College Playoff

[ORD_Buckeye]

Because that's not what B1G fans are saying. It's more like:

"The system is unfair. Change decades worth of bowl tradition because we've only won two MNC's in 40 years. Give us some advantage"

While the rest of College football rolls it's eyes, makes that jerk off motion with its fist and says:

"You record isn't because of the weather or because you had to spend an extra hour on a plane ride."

Then what's the problem with the mighty SEC!SEC!SEC! coming North to play a first round game? We suck, and you would think your mighty football programs would relish the chance to humiliate us in front of our home crowds in what statistically would probably be 39 degree weather and no snow.

And [censored] decades of bowl tradition. The SEC wanted a playoff forever (while the BIG/PAC were steadfastly against it) and now that it's here all of a sudden the SEC becomes the biggest proponent of maintaining the vestiges of the bowl system that gives them home field advantage.

I get it. Winning football is all that matters to that pathetic collection of carnie colleges, and they'll take whatever advantage they can grab to succeed in that realm as it is the one thing that brings meaning to their otherwise mediocre existence. SEC!SEC!SEC!

 

[greyscarlet]

"The system is unfair. Change decades worth of bowl tradition because we've only won two MNC's in 40 years. Give us some advantage"

The "bowl tradition" has or is already going away. But we would like the disadvantage to go away and the playing field to be leveled.

As far as the jerkoffs, they can keep on jerking themselves off.

 

[jwinslow]

"The system is unfair. Change decades worth of bowl tradition because we've only won two MNC's in 40 years. Give us some advantage"

The talking point king is still going strong. Much easier than the truth:

"Give us the same regional bowl/advantage that others enjoy."

"You record isn't because of the weather or because you had to spend an extra hour on a plane ride."

Strawmen are so fun. LSU enjoys a homefield advantage in the Sugar Bowl. That doesn't mean that's the only factor there, nor was anywhere near the top of the reasons OSU lost.

But keep pretending the wide range of opinions and people on this website are as shallow and stupid as these ESPN board troll caricatures you are painting us to be.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Because that's not what B1G fans are saying. It's more like:

"The system is unfair. Change decades worth of bowl tradition because we've only won two MNC's in 40 years. Give us some advantage"

While the rest of College football rolls it's eyes, makes that jerk off motion with its fist and says:

"You record isn't because of the weather or because you had to spend an extra hour on a plane ride."

Actually, the B1G's record in major bowls is pretty good, but that doesn't change the fact that Ohio State/Michigan/Wisconsin have to fly 5-6 hours to the Rose Bowl while USC drives across town.

As far as your "You record isn't because of the weather" statement goes, we can't prove otherwise because the SEC/PAC-12 never play bowl games in cold weather.

 

[BigWoof31]

And [censored] decades of bowl tradition. The SEC wanted a playoff forever (while the BIG/PAC were steadfastly against it) and now that it's here all of a sudden the SEC becomes the biggest proponent of maintaining the vestiges of the bowl system that gives them home field advantage.

I get it. Winning football is all that matters to that pathetic collection of carnie colleges, and they'll take whatever advantage they can grab to succeed in that realm as it is the one thing that brings meaning to their otherwise mediocre existence. SEC!SEC!SEC!

You are so quick to call people racists or sister [censored]ers it's quite sickening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

The above link takes you to a listing of National Titles claimed by school.
My very, very quick count puts Midwestern B1G national titles at 54 and SEC at 36. For the sake of argument, I've included Nebraska and Notre Dame in your total. Nebraska because they now are in your conference (despite no MNC's being won while in the B1G) and Notre Dame because of the extreme significance they once held from the 1960's-1990's.

Given the almost 20 MNC advantage and the fact that NOBODY considered the SEC the dominant conference until the early 2000's (around the time Saban beat Oklahoma). Why didn't Midwestern programs exercise the option of moving a huge bowl game into the midwest when you held every single card?

Population, Money, TV Network dominance, enrollment. All of these were dynamic midwestern advantages until the 1990s (perhaps a bit later). Teams like Auburn, Florida and LSU and Georgia were absolute [censored]ants compared to Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State in the 50's-80's.

I recognize the bowl structure was wholly different prior to 2000. But given all of that significance that Midwestern teams had, did it ever occur to create one important Bowl Game in the Midwest from 1940-1980?
Would it have been so difficult in say, 1970, to put an awesome bowl game in Chicago and let history take it from there?

My response was way, way too wordy, the cliff notes version is:

If Regional Bowl games of incredible significance are so important to establish fairness, why didn't you did it when you held every advantage and were the center of college football influence?

Southern athletic programs played "catch-up" using the terms that Midwestern school kept in place when they were most dominant. What possible reason would we change now that we're on top?

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

You are so quick to call people racists or sister [censored]ers it's quite sickening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

Huh? Where did I call anyone a racist or a sister [censored]er. You seem awfully quick to jump to the defense against accusations that were never even made. I'll leave it for others to extrapolate what the motivation might be there. I merely called your schools carnie colleges.

 

[jwinslow]

Why didn't Midwestern programs exercise the option of moving a huge bowl game into the midwest when you held every single card?

In what mythical world did the Big Ten control the creation of bowl games? Please offer some explanation for this mythical power you keep referencing.

From what I can tell, your arithmetic is as follows:

B10 football success + Best bowl partnership = Power to create bowls on a whim

Bowl creating power + failure to act = Proof that it wasn't important

Population, Money, TV Network dominance, enrollment. All of these were dynamic midwestern advantages until the 1990s (perhaps a bit later). Teams like Auburn, Florida and LSU and Georgia were absolute [censored]ants compared to Ohio State and Michigan and Penn State in the 50's-80's.

Since you brought up the race card, that was a pretty big hindrance to your squads as well.

Zero black QBs had taken a snap for an SEC team until 1972. Holloway changed the future of your conference in a big way.

If Regional Bowl games of incredible significance are so important to establish fairness, why didn't you did it when you held every advantage and were the center of college football influence?

Strawmen, condescension, intentional misrepresentation of what drives decision making...

Money drives bowls, not fairness.

You know that, I know that, but you keep pretending the Big Ten had this hypothetical power and not using it proves your point. It's working out well for you.

Would it have been so difficult in say, 1970, to put an awesome bowl game in Chicago and let history take it from there?

Probably, because sponsors would prefer the bowls be at January vacation spots.

What possible reason would we change now that we're on top?

So that's basically as close as you'll come to the "honestly" you called us out for withholding...

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

In what mythical world did the Big Ten control the creation of bowl games? Please offer some explanation for this mythical power you keep referencing.

I think the point is more of a "I didn't hear you complaining about the location of the bowls when you were winning all of the national championships. The location is only 'unfair' when you are losing them.".

To which my response would be:

The location has always been unfair. We were just that much better than you back then and were totally awesome enough to overcome the unfairness of it all.

But honestly? Nobody complains that loudly about unfairness when it doesn't have an impact on the outcome. i.e. The Big Ten bball refs always suck, but I'm a lot more vocal about it when OSU is losing by 10 than when they are winning by 20.

EDIT - I think this is the same hill on which Ubet died. Is this going to be your fellas new "Pickett's Charge"?

 

[scarletmike]

Woof, let me boil it down for you: "we" want the same kind of home bowl advantage that teams like LSU, UF, and USC enjoy now that the bowls have become a deciding factor in who is crowned national champ. Others know the history of the bowls and explained it better than I can, but you seem to be ignoring that bit of relevant info.

Oh, and just to reiterate what I said earlier...there is basically no such thing as a neutral site bowl, so how about we just dismiss the pointless and false notion of a "neutral site" once and for all.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

You are so quick to call people racists or sister [censored]ers it's quite sickening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Division_I_FBS

The above link takes you to a listing of National Titles claimed by school.
My very, very quick count puts Midwestern B1G national titles at 54 and SEC at 36. For the sake of argument, I've included Nebraska and Notre Dame in your total. Nebraska because they now are in your conference (despite no MNC's being won while in the B1G) and Notre Dame because of the extreme significance they once held from the 1960's-1990's.

As I posted earlier, the northern/midwest teams were dominant before WWII. Go back to your own link and look and the titles won after WWII onward, especially from 1958 onward...nearly every year there is a team or two from the south or lower west coast with a national title.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Would it have been so difficult in say, 1970, to put an awesome bowl game in Chicago and let history take it from there?

Not sure if serious.

Umm, no. As others have pointed out the bowls were just then being used in the national championship voting. Prior to that, they were a true post-season reward for the team and alumni, which is why Pasadena made far more sense than Chicago for Big Ten schools and fans. With 40 years of foresight and knowledge that there would be a playoff and that the Big Ten would be at a decided disadvantage in not having any of the sites in their region, then maybe they would have gone ahead with it. But, there was ZERO reason for them to consider it in 1970 or 1980 or 1950.

 

[jwinslow]

I think the point is more of a "I didn't hear you complaining about the location of the bowls when you were winning all of the national championships. The location is only 'unfair' when you are losing them.".

To which my response would be:

The location has always been unfair. We were just that much better than you back then and were totally awesome enough to overcome the unfairness of it all.

But honestly? Nobody complains that loudly about unfairness when it doesn't have an impact on the outcome. i.e. The Big Ten bball refs always suck, but I'm a lot more vocal about it when OSU is losing by 10 than when they are winning by 20.

EDIT - I think this is the same hill on which Ubet died. Is this going to be your fellas new "Pickett's Charge"?

It's not like the B10 has done very well in the Rose Bowl either (18-29 in the last 50 yrs), but then participation was about tradition, money & prestige, not competitive fairness or championship implications.

As for Woof's 1950-80 era, pollsters didn't even use the bowls to determine champions until the last chunk of that era. A Chicago exhibition game wouldn't have changed much if anything back then, if it even found the sponsors, which is doubtful.

From a quick count (could be off, but the general point stands):

The Big Ten has played in 62 B10 Rose Bowls

55% were against an LA team in LA
71% were against a CA team in Cali


The problem isn't a new one.


The opportunity and funding to create a midwest bowl game is much different now, in the era of billion dollar TV deals.

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

.

If Regional Bowl games of incredible significance are so important to establish fairness, why didn't you did it when you held every advantage and were the center of college football influence?

Southern athletic programs played "catch-up" using the terms that Midwestern school kept in place when they were most dominant. What possible reason would we change now that we're on top?

Well back when bowl games were a reward for having a damn good season it was nice to get a vacation to some sunny location that had good weather and a beach.

Now that bowl games are part of a playoff scenario every conference has a possible advantage except for the BIG..so yes that is unacceptable. I mean seriously if you can't wrap your head around that I don't think anyone can explain it to you.

Let's just say that tOSU, USC, LSU and Tejas are all in the mix of this playoff. So tOSU flys out to Pasadena and has to beat USC, while Tejas beats LSU. Now Jerry world is the site for the championship game. Do you not see that not only are these 2 road games for tOSU or any other BIG name here, but they are decidedly Home games for the other two teams we face?

You keep saying we should have abused our powers back when we had an advantage...because now that the SEC has the advantage that's what you're going to do.What's funny is the BIG has travelled out of their home region for years to play in some of the biggest games in history! Yet the SEC with all of their power and advantage seems too chicken shit to leave their own back yard.

 

[Buckeye513]

Oh, and just to reiterate what I said earlier...there is basically no such thing as a neutral site bowl, so how about we just dismiss the pointless and false notion of a "neutral site" once and for all.

I think the rule is that it's neutral if it's in a place where the average January temperature is above 60*.

*Exception: Atlanta, because they haz dome

 

[HorseshoeFetish]

I think the rule is that it's neutral if it's in a place where the average January temperature is above 60*.

*Exception: Atlanta, because they haz dome

What about Sweeden?