiding. "Best vs Best" matchups in Big Ten vs Pac 10 favor the Pac 10 by far. I don't want to hear about the Rose Bowl being a home game for the Pac Ten. The Midwest's crappy weather is the reason it's played out west. Besides, even accounting for a "home field" advantage, it doesn't account for the lopsided dominance of the Pac 10 over the Big Ten (11)

Pending the outcome of OhioSU vs LSU, we can take a look at the conference bowl results and listen to the excuses. The Big Ten's #2 team got blown off the field. If OhioSU loses, #1 and #2 are losers. #1 and #2 Pac Ten teams have already won their bowl games.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 3, 2008, 12:50 pm

OhioSU will lose twice to USC over the next two years and then go back into hiding. "Best vs Best" matchups in Big Ten vs Pac 10 favor the Pac 10 by far. I don't want to hear about the Rose Bowl being a home game for the Pac Ten. The Midwest's crappy weather is the reason it's played out west. Besides, even accounting for a "home field" advantage, it doesn't account for the lopsided dominance of the Pac 10 over the Big Ten (11)

huh? That's about as much a "home field" advantage as a team could have since you chose to bring it up.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 3, 2008, 2:47 pm

Not to mention the fact that, as proven by facts and stats, the Big Ten has a winning record against the Pac Ten (and every other D1 conference, mind you), winnow's statement is, as usual, completely wrong.

Tyek wrote:
(haha illinois)
Ummm I understand you are trying to make a point, but you do realize the same team you are laughing about beat OSU on the Buckeye's home field. Frankly, the game was not as close as the 7 points showed. That same team that beat you looked like a JV team against USC.

The Pac 10 went 4-2, You guys need to win the LSU game to go .500. Is it really worth bragging that your lower tier teams went to bowl games and in most cases lost? If you lose to LSU, then the arguement could be made that you didn't even deserve 4 teams going to bowls.

Yes, I am completely aware of Illinois beating us at home. Did you watch the game? Tressel easily fucked that game up for us, not our play (though it certainly didn't help). That game was everybit as close as the points indicated save for the last quarter where they sat on the ball the entire time while we did nothing. (again Tressels TO at that moment really hurt us) I, as well as most people, unless you consider Tressel a shitty coach, saw that as an oversight of a game. As much as we laugh at USC losing to Stanford, do you honestly think that was an exact testament to how both teams match up, or merely a fluke? Now, don't get me wrong, Illinois is not a bad team by any stretch. But as you can see, they are no where near the caliber that USC is, and in my opinion, were a poor choice to play in the Rose Bowl. Give them a Jan. 1st game, but not a BCS game.

As for our bowl record, you call all our shitty teams out for losing. Good call, Corso. Did you happen to see who we lost to? MSU vs (14)Boston College, that should speak for itself and MSU still gave them a game with some key players missing. (18)Wisconsin vs (16)Tennesse, great game if you happened to watch it, they only lost by 4. (7)USC vs (13)Illinois, see above. Indiana vs Oklahoma State, ok, that was a shitty loss, I didn't see that coming at all.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 3, 2008, 2:55 pm

Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention the fact that, as proven by facts and stats, the Big Ten has a winning record against the Pac Ten (and every other D1 conference, mind you), winnow's statement is, as usual, completely wrong.

How about we limit it to the second half of the 20th century and 21st century? The glory days of the leather helmets is kinda out of date. I'll concede those years to the Big Ten (11).

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » January 3, 2008, 3:02 pm

Why? So it would suit your ridiculous line of logic, and actually make you look like you're right for a change?

Aardor · Post by **Aardor** » January 3, 2008, 3:11 pm

Winnow wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:Not to mention the fact that, as proven by facts and stats, the Big Ten has a winning record against the Pac Ten (and every other D1 conference, mind you), winnow's statement is, as usual, completely wrong.
How about we limit it to the second half of the 20th century and 21st century? The glory days of the leather helmets is kinda out of date. I'll concede those years to the Big Ten (11).

Statistically speaking, are there any reason to eliminate those years from this comparison? Seems odd that you would want to delete data (unless it is to support your opinion, like zamtuk said)!

Tyek · Post by **Tyek** » January 3, 2008, 3:56 pm

For the record, I have stated several times that I think there is little difference `between the major conferences year in and year out. These things go in cycles. For the first part of 2000 the Pac 10 was a joke. The re-emergence of USC as a power has helped the whole conference by forcing schools to build better facilities, hire better coaches etc.

You seemed to be pointing out that your conference is better because you had 8 teams in bowls compared to 6 for the Pac 10. I was just pointing out that more teams does not always mean better teams.

The Illini stuck it to you hard, they outplayed you on your home field. What I will admit, is that conference games are, in general, tougher to win since their is more familiarity among the teams. So I can see that game would be harder then the USC matchup.

What sucks is that we are missing a great playoff opportunity. Right now we could have USC, Georgia and West Virginia getting ready for second round games. (I know it does not work out completely since there are 2 BCS games left and one spot, but under a playoff, USC would have played a playoff caliber team)