MWC should get the Big East's auto bid
Goro
-goro-
Anthony Summers
> !
>
> -goro-
I'm no fan of the Big East, but they've done pretty well in BCS games.
--
A. Summers || summerstorm0007-->at<--yahoo.com
TMS
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
First, there should be no "auto bids."
Second, the BCS is to match #1 and #2. Every other matchup is
comparatively insignificant except for the money, which supports the
first argument.
Third, the BE has done rather well in the BCS games other conferences
who have done not-so-well.
Personally, I hate the current system and further despise the
exclusion of conferences outside of the Big 6. But the BE has a bad
rap, if you're going to compare who is worthy vs. who is not.
xyzzy
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Goro wrote...
> > !
>
> > -goro-
>
>
IFYPFY
lein
wrote:
good point, this subject should be the MWC getting the ACC's auto bid
Anthony Summers
> good point, this subject should be the MWC getting the ACC's auto bid
The Conference Who Can't Count hasn't exactly been impressive, dude.
Ar Q
"Goro" <eviln...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7438c7f7-5bf0-47ee...@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
> !
>
> -goro-
Take away ACC's. They have the worst record of Big 6, like 2-8 in their
BCS bowls. And ACC is 4-6 this week so far, only better than Sun Belt
and MAC.
Goro
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:27:36 -0700 (PDT), Goro wrote...
> > !
>
> > -goro-
>
> I'm no fan of the Big East, but they've done pretty well in BCS games.
>
Point taken.
Really, my main point was that MWC/WAC are just as deserving as the
"lesser" of the BCS conferences. Since currently the BigEast has no
top 25 ranked teams, they were just the easiest target.
I guess i'm probably just expressing just how pissed off i am at the
entire BCS system as it is.
But then the 6 guys who like it (ADs of the BCS Conferences) don't
care what anyone else thinks...
-goro-
Goro
Good point. As mentioned earlier, BE was just hte easiest target.
ANd yeah, the entire BCS system is fscked up and is getting more and
more obviously terrible every year.
-goro-
Anthony Summers
> But then the 6 guys who like it (ADs of the BCS Conferences) don't
> care what anyone else thinks...
If Utah would sack up and put 'National Champions' on their stadium,
that might add to the discussion. You know ESPN would be all over it.
xyzzy
IFYHFY to reflect actual on the field results. Oh, and the would ony
have change around a few letters to make the change.
Kyle T. Jones
> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:03:38 -0700 (PDT), lein wrote...
>
>> good point, this subject should be the MWC getting the ACC's auto bid
>
> The Conference Who Can't Count hasn't exactly been impressive, dude.
>
They're undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and BE combined.
They've also played almost as many BCS games as the ACC and BE combined
- and have more BCS games than any other conference thus far - that
means the Big Ten's #2 team is often playing some other conferences
champ - and that conference is pretty much always the SEC, Big 12, or
Pac-10. Take that for what it's worth. In spite of that handicap, the
Big Ten has an overall BCS record of 8-11 (.421). The Big 12 is 7-9
(.438). The Big East basically gets one team in a year - only the cream
of their crop - and is only a bit better at 6-5 (.545). Ditto for the
ACC about getting one team/year in - but they're by far the worst, with
a 2-9 record (.182).
No current member of the Big East has ever had to play in the actual
championship game, against one of the top two teams from that season.
This is an obvious advantage wrt the above overall BCS records.
Interesting aside - Utah is 2-0 in BCS games (they also beat Pitt, the
BE champ, 35-7 in 2005. Alabama is 0-2. Everyone knows the loss they
took last year. In 2000 they were ranked #4, SEC champs, and were
favored in their first BCS appearance. Without looking, can anyone but
Hugh name the team that beat them in overtime?
Cheers.
James Schrumpf
Better yet, get rid of one of the at-large bids and give it to the MWC. The
more the merrier, I say.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
mianderson
> Anthony Summers wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:03:38 -0700 (PDT), lein wrote...
>
> >> good point, this subject should be the MWC getting the ACC's auto bid
>
> > The Conference Who Can't Count hasn't exactly been impressive, dude.
>
> They're undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and BE combined.
>
> They've also played almost as many BCS games as the ACC and BE combined
> - and have more BCS games than any other conference thus far - that
> means the Big Ten's #2 team is often playing some other conferences
> champ - and that conference is pretty much always the SEC, Big 12, or
> Pac-10. Take that for what it's worth.
maybe once or twice this has happened. Illinois against USC for
example. But you've also been on the other end of some "fortunate"
matchups......consider Ohio State(as an at large) against a ND team
everyone knew was an easy mark. And then Penn State(as the champ)
going against 5 loss FSU or whatever. Those are just two
recently......
The last 5 highest seeded bigten teams are Michigan, Penn State, Ohio
State, Ohio State, and Penn State......
Michigan actually played(and lost) to some other conferences non-
champion, Penn State played and beat a 5 loss team, Ohio State lost to
a conference champion two straight years, and Penn State lost to a
conference champ last year....
So going back 5 years, your five conference champs are 1-3 against
"peer matchups"(other bcs conference champs) and 0-1 when you were
actually the highest seeded team in the matchup.....
I agree with your general point about the bigten being much more
respectable than the dreck that is the bigleast or acc, but dont make
stuff up like you did.
Kyle T. Jones
> On Sep 7, 12:33 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
>> Anthony Summers wrote:
>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:03:38 -0700 (PDT), lein wrote...
>>>> good point, this subject should be the MWC getting the ACC's auto bid
>>> The Conference Who Can't Count hasn't exactly been impressive, dude.
>> They're undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and BE combined.
>>
>> They've also played almost as many BCS games as the ACC and BE combined
>> - and have more BCS games than any other conference thus far - that
>> means the Big Ten's #2 team is often playing some other conferences
>> champ - and that conference is pretty much always the SEC, Big 12, or
>> Pac-10. Take that for what it's worth.
>
>
> maybe once or twice this has happened. Illinois against USC for
> example. But you've also been on the other end of some "fortunate"
> matchups......consider Ohio State(as an at large) against a ND team
> everyone knew was an easy mark. And then Penn State(as the champ)
> going against 5 loss FSU or whatever. Those are just two
> recently......
>
FSU had 3 losses PRIOR to losing to Penn State, and finished 8-4 WITH
that loss. They were also the ACC Champ, not an at-large bid.
> The last 5 highest seeded bigten teams are Michigan, Penn State, Ohio
> State, Ohio State, and Penn State......
>
> Michigan actually played(and lost) to some other conferences non-
> champion, Penn State played and beat a 5 loss team, Ohio State lost to
> a conference champion two straight years, and Penn State lost to a
> conference champ last year....
>
Some other conferences non-champion, that Michigan played and lost to?
That'd be the Vince Young led Texas team that won the BCS championship
the next year. I was impressed that Michigan only lost by a point -
Vince Young, with the ball, at the end of the game, needing a score to
win... that's some seriously scary shit. Just ask the USC "team of the
decade".
So, who's trying to distort the facts here?
> So going back 5 years, your five conference champs are 1-3 against
> "peer matchups"(other bcs conference champs) and 0-1 when you were
> actually the highest seeded team in the matchup.....
>
> I agree with your general point about the bigten being much more
> respectable than the dreck that is the bigleast or acc, but dont make
> stuff up like you did.
>
>
What, exactly, did I make up mia? Quote one thing I said that wasn't
true. Here, I'll start by pointing out a lie you told several times:
"And then Penn State(as the champ) going against 5 loss FSU or whatever."
"Penn State played and beat a 5 loss team"
Ok, those are just the two that jumped out at me as outright lies. Your
turn.
By the way, did you catch my other post - the worst a preseason #1 has
finished since 2002 is #3. Until Georgia last year, of course,
finishing #13. Ouch. Just... ouch.
Softest preseason #1 in the BCS era - kinda has a ring to it, no?
Cheers.
mianderson
> mianderson wrote:
> > On Sep 7, 12:33 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
> >> Anthony Summers wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2009 21:03:38 -0700 (PDT), lein wrote...
> >>>> good point, this subject should be the MWC getting the ACC's auto bid
> >>> The Conference Who Can't Count hasn't exactly been impressive, dude.
> >> They're undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and BE combined.
>
> >> They've also played almost as many BCS games as the ACC and BE combined
> >> - and have more BCS games than any other conference thus far - that
> >> means the Big Ten's #2 team is often playing some other conferences
> >> champ - and that conference is pretty much always the SEC, Big 12, or
> >> Pac-10. Take that for what it's worth.
>
> > maybe once or twice this has happened. Illinois against USC for
> > example. But you've also been on the other end of some "fortunate"
> > matchups......consider Ohio State(as an at large) against a ND team
> > everyone knew was an easy mark. And then Penn State(as the champ)
> > going against 5 loss FSU or whatever. Those are just two
> > recently......
>
> FSU had 3 losses PRIOR to losing to Penn State, and finished 8-4 WITH
> that loss. They were also the ACC Champ, not an at-large bid.
a mistake on my part....I remember they were ranked about 20 going
into that game, so it's safe to say they were one of the least thought
of bcs teams ever.
And jesus, it's the acc
>
> > The last 5 highest seeded bigten teams are Michigan, Penn State, Ohio
> > State, Ohio State, and Penn State......
>
> > Michigan actually played(and lost) to some other conferences non-
> > champion, Penn State played and beat a 5 loss team, Ohio State lost to
> > a conference champion two straight years, and Penn State lost to a
> > conference champ last year....
>
> Some other conferences non-champion, that Michigan played and lost to?
> That'd be the Vince Young led Texas team that won the BCS championship
> the next year.
agreed...did I say it wasn't?
I was impressed that Michigan only lost by a point -
> Vince Young, with the ball, at the end of the game, needing a score to
> win... that's some seriously scary shit. Just ask the USC "team of the
> decade".
or ask kansas the same year........
>
> So, who's trying to distort the facts here?
I made an error on how many games FSU lost that year and readily
admitted it......
You otoh- "that
means the Big Ten's #2 team is often playing some other conferences
champ - and that conference is pretty much always the SEC, Big 12, or
Pac-10"
In the last ten years or so(it may have happened a few times before
the 1999 season), I can only think of the illinois-usc game. Thats
hardly "often". And as I pointed out, that one game is more than
balanced out by some other favorable matchups recently....like ND and
a 20th or so ranked FSU team.
> What, exactly, did I make up mia? Quote one thing I said that wasn't
> true. Here, I'll start by pointing out a lie you told several times:
>
> "And then Penn State(as the champ) going against 5 loss FSU or whatever."
the "whatever" part indicates I wasnt sure....I just knew they were
not a highly thought of team, and they werent.
>
> By the way, did you catch my other post - the worst a preseason #1 has
> finished since 2002 is #3. Until Georgia last year, of course,
> finishing #13. Ouch. Just... ouch.
>
> Softest preseason #1 in the BCS era - kinda has a ring to it, no?
I never said it was a banner season....sheeesh. There are 100some
div1a teams though, and it's better than all but 12(or 9 in the other
poll)....thats hardly a complete disaster, especially when you cap it
off by doubling up the #3 bigten team that year
>
> Cheers.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Goro
They should just have a playoff to get into the BCS games...
-goro-
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> They're undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and BE combined.
>
Wow. That sounds pretty dominating. However, they don't play much do
they? I can only remember these two ...
2002 OSU over Miami (2OTs)
2005 Penn State over FSU (3OTs)
> They've also played almost as many BCS games as the ACC and BE combined
No doubt that the Big Ten benefits from their history with the Rose
Bowl and, more legitimately, they are generally large schools with
tons of alumni nationwide and they travel well. A lot of the bowl
situation has to do with indirect influences outside of the team on
the field.
> - and have more BCS games than any other conference thus far - that
> means the Big Ten's #2 team is often playing some other conferences
> champ -
They're basically guaranteed 2 BCS teams each year with their ties to
the Rose. Even when their teams lose late in the season, because
their schedule ends early and they have no cc, one of them almost
always rises to take over that next spot when someone loses their cc.
They play it perfectly, which is why they have no interest to change
the system.
> and that conference is pretty much always the SEC, Big 12, or
> Pac-10.
And their 1-7 record since 2005 (with a bunch of blowouts) which
reflects that they probably shouldn't be there other than fan
interest. Put another way, the average B10 BCS loss has been 37-20
since 2006, which a couple early blowouts where the B10 team scored a
few late to make it closer than it really was ... does it matter to
the viewer or the polls whether or not the 17 point loss (or worse)
was the B10, B12, ACC, BE, SEC, or Pac10 #2 team? No.
> Take that for what it's worth. In spite of that handicap, the
> Big Ten has an overall BCS record of 8-11 (.421). The Big 12 is 7-9
> (.438). The Big East basically gets one team in a year - only the cream
> of their crop - and is only a bit better at 6-5 (.545).
If the BE is so terrible, then why not consider what the BE champion
has done to the SEC/Big 12 champion when they've met in bowl games
compared to the B10 Champ ... or even B10#2? I mean, if they're
undeniably superior then certainly the B10 #2 should be able to handle
those conference champions head-to-head on a regular basis, no?
> Ditto for the
> ACC about getting one team/year in - but they're by far the worst, with
> a 2-9 record (.182).
The ACC did a lot of damage to itself when it brought in the BE
schools from a BCS conference strength perspective. They may have a
better tv contract, but they really did some damage on the field.
>
> No current member of the Big East has ever had to play in the actual
> championship game, against one of the top two teams from that season.
> This is an obvious advantage wrt the above overall BCS records.
>
With the cluster-f*ck at the end of just about every year, I'm not
sure anyone can definitively say who is the clear cut #1/2 in any
year. There have been a couple of years that it's been obvious, but
for example ... in 2007, many believed that OU should have been in the
title game and that if WV would have beaten Pitt, they would have
handled OSU that year. LSU lost two games earlier in the year, had
lightning strike three times (Missouri and WV losing and the
inexplicable jump from whatever to #2), and ended up beating an OSU
team that not only was not predicted to be able to handle WV's speed,
but was blown away by LSU.
> Interesting aside - Utah is 2-0 in BCS games (they also beat Pitt, the
> BE champ, 35-7 in 2005. Alabama is 0-2. Everyone knows the loss they
> took last year. In 2000 they were ranked #4, SEC champs, and were
> favored in their first BCS appearance. Without looking, can anyone but
> Hugh name the team that beat them in overtime?
>
Michigan. It was the night of one of my first dates with my future
wife. Actually (if you'll indulge for a moment), she had called to
tell me that she was free that night and we decided to go out. After
the phonecall, I realized it was the night of the Orange Bowl ... I
also realized that since she wasn't a sports fan, that if I didn't
tell her that I was going to watch football that I'd never get to make
the stand again, so I called her back to reschedule. When pressed, I
told her what I had planned and did not want to be rude, so she said
to come over and we could watch the game ... I kept turning her down
until she said, "Come on over, I'll make dinner and we'll watch it
together, just the two of us." I remember thinking, "she might be fun
to hang out with" and three years later, we were married. And every
New Year's night, she makes the same dinner as a part of a memory of
one of our first dates. Corny, I know, but I don't ever have to
explain or hear flak about watching football during the season.
Kyle T. Jones
> On Sep 7, 12:33 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
>
>> They're undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and BE combined.
>>
>
> Wow. That sounds pretty dominating. However, they don't play much do
> they? I can only remember these two ...
>
> 2002 OSU over Miami (2OTs)
> 2005 Penn State over FSU (3OTs)
>
That sounds right to me.
>> They've also played almost as many BCS games as the ACC and BE combined
>
> No doubt that the Big Ten benefits from their history with the Rose
> Bowl and, more legitimately, they are generally large schools with
> tons of alumni nationwide and they travel well. A lot of the bowl
> situation has to do with indirect influences outside of the team on
> the field.
Look, my point is simple. It stands to reason that if the Big Ten was
only sending one team to the BCS each year, and that team (the best team
in the Big Ten) *never* played in the BCS championship game (thus
generally facing lesser opponents), they'd have a better BCS win percentage.
I'm not saying it's a guarantee, I'm just saying that, all things being
equal, that's a pretty legitimate argument.
I didn't mean that argument to come at the expense of the Big East, but
I don't see that I'm making any great leaps with my reasoning.
You quote a lot of stuff that's happened over the last couple years,
since 2005, where we've had an atrocious BCS record. Agreed. But look
at who we've lost those games to - 2 national champions, several USC
teams that people *felt* should be in the championship game, the 1-pt
loss by Michigan to a tough Texas team led by Vince Young (and a year
removed from winning their own national championship), #3 Texas again, etc.
I think it would be pretty easy to argue that the Big Ten, as a
conference, has faced the toughest competition in BCS games over that
period of time (since 2005, or whatever). You don't think we'd rather
play #19 Virginia Tech, #12 Cincinnati, #14 Wake Forest, or #22 Florida
State rather than #5 (#7, then #5 again) Southern Cal, #3 (then again as
#4) Texas, #2 Florida or #2 LSU?
I added the #22 Florida State in as a joke. Penn State did play and
beat that team.
<snip>
>>
>
> Michigan. It was the night of one of my first dates with my future
> wife. Actually (if you'll indulge for a moment), she had called to
> tell me that she was free that night and we decided to go out. After
> the phonecall, I realized it was the night of the Orange Bowl ... I
> also realized that since she wasn't a sports fan, that if I didn't
> tell her that I was going to watch football that I'd never get to make
> the stand again, so I called her back to reschedule. When pressed, I
> told her what I had planned and did not want to be rude, so she said
> to come over and we could watch the game ... I kept turning her down
> until she said, "Come on over, I'll make dinner and we'll watch it
> together, just the two of us." I remember thinking, "she might be fun
> to hang out with" and three years later, we were married. And every
> New Year's night, she makes the same dinner as a part of a memory of
> one of our first dates. Corny, I know, but I don't ever have to
> explain or hear flak about watching football during the season.
Bingo, and cool story. Seriously.
Cheers.
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
Come on. I mean ... really? 2-0 over 17 years (or whatever it is),
that included 5 overtimes between the two?
I might as well write, "the current BE conference teams are undefeated
against the Big 12 and PAC 10 in BCS bowls."
> Look, my point is simple. It stands to reason that if the Big Ten was
> only sending one team to the BCS each year, and that team (the best team
> in the Big Ten) *never* played in the BCS championship game (thus
> generally facing lesser opponents), they'd have a better BCS win percentage.
I'm just wondering ... does BCS "win percentage" mean anything at
all? As a fan of the Big East, I've read many articles about "who
should lose their BCS auto-bid," and in almost every one, they choose
the Big East ...even when the BE won 3 BCS games in a row (incl. the
Big12 and SEC champs).
Utah is 2-0 in the BCS, but does anyone believe that they would ever
be chosen over Ohio State, all things being equal? Notre Dame is 0-3
in the BCS, but does anyone believe they would not be given a bid if
they were eligible? Once you get past #1/2, the rest is a beauty
contest with some acknowledgement toward conference champions. But
what does "win percentage" really mean? It's the same old BS ... the
SEC howls "well, we play such a strong conference schedule" and you
look at the numbers and OOC and scratch your head. Others decry,
"well, the MWC doesn't play the same conference schedule that xxx
does."
>
> I'm not saying it's a guarantee, I'm just saying that, all things being
> equal, that's a pretty legitimate argument.
>
What's the argument? Is your argument that the Big Ten wouldn't look
as pathetic if they were 1-3 over the past 4 years instead of 1-7
while being blown out? OSU was the Big 10 #2 last year and lost by 3,
right? PSU was the Big 10 #1 and lost by 14 (in a game that wasn't
that close).
> I didn't mean that argument to come at the expense of the Big East, but
> I don't see that I'm making any great leaps with my reasoning.
>
> You quote a lot of stuff that's happened over the last couple years,
> since 2005, where we've had an atrocious BCS record. Agreed. But look
> at who we've lost those games to - 2 national champions, several USC
> teams that people *felt* should be in the championship game, the 1-pt
> loss by Michigan to a tough Texas team led by Vince Young (and a year
> removed from winning their own national championship), #3 Texas again, etc.
Let me ask you something ... what if the arugment for those losses was
for the Big East teams and not the Big Ten, what's different? My
guess would be there would be a lot more screaming for the Big East to
lose their bid.
But nobody argues the Big 10's place ... even though they've lost 7 of
their last 8 BCS games. Why? Because of money ... it has nothing to
do with performance. Is there a big difference between Illinois
losing 49-17 to USC and anyone else in the country losing by that
margin (or more)? Did anyone say, "whew, that was a close 32-point
game"?
> I think it would be pretty easy to argue that the Big Ten, as a
> conference, has faced the toughest competition in BCS games over that
> period of time (since 2005, or whatever).
What are you arguing ... the conference makes a ton of dough by design
in the BCS. They'll almost always get 2 bids, regardless of where
their #2 ranks. Illinois got a bid with a #13 ranking and a 9-3
record. They were #21 going into their last game in 2007 against 6-5
Northwestern, won and jumped to 13 and still got a bid!?! There are
only 10 slots, so obviously there is a Big 10 link toward always
getting two teams (or, at least, many more times than not).
If you're going to argue that the Big Ten would have a better BCS "win
percentage" by not having to play two games a years, then argue that
they should decline having 13th-ranked teams from going to a Rose
Bowl.
> You don't think we'd rather
> play #19 Virginia Tech, #12 Cincinnati, #14 Wake Forest, or #22 Florida
> State rather than #5 (#7, then #5 again) Southern Cal, #3 (then again as
> #4) Texas, #2 Florida or #2 LSU?
No, I don't, because by the time you get to the Rose Bowl, it's about
the money ... and the Big Ten wants two teams in the BCS whether or
not they deserve them. Frankly, the Big Ten couldn't care less if
each team lost 50-0, as long as they got two checks from the BCS each
year. If they really wanted to argue the point about who is the best
team in the land, they would promote a playoff and not adhere to the
"yeah, but regardless we at least get a team in the Rose Bowl, right?"
>
> I added the #22 Florida State in as a joke. Penn State did play and
> beat that team.
>
I watched that ... (sic) ... game. The joke was the game ... someone
had to win because they weren't going to end it until it happened, but
I'm not sure I'd say that Penn State was exactly decisive in that
game.
> Bingo, and cool story. Seriously.
>
Thanks. We joke about it to this day.
Kyle T. Jones
> On Sep 7, 4:23 pm, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
>> That sounds right to me.
>>
>
> Come on. I mean ... really? 2-0 over 17 years (or whatever it is),
> that included 5 overtimes between the two?
>
> I might as well write, "the current BE conference teams are undefeated
> against the Big 12 and PAC 10 in BCS bowls."
>
Yeah. Go back over the thread. The statement "The Big Ten is
undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and Big East combined" was a
joke. For one, the Big Ten has never played the Big East in a BCS game.
>> Look, my point is simple. It stands to reason that if the Big Ten was
>> only sending one team to the BCS each year, and that team (the best team
>> in the Big Ten) *never* played in the BCS championship game (thus
>> generally facing lesser opponents), they'd have a better BCS win percentage.
>
> I'm just wondering ... does BCS "win percentage" mean anything at
> all? As a fan of the Big East, I've read many articles about "who
> should lose their BCS auto-bid," and in almost every one, they choose
> the Big East ...even when the BE won 3 BCS games in a row (incl. the
> Big12 and SEC champs).
Yes - I think BCS win percentage means something when it comes to
perceptions regarding conference strength. In particular, I think a lot
of the shit the Big Ten has taken over the last few years is directly
related to that BCS win percentage. Of course, over the first half of
the BCS, it occurs to me that the Big Ten was likely the dominate
conference - I'll have to run some numbers.
>
> Utah is 2-0 in the BCS, but does anyone believe that they would ever
> be chosen over Ohio State, all things being equal? Notre Dame is 0-3
> in the BCS, but does anyone believe they would not be given a bid if
> they were eligible? Once you get past #1/2, the rest is a beauty
> contest with some acknowledgement toward conference champions. But
> what does "win percentage" really mean? It's the same old BS ... the
> SEC howls "well, we play such a strong conference schedule" and you
> look at the numbers and OOC and scratch your head. Others decry,
> "well, the MWC doesn't play the same conference schedule that xxx
> does."
>
>> I'm not saying it's a guarantee, I'm just saying that, all things being
>> equal, that's a pretty legitimate argument.
>>
>
> What's the argument? Is your argument that the Big Ten wouldn't look
> as pathetic if they were 1-3 over the past 4 years instead of 1-7
> while being blown out? OSU was the Big 10 #2 last year and lost by 3,
> right? PSU was the Big 10 #1 and lost by 14 (in a game that wasn't
> that close).
My argument is that if the Big Ten got a single BCS game, and it was
usually against the ACC, we'd be undefeated or damn close to undefeated
in BCS games.
>
>> I didn't mean that argument to come at the expense of the Big East, but
>> I don't see that I'm making any great leaps with my reasoning.
>>
>> You quote a lot of stuff that's happened over the last couple years,
>> since 2005, where we've had an atrocious BCS record. Agreed. But look
>> at who we've lost those games to - 2 national champions, several USC
>> teams that people *felt* should be in the championship game, the 1-pt
>> loss by Michigan to a tough Texas team led by Vince Young (and a year
>> removed from winning their own national championship), #3 Texas again, etc.
>
> Let me ask you something ... what if the arugment for those losses was
> for the Big East teams and not the Big Ten, what's different? My
> guess would be there would be a lot more screaming for the Big East to
> lose their bid.
>
> But nobody argues the Big 10's place ... even though they've lost 7 of
> their last 8 BCS games. Why? Because of money ... it has nothing to
> do with performance. Is there a big difference between Illinois
> losing 49-17 to USC and anyone else in the country losing by that
> margin (or more)? Did anyone say, "whew, that was a close 32-point
> game"?
I'm making no argument that has any bearing on this point.
>
>> I think it would be pretty easy to argue that the Big Ten, as a
>> conference, has faced the toughest competition in BCS games over that
>> period of time (since 2005, or whatever).
>
> What are you arguing ... the conference makes a ton of dough by design
> in the BCS. They'll almost always get 2 bids, regardless of where
> their #2 ranks. Illinois got a bid with a #13 ranking and a 9-3
> record. They were #21 going into their last game in 2007 against 6-5
> Northwestern, won and jumped to 13 and still got a bid!?! There are
> only 10 slots, so obviously there is a Big 10 link toward always
> getting two teams (or, at least, many more times than not).
>
I don't care about the ton of dough. Again, my point is simple - if
only one Big Ten team was getting in each year, and that team never made
the BCS championship game, the win-loss record would improve. You're
pointing to specifics, like Penn State losing to USC.
Look, let's reverse this. Do you think the Big East win percentage
improves or gets worse if they were getting two teams in each year, one
of which was playing in the championship game and the other playing
either USC or Texas in the Rose?
Cripes, it ain't rocket science. And it ain't all this other stuff
you're trying to paint it with. I'm not making an argument that has
anything to do with "mak(ing) a ton of dough", for instance.
> If you're going to argue that the Big Ten would have a better BCS "win
> percentage" by not having to play two games a years, then argue that
> they should decline having 13th-ranked teams from going to a Rose
> Bowl.
Why? Has nothing to do with my argument. Hell, in last year's
spectacular BE VS ACC BCS game, the *higher* ranked team was #12. The
question of whether we'd actually want a piece of that easy easy pie or
not (we wouldn't) has no bearing on pointing out that playing such
inferior competition would likely improve our win percentage.
The Big East champ four years ago (Pitt) was ranked #21. Three years
ago, the ACC champ was ranked #22. Two years ago, it was Wake Forest at
#14.
>
>> You don't think we'd rather
>> play #19 Virginia Tech, #12 Cincinnati, #14 Wake Forest, or #22 Florida
>> State rather than #5 (#7, then #5 again) Southern Cal, #3 (then again as
>> #4) Texas, #2 Florida or #2 LSU?
>
> No, I don't, because by the time you get to the Rose Bowl, it's about
> the money ... and the Big Ten wants two teams in the BCS whether or
> not they deserve them. Frankly, the Big Ten couldn't care less if
> each team lost 50-0, as long as they got two checks from the BCS each
> year. If they really wanted to argue the point about who is the best
> team in the land, they would promote a playoff and not adhere to the
> "yeah, but regardless we at least get a team in the Rose Bowl, right?"
>
Cripes, Tom - look at my original argument. I laid it out as simply as
possible in my last reply:
"Look, my point is simple. It stands to reason that if the Big Ten was
only sending one team to the BCS each year, and that team (the best team
in the Big Ten) *never* played in the BCS championship game (thus
generally facing lesser opponents), they'd have a better BCS win
percentage."
Now look at what you wrote above. You don't think you've gone pretty
@#%%ing far afield from what I was saying?
tom_sa...@yahoo.com
> Yeah. Go back over the thread. The statement "The Big Ten is
> undefeated in BCS games against the ACC and Big East combined" was a
> joke. For one, the Big Ten has never played the Big East in a BCS game.
>
Didn't Ohio State beat Miami? Miami was in the BE at the time.
> Yes - I think BCS win percentage means something when it comes to
> perceptions regarding conference strength. In particular, I think a lot
> of the shit the Big Ten has taken over the last few years is directly
> related to that BCS win percentage. Of course, over the first half of
> the BCS, it occurs to me that the Big Ten was likely the dominate
> conference - I'll have to run some numbers.
Well, we disagree on the percentage aspect. I think the Big Ten takes
a tremendous hit as a conference due to their BCS bowls ... when OSU
lost to Florida ... I'm going from memory here ... Wisc beat SEC #2
Arkansas, and when OSU lost to LSU, Michigan beat Florida (who I
believe was SEC #2 or at least 3).
The others that come to mind ... the OSU win over Miami was not
convincing and takes a lot of heat for the very late flag. The PSU
win over FSU was much than bragging rights after a horrible game.
> My argument is that if the Big Ten got a single BCS game, and it was
> usually against the ACC, we'd be undefeated or damn close to undefeated
> in BCS games.
>
But it doesn't matter ... the perception is that the SEC is the
dominant conference, except when they lost to the Big East. The
perception was that Big 12 had a potential #1 until the BE beat them
by 20. Perception is just that ... say it enough times and people
believe it.
Look, the B10 takes heat for being "slow," but I don't think that
their 5-star recruits are that much slower than other 5 star
recruits. Unfortunately, in the BCS bowls, it appears that way.
> > But nobody argues the Big 10's place ... even though they've lost 7 of
> > their last 8 BCS games. Why? Because of money ... it has nothing to
> > do with performance. Is there a big difference between Illinois
> > losing 49-17 to USC and anyone else in the country losing by that
> > margin (or more)? Did anyone say, "whew, that was a close 32-point
> > game"?
>
> I'm making no argument that has any bearing on this point.
>
Sure you are ... you're arguing that there would be a better
perception of the Big10 if they only had one BCS bid and played the
lower-placed BCS champions. Isn't that what you wrote?
> I don't care about the ton of dough. Again, my point is simple - if
> only one Big Ten team was getting in each year, and that team never made
> the BCS championship game, the win-loss record would improve. You're
> pointing to specifics, like Penn State losing to USC.
>
Pointing to specifics, as in, 7 of the last 8 games?
Do you think the perception of the Big Ten would be better if it beat
the ACC and BE champion each year? I'm not sure that OSU beats WV in
2007/2008. But what would it matter ... the Big East has those wins
over the "power conference" champions and is still considered the
black sheep of the BCS.
> Look, let's reverse this. Do you think the Big East win percentage
> improves or gets worse if they were getting two teams in each year, one
> of which was playing in the championship game and the other playing
> either USC or Texas in the Rose?
>
The win percentage probably drops overall, but there might be a
championship in there from 2007. But if you're asking me about what I
think about the perception of the BE, you're asking the wrong
person ... even with upset wins over the powers when we've had a
chance, it's still the perceived dog of the BCS even with better
records than some of the other conferences.
> Cripes, it ain't rocket science. And it ain't all this other stuff
> you're trying to paint it with. I'm not making an argument that has
> anything to do with "mak(ing) a ton of dough", for instance.
>
I didn't say that you were ... but the Big Ten is not going to give up
a bowl slot to have a better win percentage (which you talk about) and
they're not going to give up the Rose Bowl slot (which, in some
seasons, might make for a better game).
> Why? Has nothing to do with my argument. Hell, in last year's
> spectacular BE VS ACC BCS game, the *higher* ranked team was #12. The
> question of whether we'd actually want a piece of that easy easy pie or
> not (we wouldn't) has no bearing on pointing out that playing such
> inferior competition would likely improve our win percentage.
>
So ... you're saying that your percentage would be higher if you
played such competition, but you don't want to do that? So what's the
problem? Take the checks and use them to get better on the field.
> The Big East champ four years ago (Pitt) was ranked #21. Three years
> ago, the ACC champ was ranked #22. Two years ago, it was Wake Forest at
> #14.
Yeah ... they didn't get at-large bids or bids due to contracts, did
they? They got in because they were conference champions, not because
one team is in the BCS and the second team gets the Rose Bowl by
default.
>
> > No, I don't, because by the time you get to the Rose Bowl, it's about
> > the money ... and the Big Ten wants two teams in the BCS whether or
> > not they deserve them. Frankly, the Big Ten couldn't care less if
> > each team lost 50-0, as long as they got two checks from the BCS each
> > year. If they really wanted to argue the point about who is the best
> > team in the land, they would promote a playoff and not adhere to the
> > "yeah, but regardless we at least get a team in the Rose Bowl, right?"
>
> Cripes, Tom - look at my original argument. I laid it out as simply as
> possible in my last reply:
>
> "Look, my point is simple. It stands to reason that if the Big Ten was
> only sending one team to the BCS each year, and that team (the best team
> in the Big Ten) *never* played in the BCS championship game (thus
> generally facing lesser opponents), they'd have a better BCS win
> percentage."
>
> Now look at what you wrote above. You don't think you've gone pretty
> @#%%ing far afield from what I was saying?
>
What are you arguing? At one point, you argue that if they don't send
two teams and the one that is sent plays a lesser opponent then the
perception will be better? I'm telling you that from a conference who
sent only 1 team to the BCS and in three consecutive years beat the
SEC, ACC and Big 12 champion, that is not the case. We went 3-0 and
beat the high/low of the BCS "strength" conferences and still had
there was the perception that the BE was a weak conference.
Enjoy the two teams each year ... enjoy the Big Ten basically blocking
the playoff scenario ... enjoy teams like OSU losing late in the
season and still going based on # of fans in spite of their
performance.
The conference has it good.