New bowl game this year in NYC. It has been announced the game will be called the Pinstripe Bowl and played (for now) at Yankee Stadium on December 30th. The payout is expected to be $2M. The game will match the 3rd place BE team against the #6 B12 team.

http://www.nj.com/yankees/index.ssf/2010/03/new_era_pinstripe_bowl_to_be_h.html

Ghey.

And we will get to watch the #3 BE team get slaughtered every year.

Is everyone else seeing that Yankees banner ad atop the page? Gotta love contextual advertising ...

sleeper wrote: And we will get to watch the #3 BE team get slaughtered every year.

As opposed to watching the Big 11 get slaughtered every other year.

09-4-3 (yay finally a winning bowl season)
08-1-6
07-3-5
06-2-5
05-3-4
04-3-3
03-3-5

goosebumps wrote:

sleeper wrote: And we will get to watch the #3 BE team get slaughtered every year.

As opposed to watching the Big 11 get slaughtered every other year.

09-4-3 (yay finally a winning bowl season)
08-1-6
07-3-5
06-2-5
05-3-4
04-3-3
03-3-5

If the Big Ten got to play their #3 vs the NUMBER 6 of another conference, the Big Ten would never lose a bowl game. Enjoy your powderpuff bowl schedule, because if you ever play with the big boys, you'll get your ass STOMPED.

I for one can commend them for trying to do what they're doing in making Yankee Stadium like the one of old with having events(Army vs. Notre Dame, also trying to get a fight in June), but I can't see this being a very good game

I'm confused as to what "big boys" you're talking about. Outside of Ohio State who does the Big 11 have? When one team wins the Conference 5 years in a row, kind of makes you wonder how good the conference really is....

and the Big 11 bowl record answers that question for us

Look at the Pac 10, when USC isn't there to represent the conference they fall apart in bowl games. On the other hand the SEC has had FIVE different teams win its conference in the last six years. The ACC has had Four different teams win its conference championships in the last 5 years (could only do 5 years since thats when they started a conference championship game). The Big 12 kind of breaks this rule with only 2 different teams winning in the last 6 years (3 in 7).

Anyways you get the idea. The Big 11 as conference is WEAK. (Notice: Ohio State isn't)

goosebumps wrote: I'm confused as to what "big boys" you're talking about. Outside of Ohio State who does the Big 11 have? When one team wins the Conference 5 years in a row, kind of makes you wonder how good the conference really is....

and the Big 11 bowl record answers that question for us

Look at the Pac 10, when USC isn't there to represent the conference they fall apart in bowl games. On the other hand the SEC has had FIVE different teams win its conference in the last six years. The ACC has had Four different teams win its conference championships in the last 5 years (could only do 5 years since thats when they started a conference championship game). The Big 12 kind of breaks this rule with only 2 different teams winning in the last 6 years (3 in 7).

Anyways you get the idea. The Big 11 as conference is WEAK. (Notice: Ohio State isn't)

Just because Ohio State dominates the conference doesn't make the Big Ten weak, lol. Wisconsin, Penn State, and Iowa are all solid teams, and then you have the second tier including Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue, Illinois, and then of course the bottom feeders in Indiana, Minnesota, and Michigan. Looks like every other conference to me, some powerhouses, some mediocre teams and some bottom feeders.

goosebumps wrote:

sleeper wrote: And we will get to watch the #3 BE team get slaughtered every year.

As opposed to watching the Big 11 get slaughtered every other year.

09-4-3 (yay finally a winning bowl season)
08-1-6
07-3-5
06-2-5
05-3-4
04-3-3
03-3-5

Wow! Didn't realize they have been that awful.

I want to see them send an SEC team up North outside in the winter.

I agree that it would be interesting to see a Gator or a Tiger to play in the cold, but I'm not convinced that playing in warm weather benefits either team. Playing in cold weather would definitely benefit a northern Team and hurt a southern team.

Playing in warm weather doesn't really benefit or hurt either team.

goosebumps wrote: I agree that it would be interesting to see a Gator or a Tiger to play in the cold, but I'm not convinced that playing in warm weather benefits either team. Playing in cold weather would definitely benefit a northern Team and hurt a southern team.

Playing in warm weather doesn't really benefit or hurt either team.

Wow, really? Because I so often read that the Big 10 is at a severe disadvantage because they recruit cold weather players who apparently are fat and slow and are only conditioned to play in cold weather.

Give this bowl a couple years and then it should definitely jump into the hosting-the-national-title-game mix.

All Big Ten players are fat and slow. That's the reason they couldn't handle fast teams like Oregon, Georgia Tech, LSU, and Miami (FL).

Cleveland Buck wrote: All Big Ten players are fat and slow. That's the reason they couldn't handle fast teams like Oregon, Georgia Tech, LSU, and Miami (FL).

We are both making the same point sarcastically. So why do some people continue to harp on the "come north to play" bullshit? As a previous poster stated, there's no disadvantage to anyone in ideal conditions. Yet there's always a couple douches talking about how warm climate teams have some advantage in warm weather.

^^ I think because there are still people holding onto the fact that the only reason OSU is 0-9 in bowl games against the SEC and can't get over on USC is because they play the game in warm weather (including the USC game in Columbus). They always follow up with some comment like "well, come play us in Chicago or Madison in December and we'll see what happens". The fact of the matter is even B10 teams don't play in December here in the Mid-West.

As far as speed goes, the B10 (read OSU) has speed players who are just as quick as the SEC. The difference is the speed and athleticism on the offensive and defensive lines. SEC by a mile.

Perhaps if weren't for the fact that when the mercury dipped to a bone chilling 48 degrees this bowl season in Florida and the 'Cane players weren't huddled around those wee little space heaters on their sideline when they played Wisconsin people wouldn't bring it up as an issue. That includes the announcing crew who were laughing about it.

Meh, IMHO Miami was overrated and inconsistent all season. They will be this season as well. ESPN and the other media outlets were hyping up the return of the Canes. I think this had more to do with the outcome of that game than the cold. SEC teams travels to Kentucky late in the season when it's cold, USC travels to Washington and Oregon when its cold, Texas plays Nebraska and some others when it cold. Doesn't seem to bother them too much.

Not addressing Miami specifically, just pointing out that were weather and cold temps not an issue then it wouldn't have been pointed out by announcing crews and cameramen that the Miami players were acting like they were playing a game located in the arctic circle rather than 48 degrees in Florida.

28 Florida kids signed with Big10 teams last month on signing day. Why would they recruit kids who can't play in the cold ?

227 Florida kids signed with 72 schools outside the state of Florida.
Another 100 signed with one of 7 Florida D1 schools.
12 of 28 Gator signees are not from Florida.

ytownfootball wrote: Not addressing Miami specifically, just pointing out that were weather and cold temps not an issue then it wouldn't have been pointed out by announcing crews and cameramen that the Miami players were acting like they were playing a game located in the arctic circle rather than 48 degrees in Florida.

The cold probably is an issue for teams who aren't used to it. The point is that warm weather is NOT an advantage for anyone. I can't count the number of times I've read posts that crutch on the fact that a bowl game was played in a warm weather locale as some kind of mitigating factor to an outcome. It isn't....at all. Northern teams don't recruit fat slow players so that they can play in the snow. They recruit the best players they can and sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, just like everyone else.

ytownfootball wrote: Perhaps if weren't for the fact that when the mercury dipped to a bone chilling 48 degrees this bowl season in Florida and the 'Cane players weren't huddled around those wee little space heaters on their sideline when they played Wisconsin people wouldn't bring it up as an issue. That includes the announcing crew who were laughing about it.

Was it too cold when Miami lost to Virginia Tech, Clemson and North Carolina last year? Was that the reason they lost those games as well?

enigmaax wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Not addressing Miami specifically, just pointing out that were weather and cold temps not an issue then it wouldn't have been pointed out by announcing crews and cameramen that the Miami players were acting like they were playing a game located in the arctic circle rather than 48 degrees in Florida.

The cold probably is an issue for teams who aren't used to it. The point is that warm weather is NOT an advantage for anyone. I can't count the number of times I've read posts that crutch on the fact that a bowl game was played in a warm weather locale as some kind of mitigating factor to an outcome. It isn't....at all. Northern teams don't recruit fat slow players so that they can play in the snow. They recruit the best players they can and sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, just like everyone else.

That mitigating factor you speak of generally has to do with the fact that those warmer temperature means the game is being played in the SEC's backyard--a home game--and not relevent to the heat being a factor. Obviously not always the case but that's seems to be the general concensus.

You bring up the fact that the Big10 recruits fat, slow players. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Big10 in general recruits these type players, not to play in the snow agreed, but to compete in the league they're in. Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, Sparty OSU...all huge lines that you must match up size wise not only to compete but in order to make it through the schedule healthy. Going up against that takes atoll on the bodies week in week out certainly. The 'smaller' teams get brutalized in the Big10, there are other issue with Michigan, but their smaller lineup got beat like a drum the last several seasons in the Big10, they used to be one of the big horses in the league. Now with a smaller line-up they're the doormat.

Then comes the bowl game where a smaller, quicker lines of the SEC's and some other come in. They can manage to hang for a game with the bigs as they haven't had the snot knocked out them all season. They don't always win, but they've had their runs. I have a hard time saying one is better than the other because they each do what they do to compete against their respective leauges, most of the time recently the SEC has had the advantage, but I can't say it's a clear advantage based on what I've outlined.

TheMightyGators wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Perhaps if weren't for the fact that when the mercury dipped to a bone chilling 48 degrees this bowl season in Florida and the 'Cane players weren't huddled around those wee little space heaters on their sideline when they played Wisconsin people wouldn't bring it up as an issue. That includes the announcing crew who were laughing about it.

Was it too cold when Miami lost to Virginia Tech, Clemson and North Carolina last year? Was that the reason they lost those games as well?

Read the post doofus, just pointing out how funny everyone else thought it was that the mighty 'Canes were huddled around space heaters like little girls.

ytownfootball wrote:

enigmaax wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: Not addressing Miami specifically, just pointing out that were weather and cold temps not an issue then it wouldn't have been pointed out by announcing crews and cameramen that the Miami players were acting like they were playing a game located in the arctic circle rather than 48 degrees in Florida.

The cold probably is an issue for teams who aren't used to it. The point is that warm weather is NOT an advantage for anyone. I can't count the number of times I've read posts that crutch on the fact that a bowl game was played in a warm weather locale as some kind of mitigating factor to an outcome. It isn't....at all. Northern teams don't recruit fat slow players so that they can play in the snow. They recruit the best players they can and sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, just like everyone else.

That mitigating factor you speak of generally has to do with the fact that those warmer temperature means the game is being played in the SEC's backyard--a home game--and not relevent to the heat being a factor. Obviously not always the case but that's seems to be the general concensus.

You bring up the fact that the Big10 recruits fat, slow players. I've pretty much come to the conclusion that the Big10 in general recruits these type players, not to play in the snow agreed, but to compete in the league they're in. Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, Sparty OSU...all huge lines that you must match up size wise not only to compete but in order to make it through the schedule healthy. Going up against that takes atoll on the bodies week in week out certainly. The 'smaller' teams get brutalized in the Big10, there are other issue with Michigan, but their smaller lineup got beat like a drum the last several seasons in the Big10, they used to be one of the big horses in the league. Now with a smaller line-up they're the doormat.

Then comes the bowl game where a smaller, quicker lines of the SEC's and some other come in. They can manage to hang for a game with the bigs as they haven't had the snot knocked out them all season. They don't always win, but they've had their runs. I have a hard time saying one is better than the other because they each do what they do to compete against their respective leauges, most of the time recently the SEC has had the advantage, but I can't say it's a clear advantage based on what I've outlined.

Eh, I don't buy the "backyard" or "home game" stuff at all. There is one Florida team in the SEC, but when an SEC team wins a second-tier bowl game in Florida it was a home game....for Georgia or LSU or Auburn. Tickets are split for those games. As a Florida fan, in Arizona, I felt like there was about a 3-to-1 ratio of OSU-to-Fla fans for that title game. I'm just not much for excuses and find that one to be lame. And there have been plenty of weather discussions, even though that may not be your angle.

I agree in the philosophical difference and most of the other things you said. But again, what that boils down to is that if your strength is stronger than my speed is quick, you are going to win. If not, I'm going to win. Again, no need for excuses.

I really think OSU is its own worst enemy when it comes to competing for national titles at this point. OSU is the only program that can change the Big Ten's line style because no other school is going to be able to stack its roster with enough depth to beat OSU and force a change in style otherwise. OSU gets so many top athletes at the skill positions, that they can balance that with their typical line. You'd have thought Michigan *could* do it, but I think their troubles are more the product of a bad fit between school and coach (and I'm NOT saying Rich Rod isn't a good coach - just not cut out for Michigan) than anything else. For example, if Bo Schembechler were around and bought into this spread offense craze, he could change his style and personnel and be fine (not that he ever would have). But bringing in an outsider just isn't the way to get it done. With Tressel's status at OSU, he could start recruiting a different style of linemen and the rest of the conference would follow suit and still be chasing him.