All Golden All Gopher
Member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 6
Going by the Michigan/Michigan State BCS bid scenario, it's basically saying that the team that wasn't even good enough to go to the conference title game is better than the team that lost it, not to mention the Spartans beat the Wolverines head to head. Is the team that loses the Super Bowl then considered worse than the team they beat in the conference title game? Not a perfect analogy I know.
I just think it's kind of dumb that winning your division, which should prove that you are better than all the other teams in your division, but losing in the conference title game knocks essentially knocks you down a peg in your own division. Winning the division seems like it should be absolutely better than not winning it, but as it stands, you're probably in a better spot for bowl selection by finishing 2nd in your division than by winning your division and losing the conference championship game.
Long story short, there is a scenario where finishing second in your division is advantageous to finishing first, which doesn't seem right.
On the "Is this a signature win?" thread, most responses seemed to be "not even close," so I don't think there are very many posters saying that beating an unranked Northwestern team is something to hang your hat on, and more a sign that Northwestern is either overrated or lacking depth.
They don't make their Big Ten schedule, but that doesn't mean it's not relatively easy. They dodge Michigan, Michigan State, and Nebraska, arguably the three best teams in the Legends right now, and they haven't played BYU yet. The Badgers are 5-2 right now, and I think the Gophers probably would be too if they played the same schedule, or at least 4-3.
Similar happened the year Alabama played LSU for the National Championship. Alabama didn't win their division so didn't play in conference championship game but played in national championship game. A little different as they were obviously a good team.