(09-11-2014 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  What does past performance have anything to do with today's situation. The link provided is bogus. If the B1G had won this past Sat. would he have written the article? How is the Big 12 different? If the B1G wins this weekend have they reversed their football failures? I'm sorry, but IMO, conference perception is simply a marketing tool.

I don't think so. I mean, if it comes down to a SEC and a Big Ten team for a slot- the last 8 years will play a big part in that decision. Might not make the decision, but if they are even- perception will make a huge difference.

Also- it's not just this past weekend. It's been 8 years, since Florida blew the doors off of Ohio St in 2006. Big Ten has never been the same since.

If its Ohio St. and Mississippi St., Ohio St. gets picked.

If its Ohio St. and Baylor, Ohio St. gets picked.

(09-11-2014 01:23 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:11 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:10 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

AMEN! The ACC wouldn't exist if they hadn't stolen teams from the Big East.

Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany screwed the conference by focusing only on increasing TV revenue rather than improving the quality of the product.

Over half the programs (Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Minn., Iowa, Northwestern) have had limited success and no 5-star wants to play for them due to history and location. MSU, Wisconsin, PSU, Nebraska, O$U and UM used to be good, but are now just average.

The simple fact is the SEC and ACC strengthened their conferences by adding quality teams while the Big10 hasn't - and there's little you can do now to fix it (unless you drop the losers).

MSU used to be good? They won the Rose Bowl against the PAC 12 champ last year... they've had one bad half against Oregon and all of a sudden they used to be good? I've always been soft on cincy because they are like MSU is being the 2nd biggest name in the state, but MSU would kick their ass.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I have the utmost respect for MSU, love coach Dantonio, agree that you're currently the best of the Big10 and would (most likely) win against UC.

However, the overall impression of the conference is bringing down the reputation of the individual successful teams - especially yours.

My point was that the Big10 squandered their chance to improve their product by adding teams that just increased their TV footprint. It appears that's the only thing Delaney cares about - and you're reaping what he's sown.

Ahh alright, I won't argue with that. +2

Why do other conferences not follow the SEC lead.

Over sign like crazy hire ten extra coaches.
Schedule your eleventh game against an FCS squad a bad one.
The top teams play two weak G5 and one P5 neutral site.

Maybe this is the Alabama plan anyway follow it.

(09-11-2014 01:58 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:48 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

We can parse and spin the data a bunch of ways. E.g., if we subtract out last year, the B1G was 5-8 the previous 7 years while the ACC was 3-6, and two of those wins came against Big East teams. The ACC was actually lousy last year, about the only good thing they DID do was win their two BCS bowl games, one by a Clemson team that South Carolina had just beaten soundly and wouldn't have made a BCS bowl save for the rules that kept 3 SEC teams and thus much more worthy South Carolina out, and another by FSU in a game that FSU was outplayed and behind almost the whole game and barely eeked out in the last seconds.

Overall, you look at the BCS era, and the B1G's performance was not bad, not worthy of special criticism.

The thing is though- 4 of the Big Ten's wins were in the 1st 2 years of the BCS. Last 14 years of the BCS- Big Ten won 9 games. Oh- and btw, if there was rules that allowed 3 SEC teams- Clemson still would have gotten in last year as an ACC team replacing FSU in the Orange. It's Oklahoma that would not have gone last year.

Last year there was no rule about an ACC team having to replace FSU in the Orange Bowl. That is a new rule associated with the CFP.

Clemson was the 14th team in the BCS standings last year, so only got in because the SEC couldn't have 3, as SC was 9th in those standings. Clearly, SC deserved a BCS bowl bid more than Clemson.

The thing was the Orange Bowl would have had the choice and would have selected Clemson to replace FSU. Every Bowl that lost a conference team replaced them with an eligible team from the same conference. 100% of the time.

I don't think there's any doubt that if the Orange Bowl had the choice among South Carolina, Clemson, and Oklahoma, that Clemson would have been the very last choice. Oklahoma is a blue-blood program with a far deeper Orange Bowl history than either, and South Carolina was obviously superior to Clemson, having just clobbered them.

Remember, the Orange Bowl's loyalty to the ACC is nothing like the Rose Bowl and the B1G/PAC or the Sugar and the SEC. The ACC's ties with the Orange go back less than 10 years, and is based almost entirely on that bowl's desire to have access to the Florida teams, FSU and Miami. They have almost no history or care about other ACC teams.

(09-11-2014 04:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:13 PM)Dasville Wrote:  What does past performance have anything to do with today's situation. The link provided is bogus. If the B1G had won this past Sat. would he have written the article? How is the Big 12 different? If the B1G wins this weekend have they reversed their football failures? I'm sorry, but IMO, conference perception is simply a marketing tool.

I don't think so. I mean, if it comes down to a SEC and a Big Ten team for a slot- the last 8 years will play a big part in that decision. Might not make the decision, but if they are even- perception will make a huge difference.

Also- it's not just this past weekend. It's been 8 years, since Florida blew the doors off of Ohio St in 2006. Big Ten has never been the same since.

If its Ohio St. and Mississippi St., Ohio St. gets picked.

If its Ohio St. and Baylor, Ohio St. gets picked.

JR, never asked you but where did you go to college? Alabama, Georgia, Auburn?

It is due to the 85 scholarship rule back in 1994. This destroyed the big programs from hording all the talent. Back in the day there would be close to 130 or more on the sidelines for Oklahoma, Texas, Michigan, Ohio state, etc.

http://fishduck.com/2012/01/85-scholarsh...ise-power/

So the teams are still better than most but not 5 deep at every position. Plus you have to stay healthy.

People forget that Michigan lost to the two times defending FCS champion Appalachian State. No matter who you are, you can only put 11 on the field at a time. App went on to win its third straight FCS championship.

(09-11-2014 05:32 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  JR, never asked you but where did you go to college? Alabama, Georgia, Auburn?

He only plays an SEC guy on the boards. It's not in his blood.

Not sure what happened to him.

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

I'm sorry but only one Major Conference has destroyed another conference by raiding it. That is your beloved ACC but you know all about that don't you Miami fan?

Quite the hypocrite aren't you?

(09-11-2014 05:03 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:23 PM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:11 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:10 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

AMEN! The ACC wouldn't exist if they hadn't stolen teams from the Big East.

Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany screwed the conference by focusing only on increasing TV revenue rather than improving the quality of the product.

Over half the programs (Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Minn., Iowa, Northwestern) have had limited success and no 5-star wants to play for them due to history and location. MSU, Wisconsin, PSU, Nebraska, O$U and UM used to be good, but are now just average.

The simple fact is the SEC and ACC strengthened their conferences by adding quality teams while the Big10 hasn't - and there's little you can do now to fix it (unless you drop the losers).

MSU used to be good? They won the Rose Bowl against the PAC 12 champ last year... they've had one bad half against Oregon and all of a sudden they used to be good? I've always been soft on cincy because they are like MSU is being the 2nd biggest name in the state, but MSU would kick their ass.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

I have the utmost respect for MSU, love coach Dantonio, agree that you're currently the best of the Big10 and would (most likely) win against UC.

However, the overall impression of the conference is bringing down the reputation of the individual successful teams - especially yours.

My point was that the Big10 squandered their chance to improve their product by adding teams that just increased their TV footprint. It appears that's the only thing Delaney cares about - and you're reaping what he's sown.

Ahh alright, I won't argue with that. +2

You don't have to salute that. "Success" in football can very much be cyclical. If Maryland and Rutgers wish to build strong football programs then they absolutely can. It is much easier to build a football program than it is to build Markets or top notch Universities. Rutgers and Maryland have both of those.

(09-11-2014 04:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:07 AM)bluesox Wrote:  THe big 10 needs to invite Florida State, if they say no maybe invite Miami but get into Florida. Heck, maybe invite both FSU and Miami to get to 16. Although, i do like the kU + OU combo to get to 16 too. Either or both options is an easy solution to the big 10 football problem.

This is the thinking that has put the Big 10 in the position it is in now.

Sorry, but the ACC is stronger than the Big 10 is in Basketball, football, baseball, and most southern sports. And when it comes time for outside sports in the spring semester where are all the northern teams going? Down south.

And I doubt OU would come to the Big 10 at this point what do they gain? They stand to lose a lot of access to source of their success, Texas recruits. No one is leaving to join the Big 10 at this point except for G5 teams.

You do realize that on the field results, though huge on Internet forums, are but a fraction of a conference worth. The Big Ten is still the top grosser in both television revenue and research money and neither of those are changing any time soon. Those things a very attractive to other universities.

(09-11-2014 10:01 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 04:15 PM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 10:07 AM)bluesox Wrote:  THe big 10 needs to invite Florida State, if they say no maybe invite Miami but get into Florida. Heck, maybe invite both FSU and Miami to get to 16. Although, i do like the kU + OU combo to get to 16 too. Either or both options is an easy solution to the big 10 football problem.

This is the thinking that has put the Big 10 in the position it is in now.

Sorry, but the ACC is stronger than the Big 10 is in Basketball, football, baseball, and most southern sports. And when it comes time for outside sports in the spring semester where are all the northern teams going? Down south.

And I doubt OU would come to the Big 10 at this point what do they gain? They stand to lose a lot of access to source of their success, Texas recruits. No one is leaving to join the Big 10 at this point except for G5 teams.

You do realize that on the field results, though huge on Internet forums, are but a fraction of a conference worth. The Big Ten is still the top grosser in both television revenue and research money and neither of those are changing any time soon. Those things a very attractive to other universities.

Oklahoma isn't even surviving on Texas recruits. The guy you are debating should actually check into that. Also he should check into the distance between Norman, Oklahoma and DFW, Texas. Geography isn't his strong suit if he thinks being two and a half hours away doesn't insure that Oklahoma will always be able to recruit there.

Oklahoma is having a massive resurgence as a National Power. Their recruiting is now national. Right now they would dominate the Big Ten. When we have Conference Tournaments, Oklahoma will almost always be on the Big Stage getting a lot of coverage during those weeks when we are not flush with College Football games.

(09-11-2014 01:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

One could argue the Big Ten took advantage of the structure with its own determinants for conference championships before having their CCG. No tie-breakers. The Big Ten was usually very consistent in putting multiple Big Ten teams into the BCS games, but only because their season ended after eleven or twelve games, and not the +1 situation conferences with twelve or more members had.

The god awful polling structure helped them, too.

Yes, but what also helped was of course the tremendous bowl-appeal of the conference, as B1G teams are lusted after by big bowls for their TV appeal and traveling fan bases.

But, those factors (and their pre-championship game conference structure) should have worked at least as much against the B1G as for it in terms of performance, as it implies that weak B1G teams, teams that weren't deserving, were getting in to BCS bowls, which should have hurt the B1G's BCS bowl win percentage.

But their win percentage was respectable anyway.

No reasonable person thinks the B1G is doomed but their limited territory is problematic especially for the middle to lower tier of the conference . The recruiting cycle has acclerated with more of the top kids committing quicker. Getting kids on campus for unofficial visits has become a critical part of the process & being located closer to the talent base is more important than ever. Very few of the south's top recruits are going to travel the distance required when they have to pay for it.

(09-12-2014 06:47 AM)mj4life Wrote:  No reasonable person thinks the B1G is doomed but their limited territory is problematic especially for the middle to lower tier of the conference . The recruiting cycle has acclerated with more of the top kids committing quicker. Getting kids on campus for unofficial visits has become a critical part of the process & being located closer to the talent base is more important than ever. Very few of the south's top recruits are going to travel the distance required when they have to pay for it.

Maybe the Big 10 will find that it needs to overlook the so called "Tech" problem in order to get Texas. Maybe even invite the 4 that the PAC 12 was after at one point. That could go a long ways in fixing the territory and perception issues.

B10's long term destiny is to become a Gang conf. :0)

(09-11-2014 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

We can parse and spin the data a bunch of ways. E.g., if we subtract out last year, the B1G was 5-8 the previous 7 years while the ACC was 3-6, and two of those wins came against Big East teams. The ACC was actually lousy last year, about the only good thing they DID do was win their two BCS bowl games, one by a Clemson team that South Carolina had just beaten soundly and wouldn't have made a BCS bowl save for the rules that kept 3 SEC teams and thus much more worthy South Carolina out, and another by FSU in a game that FSU was outplayed and behind almost the whole game and barely eeked out in the last seconds.

Overall, you look at the BCS era, and the B1G's performance was not bad, not worthy of special criticism.

Nice try... but that Clemson team you are referring also beat a fully equipped Georgia team that also beat LSU and South Carolina in September. The ACC went 5-6 in bowl games when they were underdogs in 9 of the 11 gms, and dominated the individual awards. The past two years the ACC is a very respectable 9-8 in bowls, and 3-0 in BCS games.

I don't know what game you were watching but FSU completely controlled the second half against Auburn, and ended the SEC's 7 year title run. Other teams had their shot, but Florida State is the one that did it.

Yes the ACC was down during most of the 2000s, but its improved has better depth. The Big 10 is in the down cycle now, and it may be so for an extended period of time. There is no question the Big 10 is the worst football conference in the country.

(09-12-2014 06:47 AM)mj4life Wrote:  No reasonable person thinks the B1G is doomed but their limited territory is problematic especially for the middle to lower tier of the conference . The recruiting cycle has acclerated with more of the top kids committing quicker. Getting kids on campus for unofficial visits has become a critical part of the process & being located closer to the talent base is more important than ever. Very few of the south's top recruits are going to travel the distance required when they have to pay for it.

The middle to lower tier being terrible actually helps the conference. The myth of a strong SEC top to bottom is exactly that, a myth. The SEC's run has been built on the top teams beating the lower teams with almost complete regularity. Kentucky, Tennessee, Miss State, Ole Miss, and Vanderbilt have been runover by the top dogs. 2 years ago when Georgia were top 5 and went to the SEC championship game, they beat two teams with winning record: Vanderbilt and Florida. Johnny Manziel's Texas A&M teams beat two BCS schools above .500 each season: Ole Miss and Vanderbilt last year and Alabama and Mississippi State the year before.

The lower SEC teams schedule cupcakes, beat Kentucky and get ranked in the top 25 so when A&M beats Ole Miss, it gets rated as a quality win. The Big Ten won't have the espn hype machine to overrate the Illinois and Rutgers of the world like the Mississippi schools get for some reason, but having the top schools all undefeated except when they play each other, makes those games seem to be more important nationally.

(09-12-2014 09:20 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

We can parse and spin the data a bunch of ways. E.g., if we subtract out last year, the B1G was 5-8 the previous 7 years while the ACC was 3-6, and two of those wins came against Big East teams. The ACC was actually lousy last year, about the only good thing they DID do was win their two BCS bowl games, one by a Clemson team that South Carolina had just beaten soundly and wouldn't have made a BCS bowl save for the rules that kept 3 SEC teams and thus much more worthy South Carolina out, and another by FSU in a game that FSU was outplayed and behind almost the whole game and barely eeked out in the last seconds.

Overall, you look at the BCS era, and the B1G's performance was not bad, not worthy of special criticism.

Nice try... but that Clemson team you are referring also beat a fully equipped Georgia team that also beat LSU and South Carolina in September. The ACC went 5-6 in bowl games when they were underdogs in 9 of the 11 gms, and dominated the individual awards. The past two years the ACC is a very respectable 9-8 in bowls, and 3-0 in BCS games.

I don't know what game you were watching but FSU completely controlled the second half against Auburn, and ended the SEC's 7 year title run. Other teams had their shot, but Florida State is the one that did it.

Yes the ACC was down during most of the 2000s, but its improved has better depth. The Big 10 is in the down cycle now, and it may be so for an extended period of time. There is no question the Big 10 is the worst football conference in the country.

Duke was in the ACC championship game last year.......Duke. No amount of spin can make that symbol of the complete lack of depth in the conference look good.

(09-12-2014 09:20 AM)GTTiger Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

We can parse and spin the data a bunch of ways. E.g., if we subtract out last year, the B1G was 5-8 the previous 7 years while the ACC was 3-6, and two of those wins came against Big East teams. The ACC was actually lousy last year, about the only good thing they DID do was win their two BCS bowl games, one by a Clemson team that South Carolina had just beaten soundly and wouldn't have made a BCS bowl save for the rules that kept 3 SEC teams and thus much more worthy South Carolina out, and another by FSU in a game that FSU was outplayed and behind almost the whole game and barely eeked out in the last seconds.

Overall, you look at the BCS era, and the B1G's performance was not bad, not worthy of special criticism.

Nice try... but that Clemson team you are referring also beat a fully equipped Georgia team that also beat LSU and South Carolina in September. The ACC went 5-6 in bowl games when they were underdogs in 9 of the 11 gms, and dominated the individual awards. The past two years the ACC is a very respectable 9-8 in bowls, and 3-0 in BCS games.

I don't know what game you were watching but FSU completely controlled the second half against Auburn, and ended the SEC's 7 year title run. Other teams had their shot, but Florida State is the one that did it.

You're kidding, right? First, South Carolina was obviously far more deserving than Clemson. Clemson barely beat a Georgia team that went 8-5 (!!!), and until Ohio State they didn't beat a team all year that had fewer than five losses on the season. Until Ohio State they had absolutely no quality wins and were decisively squashed by the two good teams they faced, one of which was South Carolina. That's why South Carolina was 8th in the computer rankings while Clemson was 14th.

As for FSU - Auburn, Auburn dominated the game statistically, and I don't know how anyone can spin FSU outscoring Auburn 3-0 in the third quarter as FSU "dominating" that. Neither team moved the ball at all except FSU drove about 60 yards for a FG. For the second half as a whole, FSU outgained Auburn by a whopping 227 yards to 220 yards. FSU never led the game until the final 13 seconds. They won because they scored 14 points in the last 5 minutes, one on a kickoff return for a TD (and let's face it, all such plays are lucky**) and then Winston threw a 3 yard slant pass that the receiver turned into a 50 yard gain with a great run (yet Jameis Winston laughably claimed afterward that he had "put the team on his back"). And that was against the worst SEC champ since at least 2007.

FSU did also manage to beat Northern Illinois in a BCS game - another example of an ACC team that didn't belong in a BCS game but got in strictly because of the rules. If it wasn't for the special BCS rules, neither FSU in 2012 or Clemson last year even play in BCS bowl games.

I think ACC football is good and improving, but it clearly has a long way to go.



** I know, I know, no team in the history of college football needed and got more luck to make a national title game than did Auburn, so they have nothing to complain about FSU's good fortune in the last 5 minutes.

(09-12-2014 05:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 01:02 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

One could argue the Big Ten took advantage of the structure with its own determinants for conference championships before having their CCG. No tie-breakers. The Big Ten was usually very consistent in putting multiple Big Ten teams into the BCS games, but only because their season ended after eleven or twelve games, and not the +1 situation conferences with twelve or more members had.

The god awful polling structure helped them, too.

Yes, but what also helped was of course the tremendous bowl-appeal of the conference, as B1G teams are lusted after by big bowls for their TV appeal and traveling fan bases.

But, those factors (and their pre-championship game conference structure) should have worked at least as much against the B1G as for it in terms of performance, as it implies that weak B1G teams, teams that weren't deserving, were getting in to BCS bowls, which should have hurt the B1G's BCS bowl win percentage.

But their win percentage was respectable anyway.

Been years ago, but I was in Orlando leading up to the CapOne between Iowa and LSU. Flat amazing how many Iowa fans were every place we went.