Upsets in the Big 10
- Thread starter mtdew_fever
- Start date
Good question but I think worse. If Purdue didn't lose to Eastern Michigan I might think differently. Same goes if NW lost to Rutgers yesterday. That would have been a huge black eye to NW.
ESPN is in bed financially with the Sec. They will push that narrative no matter what and they have for the most part get away with it due to Alabama, some truth that there are different programs that rotate to the top, and confirmation bias.
We also snubbed ESPN as a conference which makes us the enemy. The problem is our conference really is thebest conference in terms of coverage and top to bottom quality. So they can't get rid of us but they sure want us to fail
We also snubbed ESPN as a conference which makes us the enemy. The problem is our conference really is thebest conference in terms of coverage and top to bottom quality. So they can't get rid of us but they sure want us to fail
It is interesting because people will take two completely different sides.
BIG 10 Haters - Ohio St wasnt that good to begin with if they cant beat Purdue
BIG 10 loyalist - Purdue upsetting Ohio St just shows how much depth the conference has.
Honestly, I dont know which side I am on. Without a ton of overlap between all of the conferences, it is tough to make comparisons between the conferences.
BIG 10 Haters - Ohio St wasnt that good to begin with if they cant beat Purdue
BIG 10 loyalist - Purdue upsetting Ohio St just shows how much depth the conference has.
Honestly, I dont know which side I am on. Without a ton of overlap between all of the conferences, it is tough to make comparisons between the conferences.
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
When SEC teams knock each other off, the narrative is that it's a shame two great teams have to play each other because, alas, one of them must lose. But losing does not tarnish their greatness. Pretty much the opposite narrative when it involves the Big Ten.
One thing we do know, however, is that Alabama is way better than Arkansas State, LA-Lafayette, and probably The Citadel--although we have to wait until Nov. 17 to put that last one down in ink.
One thing we do know, however, is that Alabama is way better than Arkansas State, LA-Lafayette, and probably The Citadel--although we have to wait until Nov. 17 to put that last one down in ink.
Last edited by a moderator:
When it comes to Ohio State and Purdue, I will just say I don't think Ohio state was as good as people were saying and Purdue is better than people thought. The Big Ten Conference from top to bottom is better then it has been.
Yeah, we really can't know until much later in the season.
Purdue started shakily. They're on a hot streak. Is that because they have improved? Or are they an inconsistent team with upside that can be dangerous when they click? We need more of a sample to figure that out.
Likewise, did Ohio State just have a bad game, or did they just finally run into an opponent who could take advantage of real weaknesses they have? Can they patch those weaknesses? We'll see the next 5 weeks.
All we know is that, on Saturday, Purdue was very good and Ohio State's back seven was undisciplined and very gettable.
In terms of perception ... it DOES knock down the perception of the B1G to some degree.
However, I don't care ... I like the demonstration of greater parity between the two B1G subdivisions. I like seeing the B1G west hold their own.
If the sec is so amazeballs how can Alabama go undefeated pretty much every single year. You would think with such quality someone would trip them up. Doesn't happen though. Not really
Also would point out that a couple huge power trams have joined our conference and had big dreams of showing us just how bad we all are. Penn State and Nebraska sure have shown us haven't they?
Also would point out that a couple huge power trams have joined our conference and had big dreams of showing us just how bad we all are. Penn State and Nebraska sure have shown us haven't they?
It more reflects how Ohio State isnt up to par with Clemson and Alabama.
parity is a good thing...
the 49ers and Cowboys trading Superbowls every year is a bad thing for the NFL.
competition is a good thing...
Alabama in the College Playoffs every year is a bad thing... with only 4 selected teams... and a guaranteed spot for Alabama... that really only narrows it down to 3 possible candidates to make the playoffs...
the 4 team College Playoff system is a bore.
the great thing about the Big Ten Conference is that there have been 4 different Conference Champions in the 7 years of having a Conference Championship game and 3 repeat winners...
nobody has won more than 2.
parity is a good.. it breeds competition.
look at the SEC...
Alabama has won the SEC 4 of the last 7... and in all likelihood will win it again this year...
how boring is that.
so also with the Playoffs... if the same team wins it every other year... thats boring.... and bad for football.
imagine the College Playoffs if it had teams like Iowa State, Utah, and Virginia...
now... come on... thats a whole lot better than seeing 2 and 3 SEC teams out of a possible 4.
mix it up... have some fun... this same schtick year after year is boring... especially when it involves teams I don't even care about...
I mean really....
do you really care who wins a NC game between Georgia and Alabama?
I sure as heck don't.... thats why I never watched the Playoffs.
parity is a good thing... like what we have in the West.... we have 4 teams competing for the West Division title... and nobody knows who's gonna win it.
look at the SEC West...
the season is only half over... and Alabama has already sown up that division.
man that would suck if I were a fan of those other teams.
David defeating Goliath was a good thing.
the 49ers and Cowboys trading Superbowls every year is a bad thing for the NFL.
competition is a good thing...
Alabama in the College Playoffs every year is a bad thing... with only 4 selected teams... and a guaranteed spot for Alabama... that really only narrows it down to 3 possible candidates to make the playoffs...
the 4 team College Playoff system is a bore.
the great thing about the Big Ten Conference is that there have been 4 different Conference Champions in the 7 years of having a Conference Championship game and 3 repeat winners...
nobody has won more than 2.
parity is a good.. it breeds competition.
look at the SEC...
Alabama has won the SEC 4 of the last 7... and in all likelihood will win it again this year...
how boring is that.
so also with the Playoffs... if the same team wins it every other year... thats boring.... and bad for football.
imagine the College Playoffs if it had teams like Iowa State, Utah, and Virginia...
now... come on... thats a whole lot better than seeing 2 and 3 SEC teams out of a possible 4.
mix it up... have some fun... this same schtick year after year is boring... especially when it involves teams I don't even care about...
I mean really....
do you really care who wins a NC game between Georgia and Alabama?
I sure as heck don't.... thats why I never watched the Playoffs.
parity is a good thing... like what we have in the West.... we have 4 teams competing for the West Division title... and nobody knows who's gonna win it.
look at the SEC West...
the season is only half over... and Alabama has already sown up that division.
man that would suck if I were a fan of those other teams.
David defeating Goliath was a good thing.
If Ohio State wins the B1G Championship, the SEC will use the OSU loss to Purdue against OSU and the B1G and politic for 2 SEC teams in the CFP.
Can you imagine? 2 SEC teams, Notre Dame and Clemson in the CFP and 3 P5 conferences left out?
A
anon_i8nzeu2gbf0ba
Guest
The four-team "playoff" was devised for one reason: to ensure that the SEC myth of being the greatest football conference ever is protected. Open the thing up to 8 or 12 or 16 or 24 teams and, well, that myth would be destroyed forever.
Here are some facts:
* 68 of 347 D1 teams make the NCAA basketball tournament. That's 20%.
* 64 of 300 D1 baseball teams make the NCAA tournament. That's 21%.
* 24 of 125 FCS football teams make the playoffs. That's 19%.
* 3 of 130 D1 football teams make the CFP. That's 3%.
Which one is not like the others?
Every other NCAA national playoff is INclusive--except D1 football, which is ludicrously EXclusive. It's pretty clear that if FCS teams can stage a 24-team football playoff, there is no good reason the same thing cannot be done at the D1 level. And bowl games are not an excuse.
Until the CFP includes at least 12 teams, which would still be a far lower percentage than any other NCAA sport, then the CFP will continue to be a bad joke to any fair-minded college football fan.
Here are some facts:
* 68 of 347 D1 teams make the NCAA basketball tournament. That's 20%.
* 64 of 300 D1 baseball teams make the NCAA tournament. That's 21%.
* 24 of 125 FCS football teams make the playoffs. That's 19%.
* 3 of 130 D1 football teams make the CFP. That's 3%.
Which one is not like the others?
Every other NCAA national playoff is INclusive--except D1 football, which is ludicrously EXclusive. It's pretty clear that if FCS teams can stage a 24-team football playoff, there is no good reason the same thing cannot be done at the D1 level. And bowl games are not an excuse.
Until the CFP includes at least 12 teams, which would still be a far lower percentage than any other NCAA sport, then the CFP will continue to be a bad joke to any fair-minded college football fan.
The reality is that a conference that's strong top to bottom and has some upsets looks worse than a team that has one or two good teams that beat up on everybody else.
Consider this scenario where you know how good teams really are::
Conference 1 has teams that are legitimately ranked (I know, that's a myth)
1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 19, 25
Conference 2 has teams ranked:
14, 29, 36, 43, 49, 55, 70, 90
The #14 team in conf 2 goes undefeated
The 1, 2, & 5 teams are each have 2 losses due to the relative parity in the conference.
Even though conf 1 has 5 teams that are better than the top team in conf 2, the undefeated team in conf 2 is heralded as a juggernaut and makes the playoffs where it faces teams from conf 3, 4 & 5 who have some 1 loss teams. That #14 team now has a great chance of winning the NC even though they are not even close to the best team.
Yes, this is a hypothetical, but the point remains that any given conference is probably better off with a couple teams that are much better than the rest (ideally one in each division) than having a whole bunch of really good teams that beat each other up all season. Playing less conference games is also a good thing.
The bottom line: A NC in college football is problematic at best and a joke at worst. Also, as noted above, if the same teams are always winning the conference and/or national championships, people stop caring (other than the teams that make the playoff). Why care when it's the same teams every freakin' year? I'm amazed that it's such a hot topic of conversation here. I lost interest decades ago.
Consider this scenario where you know how good teams really are::
Conference 1 has teams that are legitimately ranked (I know, that's a myth)
1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 15, 19, 25
Conference 2 has teams ranked:
14, 29, 36, 43, 49, 55, 70, 90
The #14 team in conf 2 goes undefeated
The 1, 2, & 5 teams are each have 2 losses due to the relative parity in the conference.
Even though conf 1 has 5 teams that are better than the top team in conf 2, the undefeated team in conf 2 is heralded as a juggernaut and makes the playoffs where it faces teams from conf 3, 4 & 5 who have some 1 loss teams. That #14 team now has a great chance of winning the NC even though they are not even close to the best team.
Yes, this is a hypothetical, but the point remains that any given conference is probably better off with a couple teams that are much better than the rest (ideally one in each division) than having a whole bunch of really good teams that beat each other up all season. Playing less conference games is also a good thing.
The bottom line: A NC in college football is problematic at best and a joke at worst. Also, as noted above, if the same teams are always winning the conference and/or national championships, people stop caring (other than the teams that make the playoff). Why care when it's the same teams every freakin' year? I'm amazed that it's such a hot topic of conversation here. I lost interest decades ago.
Not sure about the B1G, but when LSU beat Georgia, I believe their collective average rank actually increased in the polls the next week.
worse. Easy question. Nobody is suddenly going to say "Boy the B1G is deep and the West is actually pretty good!"
