Terry, what bugs me about this whole thing is the assumption (not the prediction, but the assumption), that the whole rest of the schedule is a chump schedule because the Big 10 is down. The assumption that if we beat USC we'll be in the NC...the assumption that if we lose to USC we'll just cakewalk through the rest of our schedule and go to the Rose Bowl. Why even bother to play the games?...just play USC and then send us to the RB or to Miami. Why bother fighting through Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan, MSU, PSU, and Illinois?...piece of cake. I'd much rather put up with somebody ridiculing us or belittling us for the weak SOS of the B10 last yr...but this "foregone conclusion" stuff bugs me. We have some pretty doggone good coaches in the B10...maybe, just maybe, there will be some surprises in the 2008 football season...if they just allow the games to be played.
Stu, the conference will be stronger and more balanced next year.....of those you mentioned, only the Stripeheads shouldn't show improvement. We return 19 starters, PSU returns 18, Wisky returns 17 and I expect Sparty to show continued improvement under D'Antonio as well as the Illini as their youngtsters mature. The popular notion that the cakewalk begins in Madison and ends in State College seems to be contrary to the facts given their bowl performances of late. But it does attract readers.....particularly those that seem incapable of independent thought.
Terry, I think it's wrong to concede the BCS game to us if we beat USC, and I think it's wrong to totally count us out of the picture if we lose...who knows what everyone else will do? Yeah, I know...it doesn't take a brain surgeon to predict that folks will be knocking our resume for losing the last two title games...but so what? Dave thinks it's so unbelievable for a team to go last year "without a Top 10 win on their resume" (BTW we did beat Michigan and Wiscy, both of whom finished top 10 in AP and Coaches Poll even thought they weren't top 10 BCS going into the bowls)...how about it's unbelievable that a 2 loss team goes to the NC game?...How unbelievable would it be to jump TWO teams with 2 losses over a one-loss team with pretty good credentials?
Just a reminder....the last two times Tennessee has replaced a four year starter at QB. 1998-national and SEC champions 13-0 2004-SEC East champions 10-3 overall, lost to a great Auburn team in the SEC championship game and went on to pummel Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl. I like the precedent, we'll see what happens this time. Just a note though, this year's team will be run by a redshirt junior who has started a game in the past. The previous two times there was no one on the roster even close to having any game experience. I like Tennessee's chances as long as they can build depth on the D-line. Like Tom, I'm very glad that Georgia and Florida are overlooking the Vols and discounting their chances at success this season.
I'll tell you what I told Tom, I never count Tennessee out. Having said that if you had me rank the SEC teams I would have to be honest and put the Vols below Florida and Tennessee. That probably means the Vols will win the East. 8) 8)
Sorry Bill, I knew what you meant but I just couldn't resist pointing it out. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: How can the Vols be below Tennessee??? :wink: :wink: :wink:
Well I blew that one Tom. Unless of course Tennessee can do something like this. I guess then you could get below yourself. However in this case I meant Georgia of course but I think I'll just leave it like I posted it! :wink: :wink:
Stu, Wisconsin finished at #21 and UM at #19 in the final coaches poll. That is the crux of this year's analysis and discussion of Ohio State. They were beaten soundly in 2 consecutive NC games and last year it was questionable what the Buckeyes truly accomplished to get there. It is highly unlikely now that those events occurred for OSU to lose the one very tough out of conference game and still make the NC. I think the point is they made it there twice in a row and had their chance and now they must really....really shine to earn that third consecutive opportunity over other deserving teams. Every year there are many seemingly deserving teams so why should OSU get the easy pass this time. They won't.
2004...enough said about Florida that year. 1998....UF was pretty damned good and except for a missed 35 yd FG vs. Tenn in OT and a goofball loss at FSU later on that year the Gators would have played Tenn in the Fiesta for the NC.
Florida beats Tenn in 1998 in a Tempe NC rematch in my opinion. They outplayed Tenn in Knoxville and would have been a much more formidable foe than was FSU. Alas...the Gators stepped on their proverbial crank vs. a second string reheaded stepchild QB for FSU that never should have won that game and prevented UF from getting that second chance vs. Tenn. I think BDR you are referring to the 1995 season in which Nebraska took away all possible excuses.
I was, and the game was played in '96. And how's 39 more points in one game so different than losing two games? The post reminded me of Burt Reynold's character in "The End". "Two seconds faster in the 100 and I'd have been an All-American".
Wisconsin, UM, PSU, Iowa, the Big 10 is weak etc, Ohio State plays nobody, they are undeserving, it's not SEC level competition, etc, etc, etc. is a curious argument. Here is the thing that fascinates me......every year, the powers from the Big 10 and the powers from the SEC meet on the field. In the last decade, these Big 10 schools have faced SEC competition in bowl games 17 times.....the Big 10 teams have won 11. These schools are 11-6 this decade against SEC competion in SEC territory, yet they are not worthy opponents for Ohio State? How does one then say with any degree of rational thought that the SEC champs resume is then more deserving? How is Florida - whose record against Big 10 teams this decade is 2-4 - a more worthy opponent than the teams from the Big 10 that have beaten Florida? That doesn't even pass the giggle test.......independent thought is a good thing people.
That is a pretty good record for the Big Ten vs. the SEC in the last 17 bowl games to be sure. If the flagship school of the Big Ten had been doing better vs. the SEC it would really be a strong argument but they 0-9 in bowls vs. the SEC and it mutes the argument. However: from a website linked to below about last bowl season "Of course, the SEC took 2 of 3 (LSU and Tennessee) to move into a 9-9 tie with the Big Ten over the past 5 years. But, more significantly, the SEC Champ won its second straight head to head match-up with the Big Ten Champ in the games that mattered most -- the BCS NC games." http://www.secsportsfan.com/bigtenseccomp.html
Hang your flag on whatever you want... You continually push for the "easy pass" (your words, not mine) for your teams because they play in the terribly difficult SEC, yet when the record of our B10 opponents vs. your SEC opponents is pointed out, you default to a different argument..."yeah but our champ beat yours.".... Whatever. I have never lobbied for an "easy pass" for Ohio State over other "deserving teams"...I have just sat back and let the voting and computer process take place, and defended my school and conference against folks who want to put them down. The only "easy pass" we got last year was that every other team fell all over themselves to give it to us.
Another foray into dream world. It's amazing to me that FSU won that game because the Gators stepped on their "proverbial crank." The Gators never lose because the other team is more talented, more prepared, or has better execution. As far as this SEC vs. Big 10 argument goes, when will it ever die? I can understand arguing this when a new season begins when there is actually "new evidence", if you will, to support one's argument. Until then, this is just beating a dead horse. Everyone by now knows that Ohio State has not been able to beat an SEC team in a bowl game. Everyone also already knows that the other Big 10 schools fare quite favorably against the SEC in bowl games. IMO and what I'm sure is the opinion of a lot of other SEC fans on this board, the SEC is more exciting to watch, has faster players, etc., etc. The Big 10 is rugged with punishing defenses and generally really strong runningbacks and its teams have more speed than the SEC gives them credit for. There, now perhaps we should let it die until something new happens.
In the last 18 it's 9-9 with your champion getting squashed twice in a row. Read into that the Big Ten has the edge if you will. Watched the game....FSU sucked but UF sucked worse that day and Warrick scored an improbable winning TD off a ball that bounced right off the hands of a UF defender. That and a TD recovery by UF's Gerard Warren in the endzone before the days of instant replay was called a mere safety instead. Trust me....it was a screwy win for FSU.
A lot of teams who "should have" played for a NC can say that... ND's loss to BC in '93, the Neb loss to a medicore Texas team in '96, The USC loss last year to Standford, the Ohio State loss to Mich State (forget the year) you can go on and on with this type of senario where the better teams didn't win. Terry
Never said the B10 has the edge. Just sayin' that all those articles yer postin' talking about our weak conference mebbe aren't alltogether accurate.