gameday morons
October 4th, 2008 at 12:21 PM ^
Let's be honest - the Big Ten really hasn't looked very good this year. With Michigan down, OSU playing like crap against teams like Ohio, and afterthought PSU only beating up on weak teams, it's easy to see why opinions of the Big Ten might be low.
That being said, a national championship game shouldn't be between teams in the same conference when that conference already has a championship game.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:51 PM ^
October 4th, 2008 at 2:26 PM ^
October 4th, 2008 at 2:23 PM ^
2004? The Big Ten was having a down year. How else could Michigan beat so many teams with a freshman QB and RB?
2005? The Big Ten was having a down year. After all, Michigan was pretty crappy that year.
2006? The Big Ten was in a down year. How else did Michigan do so well?
2007? The Big Ten was in a down year. Look how crappy Michigan was. They lost to a Division 9 team! Maybe it was Division 8. Whatever.
1997? Down year.
1950-2000? Down half-century.
2000 on up? Definitely gonna be a down millenium.
Remember Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl? The Big Ten was in a down year that year for sure, and UCLA was going to cream them. You know what we found out from that game? The Pac-Ten was also having a down year.
October 4th, 2008 at 1:56 PM ^
And they've absolutely decimated their weaker opponents, so I'd support bluetell's righteous indignation.
As with all the other easy talking head memes out there, this one is going to be hard to kill. All the BCS conferences are roughly equal over the past twenty years. Brian put up the analysis link yesterday.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:22 PM ^
October 4th, 2008 at 2:23 PM ^
The SEC and Big 12 are perceived to be strong because they have played 'stronger' schedules and beat up on teams supposedly superior to the teams the Big Ten has played. Granted there are some that this is true for, but most of this is all based on the assumption that the Big 12 and SEC are already strong. When you actually look at the teams objectively, very few teams have actually played anyone of real merit yet, and the strength of a team at this point should be based on an actual viewing of that teams games and their efficiency and execution against any oponnent.
The problem is the inane circular reasoning that proliferates for the first few weeks of any college football season (and sometimes further). An SEC team beats someone and people say "Man, a quality win there, Team B is great." How do we know Team B is good? "Well they played the SEC tough, and we all know that the SEC is a great conference." It's why, when there's an SEC upset, pundits say "WOW, EVERY WEEK A PLAYOFF IN THE SEC! JUST SHOWS HOW STRONG THEY ARE, AND I HEAR THEY ARE ALL PACKIN' SOME SERIOUS HEAT!", whereas when the same level of upset or close game occurs in the Big Ten (or any other conference) it just shows the mediocrity of the conference as a whole. Weak.
October 4th, 2008 at 2:47 PM ^
October 4th, 2008 at 8:59 PM ^