Exile on Waveland

It certainly seems to me that's what SSR is implying when he says: Strong fan bases certainly have an adverse effect on the Big Ten in bowls. They get two BCS teams if at all possible, knocking every bowl team down a slot. The top Big Ten team would have a difficult enough time against USC in Pasadena. It's near impossible for the second best Big Ten team (as was the case the past two seasons).

If you're gonna cheat, you should get some results beyond a home game against either the 2nd place Big Ten team or the 1st place Big Ten team in a down year every single year.(That was a horribly structured sentence) Iowa in 2002, Michigan in 2003 and 2006, Illinois in 2007, Ohio State in 2008, Penn State in 2008... The poor Big 10 just is SOOO UNLUCKY that USC keeps catching them when they're down :roll: You're grasping at straws. That's what we call missing the point. USC plays a home game every years on January 1st because they're too undisciplined to try against teams they should beat the crap out of. Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down. There were a ton of Penn State fans at the Rose Bowl so it's not exactly a true home game. Florida, Texas, USC and Penn State all lost to teams that they have more talent than and should have beaten and in each case but Texas, probably beaten handily. Every team has a letdown or two at some point in the year or a game where they play poorly. Sometimes they win, others they don't. And even if USC is playing against the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl each year, they're still routing the first or second place Big 10 team every time they play them. It's still remarkable what they've been able to do. It's a home game in that the USC players don't have to travel, can stay in their own dorms/apartments, hang out with their girlfriends during the week, whatever. It shouldn't be that big a deal but a "tie-in" game that requires one of the teams to have to travel 2000 miles every year.... It's because nobody wants to travel to Pennsylvania/Illinois/Ohio/Michigan every year and play a game or watch a game in freezing temperatures with the potential for a snowstorm. These teams get to the games a few days early, usually on chartered planes and stay in nice hotels. It's not that big of a deal and it really shouldn't affect them all that much. This isn't some high school team sitting in a cramped bus for an hour or two the day of to go play a game. Wait, it's cold in the Midwest? Wow. Everyone understands the reason why. A valid reason doesn't make the situation any less advantageous for USC.

If you're gonna cheat, you should get some results beyond a home game against either the 2nd place Big Ten team or the 1st place Big Ten team in a down year every single year.(That was a horribly structured sentence) Iowa in 2002, Michigan in 2003 and 2006, Illinois in 2007, Ohio State in 2008, Penn State in 2008... The poor Big 10 just is SOOO UNLUCKY that USC keeps catching them when they're down :roll: You're grasping at straws. That's what we call missing the point. USC plays a home game every years on January 1st because they're too undisciplined to try against teams they should beat the crap out of. Their opponents in these games are 2nd place Big Ten teams if the Big Ten is good(becuase the 1st place team goes to the title game) or a 1st place Big Ten team when the conference is down. There were a ton of Penn State fans at the Rose Bowl so it's not exactly a true home game. Florida, Texas, USC and Penn State all lost to teams that they have more talent than and should have beaten and in each case but Texas, probably beaten handily. Every team has a letdown or two at some point in the year or a game where they play poorly. Sometimes they win, others they don't. And even if USC is playing against the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl each year, they're still routing the first or second place Big 10 team every time they play them. It's still remarkable what they've been able to do. It's obviously a huge advantage for a team to play 11 miles from home compared to playing 2,560 miles from home. A true home game it may not be, but advantageous it certainly is. No one is claiming that what USC has done isn't impressive or remarkable. No one is claiming they aren't better than every Big Ten team year-in and year-out. They're great. No doubt. They'd win the Big Ten every year. They also win the Pac 10 every year.

You know how you would have not been robbed. Beating an Oregon St. team that managed to score 3 points against Pitt. Another year, another no championship for you. Soooooooooo sad. Oregon State is a good, consistent program though. And they beat Pitt without the Rodgers brothers (Quizz Rodgers was Pac 10 player of the year). I don't see what's such an embarrassment about losing to them. Well, Penn State beat Oregon State 45-14. And USC beat Ohio State 35-3. Citing the results of those two games means nothing because they cancel each other out. agreed. the transitive property doesn't apply to sports Obviously it doesn't. That's not what I was saying at all. Oregon State was a bad loss for one trying to claim they were "robbed" of a title game berth.

You know how you would have not been robbed. Beating an Oregon St. team that managed to score 3 points against Pitt. Another year, another no championship for you. Soooooooooo sad. Oregon State is a good, consistent program though. And they beat Pitt without the Rodgers brothers (Quizz Rodgers was Pac 10 player of the year). I don't see what's such an embarrassment about losing to them. Well, Penn State beat Oregon State 45-14. And USC beat Ohio State 35-3. Citing the results of those two games means nothing because they cancel each other out. I don't understand what cancels what out. But in quantifying singular losses for a national title contender, losing to a team that lost 45-14 to Penn State and 65-28 at home to Oregon has to considered a subpar loss. Oregon State is a quality team, sure. This string of posts is whether USC was "robbed" of playing in the title game. They weren't. They were less deserving than Florida, Oklahoma and Texas.

Agreed, I've never once met an obnoxious Penn State fan. And they bring thousands to Bloomington for the football game (IU football attendance... :cry: ) Edit: On Minnesota fans, I can tell you they love pizza, stroms and beer at Nick's.

Agreed, I think USC is just as good as Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida. Even though I always cheer for Big Ten teams. I am kind of glad that USC is drubbing PSU. 1st reason, help create BCS controversy. 2nd reason, help PSU fans get over their we are superior to the rest of the Big Ten attitudes, though their team has done nothing to have this attitude in the entire time they have been in the Big Ten. I think everyone thought USC was just as good as those three teams. I also don't think anyone thought Penn State was as good as USC; though I didn't think it would be 31-7 at halftime either. I have no idea what Penn State fans you've met or talked to, but I've encountered no such behavior from them. Nor have I heard of any such behavior.

You know how you would have not been robbed. Beating an Oregon St. team that managed to score 3 points against Pitt. Another year, another no championship for you. Soooooooooo sad. Oregon State is a good, consistent program though. And they beat Pitt without the Rodgers brothers (Quizz Rodgers was Pac 10 player of the year). I don't see what's such an embarrassment about losing to them. Well, Penn State beat Oregon State 45-14.

I think USC will probably win, but I expect a very good game. Penn State is good. They aren't OSU, nor are they an out-of-their-league Illinois team.

Do you really even want to know?

Compared the one road game played by Purdue? Or the one away game played by Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota, and Michigan?

I was trying to figure out what the hell he was talking about, thinking he couldn't be seriously talking about that. this is truly one of the worst broadcast teams i've ever heard "Fourth down and they need to get to the . . . they'll kick the field goal instead." Really? They're down three points and they'll kick the field goal? Stunning.

Exactly what I was wondering.

Obviously none.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280113011 Happy now? :D I guess it could happen, but with the way the Colts have been playing I'll be shocked if the Chargers upset them. Nothing about that game makes me happy. That game isn't terribly indicative, I don't think (hope). The Chargers are worse and the Colts are better (at least from that point; they were without Freeney, and any semblance of a pass rush, in that game). I think the Colts win, but it's the worst possible matchup against an 8-8 team ever.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=280113011

Yeah, the Colts won't lose a playoff game to Norv Turner. Oh wait.

They'll prlly make the AFC championship you shouldn't be to worried man...On the other hand like I said the Lipscomb loss is pretty bad I think they'll beat San Diego, but the Chargers have given the Colts fits recently. It figures to be a really, really tough game. I desperately wanted to play the Broncos, who the Colts have owned. If Baltimore beats Miami -- I expect them to -- the Colts will go to Pittsburgh. It'll be extremely difficult, if not next to impossible, to win twice in Pittsburgh in the same season. If I were any team in the AFC the Colts would probably be the last team Id want to face Same here. I just worry the matchups aren't going to favor the Colts as they did in 2006.

They'll prlly make the AFC championship you shouldn't be to worried man...On the other hand like I said the Lipscomb loss is pretty bad I think they'll beat San Diego, but the Chargers have given the Colts fits recently. It figures to be a really, really tough game. I desperately wanted to play the Broncos, who the Colts have owned. If Baltimore beats Miami -- I expect them to -- the Colts will go to Pittsburgh. It'll be extremely difficult, if not next to impossible, to win twice in Pittsburgh in the same season.

Colts won nine straight games to finish 12-4 overall, tied for the second best record in the NFL. They'll open the playoffs on the road against an 8-8 team they already beat on the road. Their next game, if they win, is potentially on the road against a team they have the same record as and also already beat on the road. They'd likely have to play three road games to make the Super Bowl. I'm whining, I know (Lipscomb will do that to a person), but something doesn't seem terribly fair about that. Stupid divisions.

One of my friends played at Lipscomb, but a Big-Ten team losing to them is just pathetic No doubt. I honestly never gave a thought to IU losing this game -- even as subpar as they are. I always figured Cornell, TCU and Northeastern would be difficult to win. I was pleasantly surprised the former two were relatively easy wins; not terribly surprised IU went only 2-1 in that stretch. But Lipscomb? At home? After leading by 21?

IU almost survived one of my preseason goals: no really embarrassing defeats to teams nobody has heard of. Northeastern was perhaps in that classification; Lipscomb definitely is. And blowing a 21-point lead too. Arguably the worst two performances of the season in the last two winnable games of the season.

Ah, I was saying it as a means to get all of next year's class in. They have 14 committed for next year. Somebody has to go. I think Jobe is pretty clearly the worst player on scholarship. I thought it was a mistake to take him when they did(pretty much solely for the chance at Negedu, which the competition was too stiff on), and he's certainly not going to improve enough in his last year to be worth anything. I think it will take care of itself and someone will end up transferring. Now, of the players likely to transfer, I will probably be a bit disappointed. The two players I care the least for (Jobe and Dumes) surely won't be leaving of their own volition.

I think Northeastern is the best of those 3 teams. I'm kicking myself cause I've been betting against Indiana in every game on centsports, and didn't do it this time, cause I got burned on TCU and thought they'd win this one. I assume you misspoke on the former/latter part or do you see something in Tijan Jobe that I don't. And thanks for taking it in stride. Having now watched all three play in person, Northeastern is definitely the best of the three. I see nothing in Jobe. He won't be a factor next year. That said, I don't want them to take his scholarship away. A bit draconian for my tastes.

It wasn't even an upset either. It was one of the two games against small conference teams that IU fans thought they had a good chance of losing (they managed to survive Cornell). IU is probably going to win their last non-conference game, but I have a tough time seeing them winning a single conference game with the huge gap between them and everyone else in the conference. Odds are on their side that they'll win at least one game over the 18-game schedule, but they certainly won't be favored to win any. I still think they beat Iowa at home. The fans are gonna rush the court and mob Tijan Jobe. Then they'll take away his scholarship. Last night's game was easily the most depressing of the season. I'm not stunned they lost -- a win likely would've meant they won every game they should have, which was too much to ask (I am assuming a win v. Lipscomb). Northeastern, like Cornell and TCU, was a game that was likely to be a near tossup. I expected two or three Big Ten wins, but with the resurgence of the conference and last night's display I'm hopingfor two. There isn't a game I expect to win, per se, but I do expect to, at minimum, win a game. As for what you said, I hope the former happens but the later doesn't.