Other than seven different Big Ten teams have won outright or shared the B10 title in the past ten years, you're probably right. Other than the Wissies were ineligible for a BCS bowl, given the two team from one conference rule, you're probably right. And given the B10 has a winning record against the SEC in the last five years (17 games), you're probably right. And given that Michigan has only gone undefeated in B10 play 3 times in the past 25 years, Ohio State only twice (2006, 2002), while multiple teams in the SEC have gone undefeated in SEC regular season play over the past 25 years, you're probably right. Yep, you're probably right. What you are right about for sure is Florida beat the crap out of Ohio State, which makes it a good time for Big Tenners to lay low... you know, 'til USC or someone puts 50 on Arkansas or something... then we can come back out from hiding...:wink:
Now I see why people on here complain about you knowing nothing. No, I am not. I never said "The Big Ten is BETTER THAN THE SEC because we went 2-1 against them this year in bowl games!!!" Never Never said that. I was trying to make the point to several people on here when they are saying "The SEC owned! the Big Ten" based off of 1 bowl win in OSU v. UF. It's really a two-way street, pal. This is true, sometimes. Every year there is at least one other team vying for the conference championship. Case in point? Wisconsin this year. The only thing separating them from a conference co-championship is the UW vs. UM game in Ann Arbor. So, you can say the UW/UM and UM/OSU game both were part of it. Also, last year, when PSU, OSU, and Wisconsin were all in the mix and Michigan never was. How about 2004, where Iowa and Michigan shared a co-championship, and Ohio State was pushed out? We're not in the Bo vs. Woody era anymore, buddy. This is true...sometimes. There are usually 1-2 of these teams completely out of it every year. Such as this year, with Alabama and Georgia. Last year? Tennessee. 2004? Florida and Alabama. Etc. This year, the SEC was up, the Big Ten was down. No doubt about that. Last year, both were a bit down. What's going to happen in the future? Who knows...let's ask the new coaches.
I might add, with your approval.... Florida creamed Ohio State... there is no other word for it... Two years ago, USC creamed Oklahoma... a friggen nightmare for the Big 12. They hide for a year until Texas restored order for the Big 12 conference the next year by winning the 'crown". Ohio State embarassed themselves and the conference. Life goes on... none of these conferences are going to shatter into pieces because someone gets "taken down" in one game.
Hey, if we're going off of bowl records as a whole, we might as well crown the Big East the best conference this year. 5-0!!!
Would you be kind enough to go review the "Winning % by Decade" thread and then support the "fact" that 5 or 6 teams have a legitimate shot and the conference championship... and the national awards "every year"? Just seems to me the SEC has rotated around over the past 10 to 12 years just like the Big Ten... with two to three to sometimes four good teams vying... as the preseason rankings fall to the wayside each year.
Code: Championships by school School Last Conference Title Number of Big Ten Titles Chicago 1924 7 Illinois 2001 15 Indiana 1967 2 Iowa 2004 11 Michigan 2004 42 Michigan State 1990 6 Minnesota 1967 18 Northwestern 2000 8 Ohio State 2006 31 Penn State 2005 2 Purdue 2000 8 Wisconsin 1999 11 penn st shocks me with only 2 wuth NW having 8. did chicago defect to compete against lombardi and did papa bear coach them? .
The number of champs is misleading, because the Big Ten listes SEVERAL champs SEVERAL times a decade. '00-'06 (7 years), the Big Ten lists 12 champs. I agree this is a dumb rule. And given the chance, LSU would have gladly handed an @$$ whipping to the Badgers instead of the overrated Irish. Funny, according to the yearly totals listed HERE the Big Ten is 9-12 since '01 against the SEC. (Ilooked at each team's yearly totals, so it is possible I mad a mistake) In the last 25 years, (since '81) the Big Ten list Michigan/Ohio St. as champs or co-champs 21 times Over the same time period in the SEC, the highest combo of 2 teams is 12 (13 if you count the '84 title vacated by Florida due to probation). Sounds alot like 2 teams dominating one conference to me. That might happen pretty soon, the piggies are falling apart.:hihi: Hawker, I like you, and enjoy reading your posts, but to say that the Big Ten isn't almost completely dominated by those two teams is somewhat delusional.
Oh my gosh, I wish I had seen and replied to this sooner because I'm afraid most people won't even look at this ridiculous post now, but I'll give my two cents anyway. First of all, when comparing two conferences head to head, and one conference has a 2 to 1 record against the other conference, and you consider a 2 to 1 record as OWNING the other conference, well that in itself makes you a complete moron. Let me remind you that only having a 2 to 1 record also means that your superior conference was only one game away from being OWNED itself. But also, let's consider who the one loss for your almighty, superior conference happend to be against. Judging by your knowledge, the Big Ten is by far the better conference, because of their remarkable 2-1 record against SEC teams. Well everyone knows that Ohio St. was the best team in the country because they went undefeated. That's a given. Even though their best wins were against a Michigan team that got dominated by a USC team that lost to two unranked teams, and Texas that had to struggle in their bowl game against a team that finished 6-7. None of this matters because Ohio St. finished the season undeated in the Big Ten, so they are obviously the best team in the nation. Now let's look at their opponent. The mighty Buckeyes were forced to play Florida, (GASP) who actually lost a conference game, despite playing a far superior schedule. Florida's only loss came in their 7th game of the season, on the road against a team that finished #11. I have to mention that the loss was in the middle of a schedule of facing 8 bowl teams in a row. Let me say that again incase you missed it: FLORIDA'S SCHEDULE INCLUDED 8 TEAMS IN A ROW AGAINST TEAMS THAT PLAYED IN BOWL GAMES. And they only lost to the team that finished #11. But of course what does strength of schedule or quality of opponent have to do with college football. I mean, obviously the only thing that matters in college football is what the sports writers think. And the sports writers thought Ohio St. was clearly the best team and Florida didn't even deserve to be in the national championship game. The team that deserved to play Ohio St. was a Michigan team that just got humilated in the Rose Bowl, and who had lost to Ohio St. in the game before the Rose Bowl. Obviously, they were the better team because the Big Ten proved they are better by having a 2-1 record against the SEC in bowl games. So surely Ohio St. CRUSHED Florida in the joke of a national championship game, right???? Obviously, the Big Ten is better because they have a 2-1 record against the SEC, according to psulions2007 and all the sports writers. psulions2007, I don't post much here, and I certainly don't make criticizing posts, but I couldn't resist replying to your ignorant comments. You're actually saying a conference that went 2-5 in bowl games is better than a conference that went 6-3, including your conference's best team getting humilated by the SEC's best, which wasn't even worthy of playing in that game!!!!
