Big 10 Bowl Game Competition

Unfortunately the Big 10 doesn't control the match-ups and in this situation we're penalized for having an affluent fan base that travels well.  Bowls like to get Big 10 teams because in almost all cases we sell our allotted seats unlike a lot of other programs.   So we get picked above schools ranked higher in the polls by the bowls who are far more interested in money than match-up equality.

it will go a long way to show the Big 10 isnt as down as people around the country may think.

If this factors into it as much. It's an interesting point.

I personally think that all the games being in the SEC region is the biggest factor. It's essentially all home games. I'd love to see then come north for some bowl games.

Michigan has a winning record against the sec even in modern years. What is even bigger? WE PLAY AT THEIR HOME STADIUMS!

No question (Jim) -- the Big Ten teams are playing higher-ranked opponents more often than not in bowl games. Those games are also "road" games for Midwestern teams much more than they are for sun belt teams.

Offhand, the ACC is probably the best example of the opposite case. Doesn't stop the likes of Tom Dienhart from praising them after the season, though, and predicting another "breakthrough" year for the conference. Still waiting on that ...

I do sometimes get annoyed at the insularity displayed by Big Ten fans when the subject of the SEC comes up. I'm sure they cheat (oversigning, etc.) more often than we do, but it's hard to argue with the results of the last several BCS championships, not to mention the number of recent NFL draft picks. Insisting that Wisconsin would steamroll a top-tier SEC defense is a bit silly.

In fact, we can expand on that idea and have Michigan stop playing D1 competition altogether. It would make them look really, really good every year! The media would have to take notice.

The media creates their own rules. The B1G is not going to beat the SEC rulz, dude meme by any means other than beating them into submission, at which point the media will find a reason that they are soley responsible for the improvement.

" I think if the Big10 office was smarter than they are they would arrange the bowl schedule so that their teams plays competition inferior (or at least more equal) to themselves a little more often." -from the OP

The Big Ten, aside from the mere fact of how the standings play out, has very little to do with how bowl selection plays out. Those in the conference (or any AQ conference) going to BCS bowls were selected for  financial reasons for the most part. The Rose Bowl has a Big 10 tie-in, of course, and the tradition is that the Big Ten champion plays in that game. The non-BCS bowls typically select the remaining bowl-eligible teams in the conference based on whether or not there is a tie-in (in this case, to the Big Ten). 

I believe the contracts actually allow for selections to come from other conferences in the event one should not produce enough bowl-eligible teams, or I believe they can also select an "at large" as  well, or in the worst case, any team that wants it. Bowls themselves can tender bids, I believe, which explains some of this year's matchups certainly. 

I would think that,  unless you want to overhaul how SEC teams create their schedules, or go on an all-out blitz to try and eradicate the unnatural infatuation sports media has with that conference, then this may not come to pass very easily. 

I really try not to look too much into that ranking system unless its blatantly obvious one team is better than another (like, say, LSU and Alabama compared to everyone else). But to be honest, I'd rather we play the better competition. It won't help the big ten's reputation with beating inferior teams. The conference just needs to have a couple good bowl years put together against great competition, like the '09-'10 season (Big Ten beats Oregon, LSU, Georgia Tech and Miami), or win a NC or 2. Until that happens, the SEC will always be considered the better conference, and may possibly still be even if this happens. 

Personally, though, I would push hard for SEC home and home matchups. I know it likely will never happen, especially when we move to a 9 game conference schedule. But just imagine the likes of LSU coming to the Big House for a night game, or going into Death Valley. Or at the very least, more neutral site games against the SEC.

If Ohio makes it back, Sparty figures out how to sustain excellence for the first time since the 1960's, Wiscy stays where they are, Nebraska steps it up a notch, Iowa stays the same, PSU manages not to fall down the crapper, and Michigan becomes what we are all hoping they will, the B1G will have depth similar to that of the SEC.  

If all seven of those teams play well, TEh B1G will be as good as anyone in the country.  Really, if it wasn't for gross and chronic oversigning by Bama and LSU, the Big Ten would already be as good as the SEC this year.  

Personally, I would rather see Sparty fail and Ohio make it back to "almost as good as Michigan," but it would be sorta cool seeing the B1G known as the best conference in the country, too.  

So for shits and giggles I looked at bowl results for the last 3 years of the SEC and Big Ten in regards to the opponents rank.  I only compiled for when at least 1 team was ranked so you could see at least in the top 25 ranking who was ahead.  No national championships included.

2008:  vs higher ranked team

     SEC  3-0

     B1G  0-4

vs lower ranked team

     SEC 1-1

     B1G 0-0

2009:  vs higher ranked team

     SEC 2-1

     B1G 4-0

vs lower

     SEC 0-1

     B1G 0-0

2010: vs higher

     SEC 1-2

     B1G 1-3

vs lower

     SEC 2-1

     B1G 1-0

In summation, when ranked lower the SEC is 6-3.  When ranked higher they are 3-3 in these years.  The B1G is 5-7 when ranked lower and 1-0 when ranked higher.

For 2011, the SEC is ranked higher in all 4 games where at least one team is ranked.  The B1G is ranked lower in all 6 games.

It looks like the SEC made a statement in beating team with higher rankings in 2008 and 2009.  If the Big Ten could win 4 games that they are ranked lower in this bowl season maybe they can send a big statement too.  I think they have a great chance of doing it.

Sometimes being lower ranked can be an advantage in bowl games.  There isn't as much pressure and a hell of a lot of motivation for teams who are not expected to win.  Also, as others have pointed out, a home team advantage for some of the Southern and Western teams can be huge. If my memory is correct, through most of the 1970's Michigan or Ohio State were ranked ahead of either USC or UCLA for the Rose Bowl almost every year and usually lost the game (of course the other disadvantage was trying to stay sharp as team through December when we didn't have the indoor facilities we now have).  We always seemed to do better when we were playing a team outside of Southern California, like Washington.

We do the B10 ACC in basketball, I think it would be cool if we did it against the SEC in football.

So I'm sitting pool side in Michigan, day after Christmas "yes it's indoors" courtyard hotel. The heat and humidity has caused me to think outside the box on this match up.
If we play this ACC vs big 10 in football at the start of the season.

Michigan always seems to play duke in men's BB and have not fared as well as we would like. So let's play duke in football. Just think of the ass kicking that would transpire year after year. MSU vs NC Wisconsin vs say Maryland, or OSU vs nc state. If that's not fair then bring on fuss and Miami to say a UM or even Nebraska.

Just think of the match ups makes this a great thing to do while I watch my girls swim in a pool on the day after Christmas

Just go out and beat Va Tech. Beat Bama next year. Winnings solves alot of problems. Winning consistently will shut everyone the hell up. 

The Big Ten always gets invited to 2 BCS games, so everyone below moves into a tougher game.