TheMightyGators;441955 wrote:Who are the 7 different Big10 teams to play in BCS games and who are the 5 SEC schools?

anyways....osu, penn state, michigane, illinois, iowa, wisconsin. Im guessing the last one is northwestern or msu.
Sec-florida, bama, tennessee, lsu, and georgia

1999 Rose Bowl: Wisconsin 38, UCLA 31
1999 Sugar Bowl: Ohio State 24, Texas A&M 14
2000 Orange Bowl: Michigan 35, Alabama 34
2000 Rose Bowl: Wisconsin 17, Stanford 9
2001 Rose Bowl: Washington 34, Purdue 14
2002 Sugar Bowl: LSU 47, Illinois 34
2003 Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 31, Miami (FL) 24
2003 Orange Bowl: USC 38, Iowa 17
2004 Rose Bowl: USC 28, Michigan 14
2004 Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 35, Kansas State 28
2005 Rose Bowl: Texas 38, Michigan 37
2006 Orange Bowl: Penn State 26, Florida State 23
2006 Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 34, Notre Dame 20
2007 BCS National Championship: Florida 41, Ohio State 14
2007 Rose Bowl: USC 32, Michigan 18
2008 BCS National Championship: LSU 38, Ohio State 24
2008 Rose Bowl: USC 49, Illinois 17
2009 Rose Bowl: USC 38, Penn State 24
2009 Fiesta Bowl: Texas 24, Ohio State 21
2010 Rose Bowl: Ohio State 26, Oregon 17
2010 Orange Bowl: Iowa 24, Georgia Tech 14


1999 Fiesta Bowl: Tennessee 23, Florida State 16
1999 Orange Bowl: Florida 31, Syracuse 10
2000 Orange Bowl: Michigan 35, Alabama 34
2000 Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska 31, Tennessee 21
2001 Sugar Bowl: Miami (FL) 37, Florida 20
2002 Sugar Bowl: LSU 47, Illinois 34
2002 Orange Bowl: Florida 56, Maryland 23
2003 Sugar Bowl: Georgia 26, Florida State 13
2004 Sugar Bowl: LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
2005 Sugar Bowl: Auburn 16, Virginia Tech 13
2006 Sugar Bowl: West Virginia 38, Georgia 35
2007 BCS National Championship: Florida 41, Ohio State 14
2007 Sugar Bowl: LSU 41, Notre Dame 14
2008 BCS National Championship: LSU 38, Ohio State 24
2008 Sugar Bowl: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
2009 BCS National Championship: Florida 24, Oklahoma 14
2009 Sugar Bowl: Utah 31, Alabama 17
2010 BCS National Championship: Alabama 37, Texas 21
2010 Sugar Bowl: Florida 51, Cincinnati 24

Big Gain;441915 wrote:The Big Ten has sent 21 teams to BCS Bowl games, the SEC has sent 19. The Big Ten has 11 schools the SEC has 12. In even the playing field include new member Nebraska and the differential is 23 to 19. The Big Ten has sent 7 different schools the SEC has sent 5 different schools. The Big Ten record in BCS Bowls is 11-13, the SEC record is 14-5.

Since the BCS Bowl system has been created The Big has proven to have more quality depth than the SEC. The SEC has have proven to have more quality at the top.

That raw number of teams sent to BCS bowls isn't a real solid measuring stick. The Big Ten's history with the Rose Bowl led to a few teams that would have never made a BCS bowl otherwise. Illinois at 9-3 getting stomped by USC a few years ago comes to mind. A couple of other times, some combination of the 1-3 Big Ten teams didn't even play each other. With the SEC title game, you can't avoid the best or next best team.

I think there is something to the point that it is more difficult to win the SEC. Four different schools have won national titles and throw in Auburn and Georgia (as mentioned) and at least some combination of 3-4 teams typically enters a given season as a potential champion. The consistent level of competition isn't there in the Big Ten because it basically comes down to, can anyone beat Ohio State? Sure, that may still be limiting the conversation to "teams at the top", but would you rather take your chances in hoping to not be upset or have to run a gauntlet of national title contenders?

I'm big on results and the Big Ten made a statement last bowl season, for sure. The gap closed quite a bit (although the regular season results also have to count for something - and there were some bad losses by those same top teams) and honestly, this is the first year that I buy the "SEC is down".

Pick6;441974 wrote:anyways....osu, penn state, michigane, illinois, iowa, wisconsin. Im guessing the last one is northwestern or msu.
Sec-florida, bama, tennessee, lsu, and georgia

Purdue

But you also left off Auburn

Cleveland Buck;441976 wrote:1999 Rose Bowl: Wisconsin 38, UCLA 31
1999 Sugar Bowl: Ohio State 24, Texas A&M 14
2000 Orange Bowl: Michigan 35, Alabama 34
2000 Rose Bowl: Wisconsin 17, Stanford 9
2001 Rose Bowl: Washington 34, Purdue 14
2002 Sugar Bowl: LSU 47, Illinois 34
2003 Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 31, Miami (FL) 24
2003 Orange Bowl: USC 38, Iowa 17
2004 Rose Bowl: USC 28, Michigan 14
2004 Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 35, Kansas State 28
2005 Rose Bowl: Texas 38, Michigan 37
2006 Orange Bowl: Penn State 26, Florida State 23
2006 Fiesta Bowl: Ohio State 34, Notre Dame 20
2007 BCS National Championship: Florida 41, Ohio State 14
2007 Rose Bowl: USC 32, Michigan 18
2008 BCS National Championship: LSU 38, Ohio State 24
2008 Rose Bowl: USC 49, Illinois 17
2009 Rose Bowl: USC 38, Penn State 24
2009 Fiesta Bowl: Texas 24, Ohio State 21
2010 Rose Bowl: Ohio State 26, Oregon 17
2010 Orange Bowl: Iowa 24, Georgia Tech 14


1999 Fiesta Bowl: Tennessee 23, Florida State 16
1999 Orange Bowl: Florida 31, Syracuse 10
2000 Orange Bowl: Michigan 35, Alabama 34
2000 Fiesta Bowl: Nebraska 31, Tennessee 21
2001 Sugar Bowl: Miami (FL) 37, Florida 20
2002 Sugar Bowl: LSU 47, Illinois 34
2002 Orange Bowl: Florida 56, Maryland 23
2003 Sugar Bowl: Georgia 26, Florida State 13
2004 Sugar Bowl: LSU 21, Oklahoma 14
2005 Sugar Bowl: Auburn 16, Virginia Tech 13
2006 Sugar Bowl: West Virginia 38, Georgia 35
2007 BCS National Championship: Florida 41, Ohio State 14
2007 Sugar Bowl: LSU 41, Notre Dame 14
2008 BCS National Championship: LSU 38, Ohio State 24
2008 Sugar Bowl: Georgia 41, Hawaii 10
2009 BCS National Championship: Florida 24, Oklahoma 14
2009 Sugar Bowl: Utah 31, Alabama 17
2010 BCS National Championship: Alabama 37, Texas 21
2010 Sugar Bowl: Florida 51, Cincinnati 24

One thing that stands out from these results is 2 double digit wins by the Big10, compared to 11 wins by the SEC of 10 pts or more.

you could also make the case that the sec had easier opponents..maryland, hawaii, cinci, syracuse, utah..not exaclty national powerhouses and for the most part 1 year wonders

Pick6;442144 wrote:you could also make the case that the sec had easier opponents..maryland, hawaii, cinci, syracuse, utah..not exaclty national powerhouses and for the most part 1 year wonders

Okay, so you named five one year wonders. The Big Ten faced UCLA, Texas A&M, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Washington, and Kansas State - each of whom has made exactly 1 BCS appearance. Oregon only has two. The six of those they beat accounts for over half of their wins.

lhslep134;441829 wrote:If OSU was in the SEC they certainly could win the conference, especially when those teams travel to the Shoe in November.

I take it, you are going to be a huge OSU fan this year since they are rated higher than Florida? How would OSU win the SEC conference when they cant win big games against the SEC? How many games does OSU play in November and you gotta remember.......they have to play away in November also and they could play weak SEC schools in November. Absolutely pitiful argument. Btw, what would OSU do indoors for the SEC title game? That has nothing to do with playing up north. We see what OSU does against good teams. They have a very poor record vs. top 10 teams over the last few years. Are you forgetting that?

And why does what happened 3-4 years ago even matter? Illinois and Michigan were decent then. A lot has changed since then.

The real question is. How would OSU win the SEC when they are located in Ohio?

The Big10 Championship Game will give the 2nd best, or the best team in the conference another loss each year.

TheMightyGators;441945 wrote:There's something to be said for a conference that has produced 4 different BCS National Champions and #5 team Auburn getting screwed with an undefeated season, and #6 team Georgia going 13-1. Don't forget they would have been playing Miami instead of OSU in 2002, if it weren't for the Gators beating them. That's the difference between the SEC and any other conference. When you constantly have a couple elite teams, the rest of the conference teams can't have any slip ups or they are looking at a 9-4 season like LSU last year, who is then considered to be mediocre. There is no conference that can match those top 6 SEC teams on a consistant year to year basis.

No. That's something to be said for a conference over a span of 10 years.


I'm talking about in any single year. In any single year the top of the SEC is the best in the country but that doesn't mean there's 3 other elite teams in the conference that year. In most years there's only 1 other "elite" team, if any.

cats gone wild;442223 wrote:I take it, you are going to be a huge OSU fan this year since they are rated higher than Florida?

I take it that I'm going to be a huge OSU fan since I was born, and especially since I'll be broadcasting play by play this year.

I take it that I'm going to be a huge Florida fan this year when they rip LSwho to shreds, and then the only thing you'll be able to hang your hat on is the SAME PATHETIC SHIT YOU HANG YOUR HAT ON ALL THE TIME, THE SEC.

As a Florida fan, I couldn't give two shits about the rest of the conference, I fucking hate every other school, especially the fans like you who beat your chest for your conference when your team has a pathetic year and gets beat by a slowwwwwwwwwwwwwww Penn State team.

enigmaax;442222 wrote:Okay, so you named five one year wonders. The Big Ten faced UCLA, Texas A&M, Georgia Tech, Stanford, Washington, and Kansas State - each of whom has made exactly 1 BCS appearance. Oregon only has two. The six of those they beat accounts for over half of their wins.

I don't understand why anyone is trying to discredit what the SEC has done in BCS games?

The cream of the crop in any given season in the SEC, over the past 10 years, has proven to be among the best in the country, but this argument is about depth, and the point I'm trying to make is that a BCS record for a conference over a span of 10 years has absolutely nothing to do with conference depth on a year to year basis.

lhslep134;442331 wrote:I don't understand why anyone is trying to discredit what the SEC has done in BCS games?

The cream of the crop in any given season in the SEC, over the past 10 years, has proven to be among the best in the country, but this argument is about depth, and the point I'm trying to make is that a BCS record for a conference over a span of 10 years has absolutely nothing to do with conference depth on a year to year basis.

No, I understand exactly what you are saying. My point or counterpoint that you quoted was a direct response to another post.

The one statement that someone could possibly make about depth and then use BCS games as a measuring stick is that the reason SEC teams fare so well in the big games is because by the time bowl games roll around, these teams are far more battle tested. For example, if Ohio State was X times better than all of its opponents, they could essentially walk on the field and beat 9 teams on their schedule. Maybe there are 2 games that require that little something extra to win and 1 upset (where a completely inferior team just plays lights out) they have to overcome. Take the top SEC team in a given year and maybe there are 5 teams on the schedule (all their OOC games, right?) they could just show up and beat, 5 games that require that little something extra, and 2 potential upsets to avoid. So, the opportunities to slip up are far greater. If OSU (and I'm only using them as an example because everyone here relates them to this debate) plays 8 crappy games, they could still be 8-0. If an SEC team plays 8 crappy games, they are going to be 5-3 at best. Ultimately, an SEC team, just by the volume of tough contests doesn't really see a BCS game as any more difficult than what they've already run through to get there. And that is why they perform so well in those games. In that regard, even though BCS games are only between the top teams, the record there is directly linked to conference depth. BCS results don't end of the conversation, but there is relevance.

enigmaax;442386 wrote:No, I understand exactly what you are saying. My point or counterpoint that you quoted was a direct response to another post.

The one statement that someone could possibly make about depth and then use BCS games as a measuring stick is that the reason SEC teams fare so well in the big games is because by the time bowl games roll around, these teams are far more battle tested. For example, if Ohio State was X times better than all of its opponents, they could essentially walk on the field and beat 9 teams on their schedule. Maybe there are 2 games that require that little something extra to win and 1 upset (where a completely inferior team just plays lights out) they have to overcome. Take the top SEC team in a given year and maybe there are 5 teams on the schedule (all their OOC games, right?) they could just show up and beat, 5 games that require that little something extra, and 2 potential upsets to avoid. So, the opportunities to slip up are far greater. If OSU (and I'm only using them as an example because everyone here relates them to this debate) plays 8 crappy games, they could still be 8-0. If an SEC team plays 8 crappy games, they are going to be 5-3 at best. Ultimately, an SEC team, just by the volume of tough contests doesn't really see a BCS game as any more difficult than what they've already run through to get there. And that is why they perform so well in those games. In that regard, even though BCS games are only between the top teams, the record there is directly linked to conference depth. BCS results don't end of the conversation, but there is relevance.

That's false logic, because it's not necessarily true.

The SEC's BCS record could be the direct result of superior talent and coaching relative to their opponent (which is usually true), not a result of the toughness of the schedule. It COULD be true (conference depth is reason), but because you can't definitely say it's true, then you can't use BCS results as a measuring stick of conference depth.

lhslep134;442399 wrote:That's false logic, because it's not necessarily true.

The SEC's BCS record could be the direct result of superior talent and coaching relative to their opponent (which is usually true), not a result of the toughness of the schedule. It COULD be true (conference depth is reason), but because you can't definitely say it's true, then you can't use BCS results as a measuring stick of conference depth.

Well, you could compare the opponents records of teams that won and lost BCS bowl games and see if there's a correlation. I'm not going to take the time to go back through all of that because I don't care enough, but I have done some samples from season to season in the past. And there really isn't any secret to the fact that teams who played and won against tougher schedules fared better in the big games. I get what you are saying, maybe its just because they were already better. Well, whatever, like I said, it doesn't end the conversation, but it is absolutely a part of it.

I mean, you start talking about regular season records too, but then you'll be trying to discount this win or that win. So I'll put the ball back in your court - which conference is better and why? What are your measuring sticks?

lhslep134;441829 wrote:If OSU was in the SEC they certainly could win the conference, especially when those teams travel to the Shoe in November.

how many games do you think they will play in november? and do you actually think that they will spend the entire last month of the season at home? thats absurd.

enigmaax;442417 wrote:
I mean, you start talking about regular season records too, but then you'll be trying to discount this win or that win. So I'll put the ball back in your court - which conference is better and why? What are your measuring sticks?

I don't want to look up all this info but to answer the second part of your question, I would use OOC and Bowl records by conference against comparable opponents as a good measuring stick.


I'll give examples of what I would count and wouldn't count towards my opinion of conference strength...


Wouldn't: Texas Tech (9-4)'s win over (6-7) MSU in the Alamo bowl. Not only recordwise, but talent wise I didn't think this game was that close despite the score, and IMO Tech was easily going to win this game.

Would: Ole Miss (9-4)'s win over Oklahoma State (9-4) in the Cotton Bowl. Not only were the records the same (which, I'd like to say, you can't go by just record because record is subjective to quality of opponents), but I would place these teams on an equal pedestal talent wise, so this game would work towards proving the SEC is stronger.


So essentially record (taking into account opponents) and talent level similarities in a game between teams from two different conferences are my measuring stick for conferences.

KnightRyder;442437 wrote:how many games do you think they will play in november? and do you actually think that they will spend the entire last month of the season at home? thats absurd.

Or I could say October AND November, that's at least 4 home games.


If you don't think southern teams struggle in the cold, check out the Miami Wisconsin game this past year from Orlando. Miami players and their fans were dressed in cold weather gear for 50 degree weather, while Wisconsin players saw that as paradise relative to the Wisconsin winter. As a result, Wisconsin wiped the floor with them (430 total yards to 250). I'm not directly saying weather is the sole reason, but it definitely played a large role.

Southern teams just don't like playing in cold weather. They're not used to it. It's a HUGE advantage.

lhslep134;442446 wrote:I don't want to look up all this info but to answer the second part of your question, I would use OOC and Bowl records by conference against comparable opponents as a good measuring stick.


I'll give examples of what I would count and wouldn't count towards my opinion of conference strength...


Wouldn't: Texas Tech (9-4)'s win over (6-7) MSU in the Alamo bowl. Not only recordwise, but talent wise I didn't think this game was that close despite the score, and IMO Tech was easily going to win this game.

Would: Ole Miss (9-4)'s win over Oklahoma State (9-4) in the Cotton Bowl. Not only were the records the same (which, I'd like to say, you can't go by just record because record is subjective to quality of opponents), but I would place these teams on an equal pedestal talent wise, so this game would work towards proving the SEC is stronger.


So essentially record (taking into account opponents) and talent level similarities in a game between teams from two different conferences are my measuring stick for conferences.

You are going to run into a couple of problems with that approach. First, your sample size is going to be extremely limited. How many truly "even" match-ups are there in a given season, even if you take bowl games into account? I know everyone knocks the SEC for its OOC schedule already, but there really isn't much of a difference from conference-to-conference. Every conference plays a handful of good match-ups, though its difficult to classify any of those as "even". So, you aren't going to have enough games to support a point either way.

The second big problem is that you have already done what you said can't be used as fact. You said - "but I would place these teams on an equal pedestal talent wise". Why? Because you said so? Sorry, you are either going to use facts or you aren't. So now you've thrown out BCS games, you've eliminated the majority of non-conference games, and the support of your argument is "because I think these teams are equal". We all have our thoughts, we're all trying to support them - the only way to do that is to find facts relevant to the conversation.

You said using BCS games is false logic. But your "logic" is your own personal eye test?

lhslep134;442449 wrote:Or I could say October AND November, that's at least 4 home games.


If you don't think southern teams struggle in the cold, check out the Miami Wisconsin game this past year from Orlando. Miami players and their fans were dressed in cold weather gear for 50 degree weather, while Wisconsin players saw that as paradise relative to the Wisconsin winter. As a result, Wisconsin wiped the floor with them (430 total yards to 250). I'm not directly saying weather is the sole reason, but it definitely played a large role.

Southern teams just don't like playing in cold weather. They're not used to it. It's a HUGE advantage.

And now you are doing the same thing you said couldn't be done. You are using one game as an example and saying that the reason Miami lost was because it was cold (you said, "as a result"). Perhaps Wisconsin was just better? After all, Miami was no better than 4th in the ACC, an inferior conference and Wisconsin was 4th in the Big Ten (where the three teams above them all had big bowl wins). Also, you say wiped the floor, but wasn't the score like 20-14? If weather was such a factor, how did Miami manage to overcome such a large discrepancy in yardage to be within one score at the end?

lhslep134;442449 wrote:Or I could say October AND November, that's at least 4 home games.


If you don't think southern teams struggle in the cold, check out the Miami Wisconsin game this past year from Orlando. Miami players and their fans were dressed in cold weather gear for 50 degree weather, while Wisconsin players saw that as paradise relative to the Wisconsin winter. As a result, Wisconsin wiped the floor with them (430 total yards to 250). I'm not directly saying weather is the sole reason, but it definitely played a large role.

Southern teams just don't like playing in cold weather. They're not used to it. It's a HUGE advantage.

in october and early november it doesnt get that cold. miami vs wisconsin is on example. so if you want to say the weather played a large role in that game. then you have to say that the weather played a role in penn staes win over LSU. but i give you a example. FSU defeated ohio state in the shoe in october. even though its not a sec school its a southern school. furthermore. it does snow in alabama. and does get cold there.

enigmaax;442456 wrote: You said using BCS games is false logic. But your "logic" is your own personal eye test?

No, you're inferring that me throwing out BCS as the ONLY indicator means that I think they're totally corrupt, which is false. I just think that the BCS games should be treated as any other game between two teams, they just both happen to be highly ranked.

BCS games actually tend to be the most even matchups, but you have to throw out ones that are so clearly mismatched it's not even fair.

For example: when Georgia beat the shit out of Hawaii, you have to throw that out because Hawaii's record was much inflated by a non-existent schedule. IMO any other BCS team that year would would have destroyed Hawaii as well, so while it looks good for the SEC to get a BCS win, I wouldn't use that in my calculation.

Also, you can't completely discount the talent assessment because there's no factual formula to determine conference strength. There's no single objective measure to determine conference strength, at some point subjectiveness comes into play.


So then conference strength would come down to two factors for me (I'll add another one):

1. conference record against similar opponents (which, IMO is mostly bowl season and the early season matchups that happen between mostly teams that finish between 4-6 in their conferences).

2. talent


At some point the talent level of the teams cannot be reflected by my first criteria simply because they didn't play comparable opponents from outside their own conference, so subjective measure of talent is needed.


Going back to what CBF said, when it comes down to the subjective measure of talent, that's where all of the problems start because homers and even non-homers could be biased.




What is all leads to is my final conclusion in that it's almost impossible to measure conference strength unless you rate the talent level of each team and then the overall talent level.

What that would lead to is my final conference rankings from last year of:

1. SEC
2. Big 10
3. Big 12
4. ACC
5. Pac 10
6. Big east

Now, if you went back to each and every comparable OOC and bowl game and looked at the records, they might suggest a list different than mine, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make, that it's nearly impossible to find any completely objective way of ranking conferences.

enigmaax;442464 wrote:And now you are doing the same thing you said couldn't be done. You are using one game as an example and saying that the reason Miami lost was because it was cold (you said, "as a result"). Perhaps Wisconsin was just better? After all, Miami was no better than 4th in the ACC, an inferior conference and Wisconsin was 4th in the Big Ten (where the three teams above them all had big bowl wins). Also, you say wiped the floor, but wasn't the score like 20-14? If weather was such a factor, how did Miami manage to overcome such a large discrepancy in yardage to be within one score at the end?

One play. One play can change the entire outset of a game, and that play could be a direct result of luck. Now, I don't exactly remember how Miami scored in the 4th quarter, but even then I don't remember what transpired in the events leading up to the score. Could have been skill, could have been luck, could have been both.

And I would say that game falls under my requirement for conference strength because I would say that both teams are about equally talented.