Cave_man before you start going on about the superiority of the SEC I would just like to point out that the Big Ten was 2-0 in its head-to-head matchups this bowl season against the SEC.
Let's play the next Rose Bowl at the field of the Big Ten champion Oh Good Lord, man, they've only been playing the game at the Rose Bowl since 1923, and you're going to start bitching now? Grow up. i had to stand by and listen to all these michigan fans talk about how florida would be no match for their precious wolverines, i now see it as my turn to rub it in their face and remind them that michigan wasnt as good as they all saw them as... Well, way to not sink to their level by acting like an ass or anything. Thanks for maintaining your composure, otherwise, you might have embarrassed the rest of us Florida fans. U of M fans, you had a great season, congratulations, but it should be clear to everybody out there, maize-and-blue glasses or not, that the Wolverines did not deserve another shot at Ohio State. I have no idea how the UF - OSU game will go, but I'm glad we're getting to see a matchup that hasn't already been played this year.
I do think the layoff these teams have between their last competitive game and the bowl games, while unavoidable, are tough to deal with. I'll always give a guy like Pete Carrol the nod when he's given that long a time to prepare for an opponent. That being said, USC losing to UCLA, then turning around and taking care of Michigan, shows anything can happen at that level in college football. While I think it may be a bit unfair to judge Lloyd Carr on his last two games, his recent history against Ohio State, and losing this Rose Bowl in such a decisive manner, won't sit well at Michigan. The Wolverines' year will always be judged, overall, on the result against the Buckeyes. I guarantee nobody in Ann Arbor is sitting back fondly recalling their other wins throughout the season, but rather the two straight losses to end the season that bring all the other wins into question. Fair? Probably not, but that's the way it goes in big-time football.
All the Big Ten teams that lost bowl games (except arguably Purdue) and winner Wisconsin were playing teams that finished higher in their respective conferences than they did -- sometimes MUCH higher, as in the case of the very close Texas/Iowa game. And the main reason Purdue finished as high as they did in the Big Ten was the fact that they played neither Michigan nor Ohio State. I don't think the bowl results prove the Big 10 was stronger than the SEC this year, but they certainly suggest the SEC was not the far superior conference many thought. There does appear to be a ratings bias favoring certain programs, as demonstrated last year when Wisconsin tore apart Auburn and still ended up ranked lower afterward. But the Pac 10 certainly appears better than many thought, just as the Big 12 did last year. And the WAC and Big East are looking WAY better than most people expected going into the bowls this year. As for the "home field advantage," a computer analysis by the fellow who does the very good "Bow Down to Entropy" computer ratings does show a definite home advantage for USC in Pasadena, based on expected performance vs. Rose Bowl results. He was also also one of the few who favored USC over Michigan going into this year's game. And it's obvious to anyone who's been paying attention that Big Ten teams have recently done much better down there against non-California teams. But again, I don't think the home advantage can account for THIS year's lopsided Rose Bowl result. Nor do I think layoff was an advantage for either team. Decades ago the Big Ten was considered so superior to the then-Pac 8 they didn't let the Big Ten Conference winner go to the Rose Bowl 2 years in a row until it became obvious that was not the case. They may have intended a Pac 8 home field advantage to that end, too. Of course that has all changed.
ok.. my last post... i have a question for all you wolverine fans out there... do you still think that you're michigan team deserved to play for the title over florida after watching them get handled pretty easy by usc? can you guys admit that you were wrong? and that the two top teams are playing for the title? I have a question for you: if, by chance, OSU drubs Florida by more than say, 20 points, is there any chance you'll poke your head out of your cave to say anything? Or will you disappear, never to be heard from again?
USC beat Michigan. USC lost to Oregon State who lost 42-14 to Boise St. So if Ohio State loses why shouldn't Boise St be the national champs? I don't believe anyone can truly make an argument that FL had a stronger schedule then Boise. Up till FL plays Ohio State their schedule is mostly conference games. With the SEC losing the majority of their bowl games can anyone truly say that conference is truly that much better than any others? I think it makes for a good argument. When LSU won their BCS National Champs USC still claims they are that years National Champs so just an argument.. if OSU wins then this will all be said for nothing.
USC beat Michigan. USC lost to Oregon State who lost 42-14 to Boise St. So if Ohio State loses why shouldn't Boise St be the national champs? Because, UCLA beat USC. UCLA lost to Florida State. Florida beat Florida State.
I don't believe anyone can truly make an argument that FL had a stronger schedule then Boise. Up till FL plays Ohio State their schedule is mostly conference games. Yes I think people can make that arguement. From top to bottom, the SEC is a better conference than the WAC. Teams like San Jose State and Idaho who were mid-tier teams in the WAC don't have the same talent as teams like Georgia, Alabama, or Tennessee. With the SEC losing the majority of their bowl games can anyone truly say that conference is truly that much better than any others? 3-3 in bowl games ia hardly the majority. And while the SEC is not vastly superior to the other BCS conferences, it is certainly a better conference than the WAC.
I don't believe anyone can truly make an argument that FL had a stronger schedule then Boise. Frankly, I can't believe anyone can make the argument that it wasn't. Fact check, the SEC is 4-3 in the bowl games as of the time of this post, with the three losses coming by a total of 16 points against far better opposition than the WAC has faced this bowl season. The best meter I can quickly come up with is #2 in the WAC, Hawaii, lost to #4 in the SEC-West, Alabama (25-17) early in the season. With all due respect, you're allowing the amazing game BSU had affect your judgment. That said, I suppose there is some basis for awarding them a title of co-champions, but certainly not by the logic employed by that post. Though personally, while I have defended Boise State's chances against top-tier programs, I think declaring them split champions - or in warstda's case, sole champions - is really just pushing things a little bit. A great win indeed, but there is still enough skepticism that Boise State can't hang with the premier teams (top-3) to disallow a wide-acceptance of them as co-champs.
Ying Ynag Mafia wrote: Cave_man before you start going on about the superiority of the SEC I would just like to point out that the Big Ten was 2-0 in its head-to-head matchups this bowl season against the SEC. posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 5:59 AM CST on January 2 The Cave Dude retorted: The question was not abour superiority. Where did I make that claim? I asked for the records of non-conference opponents of Michigan and Ohio State. Seemed like a straight forward query at the time. I favor a tournament to decide the national college football champion. A football tournament will be an instant fan draw and a massive money maker for colleges. I will let the play on the field on January 8 decide the national champion. In my mind, the title should go to one of two teams at this point, either Ohio State or Florida, their play should decide it, not armchair analysis of the sort that is in rich supply in many posts on this site. But it is fun to debate you, even when your logic is inherently flawed.
the Big Ten was something like 0-4 while the SEC was something like 3-1. Senor Cave Man, the comment above was what I was replying to. I assumed you were making the point that the SEC had done much better than the Big Ten, to which I pointed out that the Big Ten was superior in head to head matchups.
Since everyone bashes me when I get off subject I find it my duty to respond in like... This thread is about USC and JD Booty beating Michigan (quite handily). It is not the thread for Fla, the SEC, Big Ten v. SEC superiority, Boise State, OSU, etc... There are and will be many more threads that will contain that subject matter.
If every thread stayed exactly on the topic that is mentioned in the link then SportsFilter would miss some very good discussions. Also, comments that pertain to college football are much closer to the subject than a comment bashing people for their comments.
Go Buckeyes
Thanks Ying Yang for following the college football topic, nothing personal there at all.
