ESPN Article - Can the B1G Reach Past Rose Bowl?

Submitted by Yost Ghost on May 13th, 2012 at 4:37 PM

While I don't care too much for the implication about the conference, it has been 4 years since the B1G had a team in the MNCG. 

Also of concern was this:

For Michigan, it's a defensive line that looked this spring to be nowhere near as dominant as last year's bunch.



May 13th, 2012 at 4:42 PM ^

How is their notes about us something to be concerned about? We all know depth on the D-Line is a major problem for this year, that's not exactly breaking news

Yost Ghost

May 13th, 2012 at 6:06 PM ^

we all knew D-Line was a major concern for this year. Losing Martin, RVB and Heinager makes that pretty obvious. What we didn't know for sure was whether guys were gonna step up their game to fill these holes. Looking at you BWC. This article suggests that the jury is in and the D-Line is no longer a concern but officially a problem. How much improvement can be reasonably expected between now and September 1st?


May 13th, 2012 at 6:39 PM ^

How can the jury be in? What has changed since the spring game? They haven't played a single game...and if you think that there won't be any improvement in fall camp, then don't know much.

Yost Ghost

May 13th, 2012 at 6:49 PM ^

I said the jury (ESPN) appears to be in. I also said this a bit tongue cheek since it is ESPN we're talking about. Sorry about your sarcasm meter. I then follow these comments up with a a question of how much improvement can be reasonably expected. No where did I say that "there won't be any improvement". Sorry about your reading comprehension.


May 15th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^

Is if you don't proceed your "sarcastic" statement reasonable positions agreeing with the article, and another question afterward posting the same concerns.  

we all knew D-Line was a major concern for this year. Losing Martin, RVB and Heinager makes that pretty obvious. What we didn't know for sure was whether guys were gonna step up their game to fill these holes. Looking at you BWC. <sarcasm?> This article suggests that the jury is in and the D-Line is no longer a concern but officially a problem. </sarcasm?> How much improvement can be reasonably expected between now and September 1st?



You can have legit doubts. But if you're mocking the article for having these doubts, you might want to lay it on a little thicker. Because it seems you're in lockstep with the article.

His Dudeness

May 13th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^

Well when an SEC team can make it in without winning their conference and no other conference can do that it kind of seems a little like I couldn't give a shit less about what they think. I seem to remember a time when we had a very good team that could have been in the MNCG, but nobody said we were deserving because we didn't win our conference. Smells like bullshit to me.


May 13th, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^

I won't argue with you that Alabama was the best team in football last year.
But, they lost. At home. To a team that won their league.
In 2006, we lost. On the road. By the same margin. And still got snubbed.

And we got snubbed based on the media polls and the media spin that was partly attributable to ESPN.  The Media Polls have a direct impact on the BCS rankings, which directly impact the BCS rankings. 

So... yeah... sometimes bullshit isn't bullshit, but if it smells like shit.. and came from a bull... 

Blue since birth

May 13th, 2012 at 9:48 PM ^

The narrative in the media was "Michigan should be #2. But since they didn't win their conference and nobody wants to see a rematch in the NC... We're going to pretend they're not". I seem to remember the rematch aspect being a bigger problem for the talking heads.

The bowl results are irrelevant to what people thought at the time.


May 13th, 2012 at 11:12 PM ^

People need to quit blaming the media for everything.  The people that vote in these polls aren't mindless sheep.  Sometimes life just sucks and kicks you in the balls, and its no one's fault.  Blaming people for all of life's little problems is cowardly and unbecoming.  Just accept the hand you're dealt and move on like a man.


May 14th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

  I blame the media, because the media (mostly one organization) in this case directly skewed the public opinion to put a team (that happens to be monetarily linked to said media organization. 


Your "informed writers" includes Craig James, and the daily sports editor for the Lexington Herald... 


May 14th, 2012 at 4:44 PM ^

But aside from the media as a whole, we have to blame Urban Meyer, the top wiener of them all, for being willing to play the whine game at the cost of cheapening CFB with the nauseating sound of self-interested faux outrage.

We owe him a major kick in the Buck nut to go with the belated one we gave him at the Cap One bowl. We will never be even with him for being the whiner that he is.


May 13th, 2012 at 10:25 PM ^

Who's to say Alabama wouldn't have lost to Stanford? Or that the OSU passing attack wouldn't have shredded the LSU defense? People are using the Bowls from 2006 as examples, but when we initially were voted out, there was no telling what would happen in the Bowls


May 13th, 2012 at 11:46 PM ^

Right, and on another note...  we lost to USC in their back yard.  If we had a rematch with Ohio on a neutral site, or even played USC on a TRUE "neutral stie", things might have been different.  Florida was the best team that day, but what would have happened if they had to fly all the way to Southern Cal to play Southern Cal in the Rose Bowl?  Not trying to make excuses, but there's a reason why USC dominates the B1G in the Rose Bowl, no matter who they play.


May 13th, 2012 at 7:21 PM ^

The teams in the SEC were clearly better than everyone else last year

That's all that's bullshit here. There's no way of telling who the better football teams were, because they didn't play Okie State or Stanford.


May 14th, 2012 at 2:38 PM ^

All we know is that Alabama is better than LSU.  The teams were pretty much dead equal the first time they played.

Since the SEC was simply handed the title without even being forced to play for it, the title means pretty much nothing.   But that's why it's always been a mythical title.  Even with the new 4-team event being bandied about ti will still be bogus, though it will be less bogus than it is currently.

Any "national championship" that doesn't include the champions of all the major conferences isn't really a championship. It's just an invitational tournament like the NIT.

But you know what?  I'm fine with the rematch last year because I think at the minimum it killed the currrent BCS setup.


May 13th, 2012 at 4:46 PM ^

This year, I really don't see any B1G team having a shot at the NCG.  Michigan still lacks the talent to really be a contenter and their schedule is really tough.  OSU is ineligible and even if there were, it's their first year in a completely new offensive system and they may also struggle along the OL having lost a few starters to the draft and having had horrible coaching on the OL for years.  PSU still doesn't really have a QB, and will have a new offense this year as well.  MSU doesn't have the elite talent to compete, they got crushed by both ND and Nebraska last year, and have a new QB and all new WRs.  Nebraska also doesn't have a great QB and their defense wasn't great.  Wisconsin is the olny team that might have a shot this year, though who knows how good their QB will be coupled with a mostly new offensive staff.


May 13th, 2012 at 7:34 PM ^

We are still in the early parts of the transformation. Beating Bama will be a big step forward and make everyone in the south go hmmm. But we need to focus on the big ten first and start dominating our conference before we can worry about if the big ten is better than the hated sec. We have Hoke setting the foundation for a great future. I live in sec country and fight this battle all the time.

Silly Goose

May 13th, 2012 at 5:23 PM ^

When the SEC plays be the same rules as other conferences, then I'll care. When the two teams that oversign the most just happen to be the only two teams to make it to the championship game (and have made it how many of the previous years) than you know the deck is stacked against you. This should definitely come up in the playoff talks, because it makes a huge difference.


May 13th, 2012 at 8:47 PM ^

I don't think anyone argues that any team that oversigns will win, the argument is that a team recruiting more players is an advantage in their recruiting tier. Alabama and LSU are in that top tier, thus they have an advantage over other top teams. This equates to MNC's.

Nutt's 2008 class was ranked number 29 by Rivals, despite having 31 members. Saban's 2008 class was ranked number one by rivals with 32 members. Average star rankings? Nutt: 2.71, Saban: 3.72. It's not a simple 31 that matters, it's 31 players with 2.71* talent.

More better players equal more wins, no question.


May 13th, 2012 at 10:52 PM ^

 Just using BWC as an example here. If he had went to Alabama he'ld be on a medical hardship scholarship by now or playing at EMU. If you don't live up to your scouting potential they find a way to get you off the team.


 When our 2012-13 recruiting classes mature we'll be more in the running for NCG's


May 13th, 2012 at 5:36 PM ^

Anybody who says that oversigning doesn't help gain a competitive advantage, is full of it.  Of course, good coaching is necessary, but even if all other things are equal except for oversigning, then there is a significant advantage gained by oversigning over several years.


May 13th, 2012 at 6:34 PM ^

Look, I dislike oversigning as much as anyone, but the SEC DOES play by the same rules as everyone else.  Its the Big Ten that doesn't.  The Big Ten adapts their own rules that make it much harder on themselves to compete against the SEC and other conferences.  Complaining about that fact is nothing but sour grapes.  Don't get all pissed at your married buddy banging hotty after hotty on the side just because you've decided to take the vow of marriage serious and he didn't.


May 13th, 2012 at 9:09 PM ^

Possibly, many of them do not really know about it. Other possibility is that many think it will not happen to them. These are kids who think the world of themselves and now have recruiting sites and numerous universities knocking down their doors. Many have no fear or even the slightest concern that they might be treated in this way as most do not even consider the possibility of failure. Probably a somewhat similar explanation for recruits who sign onto a school where the school already has too many kids signed up that play the position.


May 13th, 2012 at 9:49 PM ^

Yeah, I don't think it's so much the first possibility you suggest.  Most of the kids being recruited by the big name universities have been told for years how great they are and are convinced they'll be a draft choice in the NFL.  It's hard to blame 17 year olds in this situation, but sometimes the parents are just as bad.  They are the ones who should be pointing out that even at the top schools 80-90% of each recruiting class usually goes undrafted. And kid who is the super star in high school can't fathom the possibility of being buried on the depth chart in college either, so in his mind there is no need to worry about being pushed out to make room for a new recruit.


May 13th, 2012 at 11:20 PM ^

Nearly every 18 year old -- especially ones with boosted egos from being football stars -- thinks they are invincible and the bad things that happened to everyone else won't happen to them.  Its the blessing and curse of youth.

Kids don't think they will be the ones that get cut, they see the teams in the SEC winning championships, getting drafted into the NFL, and opt for that.  Getting treated fairly and getting an education is low on the list of priorities for a lot of these guys.