Exile on Waveland

If the Pac 10 expands, it will almost certainly be with Utah and BYU. (Perhaps UNLV could get into the mix, but I doubt it)

Well, you certainly seemed to say it wasn't the biggest in your original post. I don't know if it's Scarlett Johansson bigger, but it's definitely bigger. Regardless of where the viewers come from, it still gets the most viewers. Edit: I'll also add that maybe it doesn't really even matter anymore, since all the BCS games payout the same. (Though it's still much easier for Michigan to get to the BCS out of the Big Ten than it is for LSU out of the SEC.) Of course, that fact alone may make Notre Dame the best job: it's easiest for them to get to the BCS, then they don't have to split the $17 million. Notre Dame doesn't get $17 million. They get $4.5. I actually didn't know that. Thanks. That amount was "renegotiated" by Notre Dame's completely and totally incompetent and idiotic athletic director Kevin White. That man is going to mess up ND football, I just know it. well it's only fair. If they got all $17 million while conference teams were splitting that up, well you and I know that's BS Yeah, but think about the years where for example Penn State does not make a BCS game. For example, last year. They get the money from the Capital One Bowl+their share of Ohio State's BCS game+their share of Michigan's BCS game. For the bad teams in the conference like Indiana, that means they've pocketed over 15 million in the last 10 years that the BCS has been in play without ever having made a BCS game. ND for years was all or nothing. If they went 5-7 one year, they didn't have that guaranteed 2-4 million dollar check from another team in their conference going to the BCS. It was either the full 14 million for the BCS , or going away completely empty handed. It ended up evening out money wise over the long term. Now ND has a money arrangement that is very similar to all the other conferences. They get 4.5 million if they make the game, and 1 million if they don't. It still won't quite add up to what the conferences get (because if conferences get 2 members in all the schools get paid double) but it's a fair approximation. Actually, that's not true anymore, either. I didn't know it -- or that ND only got $4.5 now -- but there is a exception for the second team from a conference that also pays out $4.5. I looked it up when Adolfo said ND no longer gets the full amount, and found that too.

What's more important, yesterday or tomorrow? Lilly may have been the Cubs best pitcher so far this year, but I'll still take Zambrano as the ace.

Well, you certainly seemed to say it wasn't the biggest in your original post. I don't know if it's Scarlett Johansson bigger, but it's definitely bigger. Regardless of where the viewers come from, it still gets the most viewers. Edit: I'll also add that maybe it doesn't really even matter anymore, since all the BCS games payout the same. (Though it's still much easier for Michigan to get to the BCS out of the Big Ten than it is for LSU out of the SEC.) Of course, that fact alone may make Notre Dame the best job: it's easiest for them to get to the BCS, then they don't have to split the $17 million. Notre Dame doesn't get $17 million. They get $4.5. I actually didn't know that. Thanks.

Ha ha, nice cheap shot. The Rose Bowl likely isn't bigger than the Cotton Bowl is in Texas or the Orange Bowl is in Florida or the Sugar Bowl is in Louisiana. However, the plurality, if not the majority, of the country considers the Rose Bowl the biggest. I am not saying the Rose Bowl is biggest in every region, but, overall, it is. Besides who wants the Rose Bowl to be bigger. It's about ****ing flowers. Who the hell cares about flowers? This isn't the estrogen championships. Now that's funny. *Though I think a Big Ten team could win that one...

The Rose Bowl gets the prime TV spot every New Year's Day. The Rose Bowl Parade is nationally televised. Oklahoma and Texas both raved about getting to go to the Rose Bowl. It's the oldest, biggest and most prestigious bowl game. Recent TV ratings (site didn't have last year): 2006: Rose Bowl: 21.7; NC Game: Rose Bowl; Next highest: Fiesta, 12.9 2005: Rose Bowl: 12.4; NC Game: 13.7 (Orange). 2004: Rose Bowl: 14.4; NC Game: 14.5 (Sugar). 2003: Rose Bowl: 11.3; NC Game: 17.2 (Fiesta). From 1998 through 2006, the Rose Bowl is the highest rated game. It's had the top, and 6 of the top 12 highest rated games (twice as the NC game, whereas all the other bowls in the top-12 were NC games). The nation's college football watching TV viewers prefer the Rose Bowl to all other bowls. In fact, the Rose Bowl has often been competitive with the NC game in ratings. So I'd say that people give a darn about it across the country. Pet peeve but it's the Rose Parade, not the Rose Bowl Parade. The parade came well before the bowl was even built. Ah, true. My bad.

Ha ha, nice cheap shot. The Rose Bowl likely isn't bigger than the Cotton Bowl is in Texas or the Orange Bowl is in Florida or the Sugar Bowl is in Louisiana. However, the plurality, if not the majority, of the country considers the Rose Bowl the biggest. I am not saying the Rose Bowl is biggest in every region, but, overall, it is.

Well, you certainly seemed to say it wasn't the biggest in your original post. I don't know if it's Scarlett Johansson bigger, but it's definitely bigger. Regardless of where the viewers come from, it still gets the most viewers. Edit: I'll also add that maybe it doesn't really even matter anymore, since all the BCS games payout the same. (Though it's still much easier for Michigan to get to the BCS out of the Big Ten than it is for LSU out of the SEC.) Of course, that fact alone may make Notre Dame the best job: it's easiest for them to get to the BCS, then they don't have to split the $17 million.

The Rose Bowl gets the prime TV spot every New Year's Day. The Rose Bowl Parade is nationally televised. Oklahoma and Texas both raved about getting to go to the Rose Bowl. It's the oldest, biggest and most prestigious bowl game. Recent TV ratings (site didn't have last year): 2006: Rose Bowl: 21.7; NC Game: Rose Bowl; Next highest: Fiesta, 12.9 2005: Rose Bowl: 12.4; NC Game: 13.7 (Orange). 2004: Rose Bowl: 14.4; NC Game: 14.5 (Sugar). 2003: Rose Bowl: 11.3; NC Game: 17.2 (Fiesta). From 1998 through 2006, the Rose Bowl is the highest rated game. It's had the top, and 6 of the top 12 highest rated games (twice as the NC game, whereas all the other bowls in the top-12 were NC games). The nation's college football watching TV viewers prefer the Rose Bowl to all other bowls. In fact, the Rose Bowl has often been competitive with the NC game in ratings. So I'd say that people give a darn about it across the country.

Seriously, the Rose Bowl is unquestionably the biggest bowl game. Notre Dame is probably the best job in college football. Michigan is certainly bigger than Nebraska. Alabama may have a good argument, but Michigan is still better in my opinion.

It sure as heck would start a chain reaction of coaches leaving for better jobs. well, except for the part where Les Miles leaves LSU for an inferior job Well, that's just not true. 1. Michigan has the biggest stadium in the nation (capacity is 15,000 larger than LSU). 2. Michigan has a bigger brand name -- year-in and year-out, Michigan and UNC sell the most merchandise. (I tried to find documentation for this, but couldn't via a cursory search.) 3. Michigan plays in an easier conference -- with a better bowl tie-in (Rose Bowl). 4. Michigan, at worst, is in the triumvirate of premier programs in it's conference (and it's almost certainly tops). LSU is well behind Alabama, Tennessee and Florida in program prestige. 5. Michigan has a higher prestige factor nationally than LSU has in it's own conference. 6. Michigan is the all-time leader in wins, winning percentage, conference championships and undefeated seasons. It also has 11 national championships. LSU has two. (I'd like to note that I'm unsure exactly how much weight current recruits give these factors. Still, it can't hurt.) 7. Michigan is one of the best academic schools in the nation. 8. Michigan would, at the very least, offer competitive pay. 9. The huge recruiting advantage at LSU is a fallacy. Louisiana does produce more, but not exorbitantly more, high school talent than Michigan. However, Pennsylvania and Ohio, at minimum, produce equally as Louisiana. Louisiana obviously is more proximate to Texas and Florida (two of the top three states, along with California), but there is MUCH more competition for talent in those two states than in PA and OH. Michigan has less local competition, and is a national recruiting brand name. LSU may be emerging nationally, but it still isn't Michigan. I really have no idea what metric you're basing this on, but Michigan is a better football job than LSU. LSU clearly is a program on the rise, and probably a top-10 job now. But Michigan is almost certainly a top-3 job. [/i]

The Wolverines are 2-8 the last five years in the final two games of the season (i.e., Ohio State and bowl game). That's pathetic and unacceptable for a program of Michigan's ilk. I wonder how a lot of teams would have done playing OSU and then a bowl game record wise though. IMO, the OSU coach has Carr's number just as Carr had the previous OSU coaches. For many many years Michigan and OSU led the Big 10 and ran up scores of victories on the rest and once in a blue moon one of the other 8 would have a career year and win the Big 10. I agree that with their resources they should always be a top 25 team but they have to be careful and not fall into the Alabama (Bear) trap and go crazy firing coaches too quickly once Carr is let go. I agree. I've argued basically the same thing: two of Michigan's bowl losses are to USC in the Rose Bowl and another was a barn-burner to Texas, the year before they won the title, in the Rose Bowl. USC basically doesn't lose games, and Texas lost (I think) one game (to Oklahoma) over a two-year stretch. Also in the stretch is a loss to a National Champion OSU team, and another runner-up OSU team. So, it's not like they've been beaten by poor teams in those 8 of 10 losses. Still, I doubt that is much consolation to Michigan fans.

The Wolverines are 2-8 the last five years in the final two games of the season (i.e., Ohio State and bowl game). That's pathetic and unacceptable for a program of Michigan's ilk.

Let's say the 6 BCS conference winners go. 2 spots left. Not a chance in horse hockey would the BE get one of the 2 remaining spots. That gives the SEC, Big 10 or 12 another team. Last year a 10-2 Rutgers or WV wouldn't have been seriously considered. The last 2 would have been either Michigan, Texas or LSU. Why, they travel. What does travel mean? Big money. GOB's like big money as does any businessman. It's rigged brother, trust me. That's just part of it. Who makes the decisions? It sure isn't anyone from out this way. Where are the bowls? Not here. Yes, they are not in the midwest either but the Big 10 has a heck of a lot of power when it comes to collegian football decisions. Just look at the Rose Bowl and how they won't give that deal up. It's tradition and a heck of a lot of money....and power. All bias aside, if there was a playoff last year LSU likely would've won it. Travel or not, they were deserving.

Is anyone surprised Trachsel stinks?

Agree. Maryland, Kentucky and Washington all have chances at upsets. UCF could put a scare into Texas, too.

Because they (gob) control the bowl system. If there was a playoff system last year, Who was going to go? OSU, Florida, USC and Oklahoma/Michigan. Did you see a BE team there? Once one lost they were booted out. Why? Penn State blows through the Big 10 and then has a somewhat close game in the bowl, this effected them even then. They are no longer #1, Nebraska is. If you look throughout college football history for the past 40 years or so you'll see the discrepancies of this. A lot of posters get peeved on how ND always gets the benefit of doubt but the BE is the bastard son of college football and the PAC 10 isn't far behind. Just look through the polls throughout the last 40 years and tell me when you see an eastern team with the same record as the ones I've mentioned be ranked ahead of them. The last time Syracuse was undefeated in 87 they were still ranked 4th and behind a 1 loss gob team. Heck, Florida and Auburn have moaned about this in the resent past but they've also benefited from this when it came to ties with an eastern team. Penn State didn't blow through Indiana and Chris Dittoe. That's what cost them the title. Go Hoosiers. :D That's right, they didn't blow them out like the rest of the league. In football, us Hoosiers take pride in what we can.

Because they (gob) control the bowl system. If there was a playoff system last year, Who was going to go? OSU, Florida, USC and Oklahoma/Michigan. Did you see a BE team there? Once one lost they were booted out. Why? Penn State blows through the Big 10 and then has a somewhat close game in the bowl, this effected them even then. They are no longer #1, Nebraska is. If you look throughout college football history for the past 40 years or so you'll see the discrepancies of this. A lot of posters get peeved on how ND always gets the benefit of doubt but the BE is the bastard son of college football and the PAC 10 isn't far behind. Just look through the polls throughout the last 40 years and tell me when you see an eastern team with the same record as the ones I've mentioned be ranked ahead of them. The last time Syracuse was undefeated in 87 they were still ranked behind a 1 loss gob team. Heck, Florida and Auburn have moaned about this in the resent past but they've also benefited from this when it came to ties with an eastern team. Penn State didn't blow through Indiana and Chris Dittoe. That's what cost them the title. Go Hoosiers.

WMU is supposed to be (for whatever it's worth) the best team in the MAC, so I'd expect them to put up a fight. Then again they lost to IU at home yesterday. IU is much, much improved this year. They have a strong offense, especially passing.

Gratuitously pats himself on the back. Good call. Well, it's not like I was the only one calling this. I also thought Michigan would come back and win today. I am disappointed I was right, I actually like Auburn.

Gratuitously pats himself on the back.

First, you started your last post by saying "The Big 11 (sic) was garbage last year." That would be why I used last year's poll results, to refute your argument that the Big Ten was garbage -- I simply added the Big 12's rankings as an aside (seemed topical). Second, I said Texas isn't as good as they were TWO years ago. Not last year. Ohio State could be very good this year and still not be as good as they were last year -- even if they were only the fourth best team or so as you say (and you're probably right). That was my point -- OSU and Texas are going to be good this year, regardless of whether either is as good as they've been recently. Third, Michigan lost by 14 to USC in Los Angeles. That's not a "royal beatdown." USC rarely loses. Obviously Michigan stinks this year, but last year's loss to USC is wholly understandable. Finally, maybe the Big 12 is better. It's hard to tell at this point, but the Big 10 was not garbage last year and OSU being worse than last year doesn't exclude them from being good this year. My main point about Ohio State was that they are overrated this year and aren't the 12th best team in the country. They aren't that good. I realize that because they were better last year doesn't mean they're not a good team this year. I just don't think they're a very good football team. Did you watch the Michigan-USC game? USC demolished them in the second half. Michigan couldn't get a pass rush on Booty if their lives depended on it. Also, Michigan got a garbage time touchdown in the fourth quarter that made that game closer than it was. USC was, far and away, the better team on the field that day. Maybe I overstated the Big 11 being garbage last year. But that's only because its garbage this year and the Big 11 last year was clearly better than it is this year. I didn't argue with your point of OSU being overrated, I just didn't like how you got there. Yes, of course I watched the Rose Bowl. USC was clearly the better team -- but, honestly, when aren't they? They win damn near every game they play. I believe they've lost four games in four years by a combined 12 points. It's hard to fault a team for losing to the best program in the country, in their backyard. Finally, I agree the Big 10 was better last year. Maybe they're garbage this year -- though I still think that's hyperbolic -- but I don't think the Big 12 is much better, if at all.

I agree with your second paragraph. However, Wisconsin certainly was good last year. They lost one game, and won a bowl game against Auburn -- the only team to beat National Champion Florida. I'm not arguing they're a top-5 team, but they certainly are a good team. *Also, Wisconsin isn't very good, yet they're one of the top-20 teams in the country? Are you saying there are only like 10 good teams each year? No, they played Arkansas, and should have lost, had Arkansas had a competent kicker. Oops, my bad. They beat Auburn two years ago, that's what I get for not fact-checking.

The Big 12 is better than the Big 11. wrong The Big 11 was garbage last year and, sans Wisconsin, is garbage this year. Wisconsin - good Michigan - sucks OSU - nowhere near as good as last year and probably overrated Indiana - garbage Illinois - too young right now Penn State - offense is not good at all Minnesota - HAHAHA, yeah Iowa - not very good Purdue - no defense Northwestern - even more "HA's" than Minnesota Michigan State - the best thing about them is John L is gone The Big 11 is not a very good conference. Don't get me wrong, the Big 12 isn't that good either, but at least they have Oklahoma. Big Ten teams finished last season ranked Nos. 2, 7, 8 and 24 in the AP Poll and 2, 5, 9 and 25 in the USA Today Poll. That is certainly not "garbage." The mighty Big 12 finished 11 and 13 in each. Your rundown of the Big 10 is laughable as well. One could easily make ridiculous claims and pick out weaknesses of every Big 12 team (perhaps sans Oklahoma). Ohio State was better last year? Really, you think? Well then, Texas isn't good because they aren't as good as they were two years ago. (That said, OSU probably is overrated) Penn State's offense isn't great, but they have quality pieces -- especially at WR. Iowa is a solid team. Oklahoma is likely the best team in either conference. But the Big 10 is better overall. Ohio State team got demolished in the National Championship game and was not the second best team in the country (LSU and USC were, without a doubt, better). Michigan got a royal beatdown at the hands of USC and are clearly not a very good football team. Wisconsin is a good team and the best in the conference but that isn't really saying much. They only lead Washington State by 7 going into the fourth quarter last week and are only up 9-7 on UNLV at halftime this year. But I underrated them last year and they proved me wrong. Plus they have nearly all of their starters coming back so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until. You obviously missed my point about OSU being overrated this year. 12th best team in the country? Not a chance. And your analogy to Texas is laughable. OSU lost a hell of a lot more than Texas from last year to this year. Iowa struggled to beat NIU last week. They are not that good of a football team. I've seen enough of Anthony Morelli to know that he's not a very good quarterback. And I don't care how good your receivers are, if your QB can't get them the ball, they aren't going to look very good. Just look at Calvin Johnson with Reggie Ball last year. And Penn State's WR's don't even deserve to wash Johnson's uniform. Also, why are you using the results of last year's poll to compare the Big 12 and Big 11? While I did say that the Big 11 was garbage last year, I only said that THIS YEAR they are worse than the Big 12. First, you started your last post by saying "The Big 11 (sic) was garbage last year." That would be why I used last year's poll results, to refute your argument that the Big Ten was garbage -- I simply added the Big 12's rankings as an aside (seemed topical). Second, I said Texas isn't as good as they were TWO years ago. Not last year. Ohio State could be very good this year and still not be as good as they were last year -- even if they were only the fourth best team or so as you say (and you're probably right). That was my point -- OSU and Texas are going to be good this year, regardless of whether either is as good as they've been recently. Third, Michigan lost by 14 to USC in Los Angeles. That's not a "royal beatdown." USC rarely loses. Obviously Michigan stinks this year, but last year's loss to USC is wholly understandable. Finally, maybe the Big 12 is better. It's hard to tell at this point, but the Big 10 was not garbage last year and OSU being worse than last year doesn't exclude them from being good this year.

I agree. Maybe the Big 12 will shake out to be better than the Big 10. I don't think so, but I probably said so with too much certainty in my earlier post.