This is a topic on CFN and I think it merits discussion. Here is one answer from a CFN writer: Michael Bradley Q: Was the Appalachian State win over Michigan good or bad for college football? A: It was an absolutely good thing for the sport, because it showed what a lot of us in the Big Ten sphere knew for a long time: The conference has an inflated view of itself and lacks the athletes necessary to hang with the southern schools, even if they are I-AA teams. We learned that last year when Ohio State was pile-driven by Florida, but this rams it home. While the Big Ten fights to get its TV network on cable stations around the country, it had instead better concentrate on getting faster players, in order to compete. Otherwise, it will be consigned to the scrap heap of the BCS and will become a regional anachronism living in the past. The days of trying to overpower rivals are over. You are either fast, or you are dead. Yesterday, Michigan was dead. Now we’ll see if the Wolverines can learn anything from it. From MCG: I disagree that the Big Ten has no idea of what speed is and how speed kills in CFB. I do remain puzzled completely at why spread offenses with quick athletic Qbs ( read Drew Stanton, Vince Young and Troy Smith ) continue to perplex the devil out of Michigan Defensive coordinators. In any event I think there are far more positives arising from this upset than negatives. It's always better...ALWAYS better for a fan entering the gates of a stadium to have in the back of his mind that if his heavily favored home team doesn't have a good game that they could lose. To truly enjoy a game I think you need that edge of uncertainty and this game will add to that forever.
Hmmmmm, not that facts have a place in this dimwits argument but apparently the writer is not well informed and is unaware of the relative records when playing head-to-head with the "southern schools". "The conference" seems to "hang" quite well when placed on the same field in competition. I would be fascinated with the writers interpretation of that minor little factoid. Were there other respondents to the question MCG or did you just happen to select a favorite?
What a gas bag, that upset wasn't good for the game. It was good for those of us that have a smigden of ill will for the guys in the striped helmets though!!
Actually BT I selected the smallest amount of text to copy and paste but hmmm...ummm..yes... I can see why you would think it was my favorite. The other answers have their own takes on the subject and most reflect what I am saying about the good created out of having "patsies" not be a given with regard to mega-margin wins. http://cfn.scout.com/2/675432.html
It seems the other guys actually put some quality thought into their answers. The dude you selected to quote obviously doesn't pay much attention to the game and is clearly uninformed and clueless....good choice.
That guy I pasted did have the most vitriolic comments on the Big Ten to be sure. As I said...I don't think the Big Ten can be THAT far behind in speed and I don't believe it to be true. That said I watched the replay last night of AppSt vs. UM and I have to say I was taken aback at how fast AppSt appeared to be at the skill positions. These guys were on hyperdrive whereas Michigan seemed to be a step slow. It reminded me of when Alabama whipped Florida embarassingly a couple of years ago in Meyer's first year. That day Alabama was continually two or three steps ahead of Florida and it made it look like Bama was the fastest team in the world. I suspect that was not the case and was not the case on Sat in Ann Arbor. Sometimes teams are just pumped up and so well prepared it makes it look like they are that much quicker than the opponent. Same was probably true to some extent in Glendale but most in the sports world still contend UF was indeed quicker that night. I tend to think the speed is there in the Big Ten even if they don't readily put it on display at times.
Whatever it is that one needs to "hang" with an opponent, the results on the field of competition would indicate that the "conference" has it....just another lazy journalist.
Wait, I'm curious about the actual question. The quote posted and MCG's rep aside, what do you think about the initial question? Should powerhouses always be powerhouses, or is it OK if programs show they're only "human". :?:
Check the link Wendy...there are several opinions. With regard to Lloyd's career here in Michigan...it is excruciatingly evident that it is NOT ok with the fan base for the megapower to lose these games. I have had a hard time finding anyone that still supports LC as head coach at Michigan.
Well I'm not surprised that it's not OK with the fans. I doubt if any fan of any traditional program would be OK with it, we all know our teams can't go undefeated very often and can accept upsets...but not that. That said, I will be surprised if Mich doesn't recover and have a good season maybe lose only at most 2 more games, maybe not even that. They still have a very potent offense. Terry
Sure they could lost the next two weeks and still win the BT and go to a BCS bowl. Independants don't have that luxury.
Wendy, in all seriousness I 'have mxed emotions..... On the one hand, it's always a great story in sport when David's stone finds its mark...... on the flip side, for me at least, I'm a traditionalist and the universe seems a little out of whack when a power goes down at the hands of the little guy. Now, it's somewhat easier when they wear ugly helmets, but nonetheless..... :wink:
Theoretically possible, but it's more likely that the entire team be struck by lightning whilst working out indoors in mid-winter. Hmmmmmm.......perhaps the Stripeheads would be willing to trade the luxury of discretionary scheduling with whatever you want from them......
Ahem. This is not the year for a Big10 and/or an OSU fan to be making snide comments about ND's "discretionary" scheduling. You and we have 4 opponents in common - PSU, MI, MSU and Purdue. Let's assume for a moment that you have "the luxury of discretionary scheduling." Who on the rest of your schedule besides WI do you want to trade for USC, UCLA, Ga Tech, or BC? Youngstown? Akron? Kent State? Northwestern? Minnesota? Illinois? Washington?
Sid, with apologies, our schedule sucks, I don't like it and I've have stated as much on these boards. That said, I think perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions or perhaps the manner in which I conveyed my thoughts led you there.....in any event, let me help clarify my thoughts. As it relates to discretionary scheduling.....isn't that what the whole issue is in terms of the Irish and their BCS hurdles. I mean doesn't the BCS have to have some sort of "control" mechanism in place to ensure that an independent cannot - by virtue of the discretion they DO have in scheduling - schedule their way to a BCS game in a manner that would - in the eyes of many - provide them an unfair advantage vis-a-vis conference foes who do not have the same amount of discretion. That would seem to be the intent and imo, not unreasonable. Perhaps there is a better way, but the intent seems shall we say directionally correct! I hope that helps understand where I was trying to go....
I see your point, BT. You are one of the more reasonable voices on SB, so I figured you were just good-naturedly gigging us, and I was just gigging you right back (slow day at the office). One thing folks should think of when they refer to "independents" is that there are only a couple of us left, maybe three. I can think of only Navy. Anybody else?
Sid, Army, Navy and Notre Dame. Edit to remove Temple, which in another thread Gerry pointed out is now in the MAC.
Wendy, I am one of those who say it's good for the game. I love the underdogs, against all odds , the Rocky's , the Miracle Mets. I love upsets. Having said that, watching UM lose gave me a feeling of ambivalence. While I like to see an underdog win, I don't like to see my future opponents lose especially in a sport that relies upon polls.