Tracer Bullet

Except ND is that 40-year-old in the club that used to be hot, but hasn't really been that great since 1993. And EJ is the guy that can't take his eyes of her, will have a buddy ask for her number, publicly declare he's too good for her when she shoots him down, and then go home and rub one out fantasizing about her.

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. Your summary includes my saying the big ten is terrible. You're terrible at unbiased summaries.

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 SSR - why are you guys so enamored with ND? Have you ever made a terrible decision based on completely overestimated self importance? The big ten has. And it kills them.

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. That's a bad run. Not sure geography was the determining factor in any of those games (not sure I know the outcome of all of them, actually).

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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

Fixed

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. 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.

Yes. An average AQ team. Turns out, ND was disastrous for 2 weeks. That's what you get when you schedule decent teams. That's my point, you can get burned with those teams. You schedule Duke or UVA or Iowa St or hell, Appalachian St knowing you get an easy W.

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 I think you're a touch defensive. I wasn't implying that. I was suggesting that when you schedule 1 mediocre AQ school, 3 cupcake, and 1/3 or more of your conference sucks, it's difficult to support the conclusion that your conference is strong at the top. The SEC doesn't have that issue bc the top teams frequently play 1 decent OOC game, but they also have more quality programs on the conference slate. Wisconsin looks to be good bc they've looked good, they've been good recently, they aren't decimated by self-inflicted suspensions, and they've actually looked good (yes repeating that one). UM, Nebraska, Illinois, OSU, PSU can't say all those things.

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 yet, the most impressive wins will be 3-points over ASU or UM watching ND shoot itself in the foot repeatedly with a grenade launcher and winning at the last second. What are the SEC's best OOC wins? Better than the Big Ten's. Doesn't make what you wrote less wrong. That the bigx OOC schedule is too poor (esp among top teams) to support the conclusion that it's solid at the top? It's funny, a few years ago, it looked like 2 of the best teams would have decent OOC games (Iowa and OSU). Turns out they both suck this year.

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." The argument is pretty much that the Big Ten is better than the ACC, Big East and Pac 10. Ohio State beat Colorado Iowa beat Pittsburgh Northwestern beat Boston College at their place Illinois beat Arizona State Wisconsin beat Oregon State Nebraska beat Washington The worst teams, Indiana and Minnesota almost beat Virginia (Virginia isn't good so that may not be relevant) and USC Time will still tell how impressive, or not impressive some of those games are but it shows that the Big Ten is playing and beating those conferences. The only loss I can find by the Big Ten to any of those teams is OSU vs Miami. Of the three teams in the top 15 they have beat good teams. Michigan beat Notre Dame who I think will finish in the top 25 and Illinois beat Arizona State. Wisconsin hasn't beat anyone outside of conference but I find it hard to argue that they aren't a top 5 team regardless. They would compete with and beat almost anyone in the country. The ND team that lost to Michigan would have lost to almost anyone in the country. That's not a quality win. My point is, it's difficult to look at the bigx records or schedules and conclude that it's a strong conference bc of the lack of quality games. If you claim that the top of the conference is solid, you need to base that on something. The wins those teams have aren't impressive though. So what's the conclusion based on? An undefeated record in games against bad teams isn't enough.

And yet, the most impressive wins will be 3-points over ASU or UM watching ND shoot itself in the foot repeatedly with a grenade launcher and winning at the last second. What are the SEC's best OOC wins?

And yet, the most impressive wins will be 3-points over ASU or UM watching ND shoot itself in the foot repeatedly with a grenade launcher and winning at the last second. What are the SEC's best OOC wins?

The SEC teams usually play at least 1 game against an AQ school (some bigx teams do to, though the quality of opponent varies). And even when you get into conference play, you play in a deeper conference. In the bigx, you can play 6 games all against crap teams if your first 2 conference games are against Minnesota, PU, Indy or NW (and this year, maybe Iowa, as painful as that is to say).

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. Right. The fact that Illinois is undefeated is irrelevant bc they aren't actually any good. Is that what your post is saying? The team that's probably 7th best has the best win. That doesn't scream strong conference. That screams 'we play BS schedules.'

Me too. Today was the first time I couldn't even access a thread.

Good time for a bye so Manti and EJ can hopefully be 100% against southern cal.

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."

It's sad that I seriously can't even figure out just how much of this post is real. Well....he does have an IP. and it may or may not match Fred's