GatorNation4Lyfe wrote: The only team I thought would win was NW. MSU surprised me and most games were competitive and very entertaining. These were the better games of the bowl season by far.

Hard to win many bowl games when 2 of your better teams were left at home so that all the other teams have to play "up"...

that's what is so frustrating to me. nobody in the national media will bring this point up

it'll just be big ten sucks again (when in reality all teams minus purdue played very welll)

The Mich game and the Wisc game actually are more of an argument FOR the Big Ten.  Both played much higher ranked teams and looked about evenly matched.

Going into bowl season

11-2 Stanford v. 8-5 Wisconsin. Stanford wins by 6.
11-2 Georgia v. 10-3 Nebraska. Georgia wins by 14.
10-2 South Carolina v. 8-4 Michigan. South Carolina wins by 5.
8-4 Mississippi State v. 9-3 Northwestern. Northwestern wins by 14.
7-5 Oklahoma State v. 6-6 Purdue. Oklahoma State wins by 44.
7-5 Texas Tech v. 6-6 Minnesota. Texas Tech wins by 3.
7-5 TCU v. 6-6 Michigan State. Michigan State wins by 1.

Based on that lineup Big 10 was expected to go 0-7 to 2-5 with several embarrassing losses.

Big 10 ended up going 2-5 with only one embarrassing loss.

This should tell Big 10 players and coaches, and potential recruits, that the Big 10 can be competitive with the SEC, Big 12, and Pac 12. However, work needs to continue to get the conference over the hump. 2-5 with 3 heartbreaking losses is acceptable. However, 5-2 would've been much better. Now is the time to get over the hump and win more of the close games in regular season and bowl season.

arand wrote: The Mich game and the Wisc game actually are more of an argument FOR the Big Ten.  Both played much higher ranked teams and looked about evenly matched.

Shade45 wrote: 1-4 on New Years Day and 2-5 overall.

Not too mention, a 1-9 record in the last 10 Rose Bowls.



What do you guys think it will take for the B1G to get back?

Ohio State being bowl eligible. 

and I don't really give two $#@1s about the rest of the league once the playoff system is in place. Urban is building a juggernaut and OSU will be in contention year in and year out.. I really couldn't care less about Purdue's ability to win the PapaJohn's Bowl or Northwestern winning or losing a Gator Bowl.

Shade45 wrote: 1-4 on New Years Day and 2-5 overall.

Not too mention, a 1-9 record in the last 10 Rose Bowls.



What do you guys think it will take for the B1G to get back?

you and your boyfriend knocking off the 69

Wow... the self-hate for our conference is ridiculous.  The top 2 teams weren't in the bowls...
And outside some debate over NW-MissSU line, the conference was an underdog in every game.  2-5 is not good, but Outside of Purdue, the conference was in every game and even had 2nd Half leads in each game.  SOme are calling the Neb-SC game a walloping, but that game was ugly for both teams and NEB had a 31-24 lead until its defense complete fell apart (heck, even was driving with the ball while up 7). 

You can't have it both ways... you can't predict them to suck, then when they actually win two and give higher ranked teams all they can handle, 2 teams losing in the last minute- say this proves how they sucked.

Much lower-seeded Big10 teams wnet toe-to-toe with the almighty SEC and needed stupid play calls in the 4th Qtr to lose.  These were NOT the Big10's best teams... we all know that... but if mediocre to bad Big10 teams can give near the top of the SEC teams fits (all the while Florida getting man-handled by Louisville)... then the SEC is not the all-powerful, all-stud conference when it comes right down to it.  Yes, the SEC will get a few more kudos from ESPN for winning their bowl games, but the REAL truth is something so many of you want to miss in your penis-envy issues with the south--- BAD Bg10 teams- ones you all mocked a ssucking... even mocking now that they lost... these sorry teams went-toe-to-toe with "superior" (vastly superior talent and coaching according to some of you tools) and almost won... should have won.  Yes, the SEC won the games against UM and Nebraska... BUT... who would of thought NEbraska would have been up 31-24 near the end of the 3rd Qtr?  Or that Michigan would have to have a fumble and a poor defensive call in the last minute to lose to SC?  C'mon, you guys all said how weak this conference was... how lame it is... how soft... and yet, it gave the best of the SEC all it could handle. 

FUnny how those SEC clowns mocked how OSU gave up points to Indiana as proof how bad they were... SC gave up 31 to Nebraska... UM almost clocked SC... if those teams are as bad as some of you claim, then those SEC teams aren't any better, considering they get to play in their home fields or home states, etc. 

The Big10 does not need SEC players or SEC-style coaches.  It is just fine and when the turnovers with coaching changes and a bit of balls for the coaches settle in.  3 Big10-SEC games decided by a total of 5 points. 

Hell, I think OSU could have taken any of these teams.

It's not that weak, if it is a down year and can still do this.

Frankly I expected  0-7 so I'd be happy.

OSUVB wrote: About what was expected. A couple of games (Minny, Michigan) could have gone either way.

Another issue which was also ignored besides Northwestern's terrific win is that fact that half the teams in the SEC were atrocious this year, and yet Mike & Mike & the rest of the ESPN bobblehead dolls insisted that the SEC remains the nation's best CFB conference by a very wide margin.


Are there really six teams in either the Big 10 or Pac-12 that are worse than Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee & Arkansas?

Not on your life.

The resumes for both Georgia & especially South Carolina remain very thin as it relates to national relevance given the refusal of the Gamecocks to play anyone of national relevance in a home & home series

Also, for M&M to insinuate that the Fiesta Bowl won't prove anything at it relates to conference superiority because both teams aren't playing in Miami on Monday is also indefensibly asinine.

Utilizing the really tired 'they really didn't want to be there' company line in trying to defend Florida and LSU is also pathetic; everybody on this board knew before the season started that both UF & LSU would have solid defenses and suspect/inconsistent offenses, and that turned out to be the absolute truth this year.

They absolutely indicted Miles & Muschamp with that mindset, so I hope they're happy with demolishing the competence of those two coaches. Nice goin' brain surgeons!!!!

If those SEC teams weren't 'motivated' to participate in their bowl games, than M&M should really be proud of themselves for simultaneously indicting TONS of top-notch coaches by flapping their lips, and looking dumb and dumber in the process.

I don't recall USC having any difficulty in punching out Michigan in the 2007 Rose Bowl after their 13-9 loss to UCLA which cost them a slot in the BCSCG.

I certainly saw no lack of motivation from Stanford or Wisconsin, and neither did anybody else except Mike & Mike; at least Herbie was very conscientious and honest in showering Stanford with tons of compliments while taking time to inform those who hadn't seen much of them over the past few years that this is a 'top 5 or top 10 program' (yes he said that)!!!

Methinks he undoubtedly went overboard, but Stanford is here to stay.

Face it folks----not too many programs could lose Toby Gearhart, Jim Harbaugh & Andrew Luck in successive seasons and still remain efficient and very solid.

UCLAMarv wrote: Another issue which was also ignored besides Northwestern's terrific win is that fact that half the teams in the SEC were atrocious this year, and yet Mike & Mike & the rest of the ESPN bobblehead dolls insisted that the SEC remains the nation's best CFB conference by a very wide margin.


Are there really six teams in either the Big 10 or Pac-12 that are worse than Ole Miss, MSU, Auburn, Kentucky, Tennessee & Arkansas?

I'm curious how Northwestern can have a terrific win over an MSU team that is as bad as any team in any conference.

Ole Miss and MSU were mediocre teams, the others were pretty awful.  I do agree that the SEC was rather more polarized than is usual.

UCLAMarv wrote: Another issue which was also ignored besides Northwestern's terrific win is that fact that half the teams in the SEC were atrocious this year, and yet Mike & Mike & the rest of the ESPN bobblehead dolls insisted that the SEC remains the nation's best CFB conference by a very wide margin...

Cowherd said today the SEC is down this year. He also thought this year's Alabama team wasn't as good as the 2010 team that lost 3 games.

CFB, like other sports, has better seasons some years than others. That applies to CFB in general and conferences in particular.

I disagree that the SEC is "down this year" relative to recent years, because I never thought it was necessarily that far "up" in those other years.  

The difference I see this year is that 7 teams look decent and 7 teams look mediocre to bad.  This gave rise to a lot of "10-2" records and high rankings because teams like Georgia was able to beat a lot of those mediocre to bad teams and not play the other "10-2" teams.

What has happened is that "folks" seem to think the SEC should win every OOC and bowl game, which has never been the case.  When they don't, folks trumpet that the "SEC IS DOWN!" when it probably is roughly the same.

cincydawg4 wrote: I disagree that the SEC is "down this year" relative to recent years, because I never thought it was necessarily that far "up" in those other years.  

The difference I see this year is that 7 teams look decent and 7 teams look mediocre to bad.  This gave rise to a lot of "10-2" records and high rankings because teams like Georgia was able to beat a lot of those mediocre to bad teams and not play the other "10-2" teams.

What has happened is that "folks" seem to think the SEC should win every OOC and bowl game, which has never been the case.  When they don't, folks trumpet that the "SEC IS DOWN!" when it probably is roughly the same.

"Down," like "up," is always relative. It's just a way of saying the SEC has been stronger in some past years than this year.

I don't think people really expect the conference to win every bowl game, but when 2 of the top 4 "premier" teams - UF & LSU - lose their bowls, something appears to be up (or "down" ). The SEC has to work just to get to .500 in bowls this year, which (without looking to check) is not up to its standards of the last several years. So I can see why people would say it's "down"...

Cowherd is correct; as bad as Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas & Auburn were thsi year, not to mention Ole Miss & MSU (most overrated team in the nation in 2012, and another example of idiotic promotion of a so-so team by ESPN), he absolutely nailed it.

For others at ESPN to insist that such was not the case and that these major bowl games don't count is beyond asinine; insisting that KSU & the Ducks went from BCS title game conteststants to irrelevants because they lost a game doesn't pass the 'straight face test' under any circumstances.

How else are you going to judge a team such as South Carolina, which had to go all out to edge a decidedly mediocre Michigan team, and which has an extremely thin resume as it relates to OOC victories?

Nobody really knows how good they are.

UCLAMarv wrote:  

How else are you going to judge a team such as South Carolina, which had to go all out to edge a decidedly mediocre Michigan team, and which has an extremely thin resume as it relates to OOC victories?

 

How many upper echelon teams have OOC wins more impressive than winning at Clemson?

Notre Dame, by default.

I'd guess someone else has one, perhaps Florida over FSU.  Anyone else?

Shade45 wrote: 1-4 on New Years Day and 2-5 overall.

Not too mention, a 1-9 record in the last 10 Rose Bowls.



What do you guys think it will take for the B1G to get back?

Is this your way of ignoring your thrashing by Louisiville?

You might want to focus your attention into how as a 14 point favorite, you end up getting blown out by a BE team (score should have been by 20 pts), with your classless players challanging for the ThugU title and your out of control coach making Brian Kelly look like Father Mulcahy.

marv which conference DIDNT have a lot of mediocre to bad teams?

the acc had maryland, nc state, wake forest, boston college, miami, unc, duke, va tech, ga tech and virginia.

the big 12 had texas tech, tcu, west va, iowa st, baylor and kansas.

the big ten had michigan st, iowa, minnesota, indiana, purdue and illinois.

the pac 12 had usc, washington, arizona, utah, cal, washington st and colorado.

the sec had ole miss, miss st, missouri, tenn, arkansas, auburn and kentucky.

do you sort of see a trend here?

UCLAMarv wrote: Cowherd is correct; as bad as Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas & Auburn were thsi year, not to mention Ole Miss & MSU (most overrated team in the nation in 2012, and another example of idiotic promotion of a so-so team by ESPN), he absolutely nailed it.

For others at ESPN to insist that such was not the case and that these major bowl games don't count is beyond asinine; insisting that KSU & the Ducks went from BCS title game conteststants to irrelevants because they lost a game doesn't pass the 'straight face test' under any circumstances.

How else are you going to judge a team such as South Carolina, which had to go all out to edge a decidedly mediocre Michigan team, and which has an extremely thin resume as it relates to OOC victories?

Nobody really knows how good they are.

South Carolina and Stanford are the only teams in the country with 2 OOC wins against ranked opponents this year.

If notable OOC wins are your criteria, then every other team has the same questions hanging over them - but even more than South Carolina does.

CFBTrivia

I still wonder if anyone had a better OOC win that USCe over Clemson aside from Florida over FSU, outside of the bowls and Notre Dame (who plays all OOC).

Virginia over Penn State?

cincydawg4 wrote: I still wonder if anyone had a better OOC win that USCe over Clemson aside from Florida over FSU, outside of the bowls and Notre Dame (who plays all OOC).

Virginia over Penn State?

I doubt it. Michigan St. over Boise St. was sneaky good, though.

cincydawg4 wrote: I disagree that the SEC is "down this year" relative to recent years, because I never thought it was necessarily that far "up" in those other years.  

The difference I see this year is that 7 teams look decent and 7 teams look mediocre to bad.  This gave rise to a lot of "10-2" records and high rankings because teams like Georgia was able to beat a lot of those mediocre to bad teams and not play the other "10-2" teams.

What has happened is that "folks" seem to think the SEC should win every OOC and bowl game, which has never been the case.  When they don't, folks trumpet that the "SEC IS DOWN!" when it probably is roughly the same.

As usual, the SEC is not as bad as its detractors would depict it, nor quite as good as its loudest proponents may claim.