Big Ten trying to repair its bad reputation for bowl losses

Donate To GopherHole
station19

station19

Moderator
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
22,605
Reaction score
1
Points
36
"No matter how you frame it, the Big Ten’s recent bowl history has been abysmal.

In the BCS era (since 1998), Big Ten teams are 47-61 in bowl games, the worst mark for any of the power conferences.

The Big Ten is 0-2 this season, and it would be 0-4 counting losses by incoming members Rutgers and Maryland. The Gophers added to the league’s woes, losing to Syracuse, despite being a four-point favorite. One night later, Michigan got humiliated in a 31-14 loss to Kansas State."


http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophers/238330141.html
 

It's not going so well so far...
 

Iceland12 said:
It's not going so well so far...
Click to expand...

Michigan St. is looking pretty good against Stanford. Other than the stupid pick 6 and fumble in the red zone. The only team stopping the Spartans right now is the Spartans.
 

Also, I don't think the earlier games were too bad. They were all close and, considering both Iowa and Wisconsin lost their starting QBs in the middle of the game, it could have been a lot worse.
 

The Big Ten is usually the visiting team in most of these bowl games. We as a conference are usually at a disadvantage. I also seems that we are the lower ranked team in a lot of these bowl games. I know the Gophers were picked to win. Just saying that these games are not played on a neutral field.
 


MNSpaniel said:
The Big Ten is usually the visiting team in most of these bowl games. We as a conference are usually at a disadvantage. I also seems that we are the lower ranked team in a lot of these bowl games. I know the Gophers were picked to win. Just saying that these games are not played on a neutral field.
Click to expand...

Well once we start playing in the Zigi Bowl that will take care of that crap.:cool02:
 

You guys are right of course, but no matter how right you are all the rest of the country does is look at the scores and says "gees the Big ten sucks again". :eek:

Yeah Spartans! Now the tOSU has to hold serve and we go 3-3 with two BCS wins.
 

Iceland12 said:
You guys are right of course, but no matter how right you are all the rest of the country does is look at the scores and says "gees the Big ten sucks again". :eek:

Yeah Spartans! Now the tOSU has to hold serve and we go 3-3 with two BCS wins.
Click to expand...

And without the Gophers laying an egg it could have been 4-2.
 




Iceland12 said:
You guys are right of course, but no matter how right you are all the rest of the country does is look at the scores and says "gees the Big ten sucks again". :eek:

Yeah Spartans! Now the tOSU has to hold serve and we go 3-3 with two BCS wins.
Click to expand...

The BT has already lost four games (Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin). The best the conference can go is 3-4.
 



station19 said:
Way to go Ice. You just shipwrecked the Math Dept.:banghead:
Click to expand...

Nah, just didn't believe they could get Seven Bowl Teams out of that "collection" this year. Even worse, counting our Eastern newcomers performance this Bowl Season, the B1G teams could end-up 2-7..:roll eyes:

But on to 3 and 4 and happier thoughts! :drink:
 



MNSpaniel said:
The Big Ten is usually the visiting team in most of these bowl games. We as a conference are usually at a disadvantage. I also seems that we are the lower ranked team in a lot of these bowl games. I know the Gophers were picked to win. Just saying that these games are not played on a neutral field.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed elsewhere, but to say we are at a disadvantage because of the rankings is to assume the conclusion. Your point about the geographic location is well-taken, but assuming a true "neutral" site, I think the best way to determine if it is a "fair" matchup is to compare conference records. For example, in the three games against the SEC, we had the same conference record as our opponent in all of them, so it should be a fair way to compare the conferences. We one 1 of 3.
 

The Big Ten is lucky that Georgia's qb was injured. I have no doubts that Georgia would have creamed Nebraska with aMurray. The Big Ten just isn't that good at football. It will continue to decline until the north outgains the south in population. It really is a math problem, and the Big Ten is on the wrong side of the equation.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The Big Ten is lucky that Georgia's qb was injured. I have no doubts that Georgia would have creamed Nebraska with aMurray. The Big Ten just isn't that good at football. It will continue to decline until the north outgains the south in population. It really is a math problem, and the Big Ten is on the wrong side of the equation.
Click to expand...

Or until enough USF's and UCF's start up in the populous areas to water down the talent.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The Big Ten is lucky that Georgia's qb was injured. I have no doubts that Georgia would have creamed Nebraska with aMurray. The Big Ten just isn't that good at football. It will continue to decline until the north outgains the south in population. It really is a math problem, and the Big Ten is on the wrong side of the equation.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Nebraska's starting quarterback out as well?

Didn't Iowa lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Didn't Wisconsin lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Wasn't Michigan's starting quarterback inactive for the game?
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
The Big Ten is lucky that Georgia's qb was injured. I have no doubts that Georgia would have creamed Nebraska with aMurray. The Big Ten just isn't that good at football. It will continue to decline until the north outgains the south in population. It really is a math problem, and the Big Ten is on the wrong side of the equation.
Click to expand...

Georgia was still favored to win, even without Murray. As much crap as Taylor Martinez gets, he was still a very good player and play maker. Also add in that both Iowa and Wisconsin's starting QB's got hurt yesterday.

As for the talent in the south thing, I think it has a lot more to do with the culture. Kids in the south just play a lot more football. I bet kids in Texas will have played more football by the time they're entering 9th grade than most MN kids play in their lifetime. They even have spring football in most southern states.
 

maroonedinCA said:
Wasn't Nebraska's starting quarterback out as well?

Didn't Iowa lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Didn't Wisconsin lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Wasn't Michigan's starting quarterback inactive for the game?
Click to expand...

Not just the QB:

"Nebraska quarterback Taylor Martinez is doubtful with a hip injury, and has missed 8 of the last 9 games. Martinez has completed 62.7% for 667 yards with 10 touchdowns and 2 interceptions, along with 40 carries for 117 yards. Two little used receivers Richard Wynne, Jr. and Ishmail Jackson are both suspended for violating team rules. Six defensive players and two offensive linemen are listed as questionable or out, including Avery Moss. Moss was a steady contributor this season after playing in every game and spending some brief time as a starter on the defensive line. Moss has shown good ability to get to the quarterback and is second on the Huskers roster with 4.5 sacks this season."

All that said as G.I.I mentioned Georgia was still expected to roll over them.
 

Over .500 would have been nice, but 3-4 with wins in both BCS games would be a success in my book. Not sure how much stock we should put in the Big Ten losing the BWW and Texas bowls.

If OSU can win tomorrow night, 2-2 in the most signfiicant bowl games (Rose, Orange, Capital One, Outback) would be a solid performance. ... something to build on and hopefully stem the (deserved) Big Ten bashing to a certain degree.

I just wish we'd hear the SEC's mouthpiece (ESPN) bash the ACC as much as it does the Big Ten. The ACC is awful -- much, much worse than the Big Ten -- but we barely hear a peep from the Mother Ship about how putrid the ACC is. Take a look at the ACC's record in BCS games, and please tell me why the Big Ten takes tons more flak than the ACC.
 

maroonedinCA said:
Wasn't Nebraska's starting quarterback out as well?

Didn't Iowa lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Didn't Wisconsin lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Wasn't Michigan's starting quarterback inactive for the game?
Click to expand...

The Big Ten is not far off. Will Texas come after Dantonio? He would destroy the Big 12 with his system every year.
 

GophersInIowa said:
Georgia was still favored to win, even without Murray. As much crap as Taylor Martinez gets, he was still a very good player and play maker. Also add in that both Iowa and Wisconsin's starting QB's got hurt yesterday.

As for the talent in the south thing, I think it has a lot more to do with the culture. Kids in the south just play a lot more football. I bet kids in Texas will have played more football by the time they're entering 9th grade than most MN kids play in their lifetime. They even have spring football in most southern states.
Click to expand...

I don't know about other states ( I think Oklahoma does this too ) but in Texas football , basketball etc are a regular class in school. In our district we are on alternating block schedule, 4 classes a day for 1 1/2 hours. Athletic is double blocked meaning the kids have the class every day. Athletes spend 1/4 of their high school career in these classes. Its one of the reasons why why we have the best athletes and some of the lowest test scores in the country.
 

maroonedinCA said:
Wasn't Nebraska's starting quarterback out as well?

Didn't Iowa lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Didn't Wisconsin lose their starting quarterback during the game?

Wasn't Michigan's starting quarterback inactive for the game?
Click to expand...

Good points. I think the discrepancy between the two missing qbs is much greater on Georgia's side. Murray will play in the NFL, Martinez won't.

Iowa also played LSU without their NFL qb who is expected to be drafted on day one or day two. Iowa would've gotten creamed by more if both teams had their qbs.

Wisconsin may have won their game with Stave. I won't say they would have won, but they definitely could have won with him.

Michigan would have lost regardless. Their team quit. They are pathetically bad right now.
 

Gopherguy0723 said:
Good points. I think the discrepancy between the two missing qbs is much greater on Georgia's side. Murray will play in the NFL, Martinez won't.

Iowa also played LSU without their NFL qb who is expected to be drafted on day one or day two. Iowa would've gotten creamed by more if both teams had their qbs.

Wisconsin may have won their game with Stave. I won't say they would have won, but they definitely could have won with him.

Michigan would have lost regardless. Their team quit. They are pathetically bad right now.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, if the SEC is as good as they appear to be be let's not get carried away when they have to go to their 2nd String guys. Georgia, LSU, Alabama, they are good year after year and it's not because they can't replace a QB that graduates or heads to the NFL. If that was true, they'd have a lot of 7-5, 8-4 seasons following a 11-1 or 10-2 one and they don't.

Also, from what we've seen this past year SEC Defenses have given-up a whole lot of points. They are a lot of good Quarterbacks down there.
 

MNSpaniel said:
The Big Ten is usually the visiting team in most of these bowl games. We as a conference are usually at a disadvantage. I also seems that we are the lower ranked team in a lot of these bowl games. I know the Gophers were picked to win. Just saying that these games are not played on a neutral field.
Click to expand...

The visiting thing is certainly valid in some cases, Michigan State playing Stanford in California is certainly an example. Not sure you can lump us in there though because we very definitely were on a neutral field given that we played a team from New York in Texas.
 

MNVCGUY said:
The visiting thing is certainly valid in some cases, Michigan State playing Stanford in California is certainly an example.
Click to expand...

In most years I would agree with you, but Michigan State was much more of a home team yesterday than Stanford was. By all reports Pasadena and the Rose Bowl stadium were taken over by green and white clad fans. It was very evident on TV who had more fans in the stands, and whose fans were more vocal. It had more the feel of a Michigan State home game than a Stanford home game.
 

SelectionSunday said:
In most years I would agree with you, but Michigan State was much more of a home team yesterday than Stanford was. By all reports Pasadena and the Rose Bowl stadium were taken over by green and white clad fans. It was very evident on TV who had more fans in the stands, and whose fans were more vocal. It had more the feel of a Michigan State home game than a Stanford home game.
Click to expand...

Good point about the crowd but there are other factors that give a team "home field advantage." In particular, the weather is probably the biggest factor. I'd argue that Standford was better suited for the conditions than MSU. In most cases, the southern location of most bowl games works against B1G teams. That said, I'll take my chances in FL, TX, and CA over say NY, Detroit (I know, it's a dome) or Boise.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom