Isn't it funny just how last season

[deedsker15]

some people were saying how much the Big 10 sucks? lol

Those people were just talking about the football. Compared to the Big 12, you might still be able to argue that. I would never want to leave the Big 12 for the Big 10 for the sports. I don't think we would even consider the jump if the academics were the same. Even with the $22 million payday we'd stay put. We'd be working with the rest of our Big 12 brothers to improve our tv situation. Of course Texas keeps that from happening. What makes this a no-brainer is what it does for the institution as a whole. We will be a Big 10 school and that does mean something. We will attract better students and have richer alumni who will give larger amounts back to the school. Not to mention the $$ we get for research. Leaving for the sports would reek of jealousy of UT. I think that making the move to the Big 10 is sacrificing on the athletic side for what it will do for the state and university as a whole. I am not really looking forward to our games with Purdue and Indiana.

 

have a buddy who is a purdue fan/graduate...love to rub it in every year

[General Blackshirt]

Yeah, the Big 10 is top-heavy. They are the only conference last year where four different teams won ten games. That's great, but who did they do it against? A bunch of completely non-competitive teams.

 

How did Ohio State and Penn St perform in the Big 10 when they weren't playing either each other or Iowa (ie, bottom of the pack)? Penn St went 6-0 and Ohio State went 5-1. Ohio State won their games by an average of 21.8 points per game and Penn State won theirs by an average of 20.5 points per game. Real competitive, huh? (I'm not including Iowa's margin of victory against the Podunks of the conference because everyone knows Iowa deserved to go about 6-6 last year. They should have lost to Northern Iowa, but that doesn't mean Northern Iowa is anywhere near them talent wise. Ferentz is overrated and doesn't know how to motivate, but I digress.)

 

By comparison, look at the SEC. Florida beat Tennessee (SEC: 4-4) by 10, Arkansas (SEC: 3-5) by 3, Mississippi State (SEC: 3-5) by 10, and South Carolina (SEC: 3-5) by 10. Alabama only beat Tennessee by 2. For two Top-5 teams, don't you think they should be mowing through their conference games a little easier when teams like Ohio State and Penn State can beat their cream puffs by 3 TDs? Alabama had a bit of an easier season than Florida when it comes to how close their conference games were, but they still only beat their lower-tier opponents (excluding the two 9-4 teams they faced) by an average of 15.8 points per game.

 

So, do you think the upper-echelon teams in the SEC are playing more competitive games in conference because they aren't as talented as the higher quality Big 10 teams? Or, perhaps, do you think it's because the SEC is a deep conference with many talented teams while the Big 10 plays some terrible football between their worst teams?

 

I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Ringer02]

I played high school ball with a guy who played for App St when they went to the Big House for the upset a few years back...

 

I have this new app for my iphone it's called app state, and when I press it Michigan loses in humiliating fashion.

[muffler dragon]

Yeah, the Big 10 is top-heavy. They are the only conference last year where four different teams won ten games. That's great, but who did they do it against? A bunch of completely non-competitive teams.

 

How did Ohio State and Penn St perform in the Big 10 when they weren't playing either each other or Iowa (ie, bottom of the pack)? Penn St went 6-0 and Ohio State went 5-1. Ohio State won their games by an average of 21.8 points per game and Penn State won theirs by an average of 20.5 points per game. Real competitive, huh? (I'm not including Iowa's margin of victory against the Podunks of the conference because everyone knows Iowa deserved to go about 6-6 last year. They should have lost to Northern Iowa, but that doesn't mean Northern Iowa is anywhere near them talent wise. Ferentz is overrated and doesn't know how to motivate, but I digress.)

 

By comparison, look at the SEC. Florida beat Tennessee (SEC: 4-4) by 10, Arkansas (SEC: 3-5) by 3, Mississippi State (SEC: 3-5) by 10, and South Carolina (SEC: 3-5) by 10. Alabama only beat Tennessee by 2. For two Top-5 teams, don't you think they should be mowing through their conference games a little easier when teams like Ohio State and Penn State can beat their cream puffs by 3 TDs? Alabama had a bit of an easier season than Florida when it comes to how close their conference games were, but they still only beat their lower-tier opponents (excluding the two 9-4 teams they faced) by an average of 15.8 points per game.

 

So, do you think the upper-echelon teams in the SEC are playing more competitive games in conference because they aren't as talented as the higher quality Big 10 teams? Or, perhaps, do you think it's because the SEC is a deep conference with many talented teams while the Big 10 plays some terrible football between their worst teams?

 

I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

Considering that your post doesn't take into account S.O.S., I would say that you're arguing a point that you can't substantiate. Furthermore, when looking specifically at the Buckeye schedule, there are (as all teams have) lower grade performers; however, no one can complain one iota about who tOSU has gone out and put on the OOC schedule in a few years. Texas home/home, USC home/home, and then to couple it with the Big Ten as a whole going 4-3 in bowl games with the top four Big Ten teams winning... well, you just can't argue against it especially when two of the wins were BCS.

[clone]

some people were saying how much the Big 10 sucks? lol

 

 

exactly!!

 

funny, isn't it??

[clone]

Well, it certainly can suck. Other than Ohio State last year, what has the Big 10 really proved to anyone?

 

 

seriously???

 

now that's pretty good analysis...

 

Other than Texas last year, what has the Big 12 really proved to anyone?

 

AP top ten final rankings for 2009

 

1 Alabama (60) 14-0 1,500 1

2 Texas 13-1 1,399 2

3 Florida 13-1 1,370 5

4 Boise State 14-0 1,366 6

5 Ohio State 11-2 1,224 8

6 TCU 12-1 1,163 3

7 Iowa 11-2 1,126 10

8 Cincinnati 12-1 1,060 4

9 Penn State 11-2 1,016 11

10 Virginia Tech 10-3 953 12

[Manhattan]

Ohio state plays big games with Miami (FL), Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa this year. All of them are going to be a battle.

 

Compared with Nebraska's schedule...?

[knapplc]

I can't believe we're really having this conversation. Ignore individual teams - let's talk about which conference is consistently good, top to bottom. Don't pick out 2006 or 1994 and say "_______ Conference had umpteen great teams" because one-time instances prove nothing.

 

Overall, most conferences are going to have 1-4 good teams, 3-5 mediocre teams, and 1-4 pretty bad teams. The ONLY conference that has, maybe, beaten those odds over a ten-year period is the SEC, and since nobody is pimping them in this conversation, most of what's been said is off the mark.

[schuhbdoo]

Ohio state plays big games with Miami (FL), Penn State, Wisconsin, and Iowa this year. All of them are going to be a battle.

 

Compared with Nebraska's schedule...?

 

 

Washington on the road(Jake Locker-no 1 pro QB in upcoming draft), Texas at home(enuf said), then TEXAS/OU(enuf said part two) in the Big 12 Championship Game. Miami(not a top 15 school right now) on your schedule is nothing different than Texas A & M or Okie St on our schedule. So, in reality your schedule without a championship game doesn't trump the schedule of Nebraska.

 

Do you plan Michigan too? Normally this would tip the strengthen of schedule to you but Michigan is down right now and not a top 15 school right now either.

 

Thoughts???

[junior4949]

Other than last year, they're last 5 years of bowl performances I believe have been the worst of all major conferences. Only the Big East has been worse with regards to NC the past decade.

[muffler dragon]

I can't believe we're really having this conversation. Ignore individual teams - let's talk about which conference is consistently good, top to bottom. Don't pick out 2006 or 1994 and say "_______ Conference had umpteen great teams" because one-time instances prove nothing.

 

Overall, most conferences are going to have 1-4 good teams, 3-5 mediocre teams, and 1-4 pretty bad teams. The ONLY conference that has, maybe, beaten those odds over a ten-year period is the SEC, and since nobody is pimping them in this conversation, most of what's been said is off the mark.

 

Point on. :

 

Other than last year, they're last 5 years of bowl performances I believe have been the worst of all major conferences. Only the Big East has been worse with regards to NC the past decade.

 

Are you discussing all bowls or National Championships? The reason why I ask is there's a signficant difference in that discussion. To play in the NC regardless of outcome plays a MAJOR role in potential successes of subsequent bowl games. Furthermore, if we're going to discuss bowls, then we should evaluate everything since the inception of the BCS existence. Once the larger picture is evaluated, it puts things into a different perspective.

[junior4949]

I already did in another thread going back to 1998 discussing NC's. It really doesn't matter if we go back that far or not because it sure didn't make the Big 10 look any better.

[muffler dragon]

I already did in another thread going back to 1998 discussing NC's. It really doesn't matter if we go back that far or not because it sure didn't make the Big 10 look any better.

 

Feel free to link the other thread.

 

I'm just not certain how you can say the Big Ten looks bad against the BCS data:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowl_Championship_Series (I typically try to stay away from Wiki, but it's objective in this instance)

 

BCS Bowl wins and appearances by conference

Conference Appearances Wins Losses %

Big Ten 21 10 11 .476

Big 12 17 7 10 .438

 

BCS National Championships

Conference Appearances Wins Losses %

Big 12 7 2 5 .286

Big Ten 3 1 2 .333

 

How exactly is the Big 12 superior overall in the BCS?

[huKSer]

 

How exactly is the Big 12 superior overall in the BCS?

Because of Texass. Doubt me? Just ask them

[irafreak]

It's all perception. Lately OSU was on the recieving end of some poor BCS title games so that's all everyone remembers. I have never felt the big10 was inferior. I love the style of play too and it warms my heart to see Michigan's spread fail...