Grading the Big Ten's Bowl Performance in the BCS Era
by UpUpDownDown on Jul 1, 2011 10:52 PM CDT
Email
Print[BH: Bumped for sheer analytic awesomeness.]
January 1st, 2011 - the "Worst day in Big Ten football history" - saw the league go 0-5 in its bowls on a New Year's Day to forget. The reactions were instant and the Big Ten's image took a hit even greater (perhaps) than "Legends and Leaders". There is nothing quite like bowl performance in shaping a conference's perception around the college football world. The concentration and quality of the the games during bowl season makes for an ideal conference measuring stick, and fan attention is at its peak.
The book on the Big-Ten-in-the-bowls wasn't written in one bad day - the Big Ten has been getting criticized over bowls for a while now. Is that criticism fair, or is too much being made of a bad day or two? After all, that 0-5 New Year's Day debacle was part of a not-terrible 3-5 overall bowl season that included a BCS victory and two wins over top 15 teams. Crazy days happen, but if the doubters are right and the Big Ten really has a bowl problem we should be able to see it given enough time. Here I've tried to do exactly that. I've looked into the Big Ten's bowl performances in the BCS era - from 1998-2010 - to see if the B1G's bad bowl rap is deserved and, if possible, identify some of the reasons for the league's results.
First let's take a look at how each conference has performed in the BCS era so we can see how the Big Ten stacks up against its peers:
| Bowl Record | |||
| Conference | BCS Era | Since 2005 | BCS Record |
| ACC* | 56-52 | 22-28 | 5-13 |
| Big East* | 30-28 | 21-11 | 3-5 |
| Big 12 | 48-50 | 24-23 | 8-10 |
| Big Ten | 41-48 | 16-28 | 11-12 |
| Pac Ten° | 35-36 | 19-14 | 10-6 |
| SEC | 61-44 | 33-19 | 15-6 |
| * The ACC and Big East changed membership during the BCS time period (1998-2010). These numbers are calculated as if the 2010 conference configuration held over that whole time, so the ACC is credited with Miami/VA Tech/BC's full bowl records. ° All bowl results are included, regardless of later NCAA action (USC). | |||
The Big Ten's overall bowl record is far from catastrophic, but its not great. The good: the Big Ten has more BCS victories than any conference outside the SEC, and more BCS appearances than any other conference. The bad: the Big Ten's overall bowl winning percentage of 46% lags behind every other BCS conference, and recent results are markedly worse with the league winning only 36% of its bowls since 2005.
The Big Ten need not apologize for its bowl performances, especially in the BCS, but lackluster recent returns are a cause for concern. What is responsible for the Big Ten's low bowl winning percentage? And better yet - How can the conference improve? The key to that goal might be found in a more straightforward question: What (or who) is dragging down the Big Ten's bowl record?
The Big Ten's bowl problems aren't at the top
If you're a fan of the Big Ten I'm sure you've heard a few invectives tossed Ohio State's way for its failures on the big stage. There is no denying that the 2007 NCG loss to Florida was seminal moment for the conference's reputation. That game had a large part in convincing a lot of people that the Big Ten's shortcomings lie at the top. Yes, the lack of recent National Championships is undeniable, but it has to be stressed that this is not a problem unique to the Big Ten - it's one shared by every conference not named the SEC. So, with 41-14 now comfortably in the past, can we answer the question of where the Big Ten's postseason problems truly reside?
| School | Bowl Record | BCS Record | ||
 |
Ohio State Buckeyes | 7-5 | 6-3 | |
| Ohio State has been the undisputed conference standard bearer in the BCS era. Not only does Ohio State have more BCS wins and appearances than any other program in the country, they have as many BCS wins as the rest of the Big Ten + Nebraska combined. The spot on their record: Ohio State is only 1-4 vs. the SEC in bowls, but 7-1 against everyone else. | ||||
 |
||||
 |
Wisconsin Badgers | 7-5 | 2-1 | |
| Even after last year's Rose Bowl disappointment Wisconsin is still second to Ohio State in BCS-era bowl record, and the only program outside of Ohio State with multiple BCS wins. Bret Bielema has big shoes to fill when it comes to the big bowls, Barry Alvarez was 3-0 in the Rose Bowl. | ||||
 |
Iowa Hawkeyes | 6-3 | 1-1 | |
| Iowa under Kirk Ferentz has performed admirably in bowls, although Herky has to be disappointed that his two BCS trips were to the Orange Bowl rather than the Rose Bowl. The ending of Iowa's win over LSU in 2004 was one of the great bowl finishes of all time. |
||||
 |
Penn State Nittany Lions | 6-3 | 1-1 | |
| Penn State has been a strong bowl performer for the Big Ten, but that's no surprise - Joe Pa's bowl exploits are legendary. Coach Paterno is 24–12–1 in bowls and has won every one of the major bowls (BCS + Cotton). Can Nebraska offer the same kind of boost to the B1G that Penn State has? | ||||
|
||||
 |
Michigan Wolverines | 5-6 | 1-3 | |
| Michigan needs Hoke to change its bowl fortunes because this program is living on borrowed time. Dominant at the start of the BCS era - Michigan is 1-5 in its last 6 bowl games, 0-3 in the Rose Bowl since 2003, and last year's return from a two year bowl absence was an embarrassment. | ||||
|
||||
 |
Purdue Boilermakers | 3-6 | 0-1 | |
| Purdue was a solid Big Ten program for most of the BCS era. They were the only team other than Michigan to go to a bowl every season from 1998-2006 - most of which lost. Purdue's last bowl win was a 51-48 squeaker against MAC power Central Michigan in 2007, and Boiler Pete hasn't been bowling since. | ||||
 |
Illinois Fighting Illini | 2-2 | 0-2 | |
| The ability of Illinois to get itself into (and lose) BCS bowls it shouldn't be anywhere near is well known. Perhaps overlooked is that in the few cases the Illini have found themselves in an appropriate bowl the team has performed quite well, posting convincing 63-21 and 38-14 wins. | ||||
 |
Minnesota Golden Gophers | 3-6 | 0-0 | |
| Minnesota has shown a unique ability to get itself bowl eligible, but barely. As a result Minnesota has frequented the Sun Bowl/Music City Bowl/Insight Bowl, while being absent from any bowl fans outside of Dinkytown would care about. Unfortunately, this parade of minor bowls hasn't turned into a winning record. As a demonstration of statistical oddities: Minnesota was 3-1 vs. Alabama, Arkansas and Oregon in bowls - and 0-5 vs. the murderer's row of NC State, Virginia, Texas Tech, Kansas and Iowa State. | ||||
 |
Michigan State Spartans | 2-5 | 0-0 | |
| Last year's 49-7 drubbing at the hands of Alabama after a Big Ten co-championship season was discouraging, but its the big picture of Sparty's bowl performance that is more worrisome. Mark Dantonio has yet to win a bowl game, and Michigan State is sitting on a 5 game bowl losing streak that stretches back a decade. | ||||
 |
Northwestern Wildcats | 0-6 | 0-0 | |
| Northwestern has not won a bowl game since 1949. | ||||
 |
Indiana Hoosiers | 0-1 | 0-0 | |
| Indiana has not been a good football team in a very long time. | ||||
|
||||
 |
Nebraska Cornhuskers | 6-5 | 1-1 | |
| Nebraska is a fantastic addition to the Big Ten - and looks like it will be a solid contributor in the postseason as well. Will the Huskers' 3-0 bowl record vs. the Big Ten bode well for their performance in their new conference? | ||||
The Big Ten conveniently separates into four tiers based on BCS-era bowl performances. First, a Blue Ribbon for conference standard-bearer Ohio State. Not only has OSU lapped the conference in terms of BCS wins, they lead the entire country in both BCS appearances and victories. Red Ribbons for the next group of Wisconsin, Iowa and Penn State. Each of these three programs posted a winning bowl record and won at least one BCS bowl during the BCS era. Together these four programs are the current on-the-field Big Four of the Big Ten, and they have both been filling the conference's places in the Big Bowls and performing once they get there. The Big Four was 26-16 in all bowls, and 10-6 in BCS games, while matching up against the strongest competition in the Big Ten's bowl lineup.
As for the rest of the conference... it's hard to sugarcoat - they are failing. Michigan gets a Yellow Ribbon in honor of its BCS victory, but recent results place Michigan with the rest of the conference rather than the Big Four. And as for that rest of the conference, the remaining six programs? Frowns and Brown Ribbons for all. The conference outside the Big 4 was 15-32 in bowl games in the BCS era (1-6 in BCS games). To make it worse, those lousy results were accumulated mainly in the bottom of the Big Ten's bowl order against presumably weaker opponents. It is here, in the middle of the conference, that the Big Ten's bowl problems lie.
The Big Ten faces the most difficult bowl slate
I've aimed the blame squarely at the Big Ten's middle class as being who is behind the Big Ten's bowl troubles, but now is time to take a step back and consider just what it is they are up against. First, it's a fact, the Big Ten "plays up" more than any other conference because of its ability to put two teams in the BCS every year. And its not the top programs that are most affected, its the middle class - whether in the form of undeserved promotions to the BCS (2007 Illinois) or a constant increase in the quality of their bowl opponents (Northwestern and Michigan State annually). Second, the Big Ten schedules the very best bowl opponents. After the BCS matchups are two (now 3) against the top selections from the SEC, and a remaining schedule filled out with faceoffs "up" against the Big 12. As a result, the Big Ten's bowl lineup has been, and will continue to be, more difficult than that faced by any other conference.
| Conference | % of Bowl Opponents in BCS Conference |
% of Bowl Opponents in AP Top 25 |
| Big Ten | 95% | 67% |
| SEC | 92% | 61% |
| Big 12 | 88% | 54% |
| Pac 12 | 76% | 56% |
| ACC | 83% | 43% |
| Big East | 62% | 31% |
Over the BCS era the Big Ten played more BCS conference opponents and more ranked opponents than any other conference, and outside the SEC its not even close. And that's not all - the Big Ten's plays those opponents "on the road" in virtually all of its bowl games. The Rose Bowl is in LA. The Capital One/Outback/Gator Bowl matchups with the SEC are in Florida. The Texas and TicketCity Bowls against the Big 12 are in Texas. Its easy to make too much of this - these game happen in front of healthy Big Ten traveling crowds - but while that lessens the advantage it doesn't negate it entirely. Imagine the reverse for a moment - how much would the Big Ten team benefit in a high-profile bowl hosted in Big Ten country?
The Big Ten's difficult slate happens for a very good reason - the fans want to travel where its warm and the bowls want those Big Ten fans. And really, this is a blessing - a good season in the Big Ten will be rewarded with a good bowl. But that blessing does come with a minor downside - when bowl performance is evaluated purely in wins and losses the Big Ten will be disadvantaged when compared to conferences like the ACC and Big East that schedule their way to winning bowl records.
Looking back and hope for the future
The bowl matchups are difficult and the middle class is underperforming, but those challenges don't seem to have changed over the past decade and a half. Why then did the Big Ten's bowl performances take a turn for the worse around 2005? Some of it is just cyclical ebb and flow, but my speculation is that two major events from around that time had significant negative knock-on consequences for the league's bowl winning percentage. In 2006 the BCS added a separate BCS championship game, bringing the number of BCS games up to five. Before this there were only 2 at-large BCS bids and the Big Ten wasn't an annual lock for a second bid. However, since the addition of that game the Big Ten has sent a second team to the BCS every season. So the "playing up" effect that results from BCS at-large selections really kicked in after 2005. Second, with the benefit of hindsight this is the time period over which Michigan was starting the decline that culminated in the full-scale fall from grace of recent years. The absence of Michigan from the top of the bowl pecking order moved everyone "up" again, and Michigan's newfound propensity for losing bowls contributed as well.
So, looking forward, can the Big Ten do better? That difficult bowl slate isn't going away, Michigan may or may not come back, and the BCS has no reason to stop taking two from the B1G. The good news is that the addition of Nebraska is sure to help, but the issues at top-performer Ohio State seem likely to cancel that out (or worse). Going forward, the Big Ten's hopes for stepping up its bowl performance rests squarely on the Big Ten middle class - can they turn it around and start winning bowl games, challenges be damned? I think they can. For starters, they have two great models to follow right in front of their noses - Wisconsin and Iowa are programs the non-elite in the Big Ten can relate to and they've been getting it done come bowl season for some time now. Further, I think the conditions are right, and the coaching is there, for the Iowa/Wiscy model of good coaching and a serious approach to bowl game preparation to be adopted at several of the underachieving programs. Northwestern, you've got Pat Fitzgerald locked in for the long haul - now its time to be taken seriously and win a bowl game. Michigan State, I hear Dantonio is great - come join Iowa and Wisconsin in the Big Ten 2nd tier by winning your bowl games. Michigan, you got your Michigan man - now show us you're back by winning a bowl game again.
Finally, I know there are those that think only the Big Bowls matter, and that winning the lesser bowls won't change a thing about the conference's reputation. I disagree. Sure, if the Big Ten wants to knock the SEC off its perch, its going to need National Titles. But in terms of the jockeying with every other conference, those other games matter. That "Worst day in Big Ten football history" was just one win in a lesser bowl away from being a footnote to a solid 4-4 bowl season rather than a week-long talking point. The chest-thumping about undefeated bowl seasons like the Pac Ten's in 2008 can't happen without winning the little ones as well. Every bowl is worth winning. The top of the B1G is all right - now it's time for the muddled middle to step up and start winning the games that lift all boats.
117 comments
|
8 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A few things.
First and foremost, fuck the BCS. If we had a playoff system, this “perception” resulting from bowls would be a non-issue.
Having said that, I think adding a 12th team will help the big ten as there is now a bigger talent pool, and dividing the divisions in such a balanced way will help keep some truly bad teams from going 6-6 and making it to a bowl games. (Unless its one of those years where everyone beats everyone up, and we have a ton of mediocre teams going 7-5/6-6.)
by Fake Pelini on Jul 1, 2011 11:48 PM CDT via mobile reply actions
Why didn't I guess...
that Fake Pelini would be angry at the BCS, but would think that Nebaska will very much help our conference?
It’s like saying “that chick isn’t that hot until I get a piece.”
/only about 1/4 kidding here.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh come on, cut me some slack will ya?
I’ve actually seen it more from the perspective of the little guys who don’t get a shot.
Both TCU and Boise St could’ve given Auburn a run for their money.
In the past other teams could, and did, beat major BCS programs (i.e. Utah vs Alabama.)
To Fake Pelini, and Biggy: I'm sorry I'm so critical,
but I’d say, from the comments I’ve read from Fake Pelini here at OTE, you tend to make statements that show an entitled and slightly over-confident attitude. Which is a bit grating on Big Ten fans who don’t think you’ll step right in and kick our butts.
And, Biggy, sometimes, I think you are not willing to be critical/objective enough of OSU. I’m not saying you need to join in on the “Terrell Pryor is evil” parade, but I also don’t often see you willing to admit any of OSU’s possible weaknesses.
Perhaps these are just my perceptions, but I’d bet there are other commentors who feel the same.
I’ll try to be less judgmental, but I’d politely ask that you think about your comments a bit more, too. I’ll do the same.
I’m sure we will have times when we agree, and I’m sure we will have times when we disagree. That’s the beauty of comment threads, in my opinion.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:07 AM CDT up reply actions
Wow.
That is what I have been trying to say. But in a much harsher way.
And I will heavily agree that biggy84 doesn’t ever back down on his OSU stance. He called an OSU fan out for saying thank you to me because I said I appreciated their honest perspective about the penalties OSU may receive. You know you are narrow-minded when you can’t even let another fan say thank you for something they thought needed it.
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
Sigh...
Oh Gookin. I thought we had already been over this. Accepting doom and gloom as a certainty is not rational or narrow minded.
But ignoring the fact it could happen is.
Something you are oh so good at.
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
And your point is?...
What are you trying to say? That Nebraska is the ‘little guy’ coming into a big conference with a chance to go big?
And I agree with WaterlooChaz. If anything, Nebraska may have ruined the B1G run of 2 teams going to BCS bowls a year. The championship game will give the other competitor one more loss that could hurt their BCS bid (Nebraska fans should all know what I’m talking about). I don’t think Nebraska helped us at all there.
Unless you are looking at it by the angle UpUpDownDown presented by saying that the 2nd best Big Ten team will move to a lower bowl (non-BCS) and be able to win, therefore bringing the 3rd best team down to an even lower bowl and so on. Then, I guess you can say that Nebraska is helping the Big Ten’s bowl record. But it won’t help us reach prestigious games as often.
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
I agree that the Big Ten Title game will probably weaken the conference's chances
of getting 2 teams into the BCS. I don’t want to place all the blame on Nebraska for this, but they are the reason we are going to two divisions and a title game (although, we’d have done the same if we had added Notre Dame, Texas, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, Maryland, Connecticut, Syracuse, or any other team). I’m not sure Nebraska’s addition boosts the other Big Ten teams’ strength of schedule all that greatly (particularly if it is someone like OSU or Wisky, who are not guaranteed to play Nebby).
I think TCU’s move to the Big East, Utah’s move to the Pac 12, and Boise’s move to the MWC (more difficult than the WAC, I think), will all lessen the chance of those teams snagging an at-large berth. So, perhaps things will balance out.
Basically, we almost need to hope that the Big Ten title game matches two undefeated teams as much as possible. Then, one team wins, stays undefeated, and usually makes the BCS title game. The other team (with one loss) will still most likely get into some BCS bowl.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Exactly.
I’m not blaming Nebraska, but when a Nebraska fan tries to say, “Oh yeah, we make you stronger”, that really just does not hit the right note with me. It’s not that they are making the B1G weaker, it’s that they are making it much more difficult.
Like you said, we basically have to have 2 undefeated teams in the title game. When’s the last time the Big Ten had an undefeated team? Exactly. Maybe you can count last year’s three 1-losses if you try to split them into divisions saying MSU may have been undefeated in Legends and Wisconsin in Leaders, but that’s just speculation. I think Nebraska has forever made the Big Ten a 1-team BCS bowler, with an occasional 2-teamer.
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
I'm actually a bit confident that the Big Ten could get a one or two loss team
into the BCS. But that team has to have media hype/poll momentum behind it, and that probably means it has to be OSU (after their done with any sanctions), a really hot Michigan team, PSU, or maybe Nebraska/Wisconsin/other team.
Iowa, even when they are really rolling (2002, 2009), is only one mis-step away from a big fall in the polls. I’m assuming it would be similar if Minnesota, NW, Purdue, Illinois, or IU were in that position. Wisconsin and MSU may be better regarded in the polls, and may be insulated a bit even when they have a loss or two.
The BCS has 10 total spots: (2 in the title game, 2 in the Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta.) SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, Big East, and ACC are all guaranteed at least one team in. Maybe there will still be one spot going to the best of the “little guys”, or Notre Dame, but we’ll see. So, that is 7 of 10 spots gone.
Basically, we now have to hope that a second-place Big Ten team (coming off a loss to the Big Ten Championship game winner), has to be one of the next three in the BCS rankings. They are in competition with the second place teams of the Big 12 (OU or Texas), SEC (LSU/Florida/Auburn/Bama/Georgia/Arky), and Pac 12 (Oregon/USC/Stanford).
Now, it becomes apparent why many Big Ten fans get pissed at ESPN and the other national media that act like we (particularly our non-champion teams) are slow, un-entertaining, and undeserving of acclaim.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:49 AM CDT up reply actions
You do realize
that Iowa managed to get a BCS berth in 2009 with 2 losses?
In fact, here are all the B1G teams to get a BCS at large bid with 2+ losses:
2000 – Michigan (9-2)
2004 – Ohio State (10-2)
2006 – Ohio State (9-2, although they were automatic being ranked #4)
2008 – Illinois (9-3)
2009 – Ohio State (10-2)
2010 – Iowa (10-2)
More often than not, 2 B1G teams are taken. In fact, in the 13 years of the BCS, there are only 5 years where 2 teams weren’t chosen, and one of those seasons featured Purdue as a 3 loss B1G champ. Moreover, in the last 5 years since the BCS expanded to 5 games, 2 B1G teams have always been chosen.
B1G teams are chosen because the bowls know that a ton of midwesterners will gladly travel to warm weather locations in winter. As long as that is the case, a 2 loss B1G team will get more consideration for an at large spot than a team from any other conference than the SEC.
Long story short: expect more 2 bid seasons to come.
Agreed.
The BCS Bowls’ primary goal is to make money. The Big Ten’s historicly massive traveling fanbases can provide that money and are very attractive to major bowls.
Big Ten football: All day. Every day.
Okay, minus a few hours here and there.
And its secondary goal is to create the illusion of a college football national championship
And so keep people from realizing that real playoffs would make far more money than the bowls, and far more of the money would end up in the hands of the schools. Also to keep people from noticing what a scam the bowls are.
Basically with the current 10 slot BCS system
The Big Ten and SEC get two auto-bids, the other AQs get a bid each and the non-AQs get a bid, which leaves one genuinely at-large bid. Since 2006, every year has broken down this way, with the final bid going to Notre Dame, Kansas (Big 12), Texas (Big 12), TCU (MWC/Big East), and Stanford (Pac-10).
You know, maybe it would be cool to see our #2 team play
the #3 SEC team in the Capital One bowl.
The SEC is top heavy. Last year, an underachieving Alabama team with more talent than Arkangel Michael’s Army was matched up against an overachieving Michigan State team. It was a match made in hell.
But I’m pretty confident that should a Nebraska, Wisconsin, or Ohio State have to go to the Cap One bowl, the could mop the floor with most #3 SEC teams (last year was an exaception. Alabama should not have finished third). The SEC is top heavy. Usually only three good teams in the West (last year there were four though). The east is pitiful anymore. Moxie McGloin, a 4th string walk-on, almost beat Florida with a game winning drive, but his excessive Moxie got to him, and instead of capping the drive and getting the PAT for the win, he threw a pick-6. Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina all lost their bowl games to UCF (yes, fucking UCF!), North Carolina (with something like 45 starters suspended), and Florida State (without Christian Ponder), respectively.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Jul 3, 2011 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, you have to go game by game
It sucks that Iowa’s BCS win has be against Georgia Freaking Tech. It’s a good thing Iowa’s D made it convincing with Yellowjackets running for their lives.
WRONG WAY DWYER! WRONG WAY!!
Skol!
In isolation, adding a conference championship game would hurt the B1G's chances
… though not much, as the Big 12 and SEC routinely got two teams in the BCS almost as often as the Big Ten did despite having championship games. However, it’s not in isolation.
The Pac 10 became the Pac 12 and added a conference championship game (and removed Utah from the MWC). And they kept a nine-game conference schedule. It’s going to be very hard for a second BCS team to come out of the P12 (which won’t surprise Pac 10 fans; last year was the first time since 2002 that the Pac 10 had two BCS teams, and it was only because BCS rules required Stanford to get in as BCS #4).
The Big 12 dropped to ten teams and lost its conference championship game. But it added a 9th conference game, which actually hurts its chances more; everyone plays the 9th conference game, whereas only the top teams in each division played in the conference championship game. And losing Nebraska cost them a team that was very likely to be selected if eligible (they just haven’t been eligible in the 10-team BCS era).
Boise State moved the MWC. Which pretty much means there’s no chance of two non-AQs being selected (and little chance of two qualifying) anymore. BYU became indpendent without securing BCS automatic access under terms similar to ND (so they only can automatically qualify as BCS #1 or #2; otherwise, they’re just in the at-large pool if they’re in the top 14). And the moves effective in the 2012 season (TCU to the Big East; Fresno State, Nevada, and Hawaii to the MWC) pretty much reduce the WAC to the Sun Belt West.
Meanwhile, the Big East (even with TCU) and ACC are still very unlikely to provide an at-large team, and Notre Dame may be improved but is unlikely to consistently produce top-14 teams even in a best-case (for ND) scenario (which seems unlikely to me; we’ve seen coaches have a good first year or two at ND and then drop back into to normal post-Holtz ND zone and lose to Greg Robinson).
So I think the B1G pretty much has to factor getting two teams into the BCS as part of their thinking. And if they want to improve the B1G’s bowl record, stop going for the best possible moneygrab against the SEC and B12 and diversify things a bit. The Pinstripe Bowl is going to need a new partner with the B12’s downsizing, and that really ought to be a B1G/Big East game anyway. Your signature bowl game is against the Pac 12, and the rest of their bowl lineup is… not great. And really, send the last bowl-eligible team to Detroit to play a MAC school.
Berg and Drothgery,
you both make good points. But, remember, the Big Ten title game will force one of the top two or three Big Ten teams to get an extra loss late in the year. While losing a game (or two, in the case of late 2009 Iowa), isn’t necessarily a death-knell for your BCS chances, it certainly is not helpful.
For instance: this past year, you have OSU, Wisky, and MSU all with 1 loss late in the year. Imagine if, Wisky or MSU takes an extra loss late in the year – do they still make a BCS game (in MSU’s case, probably not. In Wisky’s case, who knows?)
I’m hopeful the Big Ten will keep getting 2 teams in. Our fans/travel reputation certainly help (at least for OSU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, Wisky, and Iowa). But, I don’t think it will be helpful to marginal teams (especially if you have someone like NW, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, or Minnesota, (hell, maybe even Iowa) that have one or two losses at that point, and then lose the Big Ten title game.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions
But the point there is that there were three
Ignoring Nebraska and schedule changes, MSU and Wiscy would have played in the Big Ten Championship Game; the winner and Ohio State would have gone to the BCS. And this wasn’t unusual. Again ignoring Nebraska and that scheduling would be different, and just going by records, divisional alignment, and looking up head to head results to break ties…
2009 – BTCG is #8 Ohio State vs #10 Iowa; Penn State is #13; if OSU wins, OSU & PSU to BCS; if Iowa wins, Iowa & OSU to BCS (or possibly Iowa & Penn State)
2008 – BTCG is #8 PSU vs #18 MSU; OSU is #10; winner & Ohio State go to the BCS
2007 – BTCG is #1 Ohio State vs NR Michigan (same record as Illinois, H2H win); Illinois is #14; if OSU wins, OSU & Illinois to the BCS; if Michigan wins (despite losing the week before to OSU), Michigan & Ohio State go to the BCS (and likely OSU gets a repeat of the 2003 Oklahoma treatment and goes to the BCS title game despite losing the BTCG; WVU and USC were actually better than OSU in 2007, but this was not evident at the end of the regular season)
2006 – BTCG is #1 Ohio State vs #3 Michigan; Wisconsin is #7; if OSU wins, OSU & Wisconsin likely go to the BCS (though possibly Michigan does); if Michigan wins, Michigan & OSU likely go to the BCS (and if it’s as close as the regular season game, quite possibly end up playing a third time in the BCS title game)
well the possibility to have 2 BCS teams are always there
For example, having Wisconsin and Penn St tie for the east division. One of them loses the title game, the other still might go at least as an at large to a BCS.
No, I’m not saying Nebraska is the little guy at all, I’m saying the BCS is a horribly flawed system and having an ~8 team playoff would be better.
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 8:38 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I find a 16-team playoff to be even more intriguing.
I wrote an article about it about a month ago on here. You can check it out here. But you are right. ANY type of playoff beats the system we have now.
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
I would also like to see a playoff.
I’m OK with 4 or 8. 16 would be the max.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Some time ago
I read an article, dont remember where, don’t remember who wrote it. But the jist of it was how a playoff system could co-exist with the bowls. I think it was you take 8/16 teams, throw them in the brackets, everyone else plays for a bowl.
This I think, if the DOJ’s sniffing around has any effect on CFB, would probably be the likeliest scenario, and I’d have no issue with that either.
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 3:52 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I like 16
Since it’s the smallest power-of-2 playoff that you can give all conference champions an autobid, and five at-large bids is enough to cover any legit contenders from independents, ties, and conference runner-ups. And I’d prefer that every team (well, except for the four independents) can make the playoffs by winning their conference on the field (barring obscure tiebreaker scenarios).
Next best in my mind is 8 with no automatic bids (I don’t think two at-large spots is enough, but when I looked at things a while ago I only found one season where more than 8 teams met my ‘undefeated non-AQ team or ND/AQ team with as many losses or fewer than BCS #2’ test).
I like a four team playoff... A college football "Final Four"
The four highest ranked conference champs comprise the field. Last year it would have been Auburn, Wisconsin, TCU, and Oregon.
Connecticut had no business being in a playoff just because they won their conference.
This ensures that the regular season still means something, as you not only have to win your conference, but have a tough enough non-conference slate to boost your ranking. The only year this would have been an issue was 2009, when there were five undefeated teams at the end of the regular season (Alabama, Texas, TCU, Boise, and Cincinnati). Boise would have been left out. Oh well, one being left out is better than three being left out.
Play the “Final Four” the weekend of the Army-Navy game the second weekend of December (which with a noon start, would be a great traditional “opening card” for the audience). Higher seeded team gets home-field advantage (this past year, Wisconsin @ Auburn, TCU @ Oregon), losers meet in a BCS bowl, winners meet in the BCS Championship game, and the regular season still maintains its importance.
Given how cold this past December was in the State of Alabama, I would have loved to see Wisconsin play Auburn in December. Even better if it was a night game. Weather got down to near freezing http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/AL/Auburn/2010-12-12
Watch out for the frost on the field come kickoff, Cam!
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Jul 3, 2011 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
It's better than the BCS
But a 4-team mini-playoff, especially with a conference champs only restriction, still is too small
2010 – Stanford misses the playoffs because they’re in the same conference as Oregon. Wiscy gets a playoff spot and OSU and Michigan State do not.
2009 – You already noticed there were five undefeated teams at the end of that regular season
2008 – Penn State and USC had the same record; based on the actual Rose Bowl, USC was clearly the better team (and in fact likely would have won the mini-playoff), but going in you’re just looking at two one-loss major conference champions. Also, #9 Boise was undefeated. The Big 12 South three-way tie was decided by the BCS rankings.
2007 – Top 4 teams were from differenct conferences, granted. However, no AQ conferencve champ other than Ohio State finished with less than 2 losses; #5 Georgia, #6 Missouri, #7 USC, #8 Kansas, #9 West Virginia, and #11 Arizona State also had 2 or fewer regular season losses, and #10 Hawaii was undefeated (2007 is strongest case for a large playoff in the BCS era in my mind)
2006 – Michigan misses the playoffs by virtue of being in the same conference as #1 Ohio State and losing by… a field goal. #7 Wiscy didn’t play OSU; they had a better record than #5 USC and the same record as #6 Louisville. Boise State was undefeated.
I like an eight-team playoff with the six current BCS conferences getting an auto-bid.
However, I think a clause should be included that makes said auto-bid become void if the conference champ finishes outside say, the Top 15: i.e 2010 UConn.
’10 – Auburn, Oregon, VT, Wiscy, Oklahoma + Ohio St, TCU, Ark?
’09 – Bama, Oregon, GT, Ohio St, Texas, Cincy + Boise, TCU
’08 – Florida, USC, VT, Penn St, Oklahoma + Texas, Bama, Utah
’07 – LSU, USC, VT, Ohio St, Oklahoma, WVU + Georgia, Mizzou
’07 presents the only major problem, with the choice having to be made between UGA, MIzzou, and undefeated Hawaii.
"I thank God I was warring on the gridirons of the Midwest and not on the battlefields of Europe." -- Nile Kinnick
~~ Never gets old.
I don't mind that
BUT, I would say outside the top-25. It has to be a REALLY bad team, IMO to have their auto-bid voided because it’s something the BCS should try to avoid at all cost. B1G and Big-12; pac-10 and SEC teams flood the top-20. That’s not necessarily voter bias, but if a UCONN or GT are ranked like #17, with a bunch of SEC/B1G teams in front of them. Can you really blame the voters? That would put said UCONN or GT team w/ like 3 losses. That’d be stupid to void their auto-bid w/ only like 3 losses. Anyways, I agree, 8-team playoff system with the same system in place for choosing…6-autobids and 2 at-large. The 2 at-arge programs should be the next 2 teams available in order of BCS rankings. There cannot be 3 teams from one conference in the Playoff system. The Seeding is to be based on BCS ranking only with the one exception being if 2 teams from the same conference happen to meet in the first round, then the 2nd team is dropped a spot in the seedings so that it’s not turned into a glorified conference championship. If 2 teams from the same conference happen to both be in the NCG, so be it. You can’t go any higher than an 8-team playoff, because otherwise any crappy team can get in and get a chance. Let’s not turn this into the 1st 2 days of March Madness(as awesome as it is). That crap works for basketball, but football? No, doesn’t work. Sure, you might see some upsets and that would be fun and all, but that completely discredits the entire season. There’s usually a pretty big jump from top-8 to top-16. Plus, there won’t be enough time to get through 16 teams. This way there could be a week bye from the championship games. Then back to back weeks to decide what 2 teams go the the NCG. Then they get a week-bye(should fall around new years’ to get the other bowl games out of the way). Then have the NCG a week after NY’s.
Skol!
The part i found most humorous
was the contention that a playoff would solve this problem. Look, I know I’m in the minority of fans who don’t want a playoff and I don’t want to thread jack this with that discussion, but I would really appreciate it if playoff-proponents would stop acting like every problem in college football would just disappear the moment a playoff was instituted. Its the solution they propose for any problem, no matter how tenuous its connection may be.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Jul 5, 2011 7:04 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Should have scrolled down
Now I see that I was too late in my concern
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
by HoyaGoon on Jul 5, 2011 7:19 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Possibly
The fact that the B1G is going against the dominant programs hurts as well. The sec obligations with our conference doesn’t help. There aren’t any major bowls taking place within our conference either. We always travel to their backyards.
Also, the whole tying for the conference championship doesn't necessarily help.
At least it didn’t this year. Imagine for a quick second if the bowl games for the co-champs this year had been arranged slightly differently.
If MSU played TCU, MSU would of got their asses handed to them by TCU.
And if you either had OSU or Wisconsin play Alabama, both of those could’ve given Bama a run for their money, if not actually beat them. While the other took care of Arkansas.
So in the blink of an eye, you go from 1-2 to 2-1.
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 12:05 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Biggy blaming the SEC matchups?
/looks at profile of “typical OSU fan”, sees picture of Biggy.
Maybe one of these days, we’ll get a bowl game in Indy, or Chicago, (or a better one in Detroit), or wherever. But it won’t be a big bowl, because it is a bit difficult to talk people into making a vacation to an iceberg.
As is, we’ll just have to improve and beat some SEC schools if we want respect. Even if we have to do so in Pasadena, Glendale, New Orleans, or Miami.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions
Not blaming
Read the article. In your haste to take a shot at me you didn’t take the time to actually read the article. You wouldn’t know about BCS games due to your VERY limited experience. How many conferences have an obligation to play the sec? Does the acc or big east have any tie ins with the sec? It would make sense to anyone (except you) that if you play the conference that has won multiple national titles, then you have a tougher road. As an OSU fan, i’m not blaming a 6-3 record in the bcs on anything. I’m very proud of my teams accomplishments.
The Big Ten has an "obligation" to play against the Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl.
I don’t think, within the BCS, that we have any other “obligations.”
Now, I know that when one of our teams (OSU) plays in the national title game, they are more likely to play a very good opponent (probably from the SEC). But that isn’t guaranteed. Since 1998, 7 SEC teams have played for the national title, 7 from the Big 12, 3 from the Big Ten, 3 from the ACC, 3 from the Pac 10, and 3 from the Big East.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with OSU blowing a game against the SEC once in awhile. I’d just prefer it not be in the biggest game, repeatedly, so that the whole conference gets a rep for being chokers (to be fair, that is obviously not the only reason the conference has got that rep, but it is a sizable part of it).
I’m not overwhelmingly happy that Iowa blew the Orange Bowl to USC, but I’m glad we finally won against Ga Tech. I think we are learning from our BCS experiences. I hope and think we will get some more chances, and at that point, with our coaching staff, I feel good about nearly any matchup.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Then beat us and play in the NCG yourself. Or shut the hell up.
I bet you’d prefer us to win our BCS games so you can take the credit of playing in the conference with the national champion, but when we lose you guys are the first to try and disassociate yourself and play the “OSU isn’t the rest of the Big Ten” card. You can’t have it both ways.
"What do we have here?"
"We're going to Saint Croix."
"We are? Oh, goody. I'm so happy."
"Well, I hope you're happy for us, because it's just Carrie and me."
"I see. Once again I humiliate myself by assuming that I'm a member of this family."
-Arthur and Doug, bantering about the Heffernan's vacation plans
Well, it is because OSU IS in the Big Ten,
and because OSU has a .333 winning percentage in the biggest game in college football, that other Big Ten fans aren’t super-proud of OSU. I have never “taken credit” for any of OSU’s success. I actually don’t just root for other Big Ten teams just because they’re in the same conference as my team.
I guess it would be worse if we had Oklahoma “leading” our conference, except that Oklahoma doesn’t let ineligible guys play in their bowl games.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 3, 2011 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Which is better than the .000% everyone else has.
Fans of other Big Ten schools complaining about Ohio State are like disgruntled employees complaining that their boss sucks at running the company, but then they are given the chance to lead for a day and they lose the Rose Bowl by 3 touchdowns.
"What do we have here?"
"We're going to Saint Croix."
"We are? Oh, goody. I'm so happy."
"Well, I hope you're happy for us, because it's just Carrie and me."
"I see. Once again I humiliate myself by assuming that I'm a member of this family."
-Arthur and Doug, bantering about the Heffernan's vacation plans
Is that some sort of burn at 2006 Michigan?
If so…well done.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 4, 2011 2:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Michigan, Penn State, Illinois, all the above haha.
"What do we have here?"
"We're going to Saint Croix."
"We are? Oh, goody. I'm so happy."
"Well, I hope you're happy for us, because it's just Carrie and me."
"I see. Once again I humiliate myself by assuming that I'm a member of this family."
-Arthur and Doug, bantering about the Heffernan's vacation plans
That's a weird company.
"Many people need desperately to receive this message: 'I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people do not care about them. You are not alone.'"
Except that,
the “CEO of this company” just got perp-walked because of a scandal.
I still can’t believe that OSU fans are still talking so much shit. I feel like I’ve made a small peace with Biggy, but then another Buckeye fan pops up. It’s like the least fun game of whack-a-mole, ever.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 4, 2011 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not talking shit.
I don’t want to be a dick either, however, other B1G fans acting like OSU has hurt their team’s rep on the national level because of 2006/07 is asinine. At no point did I trivialize our transgressions—we will take our medicine in August—but to act like OSU is the reason the B1G has a poor national rep? Please, spare me.
"What do we have here?"
"We're going to Saint Croix."
"We are? Oh, goody. I'm so happy."
"Well, I hope you're happy for us, because it's just Carrie and me."
"I see. Once again I humiliate myself by assuming that I'm a member of this family."
-Arthur and Doug, bantering about the Heffernan's vacation plans
Personally, I don’t have a problem with OSU blowing a game against the SEC once in awhile. I’d just prefer it not be in the biggest game, repeatedly, so that the whole conference gets a rep for being chokers (to be fair, that is obviously not the only reason the conference has got that rep, but it is a sizable part of it).
Certainly, OSU is not the only reason that people rag on the Big Ten. But those national title losses are usually the first or second thing that people reference when they want to denigrate the Big Ten’s bowl performance.
And it becomes particularly problematic when teams like LSU, Florida, and USC (yes, only AP, and now their BCS one is vacated), win multiple national titles in the span of 5 or 10 years. Some people say “why couldn’t OSU?”
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 5, 2011 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
To be fair
The top 5 teams (OSU, WI, PSU, IA and MI) are 31-22 in bowls (11-9 in BCS) since the BCS started, including 14-12 against the SEC. The bottom 6 teams are 10-26 (0-3 BCS) including 3-6 against the SEC.
You don’t think all those lower tier losses have sunk into the collective conscience? People don’t remember the individual games, but they know the B10 put up a losing bowl record again. ESPN would have given a much different spin if the B10 was going 5-3 every year instead of 3-5, and ESPN’s spin basically sets the opinion of many viewers.
The 0-5 on 1/1/11 didn’t include OSU, but MSU and MI sure didn’t help the B10 reputation that day. WI losing to a non-AQ didn’t help (no matter how good TCU was). Big BCS wins by USC over PSU, IL, MI, MI and IA didn’t help either.
Yes, OSU got killed by Florida. OSU backed into the LSU NCG (in New Orleans) with everyone else losing and kept it fairly close despite a statue of a QB who crumbled under pressure. If WV had just beaten Pitt, OSU and WV would have played and that would have been a much different game in my opinion.
As for multiple national titles, why not Texas or Oklahoma? Why not Alabama? At least OSU got to the title game. You have to be in it to win it.
I only read the first paragraph
Nice stats thought. Makes sense to me. In the past few years, I’ve had ZERO expectations for the Gopher/Illini/jNWs of the B1G. For some reason, they get some wins in the B1G, but nationally they can’t figure it out. The top 4 in the B1G are usually pretty strong, but our conference really doesn’t have the depth that the SEC does. OleMiss; Georgia, Tennessee, to name a few, have had strong programs in the past and have had down years. Their talent pool down south always keeps the Alabama, LSU, Floridas of the SEC solid while their “middle” or even “lower” level teams have a chance to make NCG runs due to the rich source of recruitment in the south.
Skol!
Thanks
I think the detailed knowledge of conference opponents helps the middle tier teams win conference games, but that goes away in bowls. But that should be true in every conference, so it doesn’t explain the losing.
Maybe it’s playing bowls as road games against SEC and B12 teams that hurts. Maybe it’s a lack of athleticism. Maybe it’s lack of depth due to not oversigning. Maybe it’s poor coaching. Maybe it’s from not seeing sophisticated
O and/or D in conference. I don’t know what it is, but something is causing problems.
I know that Wisconsin almost never gets JUCO commits.
They do get plenty of transfers (J.J. Watt, Chris Maragos, Dan Moore, and Brian Calhoun), but not JUCO students.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 5, 2011 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions
SEC gets many
I don’t recall OSU ever having one. The academic standards are less in the sec? (except Vandy)
Iowa has had a fair amount (maybe a couple a year)
of JUCOs. And Iowa is somewhere in the middle of the Big Ten for academic standards.
If a JUCO has made any effort at their junior college, they’ll probably get in to most BCS football schools.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 6, 2011 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Actually,
the Big Ten does NOT have an obligation to play against the SEC any more than they are obligated to play the Big 12. Otherwise, the system changes bowls around every year and it’s normally just luck that the Big Ten plays so many SEC teams. Not to mention, other conferences ARE obligated to play the SEC (Big 12, ACC, Big East, C-USA to name a few). The fact that you based your whole argument soley on the fact that the Big Ten is obligated to play the SEC is funny. Because you seem to also be implying that the obligation is to blame for OSU’s bowl record vs. the SEC. But when you think about it, part of the time it wasn’t even the affiliation’s fault. 2007 or 2008 National Championship games? Not anyone’s fault that you had to play the SEC.
Bad argument to follow. Especially
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
Here we go
B1G #2-5 teams are REQUIRED to play SEC #2-5 in bowl games. That means the best from the 2 conferences HAVE to play each other. I wasn’t referring to the fact that SEC #10 plays CUSA. So the B1G HAS to play the SEC top teams.
We're not technically required
we’re contractually obligated to take those games, and that’s really more of a baseline for who goes where. I can’t remember who at this moment, but I know there’s one team in the B1G that’s jumped over higher ranked teams in selection for those bowls the past few years.
In the name of the Woody, the Bo, and the Mustache Ride. Amen.
by Pariahwulfen on Jul 2, 2011 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Last year is a good example
Iowa was passed by Michigan, despite beating them during the year. Judging by the year, the head to head match up, and what happened during the bowl games it was pretty obvious Iowa was the better team, but Michigan was the better brand so they got the higher bowl.
there have been alot of times this has happened actually, and its one of the main reasons the Big Ten cant seem to get winning bowl records as a conference. its not necessarily the top team thats picked by the bowl, just the team they want. if they wanted a 7-5 Michigan over a 9-3 Northwestern they would take it.
by justsomehawkeyefan on Jul 2, 2011 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Michigan vs. Missouri would have been a barnburner.
Michigan couldn’t play defense to save its life last year, but they could play offense.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 2, 2011 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions
As long as they were playing a directional school. Or Illinois.
"What do we have here?"
"We're going to Saint Croix."
"We are? Oh, goody. I'm so happy."
"Well, I hope you're happy for us, because it's just Carrie and me."
"I see. Once again I humiliate myself by assuming that I'm a member of this family."
-Arthur and Doug, bantering about the Heffernan's vacation plans
Or UConn.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 3, 2011 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
I figured he was talking about 2008 Iowa jumping over NW to make the Outback Bowl.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions
NW always gets jumped
too small a fan base. Which makes 0-6 even funnier because half the time, they should be the better of the teams.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
Strictly speaking
Northwestern got the 2009 Outback Bowl when they could have taken Michigan State, Purdue or Wisconsin. At no time in the last 10 years has Northwestern been taken after a team with a worse conference record. Iowa only “jumped” Northwestern in 2008 in the sense that both squads had the same record, but Northwestern beat Iowa head-to-head 22-17 at Kinnick with a thrilling 14 point comeback while holding the Hawkeyes scoreless the entire second half, avenging the only Northwestern loss in the series over the last 8 years.
I seem to recall many NW fans that were pretty angry about it
when it happened in 2008.
And yes, you guys have had our number for awhile. Thanks for continually pointing that out. In the meantime, many Iowa fans will continue to point out how empty your home stadium is.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 3, 2011 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't put much stock in the "playing up" argument
especially against the SEC. Sure, we usually get 2 teams in the BCS, but the SEC usually gets 2 as well. Here are the SEC’s bowl tie ins. Granted, the SEC sends its best non-BCS team to the Capital One Bowl to play the B1G’s best non-BCS team. But, usually, the SEC sends its next best team to the Cotton Bowl. That leaves its 3rd best and 5th best non-BCS teams for the Outback and Gator Bowls, respectively. So, in most cases, we’re playing down to the SEC in 2 of our 3 bowls with them. So, why are we constantly shitting the bed against them?
So, in most cases, we’re playing down to the SEC in 2 of our 3 bowls with them. So, why are we constantly shitting the bed against them?
The answers are obvious: bad officiating and cheating SEC speedsters.
LOL
Honestly, there are many possible reasons.
This first one is a theory of mine, and might be crap: when PSU or OSU or Michigan or Wisconsin don’t make a Rose or a national title game, then perhaps they are bummed out and don’t play great in their “second-tier” bowl game. (this doesn’t seem to hold a ton of weight for OSU, but maybe a tiny bit).
Second: Maybe the SEC “second-tier” teams really are better than the Big Ten’s. This is tough for me to buy, when I see Iowa beat South Carolina, Florida, and LSU in 3 out of 6 years.
Third: Maybe bowl season is just more of a crap-shoot than we think, and it is just difficult to project who will win. Again, tough to buy this argument, because upsets at the highest level (and just under it) seem to be somewhat rare [except in the case of Oklahoma : ) ]
There might be more possible explanations, but I’m just tired enough not to think of them at this time.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 2:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Your first reason...
sounds ALMOST like the Nebraska “We just really didn’t care, our hearts weren’t in it” excuse from the Holiday Bowl against Washington.
The last one when Murphy Brown
was still on TV.
Impressive.
"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."
Yeah, NU beat Tennessee. An SEC team ;)
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 1:36 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
They won't let me forget that.
I think BTN is running that game about 58 times this weekend.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah I thought that was a bit much too.
And since they’re also giving Mizzou at NU from last year, I wonder why didn’t they just give other games as well.
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 4:05 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I wonder if they have to pay ESPN or someone else for re-running a
B12 game like that.
One thing that I think is also running a lot this weekend is Nebraska’s tribute show about the ’97 title team, which Nebraska can probably allow BTN to run at no cost. But, it also has those Orange Bowl vs Tennessee highlights, so it makes it even more redundant.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, when the schedule started coming out on BTN's site for this weekend, about 2 weeks ago
I figured if I didn’t make everyone here hate Nebraska by july 1st, BTN was gonna finish the job.
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 4:51 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Yes, yes it does.
Except, I’m trying to remember the last time Nebby’s heart would definitely “have been in it”. Maybe the Rose Bowl at the end of 2001?
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, the SEC plays up almost as much as the B1G
The games vs. the SEC are generally straight up, since they are putting two into the BCS most years as well. However, I have to disagree with your calling the Big Ten’s performance vs. the SEC as “shitting the bed”. Yes, that was true for the state of Michigan in 2010, but overall the Big Ten is doing just against the SEC come bowl season. The Big Ten is 17-18 against the SEC in bowls since 1998, and 7-9 since 2005.
The playing down to the SEC is pretty tenuous, as that really only is happening in the Gator Bowl which we’ve only been playing in (under that arrangement) for a year. Speaking of which, does anyone know of a good site to find the bowl tie-ins for past years? I can only find the current ones in any sort of nice format.
Forget the pick order
and look at the records:
Outback Bowl
4-4 Florida vs 4-4 Penn State
3-5 Auburn vs 5-3 Northwestern
4-4 South Carolina vs 4-4 Iowa
6-2 Tennessee vs 5-3 Wisconsin
5-3 Tennessee vs 5-3 Penn State
5-3 Florida vs 5-3 Iowa
6-2 Georgia vs 6-2 Wisconsin
6-2 Florida vs 5-3 Iowa
6-2 Florida vs 6-2 Michigan
5-3 South Carolina vs 5-3 Ohio State
Big Ten team 50-30
SEC team 50-30
Capitol One Bowl
5-3 Alabama vs 7-1 Michigan State
5-3 LSU vs 6-2 Penn State
6-2 Georgia vs 6-2 Michigan State
5-3 Florida vs 6-2 Michigan
7-1 Arkansas vs 7-1 Wisconsin
7-1 Auburn vs 5-3 Wisconsin
6-2 LSU vs 7-1 Iowa
6-2 Georgia vs 6-2 Purdue
5-3 Auburn vs 5-3 Penn State
7-1 Tennessee vs 6-2 Michigan
SEC team 59-21
Big Ten team 61-19
Overall:
SEC 109-51
Big Ten 111-49
That looks nearly straight across to me.
by nuftw on Jul 3, 2011 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Welp
This basically summarizes my annual defense to my coworkers of the Big Ten’s bowl performance. Our overall slate of match-ups is brutal, and there is very rarely a “gimme” win (a la Oklahoma vs Cincy, although Oklahoma in a BCS bowl is perhaps not a sure lock to win regardless of opponent). Our opponents are mostly SEC and Big 12 teams, with one of the top 2 PAC 10 teams thrown in (including an absurd USC team). We travel hundreds if not thousands of miles to play. We had a ridiculously long layoff between the end of the season and our bowls. Honestly, with those kinds of things stacked against the teams, it’s somewhat admirable to see how they’ve performed.
One thing I didn’t realize was how poorly the middle-to-bottom of the conference has done. Yeesh.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
Oklahoma didn't play Cinci in a BCS game
They played UConn (and their prior matchup with us Big East types, vs. WVU, did not go so well for them), though they did play in the regular season. 2010 Cinci played Florida (with an interim coach already hired somewhere else); 2009 Cinci played Virginia Tech.
UConn, Cincy
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Interchangeable shit-ass teams not even worthy of me remembering which one was in the actual game.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
I wonder if we'll see
a slight change (up or down, I don’t know) in how those top two teams from the B1G do, given the B1G Championship game as a chance to prepare, or a chance to get more people hurt, etc etc.
I'm not going to do the research
But I honestly feel like in the past few years the B1G shouldn’t have gotten 2 teams into BCS games and that’s the reason why we’ve had such embarrassing bowl performances. If we only had one team in the BCS the guy who’s left out has a much better chance at winning in the Cap One/Outback Bowl. At least that’s my theory.
I think Ohio State would’ve put up much more of a fight against Alabama than Michigan State. Instead, we were forced to watch the Murder Death Kill Bowl.
Well, I don't know about that.
If you go strictly by how the Big Ten has done in those extra BCS games, we have actually fared very well. In games where a second team was selected (games not at the Rose Bowl or NCG), the Big Ten has gone 7-2 since 2000. Without those games, the Big Ten is not guaranteed a better overall record, and certainly not a great BCS bowl record. Those 2nd picks are what make the Big Ten look decent when it comes to BCS bowl wins. In fact, when you look deeper into it, the Big Ten has gone 2-6 in the Rose Bowl since 2000 and 0-2 since the BCS national championship game became a separate game.
The only thing keeping the Big Ten afloat were those 2nd pick BCS games.
Betcha can't handle this 4-3 cover 2, mofos!
The Big Ten's record in BCS games
would look much better if not for USC.
by TheHumbleBuckeye on Jul 3, 2011 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 3 recs
Fucking Pete Carroll.
My heavens, why didn’t he EVER get an SEC team? That’s ridiculous.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 3, 2011 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Explanation
2002 – strange rules in the BCS procedures allowed the Orange Bowl to set up USC/Iowa (Rose would have been WSU/Iowa under current selection rules; USC’s destination would have depended on selection order, but Sugar vs. Georgia would have been possible)
2003 – some oddities in the BCS formula sent LSU and Oklahoma to Sugar Bowl (BCS title game) despite USC being #1 in both polls; USC beat Michigan (USC would have made the title game under the current BCS ranking formula)
2004 – USC was in title game and so not playing a B1G team; voters and computers liked Oklahoma more than Auburn
2005 – USC played a Big 12 team, lost (still think if you play that game 10 times, USC wins at least 7); 2005 Georgia was not anywhere near as good as USC or Texas in any case
2006 – this one was unavoidable for the B1G; USC didn’t merit a BCS title game selection, and no way the Rose passes on #3 Michigan; even if they were, they’d be playing Ohio State, so still USC vs B1G; also, SEC was in title game, so for SEC #2 to go to Rose, would need a petition
2007 – rumor says Sugar was willing to let Georgia go to the Rose Bowl, but it didn’t happen; blame this one on the Rose and Sugar Bowls
2008 – stupid poll voters liked 12-1 Oklahoma more than 11-1 USC (or a number of other teams, but for the sake of argument — and my personal beliefs — we’ll say USC should have been in the title game)
I think the MSU just needs to stop going to bowl games.
Regardless of their record. Same with NW.
by Fake Pelini on Jul 2, 2011 11:44 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Nebraska joining helps immeasurably
Add another team in the bowl mix, and we fill our 8 commitments, which puts teams against more ‘like’ opponents in terms of talent, as opposed to having to play a better team more often than not.
Unless OSU gets a two or three year bowl ban, then this is put on hold for awhile.
Great article, by the way! Well done.
"Lord I pray for the eyes of an eagle, the heart of a lion and the balls of a combat helicopter pilot."
Great article
The collective bowl struggles of the brown ribbon group (including my Spartans) have clearly contributed to a lowering of the B1G’s reputation in the BCS era.
But let’s try to stay above judging a teams worth by bowl results only. Aggregately, the bowl results tell an interesting story regarding the overall state of the conference. Individually however, I think it is misguided to draw too much from such limited data.
It’s completely fair to say certain teams are underperforming in bowl games. It seems unfair however to judge these teams worth solely on bowl performance, and suggest like Fake Pelini did that teams like MSU and NU (I mean Northwestern) don’t deserve to go in the first place. I would argue that there are 12 regular season games each year that also matter in measuring a teams worth.
The sideline is always greener at MSU.
While you can't dismiss regular-season performance, you can't over-rate it, either.
Many people considered 2010 MSU suspect (LOL, suspect, get it?) the whole year, and they pretty much showed that in the bowl game. MSU’s win against Wisky was nice, but that was before Wisky was getting its respect (after beating OSU).
MSU was like a lower-rated, less explosive version of 2002 Iowa. Every time MSU got rated inside the top 8, they got pasted. But, they had more momentum than 2002 Iowa. Funny thing is: neither team played a higher-rated OSU.
I’d say MSU are what we thought they were: a good team, but probably a bit over-rated. Sadly, that’s probably what I’ll have to say about 2002 Iowa, too.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 2, 2011 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
One of the many things that the Big Ten should have had
was an epic Ohio State-Iowa game in 2002. That would have been absolutely crazy.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 2, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions
hey now
that season already took enough years off the lives of Buckeye fans everywhere. Even the ones who can occasionally be objective.
In the name of the Woody, the Bo, and the Mustache Ride. Amen.
Knowing those teams
it probably wouldn’t have been decided until the fifth overtime, on an interception in the endzone.
Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog
"If you don't tell him what he wants to hear, he's going to find you out. And when he does, they're going to tear your head off and throw your BODY OUT OF AN AIRLOCK!" - Number Six, "Bastille Day"
by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Jul 2, 2011 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions
It'd be a lot of work
but it would be interesting to see the record of teams by slot. The 1-4 slots seem to do ok (~.500 in the BCS games, ~.500 in Capitol One and Outback), so the 5-7 must be really horrific.
Meh, I'm bored
For each year of the BCS era, the first record is BCS/Cap One/Outback and the second is every other B1G bowl.
1998: 4-0 | 1-0
1999: 3-1 | 2-1
2000: 1-2 | 1-2
2001: 0-3 | 2-1
2002: 2-2 | 3-0
2003: 2-2 | 1-3
2004: 1-2 | 2-1
2005: 3-1 | 0-3
2006: 2-2 | 0-3
2007: 1-3 | 2-2
2008: 1-3 | 0-3
2009: 3-1 | 1-2
2010: 1-3 | 2-2
Total: 24-25 | 17-23
Since 2005: 11-13 | 5-15
So lately, the top teams have been slightly less than .500, but our lower tier bowl teams are batting .250. That’s pretty ugly.
by Jon Berg on Jul 3, 2011 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
It's quite ugly when you consider that that included
the Big Ten appearances in bowls like the Motor City/Little Caesars Bowl (2003, 2007), the Music City Bowl (2002 to 2005), the Champs Sports Bowl (’99, ’00, and ’06 to ’09).
Those are bowls that I feel we should be/should have been winning at better than a .500 clip. The Big Ten is 5-7 in those.
Last year, we had no Big Ten team in the Little Caesar’s bowl, and we were 1-1 in our “replacements” for the Champs and Music City ( Illinois won the Texas Bowl, and NW lost the Ticket City Bowl). Maybe that’s improvement, I suppose time will tell.
We will become more intensity!!! --What Reading Rambler thinks Tom Brands should do.
by WaterlooChazz on Jul 3, 2011 1:28 AM CDT up reply actions
This
was a solid read. Thanks for the time and effort!
College football is cyclical. Here’s to hoping that the best players in the SEC get a virulent, debilitating form of southeastern Asian herpes (The Worst!)* and we cycle on back to the top.
- I don’t know that from personal experience.
- Fine. Maybe I do.
/shame
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Off Tackle Empire
Related FanShots on Off Tackle Empire
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
