Writerbuckeye wrote: As long as the media has as much power as it does in determining WHO plays for the national title -- you'll continue to see people get really defensive when a whole conference is trashed based on NOTHING.

Bowl records, alone, do not tell the whole story of a conference's strength or weakness. For God's sake, did you know that USC has won something like 34 bowl games? Impressive, right? Well...maybe not so much since all but 6 have happened IN California.

If there was a playoff with games held at the home fields of higher seeds and/or neutral sites, I wouldn't care what the media fatheads say. But as long as they have as much power as they do in determining who gets to play, then yes, I'll be taking them to task at every opportunity.

Who exactly does the media influence that matters? The coaches? The guys who vote in the Harris poll? The computers?

I understand the Big Ten and Ohio State, specifically, has taken a beating in the national media for a couple years, but what has that really equated to when it comes to the national title or national rankings? The media started jumping on OSU after the Florida loss, but they played in the title game the next year. The bashing amplified astronomically after the next title game loss, yet they started out #1 the next preseason and at the end of the season, the AP poll had OSU as the highest ranked 3-loss team in the country. This season, the Big Ten has three top ten teams in one form or another (likely all will finish there in the final polls) and one or more of those 2-loss teams are likely to finish ahead of at least one 1-loss team from another BCS conference.

They still get two BCS bids every season and their teams continue to be ranked highly. Yes, the Big Ten has taken some heat by some people with microphones, but the impact is extremely exaggerated and this notion of wielding all this "power" is absolute nonsense.

bases_loaded wrote:

2quik4u wrote: 3 losses and you consider this a win for the Big Ten lol, the standards have fallen

They were UNDERDOGS in EVERY game. COVERED in 6 of the 7. The one they didn't, had 12 starters suspended. The top 4 teams won. They beat 2 conference champions. Standards have not fallen douchebag.

Who cares if they covered? It's about wins and losses.

Good Bowl Season for the Big Ten, that could have easily been a GREAT bowl season had a couple of the "tossup" games gone their way. (NW, Minny). 2 BCS wins. The national media can now shut the "f" up as far as I am concerned. The Big Ten stepped up to the plate, especially the top conference teams.

enigmaax wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: As long as the media has as much power as it does in determining WHO plays for the national title -- you'll continue to see people get really defensive when a whole conference is trashed based on NOTHING.

Bowl records, alone, do not tell the whole story of a conference's strength or weakness. For God's sake, did you know that USC has won something like 34 bowl games? Impressive, right? Well...maybe not so much since all but 6 have happened IN California.

If there was a playoff with games held at the home fields of higher seeds and/or neutral sites, I wouldn't care what the media fatheads say. But as long as they have as much power as they do in determining who gets to play, then yes, I'll be taking them to task at every opportunity.

Who exactly does the media influence that matters? The coaches? The guys who vote in the Harris poll? The computers?

I understand the Big Ten and Ohio State, specifically, has taken a beating in the national media for a couple years, but what has that really equated to when it comes to the national title or national rankings? The media started jumping on OSU after the Florida loss, but they played in the title game the next year. The bashing amplified astronomically after the next title game loss, yet they started out #1 the next preseason and at the end of the season, the AP poll had OSU as the highest ranked 3-loss team in the country. This season, the Big Ten has three top ten teams in one form or another (likely all will finish there in the final polls) and one or more of those 2-loss teams are likely to finish ahead of at least one 1-loss team from another BCS conference.

They still get two BCS bids every season and their teams continue to be ranked highly. Yes, the Big Ten has taken some heat by some people with microphones, but the impact is extremely exaggerated and this notion of wielding all this "power" is absolute nonsense.

100% correct. With all the alleged damage the national media has done, the Orange Bowl still chose to pick Iowa for it's At-Large bid. If they would have listened to the media, or looked at the B-10's bowl results from this decade, they would have picked another team.

killer_ewok wrote:

2shoes wrote:

LJ wrote: Beat the #15, #12, #9 and #7 teams

ESPN reports the Big Ten is first conference to record 4 bowl victories over top 15 ranked opponents in the BCS era.

Last night on ESPN they showed that the Big 10 was the 2nd conference to do so. Impressive either way.

The Big Ten was the first to do it..............in 1998

I still wondering how Minnesota covered..the best I could get on that game was Minnesota -2 and I surely lost that wager. Maybe I missed something....

rocket31 wrote: was anyone really surprised that the big ten won these games?

i dont get it.

every matchup was against similar competition.

i predicted 4 wins as did most people on this board.

I call b.s.. You rip on the Big Ten more than anyone on here. Go back and quote where you picked 4 Big Ten teams to win because I know darn well you can't.

i actually predicted 1-6 last year (on the other huddle) and was correct...

i see a better showing this season at 4-3

http://www.freehuddle.com/Thread-How-bad-will-the-Big-10-do?pid=75894#pid75894

i just call em as i see em


thanks for playing

Hesston wrote: nice job big 10, the national geeks love to pull big ten fans chain and get reactions.
Not to mention that idiot diaper dandy Goldhammer on wknr

I hate to mention him, for fear of giving that show more attention, but that guy is certifiably the biggest tool in all of radio.

Don't know how Rizzo doesn't coldcock him.

Hey a winning record and it probably should have been 6-1 is a HUGE step in the right direction. When you consider the games were wins against top 15 opponents and the Big Ten team was the underdog in every game I think its a huge step forward. Usually not a Big Ten fan but I was this year during bowl season.

darbypitcher22 wrote: Hey a winning record and it probably should have been 6-1 is a HUGE step in the right direction. When you consider the games were wins against top 15 opponents and the Big Ten team was the underdog in every game I think its a huge step forward. Usually not a Big Ten fan but I was this year during bowl season.

what a coincidence that you were a Big Ten fan during this bowl season and not in the past few when it struggled...

karen lotz wrote:

darbypitcher22 wrote: Hey a winning record and it probably should have been 6-1 is a HUGE step in the right direction. When you consider the games were wins against top 15 opponents and the Big Ten team was the underdog in every game I think its a huge step forward. Usually not a Big Ten fan but I was this year during bowl season.

what a coincidence that you were a Big Ten fan during this bowl season and not in the past few when it struggled...

Yankee fans...pfffft

WebFire wrote:

bases_loaded wrote:

2quik4u wrote: 3 losses and you consider this a win for the Big Ten lol, the standards have fallen

They were UNDERDOGS in EVERY game. COVERED in 6 of the 7. The one they didn't, had 12 starters suspended. The top 4 teams won. They beat 2 conference champions. Standards have not fallen douchebag.

Who cares if they covered? It's about wins and losses.

I think the perception of "covering" is that they played better than the experts expected. Can you tell me ? I forget - what was the score of the Meatchicken bowl game?

Little Danny wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: As long as the media has as much power as it does in determining WHO plays for the national title -- you'll continue to see people get really defensive when a whole conference is trashed based on NOTHING.

Bowl records, alone, do not tell the whole story of a conference's strength or weakness. For God's sake, did you know that USC has won something like 34 bowl games? Impressive, right? Well...maybe not so much since all but 6 have happened IN California.

If there was a playoff with games held at the home fields of higher seeds and/or neutral sites, I wouldn't care what the media fatheads say. But as long as they have as much power as they do in determining who gets to play, then yes, I'll be taking them to task at every opportunity.

Who exactly does the media influence that matters? The coaches? The guys who vote in the Harris poll? The computers?

I understand the Big Ten and Ohio State, specifically, has taken a beating in the national media for a couple years, but what has that really equated to when it comes to the national title or national rankings? The media started jumping on OSU after the Florida loss, but they played in the title game the next year. The bashing amplified astronomically after the next title game loss, yet they started out #1 the next preseason and at the end of the season, the AP poll had OSU as the highest ranked 3-loss team in the country. This season, the Big Ten has three top ten teams in one form or another (likely all will finish there in the final polls) and one or more of those 2-loss teams are likely to finish ahead of at least one 1-loss team from another BCS conference.

They still get two BCS bids every season and their teams continue to be ranked highly. Yes, the Big Ten has taken some heat by some people with microphones, but the impact is extremely exaggerated and this notion of wielding all this "power" is absolute nonsense.

100% correct. With all the alleged damage the national media has done, the Orange Bowl still chose to pick Iowa for it's At-Large bid. If they would have listened to the media, or looked at the B-10's bowl results from this decade, they would have picked another team.

Don't confuse BCS at-large selections (which are primarily based on how well teams travel and little else) with media influence. The major bowls are almost always going to pick the teams that historically travel well, if given first choice.

Yea, the Big was a very good conference this year....The top four teams good play with anyone.

2quik4u wrote: 3 losses and you consider this a win for the Big Ten lol, the standards have fallen

If we were under the bowl system from the 90's, our three teams that lost wouldn't even be in bowl games and we probably would be 4-0. But now that everyone is cashing in on college football any team that goes .500 can make a bowl game.

dwccrew wrote:

2quik4u wrote: 3 losses and you consider this a win for the Big Ten lol, the standards have fallen

If we were under the bowl system from the 90's, our three teams that lost wouldn't even be in bowl games and we probably would be 4-0. But now that everyone is cashing in on college football any team that goes .500 can make a bowl game.

Great point, the Big Four did there part and had big wins !

karen lotz wrote:

darbypitcher22 wrote: Hey a winning record and it probably should have been 6-1 is a HUGE step in the right direction. When you consider the games were wins against top 15 opponents and the Big Ten team was the underdog in every game I think its a huge step forward. Usually not a Big Ten fan but I was this year during bowl season.

what a coincidence that you were a Big Ten fan during this bowl season and not in the past few when it struggled...

Why was I not a Big Ten fan? Because I root for Ohio State, a team in the Big Ten conference, who plays the other 10 opponents in the league. I don't root for them; I root fot Ohio State.