College Football - Week 7 (Oct. 15th)

[bcl412]

You seem to enjoy downplaying wins.

[snoodmonger]

And before anyone else mentions it as an "aha!", yes, Minnesota and Indiana are awful. They're probably the worst two teams in any major conference. And it makes the conference look terrible when they scheduled cupcakes and lost to them. Doesn't really take away from the overall point.

 

A Minnesota, Kansas, Indiana, Oregon St. 4-team tourney would have all the talent of 2A high school semifinals.

[minnesotacubsfan]

And before anyone else mentions it as an "aha!", yes, Minnesota and Indiana are awful. They're probably the worst two teams in any major conference. And it makes the conference look terrible when they scheduled cupcakes and lost to them. Doesn't really take away from the overall point.

 

A Minnesota, Kansas, Indiana, Oregon St. 4-team tourney would have all the talent of 2A high school semifinals.

 

WE WOULD CRUSH YOU WITH OUR OPTION

[bukie]

There are teams at the top and bottom that are safer bets. The vast majority are in the middle and volatile. Of course OSU can happen, but you'd still get pollster credit for playing the Buckeyes even when they suck. Wisconsin did not think Oregon St was going to be great when they scheduled them and that's a really, really safe bet.

 

Does winning the division mean something now? Is that why the bigx wanted 12 teams, so they could say they won a division with 8 wins some year?

 

ASU is fine, but no one is going to mistake them for a great team. The Pac is down this year, other than Stanford. Benefiting from southern cal's down years doesn't make ASU great.

 

Love the bowl game excuse.

 

Winning the division objectively means an extra conference championship game and a shot at a BCS bowl. They won't be favored by any means, but they have a shot.

 

And are you really denying that the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC don't have an inherent geographical advantage in bowl games? Or are you just going to be smug and dismissive of everything that refutes your subjective dismissal of the Big Ten? Because if that's the case, there's no point in further discussion, since you're not really interested in a discussion.

[bukie]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

 

It's like I'm on a board with 80% big ten fans or something. Weird.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

[Old Style]

The SEC teams usually play at least 1 game against an AQ school (some bigx teams do to, though the quality of opponent varies).

 

If you're not outright saying it, you're certainly implying that SEC schools are loading up on BCS schools while most Big Ten teams play nothing but schools like Buffalo, New Mexico State, and Texas A&M

YAY! My day is complete. SSR has taken his daily shot at A&M. I wonder when we need to start paying rent for the space we occupy in his head.

[Tracer Bullet]

There are teams at the top and bottom that are safer bets. The vast majority are in the middle and volatile. Of course OSU can happen, but you'd still get pollster credit for playing the Buckeyes even when they suck. Wisconsin did not think Oregon St was going to be great when they scheduled them and that's a really, really safe bet.

 

Does winning the division mean something now? Is that why the bigx wanted 12 teams, so they could say they won a division with 8 wins some year?

 

ASU is fine, but no one is going to mistake them for a great team. The Pac is down this year, other than Stanford. Benefiting from southern cal's down years doesn't make ASU great.

 

Love the bowl game excuse.

 

Winning the division objectively means an extra conference championship game and a shot at a BCS bowl. They won't be favored by any means, but they have a shot.

 

And are you really denying that the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC don't have an inherent geographical advantage in bowl games? Or are you just going to be smug and dismissive of everything that refutes your subjective dismissal of the Big Ten? Because if that's the case, there's no point in further discussion, since you're not really interested in a discussion.

 

I agree that there are benefits to winning a division. I disagree that winning a division is indicative of a good team.

 

ETA I forgot the bowl thing. I'm sure UW sees itself as having a huge geographic benefit. And I know USC sees the Orange Bowl as a home away from home.

 

Yes, some schools are closer to the bowl location than others. Other than usc playing in the rose bowl type situations, I'm not sure how much of an impact it really has on the outcome. Some northern schools have rabid fans that travel well, some southern schools don't travel as well. Either way, I don't think the difference in travel distance is much of a factor (and my school isn't significantly closer to any bowls).

[bcl412]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

 

From what I understand, everyone is arguing that the Big Ten is the 3rd best BCS conference. How is that overrating the conference?

[SouthSideRyan]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

But I root for ND. Many of my friends do as well. Pretty much every one of them has a Big Ten team they root for as well, due to going to the school (and subsequently dropping out obviously) or being raised as such. None of them seem to have the fiery hatred those 2 do.

[SouthSideRyan]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

 

It's like I'm on a board with 80% big ten fans or something. Weird.

 

I'm not following, Andy.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

 

It's like I'm on a board with 80% big ten fans or something. Weird.

 

oh just admit it, we'd make a great date and have super cute babies.

[bukie]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

I'll sum up the discussion to this point:

 

Assertion: The Big Ten isn't terrible because they have 4 teams in the top 15 of the faux BCS rankings this week.

Your response: They've beefed up on cupcakes to inflate their conference ranking. They're terrible until shown otherwise.

Us: No more than the SEC does, and in fact less. The SEC has better wins, but an overall much weaker OOC schedule.

You: The SEC has better wins, and the Big Ten hasn't beaten anybody.

Us: The Big Ten has at least all played AQ teams, and has beaten ASU and ND

You: That doesn't count because ASU isn't good and anybody can beat ND. Plus Alabama beat PSU, so the SEC is better.

Us: When did we say the SEC wasn't better?

[SouthSideRyan]

GR's also already talked about how terrible the Pac 12 is, and isn't mentally handicapped (Cause he didn't drop out of a Big ten school!!) so he knows the Big East is terrible; so basically he's getting all cranky because he thinks the ACC is better?

[bcl412]

GR's also already talked about how terrible the Pac 12 is, and isn't mentally handicapped (Cause he didn't drop out of a Big ten school!!) so he knows the Big East is terrible; so basically he's getting all cranky because he thinks the ACC is better?

 

But based upon his arguments about the Big Ten, their only two undefeated teams combined have beaten a Auburn team who is good but not great so they aren't good either.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

 

From what I understand, everyone is arguing that the Big Ten is the 3rd best BCS conference. How is that overrating the conference?

 

My discussion is related to "4 teams in the top 15" or whatever it was. Someone said the top of the conference is solid and I said how would you know.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

I'll sum up the discussion to this point:

 

Assertion: The Big Ten isn't terrible because they have 4 teams in the top 15 of the faux BCS rankings this week.

Your response: They've beefed up on cupcakes to inflate their conference ranking. They're terrible until shown otherwise.

Us: No more than the SEC does, and in fact less. The SEC has better wins, but an overall much weaker OOC schedule.

You: The SEC has better wins, and the Big Ten hasn't beaten anybody.

Us: The Big Ten has at least all played AQ teams, and has beaten ASU and ND

You: That doesn't count because ASU isn't good and anybody can beat ND. Plus Alabama beat PSU, so the SEC is better.

Us: When did we say the SEC wasn't better?

 

I'll handle the summary:

 

Me: rational thought.

You: insanity

 

Oh, is my summary a tad biased?

[minnesotacubsfan]

its just so difficult having a conversation with someone with a degree

 

also, I completely understand how the B1G must feel with regards to ND. Its like when I was 22 and all the girls in the nightclub would say "our babies would be awesome, but I just dont want to get married yet".

 

:(

[bukie]

There are teams at the top and bottom that are safer bets. The vast majority are in the middle and volatile. Of course OSU can happen, but you'd still get pollster credit for playing the Buckeyes even when they suck. Wisconsin did not think Oregon St was going to be great when they scheduled them and that's a really, really safe bet.

 

Does winning the division mean something now? Is that why the bigx wanted 12 teams, so they could say they won a division with 8 wins some year?

 

ASU is fine, but no one is going to mistake them for a great team. The Pac is down this year, other than Stanford. Benefiting from southern cal's down years doesn't make ASU great.

 

Love the bowl game excuse.

 

Winning the division objectively means an extra conference championship game and a shot at a BCS bowl. They won't be favored by any means, but they have a shot.

 

And are you really denying that the SEC, Pac-12 and ACC don't have an inherent geographical advantage in bowl games? Or are you just going to be smug and dismissive of everything that refutes your subjective dismissal of the Big Ten? Because if that's the case, there's no point in further discussion, since you're not really interested in a discussion.

 

I agree that there are benefits to winning a division. I disagree that winning a division is indicative of a good team.

 

ETA I forgot the bowl thing. I'm sure UW sees itself as having a huge geographic benefit. And I know USC sees the Orange Bowl as a home away from home.

 

Yes, some schools are closer to the bowl location than others. Other than usc playing in the rose bowl type situations, I'm not sure how much of an impact it really has on the outcome. Some northern schools have rabid fans that travel well, some southern schools don't travel as well. Either way, I don't think the difference in travel distance is much of a factor (and my school isn't significantly closer to any bowls).

Maybe the bowl geography annoys me specifically because Illinois' last 3 bowls have been against Baylor in the Texas Bowl, USC in the Rose Bowl, and LSU in the Sugar Bowl. And it looks like this year it'll be the Capital One bowl against Florida, just for kicks.

[bcl412]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

 

From what I understand, everyone is arguing that the Big Ten is the 3rd best BCS conference. How is that overrating the conference?

 

My discussion is related to "4 teams in the top 15" or whatever it was. Someone said the top of the conference is solid and I said how would you know.

 

3 of those top 15 teams are undefeated, there are 7 other undefeated BCS schools, 6 of which who played comparable non-conference schedules to Big 10 teams. The other one loss team, Nebraska I don't see who would be put ahead of them aside from Kansas State but they didn't play anyone non-conference schedule either so I don't really see what your problem with this is.

 

My question is, who should be in the top-15 above any of the Big Ten teams who are already there? I don't see any argument that places any team squarely above the Big Ten teams that are there currently. Sure, arguments could be made, but they would already be made using what you've used to discredit the Big Ten in my opinion.

[E.J.]

its just so difficult having a conversation with someone with a degree

 

also, I completely understand how the B1G must feel with regards to ND. Its like when I was 22 and all the girls in the nightclub would say "our babies would be awesome, but I just dont want to get married yet".

 

:(

 

Except ND is that 40-year-old in the club that used to be hot, but hasn't really been that great since 1993.

[bukie]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

It just can't be that you're overrating your own conference and that's my objection. It must be that I think it's terrible.

 

From what I understand, everyone is arguing that the Big Ten is the 3rd best BCS conference. How is that overrating the conference?

 

My discussion is related to "4 teams in the top 15" or whatever it was. Someone said the top of the conference is solid and I said how would you know.

And we've responded with as many objective measures as possible since the majority of teams don't play each other. By any reasonable objective measure the conference sports 7 of the top 35 teams in the country, and only the SEC can compare to conference depth like that.

[Tracer Bullet]

I really like GR and Andy's weird Big Ten fixation. I don't get it, but I like it.

I can't help but wonder if it's all due to their feelings that ND is just too good for the Big Ten. They downplay the geographical rivalries, dismiss any evidence of success, and quickly latch onto the SEC as the only conference worthy of calling themselves not terrible.

 

But I root for ND. Many of my friends do as well. Pretty much every one of them has a Big Ten team they root for as well, due to going to the school (and subsequently dropping out obviously) or being raised as such. None of them seem to have the fiery hatred those 2 do.

 

Not many, but some of my big ten friends are as defensive as you all.

 

I have been an Iowa fan longer than an ND fan and would prefer that the conference be strong. I'm glad Iowa has played a decent OOC team (not just ISU) the last couple years and would love it if Iowa and OSU weren't the only 2 teams to play two AQ teams this year. I also want ND to remain independent.

 

I generally hate SEC schools and think they're all cheaters who use poor AA kids and toss them aside as necessary and I don't like that more big ten schools have been leaning that way as grad rates for AA players plummet. At least they don't have a huge gray shirt problem yet.

 

I think big ten fans tend to wildly overrate their conference largely bc SEC fans wildly underrate big ten teams.

[minnesotacubsfan]

its just so difficult having a conversation with someone with a degree

 

also, I completely understand how the B1G must feel with regards to ND. Its like when I was 22 and all the girls in the nightclub would say "our babies would be awesome, but I just dont want to get married yet".

 

:(

 

Except ND is that 40-year-old in the club that used to be hot, but hasn't really been that great since 1993.

 

but she said that too