Great Day for College Football

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Here's the difference between the SEC and the Big 10... the "non-elite" teams are capable of beating the better teams.

Vandy can (and did) go on the road and beat South Carolina. Kentucky can (and did) beat LSU. Mississippi State can (and did) go on the road and beat Kentucky. Auburn can (and did) go on the road and beat Florida. Ole Miss could have beaten both Florida and Bama.

In the Big 10, it doesn't appear that any of the "lesser" programs is capable of competing with, much less beating either of the "Big 2." (Though Mich St. did give Mich a nice game this past weekend.)

I think this is another one of these myths that needs busted.

The past two years this appears like an obvious observation with OSU and Michigan going undefeated both years (a combined 26-0 so far), but this is not the 60's and 70's anymore. Northwestern has won three championships in the past 10 years. Wisconsin has won a few. Illinois just won it five years ago.

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you struggle or lose with the "mediocre" teams in your conference you aren't a truly great team. You better hope other teams out there struggle as well. Take UK, they have done nothing this year, but beat LSU. They are the equivalent of a Purdue. Now, had Purdue beaten OSU they would be the media darling. They would be 8-2 and I guarantee a top 15 team. But they lost, so they don't sniff the top 25. And the Big Ten must be weak because they LOST. Now go back to UK, a team that you probably could compare to Purdue. They beat LSU and now not only is UK this great program all of a sudden, but LSU must be great too, because the SEC is so super deep that a mediocre program could beat one of their monsters.

If Purdue beat OSU, it would have been "proof" that the Big Ten was a joke.

Double standard and another circular argument it seems.

[dabvu2498]

I think this is another one of these myths that needs busted.

The past two years this appears like an obvious observation with OSU and Michigan going undefeated both years (a combined 26-0 so far), but this is not the 60's and 70's anymore. Northwestern has won three championships in the past 10 years. Wisconsin has won a few. Illinois just won it five years ago.

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you struggle or lose with the "mediocre" teams in your conference you aren't a truly great team. You better hope other teams out there struggle as well. Take UK, they have done nothing this year, but beat LSU. They are the equivalent of a Purdue. Now, had Purdue beaten OSU they would be the media darling. They would be 8-2 and I guarantee a top 15 team. But they lost, so they don't sniff the top 25. And the Big Ten must be weak because they LOST. Now go back to UK, a team that you probably could compare to Purdue. They beat LSU and now not only is UK this great program all of a sudden, but LSU must be great too, because the SEC is so super deep that a mediocre program could beat one of their monsters.

If Purdue beat OSU, it would have been "proof" that the Big Ten was a joke.

Double standard and another circular argument it seems.

Not really. Because not only did Purdue not beat Ohio State or Michigan, they pretty much got dominated in both games. There wasn't really much of a chance of Purdue winning either game because of the disparity in talent.

Kentucky not only had enough talent to compete with LSU, but also to beat them. Could have beaten Florida and USCEast also, but that's another story.

I think OSU and Michigan have just as much talent as anyone in the SEC. Could they compete for the SEC Championship? You bet. But do you think Illinois has the talent to be 4-2 against an SEC schedule? Penn St. 4-3? Purdue 3-3? Could Northwestern have beaten 2 SEC schools?

[IslandRed]

The onus is on them, since they are not in a BCS conference, to schedule tougher games pre-conference. If Middle Tennessee State has their goal set on a NC, they need to schedule USC, OSU, Oklahoma, and other power BCS schools and beat them and then run away with their conference.

I'm sure the Boise States of the world try. But there are a lot more schools competing for those slots against the powerhouses than there are slots, and you're still ignoring the fact that it takes two to tango and being good makes those games more difficult to schedule. Big schools like their cupcakes soft.

[MWM]

This year is an absolute anomaly for UK. And the last couple of years for Vandy. Next year, UK will go back to being stomped by pretty much everyone in the SEC. I don't know enough about Vandy either.

And the past two seasons are also anomalies for the Big Ten as far as the top 2 going undefeated. It's not like it happens very often. Heck, just 3 years ago, OSU lost 3 straight conference games.

[MaineRed]

Exactly.

And I think what separates the six BCS conferences is so small that it's ridiculous to claim superiority.

The Big Ten must suck.

Who is saying the Big Ten sucks? I can believe the Pats are the best team in the NFL without thinking the Colts suck.

The outside world has tried to give the Big Ten credit this year. Michigan was highly ranked and lost to 1-AA team. All I heard about before OSU took down Purdue was about Purdue's nation leading offense. Then before the Penn State game all I heard about was the whiteout and how OSU was bound to lose. Both games were duds. Zook and Illinois was everyone's darling and they lost to a very banged up Iowa squad. Wisconsin was highly ranked and then forgot how to tackle for 3 games.

And lets not get too worked up about SEC bias. They have one team in the top 9. 8 teams from the other leagues, 3 from the Big 12 are ranked in the top 9.

What makes the SEC better is the number of Penn States and Purdues. There are more of them in the SEC. You don't have Heisman canidates and record breaking backs playing for the 9th place team in the Big Ten. But that doesn't mean the teams at the top aren't good. Unless they played each other on a regular basis some of it has to be subjective but when LSU a team with as much talent as anyone in the country play a confernce game they get tested. Ohio State, they just roll over everyone. After the BCS game last year with Florida does anyone think OSU is better than LSU? Does anyone think Ohio State would go on the road to Bama and Auburn or Florida and Tennessee and roll, week after week after week? I don't.

I don't think it is fair to say that the gap between the Big East or ACC and the SEC is small. Other than a couple of Big East schools they would all get killed in the SEC while most SEC schools would be favorites to win the Big East against all teams except maybe WVU. The ACCs best team is BC or VT (they played and the score was 14-10) and LSU kicked the crap out of VT. Sure the game was in Baton Rouge but I don't hear Oregon making excuses for their loss at the Big House.

Some conferences are better than others. The gap between 1 and 2 or 3 and 4 or 5 and 6 might be small but there is a tremendous gap in talent between 1 and 6. I think most would agree.

And if SOS isn't important, just winning games and being in a BCS conference is, isn't college football opening itself up to reward the lower tiered BCS conferences while inviting teams to play nobody outside of their league? We should be impressed when LSU smokes Va Tech or Oregon blast Michigan. Right? So why not be unimpressed when Kansas is playing Toledo and Florida Atlantic?

I don't buy the argument that MTS should just schedule the big guys and beat them if they want to win. Why doesn't Kansas have to do the same thing? Why is their cupcake schedule rewarded but the schedule of MTS has to be examined with a fine tooth comb? What happened to just winning games?

We need SOS and it needs to be important. It is a big determining factor, especially when there are more than two unbeatens. Otherwise what are you going to use to pick the two title teams, a coin flip? If you are going to heavily weigh SOS then, don't you have to now?

Someone wrote that we can't just assume Kansas is bad because they haven't played anyone. Well is it fair to the other teams that we think we have the answer on to just guess that they are good because they have won all their games? I don't know how good they are as they aren't on TV and when they are they don't play anyone. How can I just assume they are good when I don't know?

I'm more than willing to be fair with Kansas but I need something to go on besides wins over secondary competition. Just from who they have played and the scores of the games I think Kansas would be lucky to have less than 3 losses right now if they played Ohio State's schedule.

[MaineRed]

I guess I'm of the opinion that if you struggle or lose with the "mediocre" teams in your conference you aren't a truly great team. You better hope other teams out there struggle as well. Take UK, they have done nothing this year, but beat LSU. They are the equivalent of a Purdue. Now, had Purdue beaten OSU they would be the media darling. They would be 8-2 and I guarantee a top 15 team. But they lost, so they don't sniff the top 25. And the Big Ten must be weak because they LOST. Now go back to UK, a team that you probably could compare to Purdue. They beat LSU and now not only is UK this great program all of a sudden, but LSU must be great too, because the SEC is so super deep that a mediocre program could beat one of their monsters.

If Purdue beat OSU, it would have been "proof" that the Big Ten was a joke.

Double standard and another circular argument it seems.

But Purdue didn't beat Ohio State, they got waxed. Kentucky did beat LSU. That is why Kentucky is ranked and Purdue is only recieving a few votes. You don't see the difference?

Are you suggesting that we should lump Purdue and Kentucky together because that is what we would have done if Purdue beat OSU?

Kentucky would be hanging out right next to Purdue in the rankings if they lost to LSU. But they didn't.

A big reason Kentucky beating LSU was "proof" that the SEC is a good league is becuase Kentucky had worked themselves up into the top ten and they had to that point beaten Louisiville, a BCS team with a Heisman canidate at QB and Arkansas a team with the Heisman frontrunner. While those wins are not as impressive today as they were then nobody knew that then.

Had Purdue beaten OSU it would have been Purdues only decent win. There weren't two takedowns of very serious Heisman canidates.

Now that we are deeper into the season we can see what Kentucky is or perhaps was. They are a decent team and are probably ranked accordingly. They are below Penn State and Penn State's best wins are Wisconisn and Purdue.

What happened to the SEC bias? How is a Big Ten team without any sort of a signature win ahead of the only team to beat LSU? Its not like Kentucky is 3-6.

Penn State is ahead of the Wildcats because most voters are objective and leave the so called bias at home.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Not really. Because not only did Purdue not beat Ohio State or Michigan, they pretty much got dominated in both games. There wasn't really much of a chance of Purdue winning either game because of the disparity in talent.

Maybe OSU is just that good. Maybe LSU is just good and not great. It seems that if a dominant team from the SEC struggles the argument is always going to be that it was because the SEC is so great. What I'm trying to do in these posts is question that logic. What if LSU destroyed UK (like OSU did to Purdue) and Big Ten people and the media then said, "well, it wasn't close, so your conference is down and your wins don't mean as much." The fact of the matter is that they lost. OSU dominated the game at Purdue in just has hostile of an environment (at night) and my argument is that Purdue and UK are one in the same. Your logic is that that Purdue doesn't have much talent because they lost to OSU. I say Purdue has the same talent as UK and the SEC's dominant team lost to them. My argument is that if OSU played UK, at UK (even at night), they would do to them what they did to Purdue, which LSU could not. Prove to me that UK is better than Purdue (other than using the LSU win) and we might have something.

Otherwise, it's a circular argument again. SEC team loses, because SEC is better. Big Ten team wins because Big Ten must not be as deep.

Kentucky not only had enough talent to compete with LSU, but also to beat them. Could have beaten Florida and USCEast also, but that's another story.

The same could have be said about Purdue's losses to Michigan and Penn State and those are arguably better teams than Florida and South Carolina.

I think OSU and Michigan have just as much talent as anyone in the SEC. Could they compete for the SEC Championship? You bet. But do you think Illinois has the talent to be 4-2 against an SEC schedule? Penn St. 4-3? Purdue 3-3? Could Northwestern have beaten 2 SEC schools?

These are impossible questions to answer. They are opinion based. Similar to me asking you if you think Ole Miss, Vandy, Arkansas, or Mississippi State could win four games in the Big Ten or compete for a Big Ten title. At least our bad teams have some good years (Northwestern, Minnesota, etc.). When was the last time Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Kentucky, or Vandy won the SEC? I'm not sure I understand the logic of the question.

If you want my honest opinion, I think Purdue, Penn St., Wisconsin, Illinois, and even Iowa and Michigan State (in addition to OSU and UM) could all win at least 4 games in the SEC in a given year, just like I bet Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina (in addition to Florida and LSU) could all win at least 4 games in the Big Ten.

And those teams you mentioned have beaten comparable SEC teams in bowls. The Outback and Capital One are bowls designed to match comparable teams from each conference.

The Big 10 is 13 and 13 vs. the SEC in bowls over the last 10 years from 1997 to 2006 season. This is not bad, considering how much we hear about SEC superiority and that 25 of the 26 games were played on SEC turf.

Also, the Big 10 was 0-2 vs. the SEC ten years ago ('97), so once this season's bowl match up's are determined and there should be at least a couple Big 10/SEC match up's (have been 3 SEC/B10 bowls per year 4 of the last 5 years), the Big 10's record over the last 10 years (1998-2007) will be 13-11, plus whatever record they put up this year. So, all they need is one bowl victory over the SEC (this year) to be assured of a winning record over the last 10 years. Over the last 5 years, the Big 10 is 8-6 over the SEC in bowl match up's. 2002 (2-1), 2003 (1-2), 2004 (2-1), 2005 (1-1), and 2006 (2-1).

Ironically, Ohio State being 0-3 is the only thing keeping the Big Ten from looking like a dominant conference in head-to-head bowl matchups with the SEC.



Michigan: (4-1)
Win vs. Arkansas - '98 Citrus
Win vs. Alabama - '99 Orange
Win vs. Auburn - '00 Citrus
Loss vs. Tennessee - '01 Citrus
Win vs. Florida - '02 Outback

Wisconsin: (2-3)
Loss vs. Georgia - '97 Outback
Loss vs. Auburn - '03 Music City
Loss vs. Georgia - '04 Outback
Win vs. Auburn - '05 Capital One
Win vs. Arkansas - '06 Capital One

Penn State: (2-2)
Loss vs. Florida - '97 Citrus
Win vs. Kentucky - '98 Outback
Loss vs. Auburn - '02 Capital One
Win vs. Tennessee - '06 Outback

Iowa: (2-1)
Win vs. Florida - '03 Outback
Win vs. LSU - '04 Capital One
Loss vs. Florida - '05 Outback

Ohio State: (0-3)
Loss vs. South Carolina - '00 Outback
Loss vs. South Carolina - '01 Outback
Loss vs. Florida - '06 Fiesta (neutral field)

Minnesota: (2-0)
Win vs. Arkansas - '02 Music City
Win vs. Alabama - '04 Music City

Purdue: (0-2)
Loss vs. Georgia - '99 Outback
Loss vs. Georgia - '03 Capital One

Michigan State: (1-0)
Win vs. Florida - '99 Citrus

Illinois: (0-1)
Loss vs. LSU - '01 Sugar

[dabvu2498]

This year is an absolute anomaly for UK. And the last couple of years for Vandy. Next year, UK will go back to being stomped by pretty much everyone in the SEC. I don't know enough about Vandy either.

And the past two seasons are also anomalies for the Big Ten as far as the top 2 going undefeated. It's not like it happens very often. Heck, just 3 years ago, OSU lost 3 straight conference games.

I'd say you're right about Kentucky. Two good years in a row is about it for them. It will be interesting to see if their success on the field leads to them getting some premier recruits.

Vandy... ehhhhh... there's some talent there... some NFL caliber talent, particularly WR Earl Bennett and LB Jonathan Goff. CB DJ Moore might be draft-worthy in a couple years. This year their entire OL is 5th year seniors, so next year, particularly if Bennett leaves early, could be a mystery offensively. There's more talent there than there has been in 25 years... enough to pull off the periodic upset here and there (UT 2 years ago, UGa last year, USC this year), but enough to win 4 conference games, 7 overall, and make it to a bowl? Not likely. Would I like to have seen them play Purdue's schedule? Absofreakinlutely. Sorry if that chaps anyone's behind, but it's true. I would have.

[MaineRed]

Yeah, a game ten year ago will tell you which conference is best THIS year.

Seems to me if you are digging up stats from TEN years ago then you are struggling to find relevant data that backs up what you want it to say.

Purdue is one of the top teams in the Big Ten. Kentucky is a bottom 4 SEC team. And you, the Big Ten fan took the time to compare the two. So one of your better teams is one of the SEC's worst? But your real argument is that this proves the Big Ten is just as good?

BTW, LSU had to play Kentucky the week after their biggest game of the year against Florida and the Gator game was an emotional battle. The week before Purdue, OSU was playing Minnesota.

Do you think OSU would have such an easy time at Purdue if they played Michigan the week before? You have to take some of this stuff into consideration.

And Michigan better than Florida? Maybe on whatever piece of paper you are looking at. While understanding that this isn't last years Florida team, lets remember tha nobody gave the Gators a shot to beat OSU and the the Buckeyes had no answer for the speed Florida has. It would be the same thing if Florida played UM or PSU.

What evidence is there that Michigan is better than Florida or that PSU is better than Florida? Could either team go to LSU on a Saturday night and even give the Tigers a game? I doubt it.

[MWM]

The argument chages if you're talking this year vs. most years. Because this year (and last year), the Big Ten is top heavy. Although, I do believe Penn State and Wisconsin could play with a lot of the SEC teams. They're better than people think (they both beat SEC teams in bowls last year).

But in the average year, I'm with BuckeyeRedLeg, I'd put Wisconsin, Penn State, Michigan State, Purdue, and Illinois against the 3-8 SEC teams. It would be a close matchup, IMO.

[dabvu2498]

BuckeyeRL -- Let me first say this -- I'm no football scout, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

My opinion, and yes it is an opinion, is based on observations of the two leagues. Sad to say, but most of my Saturdays this fall have been spent in front of a TV. Heaven help me, I even watched almost all the Purdue-Penn St. game this past weekend even. In my opinion, that game, and other games between the mid-tier Big 10 teams, was not played at as high a level as say the Bama-UT game, the USC-UK game, the Auburn-UF game, etc., etc. Just an opinion.

If you really think Iowa, Illinois, Mich St., or Purdue could win 4 SEC games, we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

The Purdue-Kentucky comparison, if you go beyond just their records, doesn't really hold up in my mind. Look at who Purdue has beaten. Not too impressive. Look at who UK has beaten. Pretty impressive.

[MaineRed]

Agreed. What I don't undestand is why such proclamations have to be made as I don't think anyone is disputing that. Alabama and Auburn playing PSU and Purdue would be god games and either team could win. No doubt.

There seems to be this perception from both Pac 10 and Big 10 fans that if you believe the SEC is number one you think the other conferences are total garbage. I've yet to see anyone say actually say it but people keep arguing against it.

The Big Ten has a legitimate case to being the second best IMO. SO does the Big 12. The ACC and Big East fight it out for a distant 5th and 6th (this year).

[MWM]

dabvu, Big Ten football can be ugly, especially when two Bog Ten teams are playing against each other. That doesn't always mean they aren't playing at as high a level. The Big Ten style isn't as fun to watch, but it has historically matchedup well when they've gone against SEC team - last year's national title game excepting.

[dabvu2498]

dabvu, Big Ten football can be ugly, especially when two Bog Ten teams are playing against each other. That doesn't always mean they aren't playing at as high a level. The Big Ten style isn't as fun to watch, but it has historically matchedup well when they've gone against SEC team - last year's national title game excepting.

Agreed. But I'm not really arguing the historical argument. I'm talking about this year.

"Bog Ten" wasn't a bit of a subliminal slip-up, was it?

[MWM]

LOL! Nah, just a typo.

But I've contended for a few years that the rest of the Big Ten needs to move into this century as far as offense goes. I think the defenses in the Big Ten overall are really good. But the style off offense played at a lot of the schools is outdated. Once some of these other schools make the switch to the modern day style of offense, the Big Ten should rise again. I think the past couple of seasons have been down years for the Big Ten, so I was mostly arguing historical. this year is this year. The tide will turn. Most years, the conferences are quite close, IMO.