judging a conference

Donate To GopherHole
1

1983

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,287
Reaction score
683
Points
113
by bowl wins is ludicrous.
 

You mean because our #6 team can't beat the #3 team in another conference that we aren't as good as they are???

I am with you on this one, but unfortunately there are plenty of people who think differently. It is about as good of a measuring stick as we have this time of year, though. Right now, the Big Eleven......er Big TEN aren't stacking up too well, either....
 

How else can you do it?

Either way, it was a bad year for the BT.

I'm sure someone will add to this but the only decent win I can recall is PSU over Oregon St. That is poor.
 

At some point the Big Ten needs to show up.

The Big Ten's #7 team was Minnesota. We were beaten soundly by the 7th best team in the Big 12.

The Big Ten's #6 team was Wisconsin. The Badgers were smashed by the 3rd or 4th best team in the ACC.

The Big Ten's #5 team was Iowa. Iowa hammered the SEC's 6th or 7th best team.

The Big Ten's #4 team was Northwestern. They were beaten in OT by the Big 12's 4th or 5th best team.

The Big Ten's #3 team was Michigan State. They were defeated by double digits by the SEC's #3 team.

The Big Ten's #2 team was Ohio State. We'll see how they do against the Big 12's #2 unit.

The Big Ten's #1 team was Penn State. They were throttled by the Pac Ten's #1 team.
 

The ACC hasn't won a BCS game since 1999 or 2000.
 


DarrenTheGreek said:
The ACC hasn't won a BCS game since 1999 or 2000.
Click to expand...

All-time BCS records (not counting tonight's Orange Bowl):

Notre Dame 0-3 (.000)
ACC 1-9 (.100)
Big 12 6-8 (.429)
Big 10 8-10 (.444)
WAC 1-1 (.500)
Big East 6-4 (.600)
Pac Ten 9-4 (.692)
SEC 11-4 (.733)
MWC 1-0 (1.000)
 

tjgopher said:
At some point the Big Ten needs to show up.

The Big Ten's #7 team was Minnesota. We were beaten soundly by the 7th best team in the Big 12.

The Big Ten's #6 team was Wisconsin. The Badgers were smashed by the 3rd or 4th best team in the ACC.

The Big Ten's #5 team was Iowa. Iowa hammered the SEC's 6th or 7th best team.

The Big Ten's #4 team was Northwestern. They were beaten in OT by the Big 12's 4th or 5th best team.

The Big Ten's #3 team was Michigan State. They were defeated by double digits by the SEC's #3 team.

The Big Ten's #2 team was Ohio State. We'll see how they do against the Big 12's #2 unit.

The Big Ten's #1 team was Penn State. They were throttled by the Pac Ten's #1 team.
Click to expand...

You're missing most of the relevant facts...

Kansas was 4-4 in their conference. Minnesota was 3-5. Most agreed all season that The Big 12 was the toughest conference, many suggested the Big Ten was weak. Kansas played every top-ranked team in their conference. Meanwhile, Minnesota clearly benefitted from having PSU and Michigan State out of rotation. This was the Big Ten's second biggest mis-match.

FSU had the best conference record in the ACC. They beat the conference Chmapion, VA Tech, head-to-head. A lot to suggest FSU was , in fact the best team in the ACC. Florida State was 5-3 in conference. Wisconsin was 3-5 and really should have been 2-6. This was the Big Ten's biggest uphill battle.

Iowa was the 5th best Big Ten Team. South Carolina was the 6th best SEC team (no way they are the 7th, though they could be considered the 5th) Iowa had one more win in conference than SC did ... and SC was totally blown off the field. At no time was SC in the game at all.

#4 Northwestern had the exact same conference record as Missouri. Not surprisingly, this was the most even match-up sofar. Mizzou won because of a missed PAT. But wasn't the Big 12 supposed to be way better than the Big Ten? Hmmmm.

Michigan State and Georgia had the same conference record. This was a close game. A short drive for Georgia (essentially a home game for them). The game was close. The double-digit margin you refer to was 10. 10 is the lowest double digit margin possible, and (if you watched the game) certainly not a blowout. I like Michigan State's odds of winning by 10+ had the game been played at Soldier Field. Georgia was ranked #1 at one point this year.

Ohio State is 7-1 in conference and so is Texas. But Texas beat Oklahoma (the Big 12's #1 team). Meanwhile, Ohio State lost to Penn State (the Big Ten's #1). If the trend holds, Texas should win by about 7-14 points.

The Pac Ten demonstrated that they are better than any other conference durring the bowl games using virtually any measure. What they did this season was legendary. USC would probably have beat Texas, Oklahoma or Florida by a similar margin as they beat Penn State. This is the only Big Ten bowl game that we really learned anything from. And it wasn't all that surprising because OSU stepped-up and played USC already this year and similarly got killed. USC is in a different league.
 

alpinegopher said:
How else can you do it?

Either way, it was a bad year for the BT.

I'm sure someone will add to this but the only decent win I can recall is PSU over Oregon St. That is poor.
Click to expand...

If you just look at bowl teams you are only looking at the best teams in the conference. Washington and Washington State were two of the worst ten teams in the entire country. If you just look at Bowl records you ignore that the Pac 10 only qualified 5 teams while the ACC qualified 10 teams, the Big 10 qualified 7, etc.

It is just one more measurement of a conference.
 

Goldmember said:
You're missing most of the relevant facts.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree that I'm missing the most relevant facts. Your facts show that each equivalent team from the other conferences has a better record than the Big Ten team and therefore shouldn't have won. So, your facts basically show the Big Ten stinks, too. So, congrats on backing up my basic point that the Big Ten needs to show up sometime in bowl games. I'm a huge Big Ten homer, but this is a year that they had a chance to quiet some critics and they've only allowed the critics voice to grow louder.

And, yes South Carolina is the 7th best team in the SEC. Florida, Alabama, Ole Miss, Georgia, and LSU all had better records while Vanderbilt had same record and beat South Carolina head-to-head. South Carolina was outscored in its final three games 118-30.

And, not to quibble, but MSU's loss to Georgia was by 12 and I disagree about that game being that close. Georgia was very close to running MSU off the field in the second half. If not for a tipped INT in the first half, MSU would have been even further out of it. MSU couldn't muster anything offensively. So, the SEC's #3 team was 12 points better than the Big Ten's #3 team in a down year for the SEC.
 



Grunkie
Why shouldn't we just look at bowl games? The BT has nothing else to go by this year. The second biggest win out of conference could have been Purdue over Cent Michigan, really? Maybe Wisky over Fresno St. Don't say Notre Dame

Nobody cares to compare Indiana with Washington St. The Pac 10 also plays a tougher schedule than the BT, maybe that's why they only had 5 teams in bowls.
 

No one mentioned USC beating the stuffings out of Ohio State earlier in the season. Look for Florida to kick the crap out of Oklahoma. In reality, the Big12's offensive success was aided greatly by the poor defensive play in the Big12. Pac10 was way down this season but still managed to go 5-0 in the bowl season. For some reason, many Pac10 teams start their seasons very slow and then pick up as the year progresses. Oregon and Oregon State were cases in point. Another oddity about the Pac10 is the ability of the lower echelon teams to beat their big brothers. This seems to happen more often in the Pac10 and SEC than in other conferences.
 

Rating the Big 10 bowl performances so far

Iowa (B+): Hawks did what they were supposed to vs. a very mediocre SEC team. Nice finish to the season by Hawks. Something to build on, even with loss of Greene.

Northwestern (B): Though Mizzou was a disappointment this season, Wildcats have nothing to be ashamed of. NW really probably deserved to win this game but just couldn't finish. Something to build on.

Michigan State (B-): A decent showing by Sparty, as most (myself included) figured this would be a rout. Actually, lead should have been bigger than 6-3 at halftime, but mediocre QBing eventually catches up to a team. Defense surprisingly -- like last year vs. Matt Ryan -- held up OK vs. a top-shelf QB. Not getting waxed (like OSU & Penn St) something to build on, but who will replace Ringer?

Penn State (D+): The 14-point deficit doesn't do justice to USC's dominance. Wasn't expecting the Nitts to win, but once again Big 10 lays a double-digit tird in a BCS game. Does anyone really think JoePa is running this program? I half expected to see him eating nachos & sipping on a coke in the press box.

Minnesota (D): Avoid the F with the first two scoring drives. Defense starting to flash back to "olden days," making a 7-5 squad look like world-beaters. 0-5 finish means Gophs need to beat Syracuse in their opener or the natives will truly start getting restless, even though it's only Year 3 of the Brew regime.
 

tjgopher said:
Your facts show that each equivalent team from the other conferences has a better record than the Big Ten team and therefore shouldn't have won. So, your facts basically show the Big Ten stinks, too.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I don't see how a Big Ten team getting beat-up by ANOTHER Big Ten teams means that the "conference stinks." Conference inferiority can only be demonstarted when a team with MORE conference losses beats a team with FEWER conference losses in an out-of-conference game. That did not happen this year in any Big Ten bowl. They are not a conference's "equivalent team" if they have a better record in their conference, regardless of "conference ranking." A team's ranking within their conference is a meaningless comparative metric, because the major conferences all have a different number of teams. For comparing confereces, it only makes sense if you look at a team's conference record. Record, not ranking.

By the way ... LSU had a worse conference record than SC. And that's the only fair measure, because LSU plays a ridiculous NC schedule. SC also plays in the SEC East, which was far-superior to the soft SEC-West. SC lost to Vandy head-to-head, which is why they were #6 in the SEC instead of #5.
 



Goldmember said:
:confused:

They are not a conference's "equivalent team" if they have a better record in their conference, regardless of "conference ranking."
Click to expand...

Now, I'm confused. I totally disagree with that. It is too tough to cross-compare conferences based on conference records, IMO. You said it yourself that different competition, different number of teams, etc. How do we know that 3-5 in the SEC is worse than 4-4 in the Big Ten? We don't. Therefore the only way to do it is with equivalent teams - meaning relative terms. Compare how one conference's best stacked up against the other conference's best - regardless of record...and on down the line. That's the best way, IMO.

In other words, the Big Ten's 3rd best team vs. the SEC's third best team. How'd it turn out? Bad for the Big Ten.

Compare the Big Ten's 4th best team against the Big 12's 5th best team. How'd it turn out? Bad for the Big Ten.

Compare the Big Ten's best team against the Pac Ten's best team. How'd it turn out? Bad for the Big Ten.

Compare the Big Ten's second best team to the Big 12's second best team. We'll know Jan. 5th how that turns out.

You get the idea. The fact that the Big Ten teams had poorer conference records doesn't mean anything really. So, the only way to compare is with equivalent placed teams. And, the Big Ten hasn't exactly stood up very well.

Basically, you seem to be saying that since the Big Ten wasn't favored in the "equivalent" games that they lost the game they were supposed to so it isn't that bad (or something like that.) The fact is the Big Ten was not favored and did not win any of these games shows the conference to be not very good, IMO. At some point, they have to win some of those games to gain back the respect.
 

What would have happened if...

... things had not fallen into place the way they did and Ohio State did NOT get a BCS invite?

Then instead of
1. Penn State BCS (Rose)/USC Lost
2. Ohio State BCS (Fiesta)/Texas Probably Lose
3. Michigan State Capital One/Georgia Lost
4. Iowa Outback/S.Carolina Won
5. Northwestern Alamo/Missouri Lost
6. Wisconsin Champs/FSU Lost
7. Minnesota Insight/Kansas Lost
NOTE: Iowa is listed as #4 team because they jumped NW in the bowl order.

The Big Ten bowl schedule would have looked like this:
1. Penn State BCS (Rose)/USC Still lose
2. Ohio State Capital One/Georgia
3. Michigan State Outback/S.Carolina
4. Iowa Alamo/Missouri
5. Northwestern Champs/FSU
6. Wisconsin Insight/Kansas
7. Minnesota Motor City/C.Michigan

I think Ohio State beats Georgia (although Stafford did play pretty well in the 2nd half- so who knows), Michigan State pounds S.Carolina, Iowa beats Missouri, NW loses to FSU, Wisconsin loses to Kansas, and Minnesota beats C.Michigan.
So the B10 is 4-3. Not great, but better.
 

How can you say the Pac 10 plays a tougher schedule...that's what this discussion is about. Your schedule is only as tough as your conference, so by saying that you are saying that the Pac 10 is better, so you have provided no information with that statement.
 

StPaulHawkeye said:
... What would have happened if...things had not fallen into place the way they did and Ohio State did NOT get a BCS invite?
Click to expand...

But, if we're playing that game, then don't we also have to wonder what would have happened had Alabama not gotten a BCS berth or Texas, too? In other words, the SEC also had a second team get in and had to "play up" yet they are now 4-1.
 

That's a great post, st. paul hawkeye and I agree with you there.

If the Big Ten continues to look so bad in the bowls though you have to wonder if they will continue to get the extra BCS bids. The league is probably 4th in conference prestige as the SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10 and is going to have to start winning these non conference as well as bowl games. If OSU were to beat Texas that would be a huge win for the conference, but right now that isn't looking too likely.
 

That's true, tjgopher. Maybe I'm just trying to rationalize and find a way to explain the B10's record this year.
 

I'm pretty sure this is the only way to compare conferences, imperfect as it may be. Head-to-head match-ups with comparable non-conference opponents in terms of each team's conference ranking would be the only way to compare conferences top-to-bottom.

I used to cheer against rival big ten teams in bowl games, because hey, they're rivals. Now, I cheer for the Big 10 since its been way down lately (and sinking). If anyone on this board thinks the Big 10 is as good or comparable to other conferences as it used to be, they need to keep off the hash pipe for a couple years.

That being said, I think the newer coaches (Ill, MN, MSU, NU) are starting to improve some of the historically mid- to lower tier teams. Here's to an improved 2009-2010 season.
 

tjgopher said:
Basically, you seem to be saying that since the Big Ten wasn't favored in the "equivalent" games that they lost the game they were supposed to so it isn't that bad (or something like that.) The fact is the Big Ten was not favored and did not win any of these games shows the conference to be not very good, IMO. At some point, they have to win some of those games to gain back the respect.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I am saying that Big Ten teams have played a few teams that had an easier time playing in their respective conferences than the Big Ten teams had playing in theirs. It is impossible to compare conference strength using these bowl games, because only Northwestern and Michigan State played teams that had a similar in-conferece experiences as their opponents.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that some conferences do not have 12 teams.

We will learn a lot from OSU/Texas. If OSU wins, the Big 12 was obviously terribly over-rated all season long and USC was screwed out of a chance to play Florida for the NC.
 

FreakyDeke said:
How can you say the Pac 10 plays a tougher schedule...that's what this discussion is about. Your schedule is only as tough as your conference, so by saying that you are saying that the Pac 10 is better, so you have provided no information with that statement.
Click to expand...

It is very easy to say the Pac 10 plays a tougher schedule. Just look at the facts. They also play 9 conference games. So you can replace a MAC team or 1-AA with another conference foe. The out of conference teams they play blow the BT's OOC teams out of the water.
 

Goldmember said:
It is impossible to compare conference strength using these bowl games.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a bit of an overstatement. I think it is not only far from impossible, but quite possible to draw some conclusions. There are enough equivalents (certainly more than just MSU-UGA and NU-MU). MN-KU were both 7th best in conference, both PSU-USC were 1st best in conference, and OSU-TX will also be a matchup of the 2nd best in each conference. So, no, I don't think it is impossible to compare.

That said, I'm not saying it is the end-all and be-all, but to say it is impossible to draw any conclusions is simply silly. You can quite easily look at the comparatives and say the Big Ten is down. It really is that simple. And, I'm a Big Ten homer.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom