With Ohio State's loss to Texas last night, the Big Ten finished the bowl season with a 1-6 record. We could offer up a lot of reasons for the Big Ten's lousy bowl record, but Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany told the Chicago Tribune after watching USC beat Penn State in the Rose Bowl that it's really quite simple:
"You look at it and ask: Did the players play hard, and were they prepared?" Delany asked. "Yes and yes. You know what? SC's a better football team. In all of the [bowl] games I've watched, I'm seeing us get beat by better teams.So there you have it. Delany says the Big Ten teams are just getting beaten by better teams, and that's that.
"Then you say: Why is that? I don't have a great answer other than to say that these things tend to be cyclical."
And really, does anyone disagree? Texas is better than Ohio State. USC is better than Penn State. Georgia is better than Michigan State. Kansas is better than Minnesota. Missouri is better than Northwestern. Florida State is better than Wisconsin. Iowa is the one Big Ten team that won its bowl game because it's the one Big Ten team that drew an opponent (South Carolina) it should have beaten.
I don't have any grand solution to the problem of the Big Ten's bowl record (I'd love to see one of the BCS games relocate to Soldier Field, but somehow I don't see that happening), but I give Delany credit for accepting the simple fact that Big Ten teams are losing bowl games because they're not as good as their opponents.
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Captain Obvious strikes again.
The simple explanation is that the Big-10 was not very good this year and when Ohio State was pegged to play a BCS bowl game (despite more deserving teams being left out), that made the other Big-10 teams move up a notch in their bowl games. Without that selection, Ohio State plays Georgia, Michigan State plays Florida State, Wisconsin plays South Carolina and Iowa plays Missouri.
The same appears to be true of the Big-12. Because two of its teams played in BCS bowls, the other teams (Oklahoma State and Texas Tech) moved up a notch and both lost.
Hmmm.... the SEC had that obstacle too... 2 teams in the BCS so every other team bumped up a notch as well. But somehow... they went 5-2... and the SEC tends to be the lower pick anyway (i.e. Chick fil A takes ACC #2 and SEC #4/5, so they really got SEC #5/6. Soooo in the Big Ten/SEC match-ups, the SEC team was playing higher than they should have as well, so it equals out, in theory.
And kudos to Iowa for their win over S. Carolina, but I gotta say, SC killed themselves with mistakes, they didn't play their best and just get beat. Like Penn St, they had a lot of mistakes in the 2nd Q versus So Cal, take out those and you've got a different ball game. Penn St gave So Cal some gifts, just like South Carolina gave Iowa some gifts (i.e. the Big Ten's lowly one bowl win).
Sorry guys I don't think having 2 BCS teams is the excuse you can use this time.
Yeah like #10 Auburn and the Sec "runner up" in the Sugar. LSU should have been there instead (not ultimately but instead) for a blast to end regulation against the greatest team in the history of the world, The LSU deserves something come on. If I had to face a spoiled brat in the Sec jukin up my rankings and my chances goin through the like of The Citadel(32 lesser opponents to the top what a joke. How much saved up energy on those clowns?) to get there, I wouldn't be trying hard either(or at least wouldn't be playing the game of football in doing it{only kidding}.
And let's not forget the Sec was 5-11 against the major opponents during the season. Funny I'm the only one that mentions that, but the people are ready to tear apert the other boys at a whim. The like of the Sec need to reflect back on the days of "the Coliseum" and bring up to date a new sport or else join a group of people who like the sport of football. (Bunch of thugs).
If anybody thinks Texas was a better team than OSU,they were not paying attention.