Big 10 much tougher than thought?
Is anyone else trying to convince themselves right now that the reason we went 5-7 last year was because the Big 10 was much tougher than in recent years?
Any chance that we actually did improve a good amount more than we think and that the competition this year is also better so it makes our improvements seem less impressive than they truly were?
I can't be the only one caught in the moment?
January 5th, 2010 at 9:00 PM ^
I still believe we should have beat Iowa. We outplayed them and two crucial breaks just went against us.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:01 PM ^
after ricky pick 6 stanzi threw a pick 6.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:05 PM ^
that right before I came to the site. Even without the pick 6, Iowa is carving GT up. Their D doesn't look the least bit confused from all the misdirection of the triple option either.
**edit**
157 yards passing in the first quarter! without the pick 6, this isn't even close.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:04 PM ^
The Big Ten had four teams that clearly were very good: OSU, PSU, Wisconsin and Iowa. But after that, there wasn't much else.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:10 PM ^
N'western had a good team this year..
and give me a conference that has more than 4 good teams?
SEC? They only have Florida, LSU, and Bama.. Ole Miss, Georgia, Auburn, and Arkansas are only above average.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:15 PM ^
I agree. If you want a bunch of good-but-not-great teams, look at the ACC. A bunch of 7-5, 8-4, 9-3 teams but nobody who is going to scare anyone at the end of the year. The best conferences tend to have a few haves and some have-nots. I think the Big 10 had a nice little comeback this year compared to earlier years; expect nobody in the media to point that out, though.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:15 PM ^
They might have been good, but Michigan didn't play them. No farking way Michigan would have beat them this year.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
True, NU was pretty good. But that's it - only five of the 11 teams posted winning records. That's not good.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
that's because the top 4 teams mopped the floor with the bottom 6..
We had 3 teams with 10+ wins, and another with 9 wins. Not many conferences can say that. Take away a few wins from Wisconsin, Penn State, and NU.. and we look like any other conference.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
And that's a sign of a conference that lacks balance. If not for a rule change a couple years ago that permitted 6-6 teams to go to bowls, we'd have only filled five bowl slots this year.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:04 PM ^
or one that has 4 very good teams..
Penn State, Wisconsin, and Ohio State won their bowl games despite playing higher ranked teams..
Iowa is winning against the ACC champ at the time of this post.. and they're the second best team in the conference.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
How can you say that Auburn was just above average and Northwestern was good. Georgia, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Arkansas are all good also. That makes 8.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
did you see that game?
Auburn had the home field advantage, was +2 in TOs and still only managed to win by a FG in OT AFTER NU'S KICKER GOT INJURED!!
Tenn is good? lol they got destroyed by VT.. and.. look at other ACC teams in their bowl games. That conference sucks and they weren't even the best there.
Georgia had absolutely no quality wins and lost vs every decent team they played.. Arkansas is even worse than Georgia..
Ole Miss is a good team.. that's 4 teams..
January 5th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
Didnt Georgia beat Georgia Tech?
January 5th, 2010 at 10:11 PM ^
Fine, agreed on Tennessee. Georgia beat Texas AM, who hung with some of the better Big 12 teams, and had one of the toughest non conference schedules in the country(lost to OK St. beat Arizona St. and beat #7 GT) along with one of the hardest conference schedules. Auburn still outplayed Northwestern for a good portion of the game and didn't really have home-field advantage because it really wasn't THAT close. They still beat them, didn't they? Arkansas is a very good offensive team but struggles on defense. They would rip apart most teams in the Big 10.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:34 PM ^
Arkansas had no first downs against ECU. They are not good. Beating up on teams like EMU to get bowl eligible is not impressive. TAMU lost to K-State (5-7) 62-14! Georgia's defense was appalling and the only game they can hang their hat on was against GT. Auburn and Northwestern was so close that nothing conclusive can be drawn from that game. The SEC's relative strength is bolstered by their pathetic non-con schedules and the fact that they have to play such "great" teams in-conference, which is brought on by the national media and the top two or three teams in the conference who are often the best of the best. The rest of the conference is typically mediocre and it shows.
EDIT: Oh and if Auburn "outplayed" Northwestern, then why did Northwestern gain 200 yards more than they did? Kafka and Demos lost it.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^
The guy said that Northwestern was better than Auburn and Auburn beat them. Auburn started out 14-0 and when NW tied it up later in the game they scored 14 more unanswered. So, yes they did dominate a good part of the game. I will guarantee you that Arkansas had a few first downs vs. ECU. Often stats go out the door in bowl games because of all the extra practice. When teams had normal practice against them, Arkansas shred them to pieces. Georgia beat USC, Arkansas, Auburn, GT, and TAMU. All quality wins. Their only bad losses were Tennessee and Kentucky.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
turn overs.. turn overs.. turn overs..
They're pretty random and can cost good teams games. NU outplayed Auburn IMO...
January 5th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
That is Kafka's fault. Not pure randomness.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:13 PM ^
They are pretty random. Unlucky some, but not "pure randomness" no. Missed field goals by a decent kicker are random. Fumbles are usually random, unless someone has a certain propensity to fumble the ball (e.g. UM punt returners). Kafka's picks were less random, but with his sample size of 70+ attempts, it's not terrible. Northwestern is better than Auburn.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:26 PM ^
Absolutely no turnover is random, it's a function of either a defender's skill, or offensive players lack there of.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:47 PM ^
Turnovers can mostly be accredited to chance, or else there would be no variance in that a defender that was less skilled than the offensive player would not be able to force a tuurnover. Kevin Leach's interception against Purdue is a perfect example. He is clearly less skilled than Elliot, but the ball was tipped and by chance Leach was in position to catch the ball. To claim that he got that pick as a function of his skill is absurd, because the ball was tipped at the line and it fell into Leach's lap. To claim that this was a function of Leach's skill and Elliot's lack thereof is ridiculous. That admittedly small sample turnover is obviously a function of chance, so therefore it renders your hypothesis that "absolutely no turnover is random" wrong. Fumbles could also make my point too.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
That example is flawed because your looking at it from the wrong perspective. Yeah, from the eyes of leach, that was 100% chace that it happened to go his way. But you are wrong in asserting that was Leach's play. Was it chance that the defender stuck his hand up? Or skill in the fact that he timed it? Was it chane that Elliot's release was too low? Or a break down in skill. So your counter example that that turnover was by chance is wrong. Fumbles? Is that not a breakdown in ball security? A vital skill? The only way a fumble can be accounted to chance is one caused by the ground, which are obviously not counted.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:04 AM ^
Functionally it was skill that caused the ball to be tipped, and lack thereof to throw it too low, but you're missing my point. The angle that the ball ricocheted off of the defenders arm, and Leach's happenstance positioning is chance. To claim that it was skill that the defender knew to deflect the ball in a manner that Leach would catch it, or that Leach would be in position at the beginning of the play knowing that the ball would fall into his hands would mean one of two things: that Michigan has the most skilled and intuitive players in the country by a mile, or that it was luck that the ball bounced off of the defenders arm in a manner that would enable Leach to catch the ball.
As for fumbles, yes, the occurence of fumbles is always or almost always due to skill versus skill but the recovery of these fumbles is luck. The bounce of the ball is unpredictable and therefore it is chance that it would bounce in one's favor. Look at Iowa's fumble return for a touchdown against Indiana where the ball bounced off of no less than four players to land in an All-American safety's hands so he could return it for a touchdown. There is no doubt that the ball was fumbled due to the ball being taken from the quarterback (while he was throwing) was due to his lack of skill, and the defender's skill in taking it, but the three Iowa players that had the ball bounce off of them and off of the Indiana quarterback before landing in Sash's hands is miraculously lucky. It is not a virtue of skill that the ball happened to bounce off of the players in an ordered precise manner to give Iowa a touchdown.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^
This argument is going to get really tedius at this point, so I'll just say this and leave my argument at that. Everything can be attributed back to skill, Leach had to react to the deflection, awareness is a skill, the fact that he didn't have to react very quickly doesn't eliminate awareness. In one's where they couldn't get to it, they weren't fast enough to get there, and the play just becomes a nice pass defense by someone instead of a turnover. The Iowa situation was a factor of the "exagerrated impulse" (Not a scientific term, but the description can be accepted by most here (I believe)) nature of humans. Say if something surprises you and you think you'll get your head hit, you fling it back much more than necessary, because it was pure reaction. When they saw the ball they just shot their hands up and couldn't get a hold of it. Them reacting too fast is not a function of luck.
January 6th, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^
dude.. if it wasn't chance.. there would be trends in turnovers..
the only trend that can be seen with turnovers is regression to the mean over seasons and even games. You generally can't out-execute a team to get more turnovers. There are some teams that go for strips more often than others, but in general, you don't plan on getting turnovers and when you usually do get them, the situation is complete and absolute luck.
January 6th, 2010 at 1:57 AM ^
to think that only one variable is in the function, brah
January 5th, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
Dominating a good part of the game meaning going up 14-0 because of two interceptions, one of which was returned for a long touchdown? Auburn had 31 yards in that span and Northwestern had 71, and that was dominating?
http://espn.go.com/ncf/playbyplay?gameId=300010002
As for Arkansas, I meant third-down conversions. 0-13. They had 100 yards less than ECU, and only won because of ECU's kicking ineptitude. Count that as a game that was stolen, and ECU should have won.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=300020151
Stats are always indicative of how the game went, you have to be joking that this would be no different because it's a bowl game.
Elaborating on my earlier point, Arkansas played bad teams to get to 7-5. Missouri State, A&M, Auburn, EMU, South Carolina, Troy and Mississippi State are not quality wins. Call Arkansas average, above mediocre, but not good.
http://espn.go.com/ncf/clubhouse?teamId=8
Georgia's wins... no. Arkansas, Auburn, and TAMU were just as good as Tennessee and Kentucky. Those were not quality wins just as they were'nt bad losses. Georgia was average. Their defense was terrible.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:25 PM ^
Maybe NW wouldn't have thrown so many INT's if they could run the ball at all. They lost because they don't have a kicker that is clutch. Auburn beat them fair and square. No terrible calls that cost them the game. Can't blame the field. I'll concede on Arkansas even though I still believe they would shred up the sub-par Big 10 pass defenses. If UGA can go 8-5 in the SEC with the OOC schedule they had you have to give them props. All of those teams you mentioned that UGA beat were good, not great.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:52 PM ^
I can't blame the field because they played on the field and Tampa instead of Orlando. True, no bad calls lost that game. True, they probably would not have thrown as many interceptions had they been able to run the ball at all. However, Auburn did not beat them fair and square. Either team would have considered themselves lucky to win that game had they won it. Both teams played so poorly and choked away potential chances to tie. It was one of the closest games I've ever seen, and like I said, nothing is conclusive other than that Auburn and Northwestern are at the same level. Trying to claim that one team is better than the other is really grasping at some facts while ignoring the larger picture of the game as a whole.
As for Georgia, they played one great team, Florida, in-conference, and a bunch of other mediocre ones. The apparent OOC schedule strength is due to the fact that they played an obscenely overrated Oklahoma State team, a 4-8 Arizona State team, Tennessee Tech... and one great team, Georgia Tech, which was thouroughly dominated tonight. To conclude that they are in the upper echelon of the SEC is kind of absurd considering the teams they beat were far away from that level.
EDIT-- Ryan Mallett can shred the Big Ten's defenses, Ryan Mallett mind you, he can shred the defenses that shut down LSU, Oregon, Miami, and now Gergia Tech? No way.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:56 PM ^
First of all, I would like to know your definition of fair and square. There was no cheating as far as I can tell. Also, you said in an earlier comment that NW was better than Auburn but here you said that you can't possibly determine who the better team was? Going back to what was originally argued someone said that NW was good but Auburn was average. Not true, they're fairly equal and are both good teams.
It is forgotten that UGA lost to OK St. when they had no injuries and Dez Bryant was still there. That was a totally different team at the beginning of the year. In the SEC they beat the teams they should have(except for GT)and lost to the teams they should have(except for Kentucky).
January 6th, 2010 at 12:10 AM ^
Auburn is average per the SEC standard and Northwestern is good per the Big Ten standard. And I interpreted fair and square meaning decisively and conclusively without luck involved. It's not the literal definition of faire and square, but the literal definition is meaningless. Auburn won without cheating. They did not win without getting lucky. They almost bungled that game so many times that them winning decisively to prove anything is false.
And Houston played OSU without those injuries or lack of Dez Bryant (who is only one player, altough admittedly a good one) and they won. Houston is decent but not that good.
Beating the teams that they should have and losing to the teams they should have makes Geogia average in that they didn't beat anyone worth anything (except for a now lesser Ga Tech team) and that they didn't beat anyone that was bad.
January 6th, 2010 at 8:35 AM ^
You're talking about the same Tennessee team that beat down South Carolina, lost a close game to Florida at the height of Florida's season, and lost to Alabama by 2, right? They're only bad loss on the season was to Ole Miss when they got smoked- a team that you agree is solid. They had cupcakes for some of their wins but they gobbled up those cupcakes like they were expected to and then beat down Georgia:
09/05/09 vs. Western Kentucky W, 63-7
09/12/09 vs. UCLA L, 19-15
09/19/09 at Florida L, 23-13
09/26/09 vs. Ohio W, 34-23
10/03/09 vs. Auburn L, 26-22
10/10/09 vs. Georgia W, 45-19
10/24/09 at Alabama L, 12-10
10/31/09 vs. South Carolina W, 31-13
11/07/09 vs. Memphis W, 56-28
11/14/09 at Mississippi L, 42-17
11/21/09 vs. Vanderbilt W, 31-16
11/28/09 at Kentucky W, 30-24 (OT)
(7-5)
I'm not saying they're world beaters but give em some respect, you're dismissing them on one bowl performance.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:09 PM ^
Big Ten best in bowls in 2010?
Beat #7 Oregon (Pac Ten)
Beat #13 LSU (SEC)
Beat #14 Miami (ACC)
Maybe #9 Georgia Tech (ACC) Early still!!
Close Iowa State loss (1 pt), Auburn loss (3 pts) and Texas Tech loss. Not bad, pretty impressed with this overall bowl season.
Love the opportunity to shut up some SEC fans down here in Florida.
Go Blue!!
January 5th, 2010 at 9:17 PM ^
I live in Louisiana and was glad that Penn State beat LSU. I did not hear a peep out of anyone from work this week about LSU football or the SEC. My boss is also a Michigan Man and we have to hear about our football team all the time (in addition to them trashing our academics...go figure). There is nothing worse than hearing fans in SEC country talk about SEC football.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
Big Ten field conditions in the Penn State vs. LSU game?
Loved every second!!
Hail!
January 5th, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^
Wait a minute - I can see them thrashing our football, but our academics? Come on. You can't be serious. Is LSU even ranked by US News?
Remedial reading is a first year requirement for some of the SEC schools.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^
Once you get past Florida and Bama, the SEC had a bunch of very average teams. LSU had several major injuries at running back which didn't help them, nor did an absolutely horrendous field which took away their speed advantage over Penn State.
I also think this was a very strange year with lots of previously good teams having off years.
So far, the Big Ten is holding their own. If Iowa hangs on, we will actually have a winning bowl season. Remember that no Big Ten team has been talked about as being in the national championship picture.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:13 PM ^
I think the Big 10 was a bit better this year top-to-bottom, but as much as it pains me to say it, this team screwed itself over by not taking care of business against Illinois and/or Purdue, two teams they should have beaten. Iowa was a goofy game and MSU is always a crazy affair, but beat either of those two fellow bottom-feeders and UM is bowling right now. Those types are the teams that UM usually feasted on; they need to get back to that.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:14 PM ^
No, we've done enough justifying of losses. Unless you're trying to say that Rodriguez has caused our development to stunt, leading to our records, then this would become interesting very fast.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:17 PM ^
i don't know, but norm parker's stock is going up.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:19 PM ^
The D in the Big Ten is better than I thought. We have shut down some teams that were said to run all over the Big Ten with thier speed.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:29 PM ^
I had a similar thought. This year's conference is stacking up well against their opponents.
January 5th, 2010 at 9:31 PM ^
I am definitely going to write a diary on this later in the week, the Big Ten is.. good? No way!
January 5th, 2010 at 10:02 PM ^
Great showing by the Big Ten this bowl season. The top 4 teams (including Iowa) beat quality opponents quite decisively.
Furthermore, they all did it behind the strength of tough, traditional Big Ten defenses.
I'm sure everyone's with me in hoping that RRod's team gets tougher as well as faster. Nothing in our past performances was more satisfying to me than our punishing defenses.
January 5th, 2010 at 10:16 PM ^
I said it a couple of times earlier in the season; I think the B10 is a lot better than we're getting credit for this year. The last couple? Not so much.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:03 PM ^
the 2nd best conference and next year #1
January 5th, 2010 at 11:45 PM ^
GaTech looked awful. Let's hope Thursday night is more entertaining.
January 6th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^
I personally see Alabama absolutely destroying Texas.
January 5th, 2010 at 11:46 PM ^
I feel like when you have a team that goes undefeated OOC, and then can only win ONE game in conference, that should be all the evidence you need.
The successful bowl season just confirms it.