Out of Our League - Why Two in the BCS Does the Big Ten No Favors
by Law Buckeye on Nov 30, 2009 11:00 AM CST
in All
28 comments
Some pundits were quick to declare the Big Ten the big winner, after Oklahoma State was slain Saturday at the hands of in state rival Oklahoma. And why not? The Cowboy's loss all but guarantees the league will place a second at large team in the BCS, netting the conference an extra $4.5 million bonus atop its usual $17.5 million dollar championship series payout. Bowl proceeds are split evenly amongst the 11 member institutions, meaning athletic directors from Madison to Bloomington can rejoice at the prospect of an extra $409,000 allowance.
The problem is there's no free lunch. By winning the earnings battle, we're losing the war of national respect. How so? Even if the Big Ten wins both its presumptive BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta) in 2009, the conference is still likely to have a losing (3-4) bowl season. We could just as easily go 1-6 in bowls for the second year in a row.
On the other hand, if the Big Ten had just one BCS bowl participant (like most other conferences), the same teams would have a great chance of going (5-2) in bowls. How is that possible? Read on.
It's Lonely on Top
Since the inception of the BCS in 1998, The Big Ten has had two representatives in BCS bowls eight times in eleven seasons. By comparsion, the SEC has done it six times, the Big 12 five times, and the Pac 10 just once. Neither the ACC or the Big East have ever sent two teams to the BCS.
Read that again. Add in the unparalleled revenues from its own television network, and it's no surprise that the Big Ten remains the richest, most powerful conference college football has ever known.
But the bottom line isn't the only line in a competitive context. Fans care a lot more about the goal line. In that department, the league's struggles are well documented. Of the eight seasons the Big Ten has sent two teams to the big dance, both have won just three times.
While that might not be so bad by itself, there's another consequence to double dipping: our non-BCS bowl matchups suffer.
Dating Up Is No Fun in Football
Imagine that you're a competitive, but young Big Ten program. You win the games you're supposed to win, and lose the games you're supposed to lose, ending the conference season at 8-4 (5-3). Your record earns you third place in conference behind Slow-hi-O State 10-2 (7-1), and Past itS prime U 10-2 (6-2). Ordinarily, you'd be headed to the Outback Bowl to play the third selection from the SEC.
This Week's Articles
JerDogg finally admits that Minnesota just ain't that good.
Graham ranks the Big Ten quarterbacks for their 2009 performance.
Greg discusses the future of Tate Forcier and moving Denard Robinson to WR.
Guest writer LakeErieMonster likes the way the B10 looks with 14 teams.
But wait. The Fiesta Bowl has extended an at-large bid to Past itS prime U. Suddenly, you're "dating up," as the Capital One bowl has little choice but to select you from the Big Ten basket. Good news for you, right?
Wrong. In the other corner is LucklesS U 9-3 (6-2), the SEC's No. 2 selection. Even worse, BestWestern 8-4 (5-3), the conference's fourth contestant, will have to face the SEC's third selection Sad Carolina 9-3 (5-3) in the Outback bowl.
And so it goes.
In at least six of the past 10 years, the Big Ten representative has come into the Capital One Bowl ranked lower than its SEC counterpart.
1-6 Versus 6-1. You pick.
If you think that's negligable, consider how this year's bowl lineup will be affected if No. 9 Iowa or No. 11 Penn State earns a BCS at large. If it happens, the odd man out will will go to the Capital One Bowl to face LSU (5-3 in conference). That might not seem so bad. Neither does Wisconsin (5-3 in conference) getting bumped up to play Tennessee (4-4 in conference) in the Outback. But what about Northwestern (5-3 in conference) against Clemson (6-2 in conference) in the Champs Sports? Or Michigan State (4-4 in conference) against Oklahoma (5-3 in conference) in the Alamo? If you think that's scary, don't even consider Minnesota (3-5 in conference) lining up against Missouri (4-4 in conference) in the Insight Bowl.
Mark Dantonio after Oklahoma scores to go ahead 35-3.
Even if the Big Ten wins both its BCS bowls (Rose, Fiesta), the conference is still likely to have a losing bowl season (3-4), with almost guaranteed losses in the Capital One, Champs Sports, Alamo, and Insight Bowls. And that's giving the Big Ten two hardly certain victories against higher-ranked BCS adversaries (likely No. 7 Oregon, and No. 6 Boise State). The conference could just as easily go 1-6 in bowls for the second year in a row.
But we deserve it, right? We suck.
Not so fast. Look at the difference an at-large bid makes: If neither Penn State nor Iowa is selected to go to the BCS, the bowl lineup suddenly becomes dramatically more manageable. Iowa plays LSU in the Capital One. Penn State gets Tennessee in the Outback. Wisky takes on Clemson in the Champs Sports. Northwestern gets Oklahoma in the Alamo. Michigan State gets Missouri in the Insight. And Minnesota is relegated to the Little Caesar's to play Ohio.
Suddenly, the Big Ten can lose in the BCS, and still have an overwhelmingly positive (5-2) bowl showing, with its only other loss in the Alamo. If Ohio State wins in the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten could literally reserve its bowl fate with a 6-1 finish.
So the next time your uncle from San Francisco brags about the Pac 10's bowl record, remind him that his great league is dating down. And if he persists, tell him his real beef isn't with the Big Ten, it's with the Pac 10's round-robin scheduling format that results in an extra, cannibalizing conference game.
And tell Jim Delany to quit laughing all the way to the bank.
1 recs |
28 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Disagree in Full-Throat
In many years you’d be right – but not this one.
“almost guaranteed losses in the Capital One Bowl…” – WHAT? We know what the SEC is. It’s a Hef Girlfriend. Two big ones on top, and barely anything below to support them. What about LSU makes you consider Penn State (or Iowa) a guaranteed loss to the Tigers? Did you see Arkansas go toe to toe with them? You don’t think Darryl Clark, Navarro Bowman and company couldn’t do that?
Yes, Northwestern has a tough game, but Northwestern loses their bowl game no matter who they play (at least in the last six decades). We have to budget for that loss. Yes, Michigan State has a tough name to face, but don’t mistake Oklahoma (or Texas Tech should the Alamo follow the chalk) for last year’s model. It’s a game where Sparty will be an underdog, but can win. Minnesota…yeah, I can’t help us out there.
Add in a Pac-10 team that isn’t US, and a Fiesta Bowl against either Boise or TCU, and the Big Ten has a recipe for not just a winning bowl record, but the kind of performance that flips the script on the “Big Ten sucks” story we have heard for so long (since January 2007).
Remember, the Pac-10 was the Mountain West’s rented mule last year. They went out and five bowl games, including upsets and beatdowns and now are considered the deepest conference in the league. It’s our turn
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Bama Hawkeye on Nov 30, 2009 11:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
I don’t see a scenario where either Penn State or Iowa lose to LSUck in the Capital One Bowl. I could see jNW coming away from a bowl game with a win just to spite the nay-sayers (like what happened during the Iowa game this year).
They took the bar, the whole fucking bar!
by recoveringfratguy on Nov 30, 2009 11:32 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ouch Bama
That one hurts…..but it is true, Northwestern has not won a bowl game in its recent run of success.
Then again it lost to USC (with an academically ineligible Keyshawn, so I think we should count that a win), Tennessee (with senior QB Peyton Manning), Nebraska (who should have been in the BCS and crushed us), UCLA (with Maurice Jones-Drew), Bowling Green (coached by Urban Meyer), and Mizzou (in OT). In none of those games (except, maybe Bowling Green) was NU favored. And last year, NU turned in arguably the most impressive effort of any Big Ten team in a loss (Iowa clearly had the best result by winning), overcoming being 14+ underdogs to take Mizzou to overtime.
But personally, I’m not that worried about NU against Clemson/Miami/UNC/BC or whoever the ACC sends….just look at what a mediocre Georgia did to the ACC’s “best” team, Georgia Tech, this weekend. The ACC is weak….and NU just went 3-0 in November, and is FINALLY getting healthy. No way that Northwestern loses this year, whether in the Champs against the ACC or even in the Outback vs the SEC (I’m salivating at a NU-Tennessee match betweeen Fitz and Kiffin, college football’s youngest coaches, and a rematch of Fitz’s last loss as a player to Tennessee and Peyton Manning in the Citrus Bowl)….
by Chadnudj on Nov 30, 2009 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Quit making excuses
and actually win a freaking bowl game for once. God, you Northwestern fans are obnoxious. It’s all “real team from 1995 on” for every argument and how you don’t get the respect as just Northwestern by other teams/the media. But the second bowl records are brought up, you run back to the just Northwestern/we were underdog mantra. Can’t have it both ways there champ. And, when y’all played USC you were the #3 team in the country. Maybe you ought not have been, but you were definitely favored and it’s not like you were playing the 2004-2005 vintage USC out there.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Nov 30, 2009 12:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No excuses
Jeez, buddy….I was just agreeing with the central premise of this article — namely, that Big Ten teams tend to play “up” in bowl games due to them getting 2 BCS teams, and thus that affects the competitive balance against Big Ten teams come bowl time. And I used Northwestern to demonstrate it — for most of those games, we were playing up. We got beat, fair and square (okay, not against USC — Keyshawn was ineligible!), but we were playing up most of the time.
But I completely agree with you, incidentally — Northwestern needs to win some bowl games. The team realizes this (Fitz calls it the “next mountaintop” to getting the program respect), and all the fans are sick of losing bowl games. I still think NU gets disrespected nationally and within the Big Ten (mainly in the preseason, where teams like Illinois get publicity and adoration despite the fact that they’ve had ONE winning season in the past EIGHT years) — NU is really no longer a bottom-feeder in the Big Ten (having been replaced in that bottom third by Indiana/Illinois/Minnesota in recent years, along arguably with Michigan the past 2). But winning a bowl is clearly necessary for progress in the program and more national respect….
by Chadnudj on Nov 30, 2009 12:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
On this
I agree with you. And I really think Northwestern’s possible opponents in the Champs set up well for you. I don’t think Northwestern will be “favored” by those in the media for the reason that they still look down on you, but I think in the real-world, and Vegas, you will be favored against any of them.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Nov 30, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Bama is a lot more bullish about Penn State than I am
Although it was probably too strong to say a “guaranteed” loss, I think LSU’s three best wins (over Washington, then No. 18 Georgia, and Auburn) look better than Penn State’s three best wins over Temple, Northwestern, and Michigan State.
I also think that LSU’s 10 point loss to top ranked Florida at home, and 9 point loss to No. 2 Alabama on the road look better than Penn State’s 10 point loss to No. 9 Iowa and 17 point loss to No. 8 Ohio State at home.
Don’t get me wrong: Iowa deserves a BCS at-large bid, and having the Hawks go Fiesta won’t shackle the rest of the conference as badly as two-team placements have in the past.
But the point of the article was to show the dramatic effect putting a second team in the dance has on a conference’s bowl slate.
You can’t deny that the Big Ten’s chances look a lot better if Ohio State is the only team that goes to the BCS, Iowa takes the reins at the Capital One Bowl, Penn State goes to the Outback, and so on and so forth…
Other conferences get that benefit. We don’t.
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Law Buckeye on Nov 30, 2009 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Bama is a lot more bullish about Penn State than I am
You hear that Nittany Nation? I am bullish on you now. Put away the hate.
http://www.rivalryesq.com/
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Bama Hawkeye on Nov 30, 2009 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm.
I’ll take my chances with JoePa in a bowl game against The Hat, actually. PSU has consistently been one of the B10’s better bowl teams, so we have that going for us. (Miles has also been pretty good at LSU… but he’s also bugfuck crazy, which is a not insignificant issue.)
It’s a shame that Purdue couldn’t get bowl eligible so that they could take Minnesota’s spot in the Insight Bowl. I think they could hold their own with whichever B12 team they would draw there and Minnesota would do alright with whichever MAC team they’d get in the Pizza Pizza Bowl. I don’t think it really matters whether MSU winds up in the Alamo or the Insight, though — “good” MSU can hang with whichever team they would get there, while “bad” MSU would get smoked by whichever team they get there.
Northwestern’s bowl woes are well-documented, but if they’re in the Champs Sports, they’ll get a middle-tier ACC team and none of those teams are particularly scary; they hung right with a Missouri team last year that was probably better than any of the ACC teams they could face this year.
Wisco, like Iowa and PSU, has a pretty good track record against SEC teams in bowls and I think they could do alright with whichever 7-5 SEC team they draw there. (The Vols would probably be the trickiest, since I don’t like the idea of giving Monte Kiffin a month to draw up a defense.)
In most years, I think your argument is fairly persuasive, but this year I don’t think it’s as persuasive. Mandel had a pretty good point today about this year’s CFB landscape being incredibly top-heavy, followed by a pretty big drop-off to a sprawling (and somewhat interchangeable) middle class. Considering the B10’s most likely foe against one of those teams from the top is arguably the weakest of the bunch (Boise State), I think the rest of the league will be able to stack up fairly well with whichever teams they draw.
by RossWB on Nov 30, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
When you are listing Washington as one of your three best wins ...
… all evidence points to “your resume is absolutely godawful”. (Then again, that’s probably just a mistake on your part, seeing as they also beat Arkansas.) And don’t even get me started on counting their win over Georgia as beating a top-20 team. Georgia is not a top 20 team. Not even close. That we all thought they were in September does not make it so. We all know better now.
Really, I don’t see any case whatsoever for thinking Penn State would be an underdog against LSU (aside from the whole “OMG SEC SPEED” mentality). Neither of them have any great wins, but PSU has more wins over bowl-worthy teams (4 to 3; technically, UL-Lafayette is eligible as well but at 6-6, they aren’t going), two wins over teams that have 8 or more wins (LSU has none), fewer losses, a better “worst loss” by a wide margin, and didn’t let three sub-.500 teams (or any, for that matter) stay within one score of them. Resume-wise, this isn’t close; as mediocre as PSU’s slate of wins is, LSU’s is easily worse.
by SpartanDan on Nov 30, 2009 11:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The respect battle
Needs to be won on the field. What you’re suggesting is the Big Ten, because they’re likely to lose a bunch of bowls, should shoot for more winnable games so that we can increase our respect. Notice anything wrong with that?
If the Big Ten wants to get respect it should be in the best bowls possible and WIN them. Otherwise, they deserve the lack of respect.
by villox on Nov 30, 2009 11:48 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
No.
I’m not suggesting that Big Ten teams should attempt to wiggle into easier matchups. That would amount to suggesting they throw games to ensure the right win/loss balance, which is ridiculous.
I am saying that the system disproportionately places two Big Ten teams into the BCS, thus putting its non-BCS bowl participants at a disadvantage relative to their opponents (who presumably come from conferences that put just one team in the BCS).
For what it’s worth I agree with you that participating in the best bowls possible and winning them is a good way to get respect. But would you go so far as to say if Indiana (recently the league’s worst team) played Florida (recently the SEC’s best team) in the regular season and lost, the Hoosiers deserve to be disrespected?
If your answer is no, you acknowledge that there should be some compensation for a team’s relative strength in deciding the legitimacy of an outcome. Not all teams are equal. It’s why Vegas creates a line, after all.
It can’t be completely fair then to use the results of imbalanced bowl matchups to compare the relative merits of two conferences. That’s the point I’m making…
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Law Buckeye on Nov 30, 2009 1:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
irrelevant
Even this year, with 2 mid-majors probably getting a bid, and with the Big Ten at it’s worst both in perception and Sagarin ranking (6th), the Big Ten is still a shoe-in for a second bid.
With 5 games and our size schools, it’s going to take an extraordinary situation for us ever to send just one school to the BCS.
BSD
by Kevin HD on Nov 30, 2009 12:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well, actually....
….it would just take the ACC/Big East/Pac-10 actually figuring a way to field more than one competitor. The decline of FSU/Miami in the ACC has really been a problem — if those teams were the powerhouses they were in the 1990s, we would have only had one team in the BCS some of the past few years…..
by Chadnudj on Nov 30, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So long as the BCS remains about making money, those leagues are likely going to remain SOL for the most part.
What bowl wants to take most of those teams? The only way the Big East is ever getting two is if the BCS is forced to take an 11-1/12-0 team like Cincy or Rutgers and there’s also a 10-2/11-1 WVU team sitting right there too. The Pac-10 and ACC have a few more desirable teams (particularly the ACC, where FSU, Miami, Va Tech, Ga Tech, Clemson, and UNC are all good/very good draws, generally), but they can’t stop tripping over one another. FSU and Miami keep tripping over their own feet, Clemson is Clemson, and Butch Davis can’t seem to get UNC over the hump just yet. Va Tech is pretty much a smooth-running machine (good for 9-11 wins every year) and Paul Johnson might be doing the same at Ga Tech. And while the Pac 10’s true round-robin schedule is great for finding one true champion, it definitely hamstrings their efforts to get a 2nd BCS team into the mix. Not to mention that the appeal for many of the teams in those conferences is so much more regional — there’s a reason most of the Pac 10 teams are rarely considered for BCS games east of the Mississippi, and why most of the ACC teams are rarely considered for BCS games west of the Mississippi. On the other hand, so many Big Ten schools have large fanbases that have long since proven their willingness to travel to bowls anywhere.
Unless Miami really turns the corner and resumes elite status in the ACC, I don’t see much changing when it comes to the Big East or the ACC, either. Bill Stewart is going to continue to hold WVU back, as is the ongoing Bowden drama at FSU. Clemson is, again, Clemson. UNC and Ga Tech are interesting possibilities, but it’s tough to see them getting plucked by the Rose or Fiesta if they opportunity was there. It’s probably more likely that the Pac-10 will rise up and produce more BCS contender teams if Neuheisal gets UCLA rolling or Chip Kelly maintains this momentum at Oregon.
by RossWB on Nov 30, 2009 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It is weird how the SEC always gets two teams in the BCS..
…and then they go 6-3 or 7-2 in the bowls. In other words, the SEC doesn’t have to choose between money and national respect. They can have both.
How, exactly, is the Big 10 “the most powerful conference in America”? Powerful in what way? Could you explain what you meant by that?
________________________________
Eric Berry is better at football than you.
by kidbourbon on Dec 1, 2009 12:54 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Didn't you read the stats?
The SEC doesn’t always get two teams in the BCS. They’ve done it only 6 times, compared to the Big Ten’s 8. That’s a significant difference (18 percent).
I agree that in the recent past, the SEC has looked much better than the Big Ten in the postseason. It’s well known that the SEC has been the strongest conference in the country for three straight years. The point of the article wasn’t to take away from what your league has accomplished, but rather, to offer a systematic explanation for why ours has struggled in bowl play. Of course, there are other reasons for the Big Ten’s lapse, but in a sport defined by subjective evaluations, and the strangest post-season in the NCAA, matchups make or break reputations.
Now, as for why the Big Ten is the “most powerful conference in America.” It starts with the money. The Big Ten is home to four of the six wealthiest athletic departments in the nation. Those pockets are padded by the conference’s majority-ownership (51%) in the Big Ten Network.
It’s one thing to have a television contract. We own an entire network that broadcasts to 70 million households twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, year round.
Then there’s our history. The Big Ten boasts more national championships than any other FBS conference (in case you wondered, when factored using its present membership roll, the BCS collective ranks as follows:
Big 10 – 27
SEC – 26
Big 12 – 19
ACC – 16
Pac 10 – 14
Big East 4
(Source: College Football Data Warehouse).
Throw in our unshakable alliance with the Rose Bowl, and you begin the see the influence our conference welds on the national development of the sport.
Lastly, I’d point to our academics. College sports are kinesthetic extensions of the modern University and its social mission.
All eleven Big Ten schools are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities. Since 1999, 43% of all Nobel Prize winners and 74% of winners at U.S. institutions have been affiliated with an AAU university."
By comparison, the SEC boasts two AAU member schools.
The Rivalry, Esq.
The quintessential Big Ten smoking room.
by Law Buckeye on Dec 1, 2009 2:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Sadly
This is likely to be the last year we can use the total national championship as bragging point
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Dec 1, 2009 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Also
The SEC winning those championships tends to gloss over the glaring deficiencies in the conference. I know this argument won’t find many supporters, but I’d argue that the SEC has not been the top conference the past two seasons. I know ESPN/the media constantly says it is, but the simple fact is that last season, and even more so this season, the SEC has had two heavy-weights at the top but been very weak through the middle. The SEC was definitely the top conference in 2006 & 2007, but even then that rep was built on good teams at the top (Florida, LSU to a lesser extent) with a solid #3 team. Plus, when the SEC has gotten two teams into the BCS, they’ve been slightly lesser opponents such as Hawaii (vs. Georgia 2007) and Utah (last year vs. Alabama, a game that ‘Bama absolutely shat the bed on) while the “reward” for the Big Ten has been to face the SEC’s best in the title game, and USC (probably the top team of the decade) in the other BCS bowl. This is not to excuse the poor performance of the Big Ten in the BCS and other bowls – and I still think the league is better taking the $$$ that comes with getting two teams in – just that lining up bowl records isn’t exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.
But, like I said, the real issue is how the top SEC winning the MNC has tended to obscure just how thoroughly average the SEC has been through the middle the past two seasons. And there’s nothing wrong with being soft in the middle, every conference has peaks and valleys of dominance. My point is that the SEC has been coasting on perceived dominance that, absent significant outliers, isn’t based upon the facts on the ground.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Dec 1, 2009 7:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really surprising
No one pays attention to the middle of the Big 10 either. Ohio State is a gauge of the conference, so when they lose, we all do in terms of perception.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Dec 1, 2009 7:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
True
But the SEC was somewhat different. Teams like Florida could lose a game and still be in consideration for a national title because “it is just too difficult to make it through an SEC schedule unbeaten”. The dominance of the league was at least based in part on the idea that there was no delicious, creamy middle, that even the “average” teams were potential world-killers. Not saying this was correct, just that this was the justification offered why 1 (or 2 loss) SEC teams “deserved” to be in the title game.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Dec 1, 2009 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A couple of years doesn't mean a permanent situation
Too many people assume that the Big Ten’s issues are long-term and permanent. I fail to see how this is the case when Ohio State with a loss in a fairly mediocre year for the conference still made it to the national championship game only 2 years ago. That’s not exactly eons ago.
by Frank the Tank on Dec 2, 2009 9:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Only because there was no alternative
Except for one-loss Kansas who had played a borderline 1-AA schedule (losing the only game they played all year against a good team prior to the bowls) and no-loss Hawaii who had played an actual 1-AA schedule (seriously, Sagarin ranked the schedules of 30-40 1-AA teams higher!), there were no other one-loss teams.
by SpartanDan on Dec 2, 2009 10:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the response
The TV money question is interesting. I wonder how much $$ the Big Ten network actually makes? I live in DC and couldn’t get it without paying a reasonably exorbitant additional fee on top of the “sports package” we already have (my roommate is a tOSU fan…so, yes, we inquired). The SEC may not have its own network, but the contract with ESPN is quite lucrative. I would be interested in seeing the respective bottom lines. I suspect someone has probably already run the numbers.
Regarding your last point, I will just say this. I am an educated man — an attorney who graduated from a top 20 law school, is licensed to practice in VA and DC, and can correctly use an em dash — and I have never once even heard of the Association of American Universities. Maybe this just makes me a well educated idiot. Fair enough. But if we follow your line of reasoning, do I then have to accept that the Ivy League is a more powerful conference than the SEC? Is the Ivy League more powerful than the Big 10? (I’m assuming that all the Ivy League schools are AAU members. (This could be a poor assumption considering I didn’t even know what the AAU was two minutes ago, but it seems reasonable enough considering the academic prestige angle.)).
________________________________
Eric Berry is better at football than you.
by kidbourbon on Dec 2, 2009 8:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
While I think the Erik Deckerless Minnesota/Mizzou matchup is scary, I think both Wisconsin and Northwestern are capable, this year, of handling their likely opponents. If good MSU shows up, I’ll extend that to them too.
by hmlee on Dec 1, 2009 1:40 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Repsect is earned at the top NOT the bottom
Yes, the Big Ten bowl record was horrible last year. However, that’s not where our reputation is made. As far as national reputation is concerned, the BCS bowls are the only ones that matter anymore.
Case in point: the Big Ten has won 4 out of the last 5 Capital One Bowls. That’s right – the supposedly slow, plodding Big Ten has beaten often higher ranked SEC Speed head-to-head in the SEC “home territory” of Central Florida 4 out of the last 5 years, including a Michigan victory over Saint Tebow and the Florida Gators 2 years ago. This is the highest paying and most high profile bowl outside of the BCS bowls – in fact, the TV ratings for this game has beaten several BCS bowls over the past 2 years. Yet, I don’t remember the last time that I’ve seen anyone in the media mention that the Big Ten has won 4 out of the last 5 Capital One Bowls when comparing the 2 conferences. The only thing that gets mentioned is how our teams have performed against the SEC champ and USC in BCS games.
So, the Big Ten should never ever pass up the opportunity to have multiple BCS bids. Every non-BCS conference out there (along with probably any BCS conference outside of the SEC) would kill to have the opportunities that we receive every postseason. The only way to repair our reputation is to win Rose Bowls and other BCS bowls. It doesn’t make sense either financially or reputation-wise on the field to play lower level opponents to artificially pad our overall bowl record.
by Frank the Tank on Dec 1, 2009 1:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting point
It would be interesting to see the in-conference rankings of the outback and cap one bowl participants over the last five years. In other words, was the 3rd best team in the SEC playing the 3rd best team in the Big 10, or was there a discrepancy one way or the other.
I could do this myself, but am a little lazy this evening.
________________________________
Eric Berry is better at football than you.
by kidbourbon on Dec 2, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: Interesting Point
I don’t think the bowls have to choose the “3rd best” or “4th best” — When you look at the Capitol One, for instance, it states that this particular bowl has the SEC #2 PICK – not necessary that they pick the #2 team in the SEC or the Chik-Fil-A has the ACC #2 pick – this doesn’t always mean that the bowl is “forced” to take the #2 team from the ACC.
For the record, however, I do understand and agree with the point of the blog article; and yes, when a conference has more than one team in the BCS, the remaining bowl-eligible teams “date-up”, so to speak… Being in the SEC, this usually means we (Auburn, when eligible) plays a team that’s just a bit “higher” in their particular conference than we are. Such looks to be the case this year in the Outback Bowl.
And if the Badgers make it to Tampa I hope to see ya there!
DWWD -- WDE!
by ATL_AU_FAN on Dec 3, 2009 6:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on The Rivalry, Esq.
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
