Cincinnati 34, Oregon State 3 (final)

[MaxBuck]

The point is that one loss only raises questions about the strength of a conference when that team is a top team.

Are you suggesting that the University of Michigan qualifies as a "top team" in the Big Ten?

I think the Wolverines have worked very hard this season to prove otherwise.

 

[sm00r]

So you disagree?

When you look at conference strength, I think it is more indicative to look at the middle of the roaders than the top teams only. USC no doubt is the top of the Pac 10. However games like this show why the Trojans are never seriously challenged in conference play.

 

[methomps]

Are you suggesting that the University of Michigan qualifies as a "top team" in the Big Ten?

I think the Wolverines have worked very hard this season to prove otherwise.

They were expected to be, which is why it makes perfect sense for the pundits to question the B10's strength when Michigan loses to a D1-AA team.

When you look at conference strength, I think it is more indicative to look at the middle of the roaders than the top teams only. USC no doubt is the top of the Pac 10. However games like this show why the Trojans are never seriously challenged in conference play.

Even if true (which the loss to Oregon State last year brings into serious doubt), your method of assesing conference strength is different from how we would expect the typical tv analyst to go about it. The typical tv analyst is going to look at the top teams. And that is what they did. It's not because of any bias related to USC.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

They were expected to be, which is why it makes perfect sense for the pundits to question the B10's strength when Michigan loses to a D1-AA team. ...

You're way too smart to not see the serious flaw in this line of reasoning.

You say it makes sense for the pundits to question the conference when the team they expect to win said conference loses to a I-AA. That holds true ONLY if it makes sense for the pundits to continue to hold their belief that the team in question is one of the conference's best after said loss. In other words, it makes sense for the pundits to assume they are right about Michigan in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes sense to question people/teams that have nothing to do with the program that is swirling around the drain rather than to question your own prognosticating skills.

We can understand why they think that way. Arrogance is not a weakness confined to sports media types. But saying that this line of reasoning makes sense is beneath you.

 

[methomps]

You're way too smart to not see the serious flaw in this line of reasoning.

You say it makes sense for the pundits to question the conference when the team they expect to win said conference loses to a I-AA. That holds true ONLY if it makes sense for the pundits to continue to hold their belief that the team in question is one of the conference's best after said loss. In other words, it makes sense for the pundits to assume they are right about Michigan in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It makes sense to question people/teams that have nothing to do with the program that is swirling around the drain rather than to question your own prognosticating skills.

We can understand why they think that way. Arrogance is not a weakness confined to sports media types. But saying that this line of reasoning makes sense is beneath you.

No, it is not true that the pundits must continue to believe that Michigan is one of the best teams in the B10 in order to question the strength of the conference. They can alternatively believe that nobody will step up and replace Michigan.

As far as Michigan having nothing to do with how good OSU is, that is true. But they do have something to do with how good the B10 is.

And again, my point was not that the tv people are right. My point was that it does not indicate bias that the tv people question the Big10 after Michigan's loss but not the Pac10 after Oregon State's loss.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

...my point was not that the tv people are right. My point was that it does not indicate bias that the tv people question the Big10 after Michigan's loss but not the Pac10 after Oregon State's loss.

I agree with this bit completely.

... They can alternatively believe that nobody will step up and replace Michigan. ...

They're voting two other Big 10 teams in the Top 10 right now, so I'm having a hard time seeing this point as completely valid. Perhaps you mean that two top 10 teams does not a conference make. That would be a fair point, but a strange one for a Pac-10 fan.

Most on this board, at least as far as I can tell, believe that the lunacy of the punditry is best seen and heard in the constant drumbeat about the SEC being so much better than everyone else. The main argument against that is that the Big 10 has been keeping up with them in the bowls lately (13-11) and I think we can all agree that Michigan has had nothing to do with that record (at least not in a positive way). As they've had nothing to do with our best argument for the strength of our conference, at least in response to the national media, then it stands to reason that we'll take umbrage at having our conference pride tied to their decline.

They don't matter any more. If the national media are just catching up to that fact, then yes; adjusting their perception of the Big 10 to the extent that they are a part of it makes sense. But they're awfully late in coming to this painfully obvious conclusion. Michigan was replaced by Wisconsin (et al) as a player in this conference several years ago. Last year's aberration not withstanding, this 2x4 has been coming at the media (and at Michigan) for a long time.