Husker Writer: Delany uses Rose Bowl as crutch
- Thread starter GhostofBTT
- Start date
DwayneTwill
Well-Known Member
He can GFH.
LG210
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I agree with the author's premise. Do Big10 teams state that their ultimate goal is the Rose Bowl?
I'm sure the likes of Minnesota, NW, Illinois, and Indiana do. But I'd doubt that is what OSU, Mich, PSU, and Neb say is their ultimate goal.
Is that different in the SEC? I doubt it. I don't see Vandy, Mississippi State, or Ole Miss claiming that it is national title or bust.
I'm sure the likes of Minnesota, NW, Illinois, and Indiana do. But I'd doubt that is what OSU, Mich, PSU, and Neb say is their ultimate goal.
Is that different in the SEC? I doubt it. I don't see Vandy, Mississippi State, or Ole Miss claiming that it is national title or bust.
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
At media days in Chicago, the Rose Bowl is the primary talk when interviewing players about goals and such.
I have read a column of Lee's in the past that I liked,but I think he misses the boat here. Yes, the conference title is still very important to Big Ten schools,but the same is true in the SEC. Usually the only way you have a shot at the national title is to win your league. Now, this year, Bama did win the national title without winning their division,which is a real flaw in the system. Delany is doing the smart thing,which is to try to protect the second biggest game in college football,a game the Big Ten is in every year. The SEC has the national title game every year of late,it seems,as their biggest property. When you have lemons,you make lemonaide.
There are many,many reasons for the SEC dominance over the last decade,and almost none of them are because they prioritize a national title over a conference title. Winning at all costs? Sure. No interest in academics? Absolutely. Cheating? Of course. Local talent? Yes. Oversigning? Yes. These are all reasons for success of the SEC. Until last year, winning the SEC conference title game has been the path to the National Title for every SEC participant in the national title game,so,that still remains the goal for these teams.
There are many,many reasons for the SEC dominance over the last decade,and almost none of them are because they prioritize a national title over a conference title. Winning at all costs? Sure. No interest in academics? Absolutely. Cheating? Of course. Local talent? Yes. Oversigning? Yes. These are all reasons for success of the SEC. Until last year, winning the SEC conference title game has been the path to the National Title for every SEC participant in the national title game,so,that still remains the goal for these teams.
tm3308
Well-Known Member
You mean in the days before the BCS, when the national champion was determined by voters? Apples and oranges (no pun intended).
*My own .02
I'm not saying that this writer is wrong (he's not), but what difference does it make to Nebraska? If they think it's weird to not strive for national championships (it is), so what? Just because the other Big Ten schools are like that doesn't mean Nebraska has to be.
LG210
Well-Known Member
Right, but isn't that kind of "sports etiquette"?
Maybe I am wrong on this, but don't all teams say that a conference championship is their goal, even if they have a legitimate shot at the national title?
tm3308
Well-Known Member
The Big Ten ISN'T doing the right thing by striving for the Rose Bowl. Not in this day and age. It's sad, but true.
The Big Ten isn't just making lemonade out of lemons. They WANT the lemons, they don't settle for them. There's a big difference there.
The local talent for the SEC is something they have no control over. But WHY do they oversign, cast aside academics, cheat in recruiting, etc.? I'll give you a hint: It sure as hell isn't so they can go to the Sugar Bowl.
hawkfan340
Well-Known Member
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I think Delany is smart trying to put the Rose Bowl on a pedestal and promote it as the "Grand Daddy" of bowl games. I do not see the B1G ever competing on a level playing field with the SEC. I think they should play these bowl games with the current conference affiliations and then play the BCS game (as a plus 1). You put all the current BCS games on New Years Day (like they are supposed to be), push all of the other bowls before NYD, and play the BCS NC game 2 weeks later. I think this would protect the meaning of the regular season, the bowl system, and make them all a crapload of money.
homes
Well-Known Member
Nothing like living in the past. Nebraska's days of playing a bunch of stiffs and Oklahoma or Texas are gone. The Rose Bowl is still relevant because it means a conference championship. Nebraska is a long ways from even doing that, let alone another National Championship. Who says a NC is off the table for teams in the Big Ten, because he writes it doesn't mean it's so. I hate the arrogance of Nebraska and its fans. Is it too late to revoke their membership in the Big Ten?
hogeye
Well-Known Member
Kind of, the B10 is wrongfully being painted in this article because of its history with the Rose Bowl. I don't think it is fair that this writer has created a false premise based off of the fact that the B10 has always valued history and its tie to the Rose Bowl.
You're going to tell me that there is any team in the B10 since the inception of the BCS that wouldn't have taken a NC over a Rose appearance? That's the most ridiculous notion I've heard.
Yes, we've been lacking in BCS NC game as a conference. No one is disputing that, but it's completely ridiculous to confound a loyal respect of the B10 and the history of the Rose Bowl with some sort of passive satisfaction over being just second best.
eyekwah
Well-Known Member
The SEC can make a claim that it is the superior college football conference based over the last decade on mythical national champions. However the SEC success is based on essentially three teams, Alabama, LSU, and Florida. You can add Auburn's one title for a fourth team if you like. The over signing practices of Alabama and LSU are certainly contributing factors in their success. As great as Florida has been it has been off the map recently.
The reality is that no other conference has any better argument against the SEC than the B1G. I can't see where the Big XII or ACC or PAC12 do any better.
The reality is that no other conference has any better argument against the SEC than the B1G. I can't see where the Big XII or ACC or PAC12 do any better.
homes
Well-Known Member
However, by my count, OSU has been there three times since Nebraska last played in one, and in one of those years, if it hadn't been OSU, it would have been Michigan. I bet they were really pining for a day in Pasadena instead. It's one thing to spout an opinion, it's another to have it make sense.
hogeye
Well-Known Member
You'll also notice that when it was potentially an Ohio St v. Michigan rematch that wasn't palatable, but when it was Alabama v. LSU rematch that was okay.
GhostofBTT
Banned
So teh SEC can only make a claim towards superiority only because 1/3 of their teams have won a title recently?
