Jay

January 4th, 2009 at 11:31 AM ^

After the pathetic display that Big Ten has put on over the last 3 years or so on the national stage, articles like this from writers who bash the conference probably shouldn't bother you too much. There is no defense for the Big Ten. We've been beyond awful as a conference for a while now.

k bizzle

January 4th, 2009 at 2:54 PM ^

I have almost seen DS name on the side of Mgoblog as much as Will Campbell. The less people post there feelings toward him on here the faster he doesn't matter. We all don't like him and know that anyone of us could do a better job. I come to mgoblog to get away from guys like him but still find he gets here somehow?

Magnus

January 4th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^

Try to make an argument FOR the Big Ten.

I mean, top to bottom, the Big Ten is better than the Big East. But are we better than the Big 12? No. The SEC? Probably not. The Pac 10? Not even close, according to USC.

So if a "Big Six" is necessary to fill up the BCS, then yes. The Big 10 is one of the top six conferences. But does our conference champ necessarily carry more weight than the other Big Six conferences? Possibly not.

Henne for Heis…

January 4th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^

Bad article but he makes on good point. Big Ten people need to stop whining about traveling to California. The Rose Bowl has been there for awhile now I believe, so let it rest.

bronxblue

January 4th, 2009 at 2:40 PM ^

Drew Sharp loves to annoy his constituents, so I'm not surprised by this type of article. Yes, the B10 has been down in the bowl season recently, but it wasn't too long ago that the B10 was one of the best conferences in America and people were questioning the Big 12's relevance after Nebraska. Heck, other than Texas no team in the Big 12 has been consistently dominant in bowls for some time. Conferences have an ebb and flow to them, and sometimes you are at the top and sometimes you are at the bottom. If the BCS was constantly reconfigured every year or two because some conference was down, it would be more of a mess than it already is.

Oh yeah, Sharp=idiot.

wolverine1987

January 4th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^

Beyond the provocative and dumb lead, there are too may stats sup[porting what the football media, which we all like to bash (with good reason often) has been saying for a few years now--the SEC is by far the best conference, and the B10 is second rate. That can change, but for now the truth is the truth.

Farnn

January 4th, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^

I seem to recall reading that for the first 4 years of the decade of so, the B10 was statistically the best conference and since then it has been the SEC. These things come and go in cycles. This year the SEC seems to be falling, with a few good teams at the top and the rest are rather mediocre.

Meanwhile the B12 seems to be on the rise and I can see the B10 coming back some, with a much deeper conference and many teams undergoing a rebuilding. Illinois could be good with the recruits Zook is bringing in, MSU has been recruiting better, and several other teams are looking decent too. People need to stop worrying about which conference is the best, because without much inter conference play it is always difficult to tell and the best conference ladder can get all switched around from season to season with new recruits and graduates.

lunchboxthegoat

January 5th, 2009 at 12:38 PM ^

I don't get why it matters which conference is best. Sure people talk about it...but its like that girl you dated in high school that everyone talked about, did it really affect you in anyway other than the minor nuisance?

It makes it slightly harder to get to a BCS bowl but the fact remains, (so long as you're not a Mid Major) win your games and you're in.

the BCS is BS but forget who's the better conference, win your games and hope the Mid Majors pull off the upset in auto-bids often enough that the BCS has to fold up tent.

the blow hards who preach about the best conference (musburger, herbstreit, sharp, et. al.) were hired 80% for their controversy and 20% for their expertise.