Re: College football rivalry game importance

[dew1679666265]

I've been a bit stunned by answers I've received to this question, so I figured I'd pose it to NSBB. If you were given the option, which would you choose between these options.

 

You're not guaranteed a championship, only two wins over your biggest rivals or a 10 win season. The championship may come, but it's not a certainty.

[Derwood]

this question is so retardedly obvious that we're sure to have many people answer wrong

[dew1679666265]

this question is so retardedly obvious that we're sure to have many people answer wrong

 

That's what I would have thought too.

 

But every college football fan I've asked has replied 2-10. It's utterly befuddling.

[Derwood]

this question is so retardedly obvious that we're sure to have many people answer wrong

 

That's what I would have thought too.

 

But every college football fan I've asked has replied 2-10. It's utterly befuddling.

 

yo need to stop asking stupid people this question.

[UMFan83]

I'm way overthinking this, but an argument as a Michigan fan that I'll use to become Devil's Advocate.

 

Michigan is good every year. 10-2 means nothing to a Michigan fan (or at least pre-RRod). Michigan fans want to win National Championships, and most likely 10-2 isn't going to cut it. So in the minds of a lot of fans 10-2 is pointless unless we beat our rivals. If we go 10-2 and lost to OSU and MSU, Michigan fans hear about it all winter. Sure we'll enjoy our Capital One Bowl, but it will feel hollow. Who cares if you win the Capital One Bowl? So if we aren't going to win the title, or even a Big 10 championship (not too likely at 6-2 especially with 1 of those losses to a team thats most likely going to be at the top of the standings), what's the point?

 

So, I'd rather personally be 10-2 because I hate losing, but its an argument that can be made for Michigan fans. If you are like an Indiana fan, I can see why 10-2 would easily be MUCH more preferable, but for a team with higher aspirations and arguably bigger rivalries, there's at least an argument that can be made.

[dew1679666265]

I'm way overthinking this, but an argument as a Michigan fan that I'll use to become Devil's Advocate.

 

Michigan is good every year. 10-2 means nothing to a Michigan fan (or at least pre-RRod). Michigan fans want to win National Championships, and most likely 10-2 isn't going to cut it. So in the minds of a lot of fans 10-2 is pointless unless we beat our rivals. If we go 10-2 and lost to OSU and MSU, Michigan fans hear about it all winter. Sure we'll enjoy our Capital One Bowl, but it will feel hollow. Who cares if you win the Capital One Bowl? So if we aren't going to win the title, or even a Big 10 championship (not too likely at 6-2 especially with 1 of those losses to a team thats most likely going to be at the top of the standings), what's the point?

 

So, I'd rather personally be 10-2 because I hate losing, but its an argument that can be made for Michigan fans. If you are like an Indiana fan, I can see why 10-2 would easily be MUCH more preferable, but for a team with higher aspirations and arguably bigger rivalries, there's at least an argument that can be made.

 

That's actually the argument I've heard mostly to support that silly line of reasoning.

 

It's mostly Tennessee fans that I've heard express this, but figured there'd likely be some Michigan, Ohio State, Bama, Auburn, etc, etc fans who believed it.

[Derwood]

I'm way overthinking this, but an argument as a Michigan fan that I'll use to become Devil's Advocate.

 

Michigan is good every year. 10-2 means nothing to a Michigan fan (or at least pre-RRod). Michigan fans want to win National Championships, and most likely 10-2 isn't going to cut it. So in the minds of a lot of fans 10-2 is pointless unless we beat our rivals. If we go 10-2 and lost to OSU and MSU, Michigan fans hear about it all winter. Sure we'll enjoy our Capital One Bowl, but it will feel hollow. Who cares if you win the Capital One Bowl? So if we aren't going to win the title, or even a Big 10 championship (not too likely at 6-2 especially with 1 of those losses to a team thats most likely going to be at the top of the standings), what's the point?

 

So, I'd rather personally be 10-2 because I hate losing, but its an argument that can be made for Michigan fans. If you are like an Indiana fan, I can see why 10-2 would easily be MUCH more preferable, but for a team with higher aspirations and arguably bigger rivalries, there's at least an argument that can be made.

 

so going 2-10 with your only victories being the Buckeyes and Spartans is better than the Capital One Bowl?

[dew1679666265]

this question is so retardedly obvious that we're sure to have many people answer wrong

 

That's what I would have thought too.

 

But every college football fan I've asked has replied 2-10. It's utterly befuddling.

 

yo need to stop asking stupid people this question.

 

Actually, one of them is my mom. :-))

 

But yeah, I told her myself that was a dumb opinion.

[UMFan83]

I'm way overthinking this, but an argument as a Michigan fan that I'll use to become Devil's Advocate.

 

Michigan is good every year. 10-2 means nothing to a Michigan fan (or at least pre-RRod). Michigan fans want to win National Championships, and most likely 10-2 isn't going to cut it. So in the minds of a lot of fans 10-2 is pointless unless we beat our rivals. If we go 10-2 and lost to OSU and MSU, Michigan fans hear about it all winter. Sure we'll enjoy our Capital One Bowl, but it will feel hollow. Who cares if you win the Capital One Bowl? So if we aren't going to win the title, or even a Big 10 championship (not too likely at 6-2 especially with 1 of those losses to a team thats most likely going to be at the top of the standings), what's the point?

 

So, I'd rather personally be 10-2 because I hate losing, but its an argument that can be made for Michigan fans. If you are like an Indiana fan, I can see why 10-2 would easily be MUCH more preferable, but for a team with higher aspirations and arguably bigger rivalries, there's at least an argument that can be made.

 

so going 2-10 with your only victories being the Buckeyes and Spartans is better than the Capital One Bowl?

 

In my mind, no. But I'd say maybe 35% of Michigan fans would say yes.

[dew1679666265]

Here's a question to potentially get some discussion going (I hope):

 

In the same vein as the poll, can a season with losses to your biggest rivals be successful? UMfan brought up the point that many UM fans don't care about the Capital One Bowl, and plentiful amounts of Tennessee fans hated 2007 because, despite going to the SEC Championship game and losing by a touchdown, Tennessee lost to Florida and Alabama.

 

So, can a season with losses to your main rivals be successful? And what would it take for it to be deemed a success?

[dew1679666265]

I'm way overthinking this, but an argument as a Michigan fan that I'll use to become Devil's Advocate.

 

Michigan is good every year. 10-2 means nothing to a Michigan fan (or at least pre-RRod). Michigan fans want to win National Championships, and most likely 10-2 isn't going to cut it. So in the minds of a lot of fans 10-2 is pointless unless we beat our rivals. If we go 10-2 and lost to OSU and MSU, Michigan fans hear about it all winter. Sure we'll enjoy our Capital One Bowl, but it will feel hollow. Who cares if you win the Capital One Bowl? So if we aren't going to win the title, or even a Big 10 championship (not too likely at 6-2 especially with 1 of those losses to a team thats most likely going to be at the top of the standings), what's the point?

 

So, I'd rather personally be 10-2 because I hate losing, but its an argument that can be made for Michigan fans. If you are like an Indiana fan, I can see why 10-2 would easily be MUCH more preferable, but for a team with higher aspirations and arguably bigger rivalries, there's at least an argument that can be made.

 

so going 2-10 with your only victories being the Buckeyes and Spartans is better than the Capital One Bowl?

 

In my mind, no. But I'd say maybe 35% of Michigan fans would say yes.

 

That's the reason I put together this poll. Even though I figured the answer would be overwhelming, I'm curious to see what kind of (serious) dissent there is to what I view as incredibly obvious.

[Derwood]

Here's a question to potentially get some discussion going (I hope):

 

In the same vein as the poll, can a season with losses to your biggest rivals be successful? UMfan brought up the point that many UM fans don't care about the Capital One Bowl, and plentiful amounts of Tennessee fans hated 2007 because, despite going to the SEC Championship game and losing by a touchdown, Tennessee lost to Florida and Alabama.

 

So, can a season with losses to your main rivals be successful? And what would it take for it to be deemed a success?

 

it's harder in College Football than in most other sports. The Bears can lose to the Packers twice but still win the Super Bowl. The Cubs can go 0-17 against the Cardinals but make the playoffs. In College Football, 2 losses almost always means you're out of the NC picture. If that's the criteria for success, then you pretty much can't lose to anyone

[dew1679666265]

Here's a question to potentially get some discussion going (I hope):

 

In the same vein as the poll, can a season with losses to your biggest rivals be successful? UMfan brought up the point that many UM fans don't care about the Capital One Bowl, and plentiful amounts of Tennessee fans hated 2007 because, despite going to the SEC Championship game and losing by a touchdown, Tennessee lost to Florida and Alabama.

 

So, can a season with losses to your main rivals be successful? And what would it take for it to be deemed a success?

 

it's harder in College Football than in most other sports. The Bears can lose to the Packers twice but still win the Super Bowl. The Cubs can go 0-17 against the Cardinals but make the playoffs. In College Football, 2 losses almost always means you're out of the NC picture. If that's the criteria for success, then you pretty much can't lose to anyone

 

That's a good point, but leading up to the 07 year, Tennessee fans were saying that an SEC Championship (or at least contending for one) was all that mattered.

 

Then Tennessee did and they were pissed that the Vols lost badly to UF and Bama. I was just curious to get input from the board.

 

I put beating rivals as secondary to winning championships - no matter the sport. If my team can win (or play for) a title (conference or national) without beating its major rivals, I'm cool with that.

[Derwood]

Here's a question to potentially get some discussion going (I hope):

 

In the same vein as the poll, can a season with losses to your biggest rivals be successful? UMfan brought up the point that many UM fans don't care about the Capital One Bowl, and plentiful amounts of Tennessee fans hated 2007 because, despite going to the SEC Championship game and losing by a touchdown, Tennessee lost to Florida and Alabama.

 

So, can a season with losses to your main rivals be successful? And what would it take for it to be deemed a success?

 

it's harder in College Football than in most other sports. The Bears can lose to the Packers twice but still win the Super Bowl. The Cubs can go 0-17 against the Cardinals but make the playoffs. In College Football, 2 losses almost always means you're out of the NC picture. If that's the criteria for success, then you pretty much can't lose to anyone

 

That's a good point, but leading up to the 07 year, Tennessee fans were saying that an SEC Championship (or at least contending for one) was all that mattered.

 

Then Tennessee did and they were pissed that the Vols lost badly to UF and Bama. I was just curious to get input from the board.

 

I put beating rivals as secondary to winning championships - no matter the sport. If my team can win (or play for) a title (conference or national) without beating its major rivals, I'm cool with that.

 

It's a bit hard to answer as a PSU fan, as we don't really have a rivalry on the level of UM/OSU, Auburn/Bama, or the like. It used to be Pitt, but they fell off the schedule after PSU joined the Big Ten (for reasons no one can answer). They play MSU for the Land Grant Trophy, but that's a completely made up rivalry that neither school puts much thought into. For fans, Michigan and Ohio St. are the two big games every year, but neither of those schools consider PSU a rival

[dew1679666265]

Here's a question to potentially get some discussion going (I hope):

 

In the same vein as the poll, can a season with losses to your biggest rivals be successful? UMfan brought up the point that many UM fans don't care about the Capital One Bowl, and plentiful amounts of Tennessee fans hated 2007 because, despite going to the SEC Championship game and losing by a touchdown, Tennessee lost to Florida and Alabama.

 

So, can a season with losses to your main rivals be successful? And what would it take for it to be deemed a success?

 

it's harder in College Football than in most other sports. The Bears can lose to the Packers twice but still win the Super Bowl. The Cubs can go 0-17 against the Cardinals but make the playoffs. In College Football, 2 losses almost always means you're out of the NC picture. If that's the criteria for success, then you pretty much can't lose to anyone

 

That's a good point, but leading up to the 07 year, Tennessee fans were saying that an SEC Championship (or at least contending for one) was all that mattered.

 

Then Tennessee did and they were pissed that the Vols lost badly to UF and Bama. I was just curious to get input from the board.

 

I put beating rivals as secondary to winning championships - no matter the sport. If my team can win (or play for) a title (conference or national) without beating its major rivals, I'm cool with that.

 

It's a bit hard to answer as a PSU fan, as we don't really have a rivalry on the level of UM/OSU, Auburn/Bama, or the like. It used to be Pitt, but they fell off the schedule after PSU joined the Big Ten (for reasons no one can answer). They play MSU for the Land Grant Trophy, but that's a completely made up rivalry that neither school puts much thought into. For fans, Michigan and Ohio St. are the two big games every year, but neither of those schools consider PSU a rival

 

Yeah, this question probably works better for a team with heated rivalries (i.e. OSU/UM, AUB/BAMA, UT/BAMA, OU/UT, etc)

[Butterscup1679666578]

honestly, it sucks balls losing to KU, but i'd rather be in our shoes this year than theirs 100% of the time.

 

although if you're going to have a crappy season, your yearcan be made by beating your rival. im sure we helped kansas with that a bit this year.

[dew1679666265]

honestly, it sucks balls losing to KU, but i'd rather be in our shoes this year than theirs 100% of the time.

 

although if you're going to have a crappy season, your yearcan be made by beating your rival. im sure we helped kansas with that a bit this year.

 

It can definitely help to beat them in a crap year, but I really don't understand the thought process of preferring to beat them over having a good year.

[Butterscup1679666578]

honestly, it sucks balls losing to KU, but i'd rather be in our shoes this year than theirs 100% of the time.

 

although if you're going to have a crappy season, your yearcan be made by beating your rival. im sure we helped kansas with that a bit this year.

 

It can definitely help to beat them in a crap year, but I really don't understand the thought process of preferring to beat them over having a good year.

 

I agree, I'd always rather have the good year, no questions asked.

[SouthSideRyan]

Illinois's football rivals are Northwestern and I guess IU?(I dunno maybe Wisconsin? Iowa? Mizzou?)

 

Regardless, we never go 10-2, and nobody cares about our rivalries so yeah.

 

Notre Dame on the other hand loses to USC every year for the last billion years, and while losing to Michigan sucks, it doesn't suck as bad as that 3-9 season did.

[dew1679666265]

Illinois's football rivals are Northwestern and I guess IU?(I dunno maybe Wisconsin? Iowa? Mizzou?)

 

Regardless, we never go 10-2, and nobody cares about our rivalries so yeah.

 

Notre Dame on the other hand loses to USC every year for the last billion years, and while losing to Michigan sucks, it doesn't suck as bad as that 3-9 season did.

 

Yeah, ND seems to be a school that primarily cares about overall record and championships. I gotta give them credit on that one.

 

It's wonderful to beat Florida, Bama or Georgia, but I'd much rather lose to them but have an SEC Championship.

[Andy]

Let's see. Notre Dame went 10-2 in 2006, with lopsided losses to the schools who in my opinion are their two biggest rivals (Michigan and USC).

 

Notre Dame went 3-9 in 2007. Now, while we got crushed by both those schools and didn't beat them, the season really would not have been much better if we traded wins in those games for wins over Duke and Stanford at the end.

 

I liked 2006 more. So, yeah.

[Guest]

I'll take 10-2 any day of the week.

[Ski]

Would you rather have the Cubs go 12-150 but winning every game against the Cardinals or go 150-12 but losing every game against the Cardinals?

[cubweiser03]

10-2 all the time. A 2-10 UM team does not beat OSU (ok they would technically be 1-10 going into the game but you know what im sayin). New Years Day bowl games are good thing entertainment wise. If Michigan had beat OSU it would of been sweet, exciting and funny but no way would of it overshadowed the entire season. And i want to make something perfectly clear, i absolutely freaking hate Michigan losing to Ohio State, but 10 losses blows.

[dew1679666265]

I'm glad to see the voting going the way I figured it would.

 

The whole idea of the 2-10 season being preferable seemed so stupid to me, but I figured I'd see if anybody had a coherent reason why that'd be better (I haven't gotten one yet).