bukie

http://cdn1.sbnation.com/imported_assets/830426/H5qTS_medium.jpg

Honest question: how many OOC wins are clearly better than Illinois' vs. ASU this year? I'd wager fewer than 5. The only one I'd say for sure was LSU over Oregon, and even that is questionable if ASU beats Oregon this weekend. LSU over West Virginia is arguable, Alabama over PSU is comparable, Arkansas over A&M is comparable, Boise State over Georgia is comparable. Aside from that, there really haven't been any non-conference games between two top-25 teams.

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? Of course it is, since that's apparently all you've read in the last 4 pages.

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.

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.

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?

FTFY That too. I just wanna keep the run game going to keep Cutler upright. If things go badly, he could die tonight. One thing that would keep the run game going would be to be up 20.

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.

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.

FTFY

Maybe it'll make opponents think twice before messing with Kane.

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.

When you have 4 non-conference games per year, and nearly every school choose at least 2 cupcakes out of those 4, how can you determine anybody's ever any good? Are you going to argue that we don't know if Wisconsin is good yet? It's the teams fault for not knowing 3 years in advance if their opponents this year would be terrible. Right. We all thought this was going to be Oregon St's shot at the title. Guess Wisconsin just got unlucky. And of course, PSU had no idea what they were getting when they scheduled Bama. It's cfb, no one, least of all ADs, have any idea if the schools they schedule will be terrible, average, or great just 2-3 years down the road. Come on. You schedule Oregon St or ASU hoping they're ok but not too good. You schedule Bama knowing what you're in for. You schedule Duke or UVA knowing you get a W. And you schedule Pitt thinking they'll be a quality team 3 years down the road. Oregon State finished 2nd in the Pac-10 three years back, and now they're awful. Arizona State was awful three years back, and now they're going to win their division and finish in the top 15 (are you still arguing that it isn't a quality win?). Sure, you schedule Alabama, and you can pretty well assume that CNS is staying around another 3 years to keep the program going, because that's the kind of guy he is. But a lot of teams are more volatile than you think over a three year period. I imagine both Miami and OSU thought that game would be more significant than it was this year. If anything, the Big Ten actually learned something from the SEC: if the lower tier of your conference schedules a bunch of cupcakes and inflates their overall record, it makes the whole conference look better when they beat on each other later in the year. It's too bad they can't duplicate the other half of the SEC's success of being located in the south and getting a whole bunch of bowl games at or near home, but them's the breaks.

by "zook" you must mean suffer a devastating yet predictable loss to a superior team. but seriously, we got blown out by Purdue. which do you honestly think has a chance at beating Illinois?? Illinois lost at home to a similar Minny team last year. It's Zook, anything can happen.

Apparently they interviewed Zook about why he went for two up 20-13 in the second quarter, and his answer was that he didn't know what the score was and thought the TD put them up 14-13.

And Michigan, at that rate. I'm terrified of the Illinois game. Michigan will be coming off an emotional win/loss at MSU and a bye week. Teams have something like a 46% win percentage after a bye week. Not looking forward to the Illinois game. I'm terrified of every game, since Zook is the coach. EDIT: The Illinois-Michigan game is later than you think. Michigan plays Purdue after the bye week. Illinois plays Michigan coming off a bye week (now, why the bye week is week 10, who knows.)

And Michigan, at that rate. Heh, didn't even think of that. WE'RE YOUR ONLY HOPE EVERYONE All that's left to figure out is which game they'll Zook: @Purdue, or @Minnesota. Or both. EDIT: I don't consider a loss this week a Zook, because it's at least somewhat reasonable they'd lose.

Also, knock PSU's offense, but they're sitting 5-1 with their only loss being 16 points to Alabama, which looks more impressive in hindsight.

And Michigan, at that rate.

Michigan and Illinois over Wisconsin? did Wisconsin lose on Saturday??? These rankings are based on three primary factors: W/L, the teams you play, and the conference you're in. Thus, for teams in the same conference without a loss, SOS is the only differentiating factor. Wisconsin has played the weakest schedule of any undefeated team, and thus, there you are.

When you have 4 non-conference games per year, and nearly every school choose at least 2 cupcakes out of those 4, how can you determine anybody's ever any good? Are you going to argue that we don't know if Wisconsin is good yet? It's the teams fault for not knowing 3 years in advance if their opponents this year would be terrible.

A&H updated their ratings. For your amusement: 1. Oklahoma. 0.843 2. Alabama. 0.838 3. LSU. 0.824 4. Oklahoma State. 0.82 5. Boise State. 0.816 6. Michigan. 0.808 7. Clemson. 0.801 8. Illinois. 0.79 9. Kansas State. 0.788 10. Georgia Tech. 0.783 11. Texas. 0.782 12. Stanford. 0.777 13. South Carolina. 0.755 14. Houston. 0.751 15. Wisconsin. 0.727 16. Arkansas. 0.725 17. Baylor. 0.718 18. North Carolina. 0.706 19. Arizona State. 0.701 20. Virginia Tech. 0.697 21. Nebraska. 0.696 22. USC. 0.683 23. West Virginia. 0.683 24. Penn State. 0.683 25. Rutgers. 0.682

How would you know? They don't play anyone. What's the best OOC win? The squeaked against ASU or UM needing 4 TOs, missed FGs, and about 6 consecutive prayers answered to beat an average ND team? (A top ten team yet to play an away game finally travels 90 miles West this week) The entire conference starts with cupcakes and maybe 1 AQ school. Then 6 weeks in they look back and see which 4 teams are still defeated and say "but the top of the conference is solid." You also basically described the SEC's OOC schedule and corresponding, which was the weakest in the country overall. Caveat: Yes, there are more impressive victories in it at the top end. The Big Ten is 3rd in every statistical analysis I can find (and I've been doing a lot of looking the past weekend). Well behind the SEC and Big 12, but decently ahead of the ACC, Big East and Pac-12. The Big Ten isn't solid because they have 3 undefeated teams, but because there's a reasonable argument one of them might still just be the 7th best team in the conference (Illinois-Sagarin predictors 33rd team, behind Wisky (6), UM (9), PSU (22), MSU (23), NU (26) and even tOSU (29)). And that team has the best win in the conference.

Seems to be the story of the Big Ten for awhile now (in both football and basketball) Better than average mid-tier teams, but few if any elite teams. I think the biggest two things that hurt the Big Ten's national perception this year is 1) Ohio State is not good, and public opinion assumes OSU is always one of the best Big Ten teams; and 2) Indiana and Minnesota are likely the worst two major conference teams. EDIT: And the best Big Ten non-conference win was probably Illinois' win over Arizona State. Either that or Michigan over Notre Dame. Nobody else won anything of import.

I had bye week hell this week and started Cassel, BJGE and Pierre Garcon. Yep.