ccrunner609 wrote: Isnt the B10 13-13 vs the SEC in the past decade? Arent they 8-7 in BCS games?

The Big Ten is 13-14 against the SEC in bowl games over the past 10 years.

Ohio State 0-4
Michigan 4-1
Iowa 3-1
Illinois 0-1
Michigan State 1-1
Purdue 0-2
Minnesota 2-0
Wisconsin 2-3
Penn State 1-1

Total 13-14

NNN wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: Isnt the B10 13-13 vs the SEC in the past decade? Arent they 8-7 in BCS games?

Big 10, by BCS game

Title - 0-2
Rose - 2-6
Orange - 2-1
Sugar - 1-1
Fiesta - 3-1
Overall - 8-9

SEC, by BCS game

Title - 3-0
Rose - 0-0
Orange - 2-1
Sugar - 6-3
Fiesta - 1-1
Overall - 12-5

Mulva wrote: The ACC is currently a 0 team conference, so the Big 10 still wins.

Georgia Tech would annihilate Ohio State. Don't forget that Paul Johnson came from Navy and he already has GT running the offense better than Navy ever could (largely based on the talent differential).

Why would Georgia Tech annihilate Ohio State? Oddsmakers would rate that one pick on a neutral field.

Big Ten's Bowl record has been atrotious this past decade. Part of it can be pinned on playing "home teams" in bowls that neighbor their opponents' schools.

Early lines...Iowa and the Buckeyes are 3.5 point underdogs.

Little Danny wrote:

Azubuike24 wrote: The Big 12, SEC and Big 10 (especially the first 2) "play up" in most bowl games because historically, these three conferences A) have the best overall programs in terms of popularity, B) usually send multiple teams to BCS games (every year I believe it's been one of these conferences doing it, since the BCS expanded to 5 games these 3 conferences have sent all extra at-large teams) and C) their bowl-tie ins are favorable while those from the other leagues (Big East and ACC especially) are pitiful.
It results in almost every game being "played up" or at least being even. It's really not even an excuse because it's now the norm rather than the exception.

This is a good point. The Big East has a horrific bowl-tie in. One of their tie in has them matched with a C-USA team and the other a MAC school. Also, Pitt finished 9-3, 3rd in the league and is relegated to the Car Care Bowl on 12/26. If you finish 3rd in the B10, SEC, or Big 12, you get a New Year's Day Bowl matched up against another power conference opponent.

The Big East did get a better deal this offseason which starts next season. However, it is still far from ideal. This really hurts the perception of the league. People see who they play in the bowl and give them no credibility if they win. They just assume they must be bad if they are matched up against N. Illinois or Southern Miss.

I think the Big 10 probably has one of the toughest set of bowl tie ins of any conference. That being said though still doesn't explain the lack of quality wins during the regular season. I mean when is the last time a Big 10 team has beaten a quality non conference opponent....lol?

lacknett wrote: I mean when is the last time a Big 10 team has beaten a quality non conference opponent....lol?

9/19/09 when Iowa thumped Arizona.

You honestly can't tell me that the ACC is the 3rd best conference in the country. got absolutely waxed in most of the OOC games they played this year....

The important thing about rating systems is trying to figure out what it is you're trying to measure, and whether that's a worthwhile thing to measure and a good way to do it. When confusion exists about these things is when you have problems.

This is an oversimplification, but generally, there are two ways to "rate" teams--the Vegas way (predictive) and the poll way (retrodictive, and more accurately just a ranking, rather than a rating). An example to illustrate:

Team A goes 10-0 and wins each game by 1 point at home.
Team B goes 9-1 against the same opponents. Each of its wins are by 45 points, and its loss is by 1 point on the road.

Which is the better team? The Vegas way (predictive) would say that in a head-to-head match-up, B should be heavily favored and would be rated higher. The poll way would say that B lost a game and thus should be behind Team A. Both of these are reasonable and valid as long as you understand what it is you're trying to rate.

What gets confusing is that some pollsters attempt to apply the head-to-head guestimate (predictive), while others do the poll way (deserving). Sagarin's original ratings were predictive, and you can still get those ratings by looking at the ELO_Predictor rating. But the BCS requires that margin of victory not be considered, so we get the ELO_Chess. It's not nearly as good of a predictor, but it's more politically palpable, so we have that. It's a bastardization of the two regimes. That's why simply looking at the Sagarin ratings won't necessarily make sense.

And conference ratings are another whole ballgame altogther. Do you take the average rating? Do you weight it toward the middle, like Sagarin does (where the conference gets its strength from teams in the middle, rather than teams at the top)? Do you look at how strong the top of the league is? Or its depth? Or the expected wins an average opponent would have playing each team on a neutral field? What is the "best" way to rank a conference? If you can't agree on that, you're not always going to agree on which conference is best.

Azubuike24 wrote: The Big 12, SEC and Big 10 (especially the first 2) "play up" in most bowl games because historically, these three conferences A) have the best overall programs in terms of popularity, B) usually send multiple teams to BCS games (every year I believe it's been one of these conferences doing it, since the BCS expanded to 5 games these 3 conferences have sent all extra at-large teams) and C) their bowl-tie ins are favorable while those from the other leagues (Big East and ACC especially) are pitiful.

It results in almost every game being "played up" or at least being even. It's really not even an excuse because it's now the norm rather than the exception.

I could not agree moreand have argued this point for years. Because they travel well and put fans in the seats and money in the coffers the Big Ten teams are taken over more deserving teams in the Bowls, thus as you say most of the time playing a team that is better than them. Any football fan who watches a lot of football can see that the Big East and ACC are worse than (Ihate to admit it) and very weak Big Ten this year.

darbypitcher22 wrote: You honestly can't tell me that the ACC is the 3rd best conference in the country. got absolutely waxed in most of the OOC games they played this year....

Wrong. Two of our worst teams, Wake Forest and NC State, beat Big East Runner Up Pitt at Pitt, and Stanford. Two very good wins by bad teams. Clemson played TCU to their closest game a 14-10 loss, and TCU scored on a fluke tipped ball from the line of scrimmage. That isn't waxed either. Miami beat Oklahoma when it appeared they were still decent, they were underdogs in that game. FSU beat then top 10 BYU by over 25 points and they are awful. VT beat Nebraska, and they won their division and almost beat Texas.

I know it's not an exact science and everyone has their opinions and here is mine. I don't think there is one team in the Big East or ACC that would have won the Big 10 this year.

1. SEC- 2 great teams, 1 very good team, 3 or 4 good teams
2. Pac 10- a handful of very good to good teams
3t. Big 12- 1 great team, 2 or 3 good teams
3t. Big 10- 2 very good teams, 2 or 3 good teams
5. ACC- 1 very good team, 3 or 4 good teams
6. Big East- 1 very good team, 2 or 3 good teams

1. Big 10
2. SEC
3. PAC 10
4. Big 12

and that is where the rankings conclude my friends. No need ranking the other football never will be's.

ohiotiger33 wrote:

darbypitcher22 wrote: You honestly can't tell me that the ACC is the 3rd best conference in the country. got absolutely waxed in most of the OOC games they played this year....

Wrong. Two of our worst teams, Wake Forest and NC State, beat Big East Runner Up Pitt at Pitt, and Stanford. Two very good wins by bad teams. Clemson played TCU to their closest game a 14-10 loss, and TCU scored on a fluke tipped ball from the line of scrimmage. That isn't waxed either. Miami beat Oklahoma when it appeared they were still decent, they were underdogs in that game. FSU beat then top 10 BYU by over 25 points and they are awful. VT beat Nebraska, and they won their division and almost beat Texas.

The same argument could be made for the Big East. Syracuse, the worst team, beat Northwestern. Northwestern finished 4th in the B10 and beat the B10 runner up, Iowa.

Honestly, aside from the SEC the BCS AQ conferences are not that far apart top to bottom.

Not that it matters but Stanzi went out early in the Iowa game and was replaced by a freshman. Just pointing it out.

Little Danny wrote:
The same argument could be made for the Big East. Syracuse, the worst team, beat Northwestern. Northwestern finished 4th in the B10 and beat the B10 runner up, Iowa.

They also beat the 4th place team in the Big East. By 18 points.