I wanted to go ahead and bust the myth so I'm using actual facts instead of hyperbole and conjecture. These are bowl games against other BCS opponents only.....


1. PAC10 - 12-4
2. SEC - 18-9
3. Big East - 8-6
4. Big12 - 14-14
5. ACC - 10-17
6. Big10 - 8-20



2005
ACC (4-2)
L - Florida State v Penn State
W - Virginia Tech v Louisville
W - NC St v South Florida
L - Miami v LSU
W - Virginia v Minnesota
W - Clemson v Colorado

Big 10 (3-4)
W - Ohio State v Notre Dame
W - Penn State v Florida State
W - Wisconsin v Auburn
L - Iowa v Florida
L - Northwestern v UCLA
L - Minnesota v Virginia
L - Michigan v Nebraska

Big12 (2-4)
W - Texas v USC
L - Texas Tech v Alabama
W - Missouri v South Carolina
W - Oklahoma v Oregon
W - Nebraska v Michigan
L - Colorado v Clemson

Big East (1-3)
W - West Virginia v Georgia
L - Louisville v Virginia Tech
L - South Florida v NC St
L - Rutgers v AZ State

Pac10 (2-2)
L - USC v Texas
W - UCLA v Northwestern
L - Oregon v Oklahoma
W - Arizona State v Rutgers

SEC (3-3)
L - Georgia v West Virginia
L - Auburn v Wisconsin
W - Florida v Iowa
W - Alabama v Texas Tech
W - LSU v Miami
L - South Carolina v Missouri


2006
ACC (2-4)
L - Wake Forest v Louisville
W - Florida State v UCLA
L - Clemson v Kentucky
W - Maryland v Purdue
L - Virginia Tech v Georgia
L - Georgia Tech v Virginia

Big 10 (2-5)
L - Michigan v USC
L - Ohio State v Florida
L - Minnesota v Texas Tech
L - Purdue v Maryland
L - Iowa v Texas
W - PSU v Tennessee
W - Wisconsin v Arkansas

Big 12 (3-4)
W - Oklahoma State v Alabama
L - Kansas State v Rutgers
L - Texas AM v Cal
L - Missouri v Oregon State
W - Texas Tech v Minnesota
W - Texas v Iowa
L - Nebraska v Auburn

Big East (3-0)
W - Louisville v Wake Forest
W - Rutgers v Kansas State
W - West Virginia v Georgia Tech

Pac10 (3-1)
W - USC v Michigan
L - UCLA v Florida State
W - Cal vs Texas A&M
W - Oregon State v Missouri

SEC (5-3)
W - LSU v Notre Dame
W - Florida v Ohio State
L - Alabama v Oklahoma State
W - Kentucky v Clemson
W - Georgia v Virginia Tech
L - Tennessee v Penn State
W - Auburn v Nebraska
L - Arkansas v Wisconsin


2007
ACC (2-5)
L - Virginia Tech v Kansas
W - Boston College v Michigan State
L - Maryland v Oregon State
W - Wake Forest v UConn
L - Florida State v Kentucky
L - Clemson v Auburn
L - Virginia v Texas Tech

Big 10 (2-5)
L - Illinois v USC
L - OSU v LSU
L - Michigan State v Boston College
W - PSU v Texas AM
L - Indiana v OK State
L - Wisconsin v Tennessee
W - Michigan v Florida

Big 12 (5-3)
L - Oklahoma v West Virginia
W - Kansas v Virginia Tech
W - Texas V Arizona State
L - Texas AM v PSU
L - Colorado v Alabama
W - OK State v Indiana
W - Missouri v Arkansas
W - Texas Tech v Virginia

Big East (2-1)
W - West Virginia v Oklahoma
L - UConn v Wake Forest
L - South Florida v Oregon

Pac10 (3-1)
W - USC v Illinois
L - Arizona State v Texas
W - Oregon State v Maryland
W - Oregon v South Florida

SEC (5-2)
W - LSU v Ohio State
W - Alabama v Colorado
W - Kentucky v Florida State
W - Auburn v Clemson
W - Tennessee v Wisconsin
L - Arkansas v Missouri
L - Florida v Michigan


2008
ACC (2-6)
L - North Carolina v West Virginia
W - Florida State v Wisconsin
L - Miami v Cal
L - NC State v Rutgers
L - Boston College v Vandy
L - Georgia Tech v LSU
L - Clemson v Nebraska
W - Virginia Tech v UC

Big 10 (1-6)
L - Wisconsin v Florida State
L - Northwestern v Missouri
L - Minnesota v Kansas
W - Iowa v South Carolina
L - Michigan State v Georgia
L - Penn State v USC
L - OSU v Texas

Big 12 (4-3)
W - Missouri v Northwestern
L - OK State v Oregon
W - Kansas v Minnesota
W - Nebraska v Clemson
L - TT v Ole Miss
W - Texas v OSU
L - Oklahoma v Florida

Big East (2-2)
W - West Virginia v North Carolina
W - Rutgers v NC State
L - Pittsburgh v Oregon State
L - UC v Virginia Tech

Pac 10 (4-0)
W - Cal v Miami
W - Oregon v Ok St
W - Oregon State v Pittsburgh
W - USC v Penn State

SEC (5-1)
W - Vandy v Boston College
W - LSU v Georgia Tech
L - South Carolina v Iowa
W - Georgia v Michigan State
W - Ole Miss v TT
W - Florida v Oklahoma

I don't what makes 2005 so special. Is that to help twist your argument about how bad the Big Ten has been in bowl games?

Like I said in the other thread, following the bowl games from the 2006 season, after OSU got blownout, and UM lost, there were still 3 Big Ten teams in the top 10 based on the entire season.

If you want to be fair, just do the entire records since the BCS started, instead of starting at a random year just to twist the statistics into your favor.

DaBrowns41 wrote: I don't what makes 2005 so special. Is that to help twist your argument about how bad the Big Ten has been in bowl games?

Like I said in the other thread, following the bowl games from the 2006 season, after OSU got blownout, and UM lost, there were still 3 Big Ten teams in the top 10 based on the entire season.

If you want to be fair, just do the entire records since the BCS started, instead of starting at a random year just to twist the statistics into your favor.

As I've already said, I start at 2005 because that is the year after BC, VT, and Miami left the Big East.

So clearly I'm not starting at any random year to help anything.

Regardless of where it is started, it clearly shows the Big10 has been the worst in bowl games against other BCS opponents. I have no idea how they can keep their BCS bid.

Yeah lets go all the way back....

I will include this years once the bowl game is over. Five years is a good sample size to indicate recent trends. In fact, 5 years is more than adequate to analyze trends.


Sorry, does not change the fact that the Big10 is absolutely terrible against other BCS opponents.

Seeing as how the current Big Ten has 9 BCS wins and the current Big East has 3, since the BCS started, yeah, the Big Ten should lose their bowl bid

LJ wrote: Seeing as how the current Big Ten has 9 BCS wins and the current Big East has 3, since the BCS started, yeah, the Big Ten should lose their bowl bid

That is quite the illogical comparison. Obviously the current Big East hasn't played in 9 games so it would be hard to have 9 wins.

I was mocking everyone else who said the Big East should lose their bid based on conference performance and BCS performance.

When it has been proven the current Big East has a better record (3-2) in the same time period against the Big10 who is 3-6.

The current Big East has played some weak ass ACC opponents in some really BAD Orange Bowls.

I think Eers post is to silence the folks who state the Big East should lose their AQ status. People come on here and act like the teams in the Big East go 0-6 every year when it simply is not true. The Big East has down as well (if not better) than everyone outside of the SEC. You never hear people bring this crap up about the ACC conference, who has a much worse record. For some reason the knee jerk reaction is whenever a Big East team looses, you have to hear the natives rumble about how bad the Big East is.

The point is, if any Big East team played against Ohio State they'd get BLOWN out, and that's all that matters to me.

eersandbeers wrote:

LJ wrote: Seeing as how the current Big Ten has 9 BCS wins and the current Big East has 3, since the BCS started, yeah, the Big Ten should lose their bowl bid

That is quite the illogical comparison. Obviously the current Big East hasn't played in 9 games so it would be hard to have 9 wins.

I was mocking everyone else who said the Big East should lose their bid based on conference performance and BCS performance.

When it has been proven the current Big East has a better record (3-2) in the same time period against the Big10 who is 3-6.

Yet none of those teams were worthy until the big boys left the conference.

Pat White and Steve Slaton won BCS bowls, without them, your little score is 1-2 in your "time period". Without those 2, the conference has been nothing.

So because the Big 10 has 6 losses but the same number of wins this validates your point?

Isn't the Big 10 better just based on the number of appearances?

darbypitcher22 wrote: The current Big East has played some weak ass ACC opponents in some really BAD Orange Bowls.

That is your subjective opinion claiming the "weak ass" ACC opponents. Doesn't make it true. And only 1 of the 3 BCS came against an ACC team. The other two were against Georgia and Oklahoma.

Little Danny wrote: I think Eers post is to silence the folks who state the Big East should lose their AQ status. People come on here and act like the teams in the Big East go 0-6 every year when it simply is not true. The Big East has down as well (if not better) than everyone outside of the SEC. You never hear people bring this crap up about the ACC conference, who has a much worse record. For some reason the knee jerk reaction is whenever a Big East team looses, you have to hear the natives rumble about how bad the Big East is.

Thanks, at least someone gets it.

The funny part is we always hear people talking about the BE, but never the Big10 who is clearly far worse against other BCS opponents.

LJ wrote:
Pat White and Steve Slaton won BCS bowls, without them, your little score is 1-2 in your "time period". Without those 2, the conference has been nothing.

Again, that post lacks all logic. Obviously Pat White and Steve Slaton won games. Good players always win games.


We'll see how the conference continues to progress, but that doesn't change the current records.

lacks logic, what the fuck are you a college professor?

I'm with ytown.... based on appearances the Big Ten is clearly better, regardless of wins

darbypitcher22 wrote: lacks logic, what the fuck are you a college professor?

I'm with ytown.... based on appearances the Big Ten is clearly better, regardless of wins

Saying something "lacks logic" means I'm a college professor? That is extremely sad.

Your post done duznt makes sense to the people. There is that more to your level?

And saying they are better because of appearances and not wins is probably one of the dumbest (there I didn't use illogical since it was obviously above your level of intelligence) things I've ever read.

I think a major reason the Big Ten looks better is because they have better bowl contracts. The Big East Commissioner and the rest of the boys in Providence needs to do a better job at securing better bowl games for the Big East Conference. Example: Northwestern, Michigan State sucked ass this season and got to go to a better bowl game than Pitt and WVU. Pitt and WVU had better records. Had Pitt and WVU played in say the Outback bowl and still lost, the perception is much better than winning or loosing the Meineke Car Care Bowl. As the old saying goes, Perception is Reality.

you just keep saying everything is illogical. I'm obviously not an idiot, I know what that word means. What makes a logical argument to you?

eersandbeers wrote:

LJ wrote:
Pat White and Steve Slaton won BCS bowls, without them, your little score is 1-2 in your "time period". Without those 2, the conference has been nothing.

Again, that post lacks all logic. Obviously Pat White and Steve Slaton won games. Good players always win games.


We'll see how the conference continues to progress, but that doesn't change the current records.

No it doesn't, it doesn't fit your opinion. That's all.

The overall record completely ignores one aspect of the bowl games... whether a team is playing up or down versus the other team... lets face it, bowl games aren't set up with two equal teams for the most part (except BCS games which try to be more evenly matched). The other bowl games are sometimes 1 conferences 3rd team versus another's 6th or something along those lines. Everything is not equal in bowl games... that's how conferences like the Big East end up with good records...

It's an illusion.

eersandbeers wrote:

darbypitcher22 wrote: lacks logic, what the fuck are you a college professor?

I'm with ytown.... based on appearances the Big Ten is clearly better, regardless of wins

Saying something "lacks logic" means I'm a college professor? That is extremely sad.

Your post done duznt makes sense to the people. There is that more to your level?

And saying they are better because of appearances and not wins is probably one of the dumbest (there I didn't use illogical since it was obviously above your level of intelligence) things I've ever read.

LOL...it means top to bottom the Big 10 blow the Big East away, it means over the mysterious time frame you've specified, the Big 10 has had MORE TEAMS CONSIDERED WORTHY OF COMPETING AGAINST ELITE COMPETION. PERIOD

LOL...it means top to bottom the Big 10 blow the Big East away, it means over the mysterious time frame you've specified, the Big 10 has had MORE TEAMS CONSIDERED WORTHY OF COMPETING AGAINST ELITE COMPETION. PERIOD

This.

ytownfootball wrote:b
LOL...it means top to bottom the Big 10 blow the Big East away, it means over the mysterious time frame you've specified, the Big 10 has had MORE TEAMS CONSIDERED WORTHY OF COMPETING AGAINST ELITE COMPETION. PERIOD

Being considered for a bowl game, especially when the Big10 has two more teams, really counts for nothing. Also, as I stated in the beginning, these are only bowls against other BCS opponents. Not overall records of total bowl games.

I've already stated why I start at 2005. Nothing mysterious about the 8-20 record I posted. Sorry the facts don't work out in your favor, but over the last 4 years, the Big10 is by far the worst conference.

Fly4Fun wrote: The overall record completely ignores one aspect of the bowl games... whether a team is playing up or down versus the other team... lets face it, bowl games aren't set up with two equal teams for the most part (except BCS games which try to be more evenly matched). The other bowl games are sometimes 1 conferences 3rd team versus another's 6th or something along those lines. Everything is not equal in bowl games... that's how conferences like the Big East end up with good records...

It's an illusion.

True. It also does not take into consideration players not playing in the game due to academics, behavior violations, coaching changes, injuries, teams not taking the game seriously (Alabama last year- Oregon State this year), etc. Also, some teams just match up against other teams style better than others but does not necessary mean that team would roll everyone else in the conference.

My point is Bowl Games is a tool to measure a conference's strength, but it is not the only tool.

LJ wrote:
No it doesn't, it doesn't fit your opinion. That's all.

No it really didn't make sense. You said WVU only won those games because of White and Slaton. That is obvious as the best players on teams are usually responsible for the wins.

Fly4Fun wrote: The overall record completely ignores one aspect of the bowl games... whether a team is playing up or down versus the other team... lets face it, bowl games aren't set up with two equal teams for the most part (except BCS games which try to be more evenly matched). The other bowl games are sometimes 1 conferences 3rd team versus another's 6th or something along those lines. Everything is not equal in bowl games... that's how conferences like the Big East end up with good records...

It's an illusion.

I agree with that, but that becomes extremely difficult to measure. I think a fair way is to measure your record against similar competition which is other BCS teams in this instance.

Saying someone is playing up or down also relies on a great deal of opinion and public perception.