OhioStatePride2003;865416 wrote:I'll take it. At least you have some sense in you (I know, I'm giving you too much credit here). OSU may very well end up 10-2, but it won't be because of an "easy" schedule.

I guess it'd been too easy to say 7-5 though right? I love the arrogance of SEC fans though, love it. If you ain't in the SEC, you don't play a tough schedule. Although I'm sure LSU playing Oregon is a tough game, right? Add the almighty Ducks to an already tough SEC schedule, and holy hell...what a schedule. Gimme a break.

The B1G is a tough conference, maybe not SEC tough, but it's a conference that's home to some of the more historic teams in NCAA football history: Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio State... In fact, if you look at the top ten schools to win or be awarded National Championships since 1936, there are four B1G teams (Nebraska included). Prior to this decade, when was the SEC ever dominate? And I mean really dominate?

Face it OSU has a pretty easy schedule. Oregon-LSU? I don't know, seems like a good matchup. Just like OSU @ Miami would be. You mad because I didn't say 7-5? Big10++ is not SEC caliber on the field. Look at where the top recruits go every year. 1936? I really don't care what happened back then, but I understand why you have to live in the past. Congrats on the civil war.

OhioStatePride2003;865502 wrote:Yes Sir. Minnesota.

How the fuck do Minnesota's titles in the 40s make today's Big Ten schedule more difficult? Army was a national power for a while, now they are looked at as a FCS level team when they show up on a certain team's schedule.

http://www.seventhfloorblog.com/2011/8/17/2367927/a-prospective-post-shaprio-2011-miami-depth-chart#storyjump

A look at a Miami depth chart if those named in story are suspended. They pretty much lose their entire defense.

Speedofsand;865511 wrote:Face it OSU has a pretty easy schedule. Oregon-LSU? I don't know, seems like a good matchup. Just like OSU @ Miami would be. You mad because I didn't say 7-5? Big10++ is not SEC caliber on the field. Look at where the top recruits go every year. 1936? I really don't care what happened back then, but I understand why you have to live in the past. Congrats on the civil war.

Look asshole, the point I was making is that yes, the conference down south has dominated as of late...but to think that it's always been that way, and to think that the B1G is easy is moronic. As hard as the conference down south? No. You want to talk about me living in the past, fine...facts state that in terms of national championshps teams, in the B1G aren't that far behind.

I'm not living in the past but since you brought it up... I find it interesting, that teams like Ohio State, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Michigan were at one point and time, dominate in college football. You didn't hear about oversigning, or recruiting violations, or players trading autographs for tattoos. Prior to the SMU scandal, college football was a sport - not a business. Teams were great, without all the drama.

The conference down south has dominated this decade, I'll give you that. But they're dominating a decade that is scandal-filled. The Miami scandal may be bigger than SMUs, Ohio State, Oregon, WVU, USC...all teams that are either in trouble, or have been brought up. Yet the conference down south (aside from 'Bama earlier this decade, and LSU's little "slap on the wrist) has yet to have the whistle blown on anything serious. Could it be because they aren't doing it? Sure, but not likely. It could be that they've just gotten away with it, maybe even longer than anyone else has. I know I know, nothing has been proven right?

Look at the "rumors" surrounding some of conference down south's teams: 'Bama, LSU and Auburn. All three have one a NC in the last five years, and all three have seriously legit rumors surrounding themselves. TWO of the three teams have rumoured violations that would probably cost them the NC in the year that they won it. The third, if dug into enough, would probably lose theirs as well.

My point, you ask? You can say that I "live in the past" but that's not necessarily a bad thing...in the past, the B1G conferences won games and National Championships in a era where scandals weren't talked about. You never heard of money exchanging hands for players to come to school, abortions weren't paid for, no "church" donated anyone's dad a ton of money, autographs weren't traded for suits. You heard about college football as a sport, one filled with pride. I'll be that there's no controversy circling Minnesota's NC in '60, Nebraska in '71, Notre Dame in '73, Alabama in '78, Michigan in '97...

That conference that you think is so innocent? They're dominating an era where yeah, you might when the NC, but fans outside of your conference are always going to look at your five year grasp on the trophy and think "scandal". Like I said, no nothing has been proven - yet. I'm sure you think every team in that bogus conference is clean, but if the Mountain West is getting smacked around it's only a matter of time before the conference down south does too - and they have more to lose than some lousy Boise State team does.

karen lotz;865517 wrote:How the **** do Minnesota's titles in the 40s make today's Big Ten schedule more difficult? Army was a national power for a while, now they are looked at as a FCS level team when they show up on a certain team's schedule.

Holy Hell people, I'm not saying that Minnesota winning in '60 has ANYthing to do with the B1G schedule being difficult this year, or any recent years for that matter. I'm just saying that historically, the B1G has been home to some pretty decent college football teams. People seem to forget that there was a time when the lame excuse for a conference down south was "pretty decent" too. They may be on top right now, but it's not going to last forever. Just like OSU isn't going to beat Michigan forever...have no fear, Notre Dame isn't going to suck forever...Minnesota may very well be relevant again in college football...you don't know what's going to happen. All I was saying is that the B1G is just as historically and traditionally significant as the other conference. Sure, they're dominating now, but it won't last. That's all...I'm done. You people need to get out more, Christ.

Who was saying that the Big Ten doesn't have a lot of history and tradition. Wasn't the original conversation about OSU's schedule this year? All of the crap you posted about National Championships since 1936 means absolutely nothing. What do all those teams have coming back from last year and how did they do last year? How do they match up with OSU in 2011? Where are the games being played? Other than that, pretty much nothing else matters, especially your rant about 70 years ago.

...and me saying I'd like to see DeLaSalle-Aquinas and the Bucks/Canes translates into you claiming I said the SEC is historically dominant and currently innocent of scandals. You lost me.

karen lotz;865540 wrote:Who was saying that the Big Ten doesn't have a lot of history and tradition. Wasn't the original conversation about OSU's schedule this year? All of the crap you posted about National Championships since 1936 means absolutely nothing. What do all those teams have coming back from last year and how did they do last year? How do they match up with OSU in 2011? Where are the games being played? Other than that, pretty much nothing else matters, especially your rant about 70 years ago.

Okay, you win Captain America. All I was saying, is

1) The 'other conference' is great now, but won't be forever...it changes all the time. It's possible that they won the last championship they'll even sniff in the next 20 years.

2) The B1G isn't easy by any means, maybe not as strong as the other conference or the Big 12, but it's certainly not easy.

3) (This is where history comes into the play, and the reason for all my "useless" facts) Historically, the B1G is a strong conference. In years before, the other conference has been mediocre while the B1G was solid even if the Big 12 was the dominant conference of that 1/8th century. It's flipped as of late, but it won't. be. that. way. forever.

Speedofsand;865543 wrote:...and me saying I'd like to see DeLaSalle-Aquinas and the Bucks/Canes translates into you claiming I said the SEC is historically dominant and currently innocent of scandals. You lost me.

No assmonkey... you saying "that easy schedule" is what sparked all that. I didn't think I translated anything, but if anything it was where you said OSU's schedule was easy. Beings as you're a "South of the Mason Dixon" fan, it was only safe to conclude that you were making an assumption that it's easy because it's not an SEC caliber schedule.

OhioStatePride2003;865531 wrote: I'm not living in the past but since you brought it up... I find it interesting, that teams like Ohio State, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Michigan were at one point and time, dominate in college football. You didn't hear about oversigning, or recruiting violations, or players trading autographs for tattoos. Prior to the SMU scandal, college football was a sport - not a business. Teams were great, without all the drama.

There are so many things wrong with this. Before recruiting restrictions and scholarship limits were put in place to "level the playing field", the powerhouse teams (from any conference) dominated the sport because they didn't have to worry about rules or getting in trouble. Ohio State and Michigan were just as famous as Alabama for recruiting guys who would end up standing on the sideline just so other schools couldn't get them. Oversigning didn't exist because there were no limits. College football has always been a business, but who is capable of doing big business and in what manner has changed. There were plenty of scandals and drama, but there were far fewer power brokers and far less ways for violations to be maginified.

The conference down south has dominated this decade, I'll give you that. But they're dominating a decade that is scandal-filled. The Miami scandal may be bigger than SMUs, Ohio State, Oregon, WVU, USC...all teams that are either in trouble, or have been brought up. Yet the conference down south (aside from 'Bama earlier this decade, and LSU's little "slap on the wrist) has yet to have the whistle blown on anything serious. Could it be because they aren't doing it? Sure, but not likely. It could be that they've just gotten away with it, maybe even longer than anyone else has. I know I know, nothing has been proven right?

This is a pretty weak argument. Everyone is cheating outside of the SEC so the fact they're winning titles against a bunch of cheaters while avoiding their own trouble means those titles are somehow tainted? Because they obviously have to be cheating too and just not getting caught. Because you say so. Really?

Look at the "rumors" surrounding some of conference down south's teams: 'Bama, LSU and Auburn. All three have one a NC in the last five years, and all three have seriously legit rumors surrounding themselves. TWO of the three teams have rumoured violations that would probably cost them the NC in the year that they won it. The third, if dug into enough, would probably lose theirs as well.

Now you are onto something. LSU is probably in the clear, but who knows what is going to happen with Alabama and Auburn. We'll have to see how it plays out, but there is still one problem with your side of the story. You already said that it is a scandal-ridden era and pointed out that virtually every top program has been through the dirt. So if everyone is playing the same game and if everyone is breaking the rules, the SEC (assuming you are right) is still just doing it better on the field, where it counts.


All that aside, you seemed to react to the point about OSU's schedule. Seriously, when you weigh their talent versus their schedule, who should beat them? I know some people say it in a smart ass way, but when you stop and think about it the point is that OSU has separated itself from the rest of the Big Ten for the most part. It is never easy to go undefeated but how many games in the last 7 years can you look at on paper and truly say, OSU should lose that one or even that it should be a toss up (in conference). It is a credit to OSU because if they weren't head-and-shoulders above the rest of their conference no one would be knocking the schedule.

Finally, what era is it that you consider the Big Ten to have dominated? Having a little time, I started looking back at some things (and going to try to do more here in the next hour or so), but so far, the SEC was better than the B1G in the 90s too. Knowing the 80s a little better off the top of my head, I'd guessing the SEC is going to look better in that decade too. Then in the 70s, you had the Big Ten known nationally as the Big 2, Little 8. If you are just comparing the two conferences, when is it that you think the Big Ten was so much better?

The Big Ten is at worst the second best conference in the country. SEC fans who say its an easy schedule are probably SEC graduates and are unemployed.

OhioStatePride2003;865553 wrote:No assmonkey... you saying "that easy schedule" is what sparked all that. I didn't think I translated anything, but if anything it was where you said OSU's schedule was easy. Beings as you're a "South of the Mason Dixon" fan, it was only safe to conclude that you were making an assumption that it's easy because it's not an SEC caliber schedule.

http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/misc.php?do=vsarules
No personal attacks or unwarranted name-calling.

Speedofsand;865567 wrote:http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/misc.php?do=vsarules
No personal attacks or unwarranted name-calling.

Oh please.

ahahahaa you saw right through it, but the homers are just more infuriated.

This is a pretty weak argument. Everyone is cheating outside of the SEC so the fact they're winning titles against a bunch of cheaters while avoiding their own trouble means those titles are somehow tainted? Because they obviously have to be cheating too and just not getting caught. Because you say so. Really?

For one, I never said so, but I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone in the SEC not named Vandy, has committed an NCAA violation in one way or another. You'll never convince me that oversigning does NOT put the SEC at a pretty spectacular advantage. If you don't believe so, I'm not going to argue. I don't really think the SEC is covering their violations up any better than the rest of the schools, I do believe the NCAA is just waiting for all of their facts before they blow the whistle - and put an * - on the SEC's five year dominance in college football.

You already said that it is a scandal-ridden era and pointed out that virtually every top program has been through the dirt. So if everyone is playing the same game and if everyone is breaking the rules, the SEC (assuming you are right) is still just doing it better on the field, where it counts.

When you think of the teams that won National Titles in the '90s, for example, do you think scandal? Probably not. When you look at teams that have won titles this decade, OSU included, you think scandal. When all this broke about OSU, for example, and it was rumored that it went on as far back as OSU's title run, some (not saying on here or anywhere in particular) automatically assumed that The Vest was being devious even back then. It was obviously proven that wasn't the case, but it has yet to be proven that 'Bama & Auburn are in the clear.

Say it wasn't the SEC that had won five-in-a-row. Say it was the PAC-10. I think you'd agree that this whole decade, basically, as been one scandal after another, or potential scandal I should say. We're learning things about teams that possibly happened three, four, six, seven years ago. Schools are getting in trouble, major trouble. It's all about perception. It's been proven that other schools (OSU, UNC, etc.) have committed pretty serious violations. Now, it's been "rumored" that 'Bama, Auburn, LSU have committed potentially major NCAA rule violations. Nothing proven, but fans outside the SEC (whether it's for resentment or whatever) are going to look at the SEC's five year run in college football and honestly believe that if the NCAA pokes it's finger enough, they will find players that should've been ineligible to play in those NC games. All because the perception around college football right now is that everyone is cheating...even if they aren't. It's kind of like steroids in baseball, a player can hit 10 HRs one year, and the next year he can hit 60. Since baseball was rocked with the steroid era, one would assume maybe that the player may or may not be on steroids. A school can be irrelevant for a few years in terms of a National Championship, and then all of a sudden go undefeated, have a NC, and a Heisman Trophy winner that was rumored to have been the center of a major NCAA rules violation. People are going to think "cheater" even if it's proven there really wasn't any wrongdoing.

I guess I like knowing that team has been cleared from any potential "Title Stripping" violations, while the SEC's five year title run is in the record books - but for how long?

Seriously, when you weigh their talent versus their schedule, who should beat them? I know some people say it in a smart ass way, but when you stop and think about it the point is that OSU has separated itself from the rest of the Big Ten for the most part. It is never easy to go undefeated but how many games in the last 7 years can you look at on paper and truly say, OSU should lose that one or even that it should be a toss up (in conference).

Really? Because I can recall Penn State, Wisconsin and Iowa being concerns for me when OSU's schedule has been released in recent years. Purdue beat them a few years ago, at their place. Road games in the B1G are tough. Teams are familiar with each other, there's rivalries and so many other things that go into B1G football games, just like every other conference. I'd be more intimidated about going to Penn State, Michigan State or Iowa than I would be going to Mississippi State, Ole Miss or even Arkansas. So to answer your question, if you really want me to go through OSU's schedule for the last seven years and name games that I truly thought OSU either A) should lose, or B) was a toss-up I will, but I'd rather not. When it comes to Iowa and Michigan State - I feel we're better than those teams, any year, but at home. You put us on the road against those two, it becomes a toss-up. When it comes to Penn State and Wisconsin, home or away, it's a toss-up. And now with Nebraska? It's nothing to do with talent really, because yeah - they may be better talent wise - but it's more to do with the nature of playing in the B1G.

Finally, what era is it that you consider the Big Ten to have dominated?

Sorry God of College Football Statistics... I guess the B1G has never ever been dominant in college football history. I guess consistent is a better word. Certain teams in the B1G may have been dominant, but the conference as a whole never was. The Qtr. Century rankings show that. However, from 1902 to around 1947 - I think - the B1G wasn't allowed to play in any Bowl Games. UofM played in the first bowl game, I think...and they struck a deal with the PAC-10 in or around '47 to play in the Rose Bowl. Irrelevant, I know, because there weren't many bowl games. But from '47-'75, the Rose Bowl was the only bowl game B1G teams were allowed to participate in. So, maybe the B1G would've won a "big time" bowl game during that time period, if it were allowed to participate. We'll never know if that would've had any effect on how "dominate" the B1G was, even if it was for a "Qtr Century".

OhioStatePride2003;865624 wrote:For one, I never said so, but I think it's pretty safe to say that anyone in the SEC not named Vandy, has committed an NCAA violation in one way or another. You'll never convince me that oversigning does NOT put the SEC at a pretty spectacular advantage. If you don't believe so, I'm not going to argue. I don't really think the SEC is covering their violations up any better than the rest of the schools, I do believe the NCAA is just waiting for all of their facts before they blow the whistle - and put an * - on the SEC's five year dominance in college football.

I agree oversigning can be an advantage. But it isn't against the rules. That isn't cheating, much as everyone tries to act like it is. But why are there evern limits on the number of scholarships a school can give out anyway? That stemmed from the days when the top handful of teams in the country could afford to and would offer so many more scholarships than 98% of the schools that those few schools always had an advantage. Does that in any way taint those all-time winningest programs?

When you think of the teams that won National Titles in the '90s, for example, do you think scandal? Probably not. When you look at teams that have won titles this decade, OSU included, you think scandal. When all this broke about OSU, for example, and it was rumored that it went on as far back as OSU's title run, some (not saying on here or anywhere in particular) automatically assumed that The Vest was being devious even back then. It was obviously proven that wasn't the case, but it has yet to be proven that 'Bama & Auburn are in the clear.

Say it wasn't the SEC that had won five-in-a-row. Say it was the PAC-10. I think you'd agree that this whole decade, basically, as been one scandal after another, or potential scandal I should say. We're learning things about teams that possibly happened three, four, six, seven years ago. Schools are getting in trouble, major trouble. It's all about perception. It's been proven that other schools (OSU, UNC, etc.) have committed pretty serious violations. Now, it's been "rumored" that 'Bama, Auburn, LSU have committed potentially major NCAA rule violations. Nothing proven, but fans outside the SEC (whether it's for resentment or whatever) are going to look at the SEC's five year run in college football and honestly believe that if the NCAA pokes it's finger enough, they will find players that should've been ineligible to play in those NC games. All because the perception around college football right now is that everyone is cheating...even if they aren't. It's kind of like steroids in baseball, a player can hit 10 HRs one year, and the next year he can hit 60. Since baseball was rocked with the steroid era, one would assume maybe that the player may or may not be on steroids. A school can be irrelevant for a few years in terms of a National Championship, and then all of a sudden go undefeated, have a NC, and a Heisman Trophy winner that was rumored to have been the center of a major NCAA rules violation. People are going to think "cheater" even if it's proven there really wasn't any wrongdoing.

I guess I like knowing that team has been cleared from any potential "Title Stripping" violations, while the SEC's five year title run is in the record books - but for how long?

There are two huge differences that don't make the baseball steroids era and your point comparable. One, the issue with baseball records is comparing non-steriod era and steroid era records, achievements, and such as it relates to the history of the game. It isn't about how anyone won a tainted world series title. You are trying to downplay the SEC's recent success by saying it is worth less because its in an era of cheaters. Now, if you were trying to determine who is better between Auburn's title team and say, the 84 BYU Cougars, you might have a point that maybe BYU earned theirs more honestly. But within the current era, the SEC championships are still earned in an age where it is pretty widely accepted that everyone is gaining underhanded advantages. Tainted titles or not, no one is ever going to say Wisconsin is really a better program than Alabama in the 2000s because Alabama "cheated".

Really? Because I can recall Penn State, Wisconsin and Iowa being concerns for me when OSU's schedule has been released in recent years. Purdue beat them a few years ago, at their place. Road games in the B1G are tough. Teams are familiar with each other, there's rivalries and so many other things that go into B1G football games, just like every other conference. I'd be more intimidated about going to Penn State, Michigan State or Iowa than I would be going to Mississippi State, Ole Miss or even Arkansas. So to answer your question, if you really want me to go through OSU's schedule for the last seven years and name games that I truly thought OSU either A) should lose, or B) was a toss-up I will, but I'd rather not. When it comes to Iowa and Michigan State - I feel we're better than those teams, any year, but at home. You put us on the road against those two, it becomes a toss-up. When it comes to Penn State and Wisconsin, home or away, it's a toss-up. And now with Nebraska? It's nothing to do with talent really, because yeah - they may be better talent wise - but it's more to do with the nature of playing in the B1G.

No, Michigan State and Iowa doesn't become a toss-up. I highly doubt you can't see the difference between comparing Ohio State to Iowa and Michigan State on a yearly basis and comparing Florida to Georgia...or Alabama...or LSU. Ohio State is THE national title contender out of the Big Ten every single year. Some years, a team may pop up and be in the mix for awhile. In the SEC, there is always at least one other legitimate title contender you'll have to play every year and in most years 3-4 in the league that are either reasonable to say "this could be the year" or at the least, fear could beat anyone at anytime. Sure, upsets happen sometimes, but Ohio State is going to be a favorite against nearly every team on its schedule nearly every single year. That isn't the case for any single SEC team and that is the difference. Doesn't mean its "easy" - I agree - but it does mean it is "easier".

OhioStatePride2003;865502 wrote:Yes Sir. Minnesota. 1936 marks the "Poll Era", and the Golden Gophers have four recognized national championships (although their last win was in 1960). I'm not saying those teams are dominate today, just that historically, the B1G is filled with teams that have a notable history to their name.

The Top 10

Notre Dame (8) - '43, '46, '47, '49, '66, '73, '77, '88
Alabama (7) - '61, '64, '65, '78, '79, '92, '09
Oklahomoa (7) - '50, '55, '56, '74, '75, '85, '00
Ohio State (5) - '42, '54, '57, '68, '02
Miami (Fl) (5) - '83, '87, '89, '91, '01
USC (4) - '62, '67, '72, '03
Minnesota (4) - '36, '40, '41, '60
Nebraska (4) - '70, '71, '94, '95
Florida (3) - '96, '06, '08
Michigan (3) - '47, '48, '97

(Texas also has 3 NC - '63, '69, '05)

Also - @dat dude

I understand that historical success has absolutely no bearing on OSU's "easy schedule". I was just saying, from a conference standpoint - yes, the conference down south has dominated the last five years in college football. But outside of their five year terror on College Football, in what other decade did the conference down south dominate? My point was that yes, the conference down south has history and tradition (and as of late, a five year NC winning streak) but historically the B1G has been just as good. (Minus the last five years)

FTFY

Well, well, this thread got sidetracked quickly.

someone on ESPN said that Miami needs to remove anyone who is even close to being considered in this scandal from the roster now... I think their numbers were a little bit off but they said that could drop it down to like 40 guys

Does this game have a time yet?

Sonofanump;869487 wrote:Does this game have a time yet?

Headcount @ 4:00pm, kickoff at 6:30 or 7:00 , (ABC or ESPN / espn3) (HD)