rocket31 wrote: because bama and florida would wipe the floor with any big ten team this season.

get your head out of your ass with meaningless bowl game mumbo jumbo.

nobody cares about bowl accomplishments except tards.

there is one game that means anything in the post-season and that is tonight.

I bet you like sucking dick, pretty evident.

You would be creamin your panties if ND ever won a BCS bowl game. But we know that won't happen.

Bama gets their asses wiped tonight Rocket and since when are you such an SEC lover? I guess when your team doesn't even get to play in the sandbox you gotta grab somebody else's shovel.

sec schools dont care about what other sec schools do in bowl games.

thats the difference.

they know they are the superior conference.

the national championships speak for themselves.

the competitiveness in bowl games do as well, when is the last time an sec school got embarrassed in a bcs bowl game?

ill hang up and listen...

rocket31 wrote: sec schools dont care about what other sec schools do in bowl games.

thats the difference.

You haven't posted anything this stupid since the old vajj days...LOL

The SEC schools don't care about the other SEC schools.

You do know where the conference chants originated from correct? All the SEC teams and fans chanting SEC SEC SEC after their victories.

devil1197 wrote: Big Ten gets the nod with 4 wins over Top 15 teams in the nation. Two BCS bowl wins also.

You want to base it off bowl seasons. The Big 10 will have 4 top wins against Top 15 teams. Two of those victories will be in the BCS series along with two other top non BCS bowls.

If Bama goes down tonight no other conference will have close to the resume of the B10 in the bowl games.

Same as always, it isn't a one week/game season. I guess you are probably trying to make it that because people have been down on the Big Ten about their bowl seasons, but that has never been the entire reason. Even if Alabama loses, the SEC is 5-5 in bowls and the Big Ten is 4-3. Not much difference. They split head-to-head. Not much difference. The SEC had a better regular season (no losses to the MAC, two undefeated teams at the top, ten teams with winning records vs. five for the Big Ten, and as many wins against top 15/20/25 or whatever you want to look at teams).

devil1197 wrote: The SEC schools don't care about the other SEC schools.

You do know where the conference chants originated from correct? All the SEC teams and fans chanting SEC SEC SEC after their victories.

lsu fans could care less if florida wins a meaningless bowl game and so on, and so forth.

the conference chants are nothing but arrogance. an attempt to rub it in the faces of those who are dumb enough to care about conference superiority.

the big ten has one decent bowl season in seven years, and now they think they are *the* elite conference. thats ignorant.

rocket31 wrote: the big ten has one decent bowl season in seven years, and now they think they are *the* elite conference. thats ignorant.

Ranking the conferences this year yes they would be the top if Bama loses, quite simple.

Not saying they have been the best for years but this season its the B10. Everyone always said wait until the bowl season to determine conferences, that's where the best determinations can be made. But when the B10 has a great season winning the top 4 matchups, its not important now lol OK.

Now go back to declining your .com bowl bid after another 6-6 year in 2010.

Is it just me or is the difference between Sleeper vs. Devil1197 and Tiernan narrowing.

At least we all know Sleeper is a characature. These guys, not so much.

Little Danny wrote: Is it just me or is the difference between Sleeper vs. Devil1197 and Tiernan narrowing.

At least we all know Sleeper is a characature. These guys, not so much.

Don't agree with the post, please state why instead of taking the easy way out of it.

How many times has the B10 been bashed for not showing up in the bowl games but once they have a great season up top it gets discredited?

Hypocritical to fit personal opinions.

I'll take 2 BCS wins against Top 10 teams and 2 other wins against Top 15 teams over any other conference right now at this moment. Three teams that could possibly end up in the Top 10 (OSU and Iowa for sure) and FOUR teams with 10+ wins (no conference has more this season). That means the Big Ten will have 4 teams ranked in the Top 15 at the end of the year. Of course it could change with a Bama W, but conference has had this much success this year in the bowl series.

goosebumps wrote: Yeah, I don't know how anyone can say the Big ten has been neck and neck with the SEC lately.

National Championships in the last ten years

SEC---5 (Tennessee, LSU, Florida)
Big 10---1 (Ohio State)

The Big Ten as a whole is not that good. Fortunately they have Ohio State who has been carrying them for a long time now. Ohio State can play with anyone in the country, but the rest of the big ten is too spotty.

Tennessee won the National Title for the 1998 season, 11 years ago. 11 ? 10.

The SEC is the best conference again this year but by a far narrower margin than in previous years.

1. SEC
2. Big 10
3. Big XII
4. Pac 10
5. Big East
6. ACC

And whoever said that SEC fans don't cheer for the SEC...yeah, right.

devil - 4-3 is great? I'm cool with your big wins, but it isn't everything. Most people are acknowledging the Big Ten is at least the second best overall (the WHOLE season) and pretty close to the SEC. Is that important that you convince yourself they are better than the SEC?

Sorry, there's no way a major conference that doesn't have half of its teams above .500 is the best conference in the country.

enigmaax wrote: devil - 4-3 is great? I'm cool with your big wins, but it isn't everything. Most people are acknowledging the Big Ten is at least the second best overall (the WHOLE season) and pretty close to the SEC. Is that important that you convince yourself they are better than the SEC?

Sorry, there's no way a major conference that doesn't have half of its teams above .500 is the best conference in the country.

Can any other conference beat the B10's bowl season resume right now?

No one cares if bottom teams win a bowl game, sorry. Teams shouldn't even be bowl eligible at 6-6.

I am not saying the B10 is way above the SEC but just strictly bowl season (which most people bashing the B10 has claimed is so very important to judging a conference strength). But if Bama goes down tonight then the SEC will have been 2-2 in their big games with 1 BCS victory. Wins by Florida over UC and Ole Miss over Okie State, losses Bama to Texas and LSU to PSU.

devil1197 wrote: Can any other conference beat the B10's bowl season resume right now?

Yes, collectively in FOUR GAMES and THREE WEEKS for FOUR TEAMS that you are isolating, the Big Ten has better wins.

But in the conference debate, you have to consider 8-12 teams over an entire season at 12-14 games apiece. Does any conference have three worse losses than to Northern Illinois, Syracuse, and Central Michigan by its bowl-bound teams? Does any conference champion have a worse loss than to Purdue?

enigmaax wrote:

devil1197 wrote: Can any other conference beat the B10's bowl season resume right now?

Yes, collectively in FOUR GAMES and THREE WEEKS for FOUR TEAMS that you are isolating, the Big Ten has better wins.

But in the conference debate, you have to consider 8-12 teams over an entire season at 12-14 games apiece. Does any conference have three worse losses than to Northern Illinois, Syracuse, and Central Michigan by its bowl-bound teams? Does any conference champion have a worse loss than to Purdue?

I don't disagree with that.

But you may have not been around JJ last few bowl seasons where the B10 haters have made it known that the Bowl Season is the best factor for judging a conferences strength (partially because that played into their advantage of bashing the B10 since it has been poor recently in bowl games).

That is my point. You cannot have it both ways. Either the bowl season is very important or it doesn't mean much. Not directed at you, but for the people who claimed those things.

I'll still take ending the season with 4 teams in the Top 15, possibly 3 in the top 10. Four total teams with 10+ wins and 2 BCS bowl victories.

enigmaax wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: Yes you can complain about getting screwed because the rules state there must be "indisputable evidence" to overturn a call. There was nothing in that video that could have been considered indisputable evidence.

I'm not big into excuses either. WVU sucked and couldn't score. I'm simply recognizing they lost a game by 3 points in which the other team was handed 7 points. It is intellectually dishonest to act like that touchdown can't win a game.

You said it was a TD. It would have been okay for WVU to win because of a mistake, but WVU got screwed because they got the call right, only you don't think they could have gotten the call right from what they saw, except, the way you saw it, they were right?

Either it was right or it wasn't. If it was right, then Cincy wasn't handed anything....they were almost screwed by a mistake, but it was corrected, he scored a TD, he earned it.

Whatever the case, it isn't dishonest to say that one singular play is the sole determining factor in the win or loss of that game. It isn't as simple as saying, "take those seven off the board and we won" and really, if you believe that, you aren't as smart as I thought you were.

You ARE making excuses and not very good ones.

I said in my opinion it was a TD sitting here on my couch. However, the officials right there on the goal line disagreed with me and it was an extremely close call.

The rules states there needs to be indisputable evidence and that did not exist. Thus, WVU was screwed by the call.

It is dishonest to say that giving a team 7 points can't be the determining factor in a game. In fact, a touchdown is a determining factor in many games throughout the year.

eersandbeers wrote: I said in my opinion it was a TD sitting here on my couch. However, the officials right there on the goal line disagreed with me and it was an extremely close call.

The rules states there needs to be indisputable evidence and that did not exist. Thus, WVU was screwed by the call.

It is dishonest to say that giving a team 7 points can't be the determining factor in a game. In fact, a touchdown is a determining factor in many games throughout the year.

The guys in charge of replay, by virtue of their overruling the call on the field said, "There is indisputable evidence that he scored a touchdown." Just because it may have been close doesn't mean they weren't right or justified. Personally, I think it was a touchdown and there was no dispute. My personal opinion was validated by the replay official. Nobody got screwed.

enigmaax wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: I said in my opinion it was a TD sitting here on my couch. However, the officials right there on the goal line disagreed with me and it was an extremely close call.

The rules states there needs to be indisputable evidence and that did not exist. Thus, WVU was screwed by the call.

It is dishonest to say that giving a team 7 points can't be the determining factor in a game. In fact, a touchdown is a determining factor in many games throughout the year.

The guys in charge of replay, by virtue of their overruling the call on the field said, "There is indisputable evidence that he scored a touchdown." Just because it may have been close doesn't mean they weren't right or justified. Personally, I think it was a touchdown and there was no dispute. My personal opinion was validated by the replay official. Nobody got screwed.

If you don't think there was a dispute with this call then your clearly blinded by your homer glasses.

devil1197 wrote: I don't disagree with that.

But you may have not been around JJ last few bowl seasons where the B10 haters have made it known that the Bowl Season is the best factor for judging a conferences strength (partially because that played into their advantage of bashing the B10 since it has been poor recently in bowl games).

That is my point. You cannot have it both ways. Either the bowl season is very important or it doesn't mean much. Not directed at you, but for the people who claimed those things.

I'll still take ending the season with 4 teams in the Top 15, possibly 3 in the top 10. Four total teams with 10+ wins and 2 BCS bowl victories.

Oh I've been around a little bit. It was a good season for the Big Ten. It doesn't change the last three years, but it certainly ends the ongoing trashing. Can't really argue against three top ten teams and at the very most, the conference talk is about two conferences.

The funniest thing to me is that a lot of people here were talking about how overrated Penn State, Iowa, and LSU were all season, but suddenly the fact that Penn State beat LSU and Iowa won a BCS game proves the Big Ten is an awesome conference.

eersandbeers wrote: If you don't think there was a dispute with this call then your clearly blinded by your homer glasses.

Homer glasses? I don't have an investment either way. I just thought it was pretty obviously a touchdown at the time and still do. You are the one trying to diminish Cincinnati's title because they beat YOUR team.

enigmaax wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: If you don't think there was a dispute with this call then your clearly blinded by your homer glasses.

Homer glasses? I don't have an investment either way. I just thought it was pretty obviously a touchdown at the time and still do. You are the one trying to diminish Cincinnati's title because they beat YOUR team.

I'm not diminishing anything. I'm stating the obvious as that video shows. The evidence is right there for you to see.

I'm not arguing WVU is better either because they were awful. I'm saying that UC won that game by 3 and was handed a touchdown by the refs.

eersandbeers wrote: To be fair, UC only won the conference because of an call that was overturned by the refs.

"Only" won the conference because of one call that you didn't like. That isn't trying to diminish anything?

eersandbeers wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: If you don't think there was a dispute with this call then your clearly blinded by your homer glasses.

Homer glasses? I don't have an investment either way. I just thought it was pretty obviously a touchdown at the time and still do. You are the one trying to diminish Cincinnati's title because they beat YOUR team.

I'm not diminishing anything. I'm stating the obvious as that video shows. The evidence is right there for you to see.

I'm not arguing WVU is better either because they were awful. I'm saying that UC won that game by 3 and was handed a touchdown by the refs.

I have to defend the Refs here. They called no TD the replay officials are who reversed the call on the field. IMO a bad call the one of the field should have stood.

However that does not mean that UC necessarily would have lost the game.

eersandbeers wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: I said in my opinion it was a TD sitting here on my couch. However, the officials right there on the goal line disagreed with me and it was an extremely close call.

The rules states there needs to be indisputable evidence and that did not exist. Thus, WVU was screwed by the call.

It is dishonest to say that giving a team 7 points can't be the determining factor in a game. In fact, a touchdown is a determining factor in many games throughout the year.

The guys in charge of replay, by virtue of their overruling the call on the field said, "There is indisputable evidence that he scored a touchdown." Just because it may have been close doesn't mean they weren't right or justified. Personally, I think it was a touchdown and there was no dispute. My personal opinion was validated by the replay official. Nobody got screwed.

If you don't think there was a dispute with this call then your clearly blinded by your homer glasses.

You do realize the camera was on the 1 yardline. Huge difference. It wasn't a TD.