Big Ten bowl matchups = STUPID

PatrickAdamovicz

Well-Known Member
As we all seen today, the Big Ten was awful in it's matchups. Some of that is due to just the fact that the better teams won, however, a greater portion of it is a result of stupid matchups and the money making aspect in all of this.

For instance, Penn St. had no business being in the Outback Bowl. Had Iowa been slotted against Florida, I think it's easy to say that Iowa would've crushed the Gators. If your a QB and can't throw against Iowa, you are easy pickin's.

Michigan ST. should've been put in the Rose Bowl. I know, they would've lost anyway, but they did have the same record as Wisky and beat them head to head. That would've left Wisconsin against Alabama in the Capitol One Bowl and I think that would have been a great matchup, one that the Badgers could have won.

Keep Ohio St. against Arkansas.

Michigan had no business in the Gator Bowl and it showed. They deserved to be in the Insight against Missouri or something.

My point in all of this is that the Big Ten would do itself some good and instead of allowing (actually I don't think they really have a say) but they should campaign for the better teams that year to get the higher bowl slots, not the more "brand name team". I think it ultimately hurts the Big Ten. I'm probably ******** about nothing, but it just seems to me that the bowl slotting is to much of a result of "money and name brand" instead of the better teams.
 


Actually, having 2 Big Ten teams in BCS games hurt the Big Ten more. It causes every team to jump "up" a game. Here is how it would have looked if only Wisconsin plays in the BCS:

1. Wisky v TCU (competitive game)
2. Ohio State in Cap One v Bama (probably a great, close game)
3. Sparty v. Florida (Sparty wins?)
4. Penn State in the Gator v Miss St. (much closer game)
5. Iowa still meets Mizzou in the Insight

The conference really wasn't strong enough to have 2 BCS teams, but it happened anyway.
 


Actually, having 2 Big Ten teams in BCS games hurt the Big Ten more. It causes every team to jump "up" a game. Here is how it would have looked if only Wisconsin plays in the BCS:

1. Wisky v TCU (competitive game)
2. Ohio State in Cap One v Bama (probably a great, close game)
3. Sparty v. Florida (Sparty wins?)
4. Penn State in the Gator v Miss St. (much closer game)
5. Iowa still meets Mizzou in the Insight

The conference really wasn't strong enough to have 2 BCS teams, but it happened anyway.

Because we got hammered in bowls today we weren't strong enough to have two teams in the BSC?? That is the first time anyone on here has said that. I think most people think that the Big Ten was good enough this year to have 3 teams in the BSC.

Wisky could have won the game and OSU will beat or lose a close one to Ark so I would say both of those teams were strong enough to play in the BCS.
 


Because we got hammered in bowls today we weren't strong enough to have two teams in the BSC?? That is the first time anyone on here has said that. I think most people think that the Big Ten was good enough this year to have 3 teams in the BSC.

Wisky could have won the game and OSU will beat or lose a close one to Ark so I would say both of those teams were strong enough to play in the BCS.

The Big 10 was good enough to get three teams in, but I think what he's saying is that having two teams in the BCS effects everything else down the line.

The same thing happened in 2008 when Oregon beat Oregon State. Had OSU won, they would have gone the Rose Bowl, with USC getting an at-large from the Pac 10. Oregon won, USC got the one berth for the Pac 10 (the Rose Bowl), and the at-large that would have gone to USC (Fiesta Bowl) went to Ohio State instead.

That one game effected every other matchup for the conference that year - Penn State would have played Oregon State in the Rose, Ohio State would have played Georgia in the Cap1, etc.....

Having two teams in the BCS is good for the conference, but sometimes you get unfavorable matchups because of it.
 


The Big 10 was good enough to get three teams in, but I think what he's saying is that having two teams in the BCS effects everything else down the line.

The same thing happened in 2008 when Oregon beat Oregon State. Had OSU won, they would have gone the Rose Bowl, with USC getting an at-large from the Pac 10. Oregon won, USC got the one berth for the Pac 10 (the Rose Bowl), and the at-large that would have gone to USC (Fiesta Bowl) went to Ohio State instead.

That one game effected every other matchup for the conference that year - Penn State would have played Oregon State in the Rose, Ohio State would have played Georgia in the Cap1, etc.....

Having two teams in the BCS is good for the conference, but sometimes you get unfavorable matchups because of it.

I agree with what you are saying. Which is why it is ridiculous for people or analysts to rate conferences on what their bowl records are, because it is all about the matchup.
 


Actually, having 2 Big Ten teams in BCS games hurt the Big Ten more. It causes every team to jump "up" a game. Here is how it would have looked if only Wisconsin plays in the BCS:

1. Wisky v TCU (competitive game)
2. Ohio State in Cap One v Bama (probably a great, close game)
3. Sparty v. Florida (Sparty wins?)
4. Penn State in the Gator v Miss St. (much closer game)
5. Iowa still meets Mizzou in the Insight

The conference really wasn't strong enough to have 2 BCS teams, but it happened anyway.

Never really thought of it that way, but your right. You look at those matchups and the Big Ten probably comes out favorably.
 


SEC also has Auburn in the title game so their #1 is out. If you seeded Big Ten and SEC i don't think things would go to well for the Big Ten. But who gives a ****. This conference chest thumping is annoying.
 


Throw in the fact that the bigten probably should have been way overmatched in the insight bowl as well. If it was a team that "deserved" a 7-5 record playing Mizzou, it wouldn't have been close. Iowa was a 10-2 team trapped in a 7-5 body so that helped out the matchup, but if you had Mich, PSU, or NW in that game I think they lose big.
 


Look, fellas....I agree with your arguments 100%.

Trouble is, the BCS/NCAA pig-trough fest, also known as the bowl season, has ZERO to do with records and best game matchups. It's about selling tickets, butts in seats and dollars.

They thought scUM and PSU would be better draws. They also knew of all of the Iowa fans in Arizona would fill up that stadium.

When it comes to bowl games, clearly, head-to-head goes by the wayside in favor of 2-3 other criteria.
 


I was shocked at the difference in athleticism between the B10 teams and its opponents yesterday. It was dramatic & it was exploited in each game.
 


Throw in the fact that the bigten probably should have been way overmatched in the insight bowl as well. If it was a team that "deserved" a 7-5 record playing Mizzou, it wouldn't have been close. Iowa was a 10-2 team trapped in a 7-5 body so that helped out the matchup, but if you had Mich, PSU, or NW in that game I think they lose big.

That would've been fine if Mich, PSU or NW got blown out by Missouri. Lets be honest, no one really from the national media even remembers that Iowa and Illinois won. Its what happens on New Years Day that creates most the perception.
 
Last edited:




Is the Gator Bowl really better than the Insight Bowl? I don't know about the payouts exactly but I do know the Insight is paying more than it had done in the past and among the 4 teams involved in those games, the Insight had the highest ranked team.
 


Again, it's all about perception though and as watered down as playing on New Years Day is, it still holds a certain prestige to it. The Insight may very well be a better bowl, idk, but peoples perception of conferences is built large in part on what happens on New Years Day. Not saying it's a correct line of thinking, but I liken it to Iowa beating Penn St. all the time. The perception is that Iowa has Penn St.'s number, which is basically saying that somehow the less talented team is winning the game. But in truth, Iowa has Penn St.'s number simply because they have more talented players and is a better program right now. It's all about perception.
 


SEC also has Auburn in the title game so their #1 is out. If you seeded Big Ten and SEC i don't think things would go to well for the Big Ten. But who gives a ****. This conference chest thumping is annoying.

Exactly. The SEC has two BCS teams, so the seeding is the same. The SEC is just better. No amount of excuses can cut it. The Cap-One bowl is a favorite to the Big 10, since the SEC sends their number 1 non-BCS team to the Cotton Bowl, which means the #3 Big 10 takes the #4 SEC.
The SEC's fourth best team lost three games in the SEC, and beat our "co-champion" without breaking a sweat. Although I think we can all agree that MSU was never that good to begin with, it still says something.
 


When it comes to bowl games, clearly, head-to-head goes by the wayside in favor of 2-3 other criteria.

And even that changes on a whim. After all, we beat PSU last year, and that was a factor in our going to the Orange Bowl rather than PSU when both teams travel equally well.
 


The B10 needs to decide if it wants to win or become the ivy league.
The SEC and everyone else aren't changing, so I say win at all costs like them or continue to be embarrassed
 


The B10 needs to decide if it wants to win or become the ivy league.
The SEC and everyone else aren't changing, so I say win at all costs like them or continue to be embarrassed

How about no. Because there is nothing less embarssing than having no integrity.
 




Top