Refuted: 2007 Illinois --Best in Big Ten?

[Palpie]

If you think Purdue's ranking means something, then so does Wisconsin. Don't give me this "Wisconsin was overrated" crap. Either Purdue was also overrated, or Wisconsin deserved to be ranked. Same goes for Penn State.

Wiscy was way over ranked at #5. They are a 15-20 range team, maybe. Purdue was fairly reasonably ranked just outside the top 20. So Purdue's ranking is/was more meaningful than wiscy's based on it being a more reasonable and accurate representation of the team's worth.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Since we're dealing in the world of hypotheticals at the moment, would you mind sharing how you would react to this sportswriter's opinion IF the shoe were on the other foot.

IF UM was 6-0 with the #2 defense in the land, and would be playing Illinois in the "Big" House; then would you really be defending this writer as much as you are now?

I dunno. Would I need to?

Personally, I hate over-cockiness on the part of fans of my own team even more than of other teams. Makes us look bad. So yeah, if UM were in OSU's shoes, and some loudmouth Michigan fan were to say dumb things about the article, I'd probably want to take him down a peg.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Wiscy was way over ranked at #5. They are a 15-20 range team, maybe. Purdue was fairly reasonably ranked just outside the top 20. So Purdue's ranking is/was more meaningful than wiscy's based on it being a more reasonable and accurate representation of the team's worth.

Fair 'nuff. All I'm sayin' in that post is that if OSU gets credit for beating a ranked team, so do Illinois and Missouri.

 

[sandgk]

Yes, that is certainly a margin to hang your hat on. By a margin of .08 in one man's computer poll, I am soooooooooooooooooooo pwned.

Sagarin's rating do have one great beauty to them, they are unencumbered by human elements (such as Wilner). The Predictor is presently Bayesian so it isn't 100% accurate. In fact, it is possible that it undervalues Purdue at the moment. (See NCAA rankings below). But, your point was that the one point Illini to Mizzou loss was so much more impressive on a neutral field than the tOSU win over Purdue in Ross-Ade. Anyway, Purdue is now saddled with a diminished rating courtesy of the Buckeyes visit. I'd say that on balance the data does undercut your core position

Would you honestly pick Purdue to beat Missouri?

Yep - on a neutral field I would - though I would assume the game would display as Pick 'Em. And who knows after all the shit in the Big 12 has shaken down the pant legs of each respective team we may yet see that happen in a bowl game. Mizzou will of course play Oklahoma next week in Norman. That is the acid test for whether or not they are for real. (In contemplating which look at the rankings below).

If you want to discount Sagarin let us instead look at the Statistical rankings (NCAA). Both teams can score a lot of points - so let us go where it really matters, on Defense.

Rush D - Mizoou 49th, Purdue 46th
Pass D - Mizzou 100th (eek) Purdue 84th
PE D - Mizzou 49th, Purdue 20th
Overall D - Mizzou 79th, Purdue 68th.

So, you ask if I would pick Purdue, neutral site over Mizzou - sure, why not.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Your spin is hilarious. "Ranked team".....would that be anything like the ranked team that Missouri hung 41 points on? Would that be anything like the ranked team that Illinois beat? Or the other ranked team that Illinois beat?

If you think Purdue's ranking means something, then so does Wisconsin. Don't give me this "Wisconsin was overrated" crap. Either Purdue was also overrated, or Wisconsin deserved to be ranked. Same goes for Penn State.

I'm tired of arguing with you. If you really think that Illinois is as good as us, let alone better, then your total ignorance is showing. Missouri hung those 41 points on an Illinois team that I said is not as good as the media says. You want so say how great Missouri is when pointing out why Illinois has played a tougher schedule than us, when they really haven't.

We're going to get to prove just how much better than Illinois we are on Nov 10th...

 

[muffler dragon]

I dunno. Would I need to?

I don't recall writing about necessity. I just wanted your thoughts.

Personally, I hate over-cockiness on the part of fans of my own team even more than of other teams. Makes us look bad. So yeah, if UM were in OSU's shoes, and some loudmouth Michigan fan were to say dumb things about the article, I'd probably want to take him down a peg.

All righty.

 

[HailToMichigan]

Sagarin's rating do have one great beauty to them, they are unencumbered by human elements (such as Wilner). The Predictor is presently Bayesian so it isn't 100% accurate. In fact, it is possible that it undervalues Purdue at the moment. (See NCAA rankings below). But, your point was that the one point Illini to Mizzou loss was so much more impressive on a neutral field than the tOSU win over Purdue in Ross-Ade. Anyway, Purdue is now saddled with a diminished rating courtesy of the Buckeyes visit. I'd say that on balance the data does undercut your core position

Yep - on a neutral field I would - though I would assume the game would display as Pick 'Em. And who knows after all the shit in the Big 12 has shaken down the pant legs of each respective team we may yet see that happen in a bowl game. Mizzou will of course play Oklahoma next week in Norman. That is the acid test for whether or not they are for real. (In contemplating which look at the rankings below).

If you want to discount Sagarin let us instead look at the Statistical rankings (NCAA). Both teams can score a lot of points - so let us go where it really matters, on Defense.

Rush D - Mizoou 49th, Purdue 46th
Pass D - Mizzou 100th (eek) Purdue 84th
PE D - Mizzou 49th, Purdue 20th
Overall D - Mizzou 79th, Purdue 68th.

So, you ask if I would pick Purdue, neutral site over Mizzou - sure, why not.

That's a wonderful analysis, but you're putting words in my mouth. I said Illinois lost to a better team than the one OSU beat, and that's all. I didn't say it was a more impressive game than beating Purdue - in fact, earlier I specifically said I think it's a better game than the one OSU played against Akron. Not Purdue. Losing to a better team than the one OSU beat could cover a lot of ground. Tulane losing to LSU or Idaho losing to USC falls under that category, it doesn't mean I think they were better games for the losing team.

Pshew. 90% of what I've had to argue in this thread is people misinterpreting my words or taking them several steps too far.....I suppose I'm fortunate nobody's accused me of backtracking, I spend most of my effort having to clarify what I say.

By the way - I do stick firm with my belief that Missouri should beat Purdue on a neutral field. Considering Purdue's schedule, I don't put a lot of stock in their accomplishments so far. Never mind the rankings, Purdue hadn't even played a team with bowl hopes til the OSU game. Mizzou has played some far more impressive teams - a 41-6 beating of Nebraska sounds much better to me than beating up on CMU or Eastern Illinois. Maybe we'll find out the answer to this question in the Alamo Bowl

 

[ScriptOhio]

Illinois has better wins than anyone in Big Ten, could end up in Pasadena

Here's the Big Ten's "Method to Determine Big Ten Conference Automatic Representative to Bowl Championship Series". It doesn't say anything about "better wins" as a factor to represent the Big Ten in the Rose Bowl:

Effective for bowl games following the 2006-09 regular football seasons, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) will consist of five (5) bowl games: BCS National Championship Game, Rose Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Sugar Bowl. Participation by a Big Ten Conference member institution will be determined as follows:

1. BCS National Championship Game. In the event the conference has one or two football teams ranked No. 1 and/or No. 2 in the final BCS poll, these conference team(s) shall participate in the BCS National Championship Game.
2. Rose Bowl. Unless ranked No. 1 or No. 2 in the final BCS poll, the conference champion shall participate in the Rose Bowl. The championship shall be determined on the percentage basis of conference games (tie games counts ? win and ? loss). If there is a tie for the championship, the Rose Bowl representative will be determined as follows:
   1. An ineligible team shall not be considered in the standings for determination of the conference representative.
   2. If there is a tie for the championship, the winner of the game between these two teams shall represent the conference.
   3. If there is still a tie for the championship, or if the tied teams did not play each other, the team that played more games against Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams shall be eliminated.
   4. If there is still a tie, or if the tied teams did not play each other, or if both teams played the same number of games against an FCS team(s), the representative shall be determined on the percentage basis of all games played.
   5. If there is still a tie, the most recent team earning BCS automatic selection shall be eliminated.
   6. If more than two teams tie for the championship, the same selection procedures shall be followed with the following exceptions:
      1. If three teams are tied, and if one team defeated both of the other teams, then that team shall be the representative.
      2. If three teams are still tied, and if two of the three teams defeated the third team, the third team is eliminated, and the remaining two teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
      3. If three teams are still tied, and there is a tie game between two of the three teams, or if two or all three of the teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on a percentage basis of all games played except, if one or two of the tied teams played more games against an FCS opponent than the other tied teams, then said team or teams shall be eliminated, and the remaining two teams, if applicable, shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
      4. If three teams are still tied, and one of the three teams is eliminated through the percentage basis of all games played, the remaining two teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
      5. If three teams are still tied, and all three teams have the same winning percentage of all games played, the most recent team representing the conference shall be eliminated, and the two remaining teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
   7. If four or more teams tie for the championship, the following selection procedure shall be followed:
      1. If one team defeated each of the other three teams, then that team shall be the representative.
      2. If two of the four teams defeated each of the other two teams, the latter two teams shall be eliminated, and the two remaining teams shall revert to the two-team tie procedure.
      3. If three of the four teams defeated the fourth team, the fourth team is eliminated, and the remaining three teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.
      4. If there is a tie game between two of the four teams, or if two of the four teams did not play each other, the representative shall be determined on a percentage of all games played, except, if one or more of the tied teams played more games against an FCS opponent than the other tied teams, then said teams shall be eliminated, and the remaining teams, if applicable, shall revert to the two- or three-team tie procedure.
      5. If one of the four teams is eliminated through the percentage of all games played, the remaining three teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.
      6. If all four teams are still tied and have the same winning percentage of all games played, the most recent team representing the conference shall be eliminated and the three remaining teams shall revert to the three-team tie procedure.

Method to Determine Big Ten Conference Automatic Representative to Bowl Championship Series ::

 

[Jaxbuck]

No, not with the game in Columbus. I simply think it's premature to be as cocky about beating Illinois as I've seen a few people be, and I also think it's not a ridiculous point of view to claim Illinois is the best in the conference. I do think Illinois is perfectly capable of winning, even at the horseshoe.

Nice.

Not going to back up the talk you started the thread with, agreeing with the author, but still 3-4 lines about how you think they are perfectly capable.


Perfectly capable? Anyone is perfectly capable. Thats a convienent way to act like your making a bold statement you can then back track 100mph on later by saying "I just said they were capable, not that they would win.."

Put up or shut up. The author said Illinois is the best team in the conference, you agreed with him. Lets put some real cash on it or admit your just flapping your gums. I'm tired of all the spin.

 

[lvbuckeye]

avatar bet?

 

[Jaxbuck]

avatar bet?

fuck that

CASH

He can put up or shut the fuck up

 

[HailToMichigan]

Nice.

Not going to back up the talk you started the thread with, agreeing with the author, but still 3-4 lines about how you think they are perfectly capable.


Perfectly capable? Anyone is perfectly capable. Thats a convienent way to act like your making a bold statement you can then back track 100mph on later by saying "I just said they were capable, not that they would win.."

Put up or shut up. The author said Illinois is the best team in the conference, you agreed with him. Lets put some real cash on it or admit your just flapping your gums. I'm tired of all the spin.

Fine.

You find me, anywhere in this thread, where I said it. Find me where I said Illinois is the best team in the conference. Find me where I said the Illini will beat Ohio State. You find me that stuff, and I will bet on it.

You tell me how this:

Underestimate them at your peril. Frankly, they're looking excellent this year, and it's not a stretch to call them the best in the conference.

Turns into this:

How in the hell else can you make the leap that a 1 loss team is better than an undefeated one when neither team has played anyone all that good yet?

You tell me how you went from this:

You did after all say that the case could be made for UI being the best team in the B10.

You sounded perfectly reasonable then. You sounded like you picked up on what I was saying. Then this:

Not going to back up the talk you started the thread with, agreeing with the author, but still 3-4 lines about how you think they are perfectly capable.

You tell me how all the posting I've done somehow doesn't add up to not backing up what I say. I've never wavered from my position, and that is this: Underestimate Illinois at your own peril. Funny, that sounds exactly like what I said earlier. If/When I decide Illinois is a better team than Ohio State, then I will bet on it.

Til then, you find me where I said that.

 

[BB73]

That's a wonderful analysis, but you're putting words in my mouth. I said Illinois lost to a better team than the one OSU beat, and that's all. I didn't say it was a more impressive game than beating Purdue - in fact, earlier I specifically said I think it's a better game than the one OSU played against Akron. Not Purdue. Losing to a better team than the one OSU beat could cover a lot of ground. Tulane losing to LSU or Idaho losing to USC falls under that category, it doesn't mean I think they were better games for the losing team.

Pshew. 90% of what I've had to argue in this thread is people misinterpreting my words or taking them several steps too far.....I suppose I'm fortunate nobody's accused me of backtracking, I spend most of my effort having to clarify what I say.

By the way - I do stick firm with my belief that Missouri should beat Purdue on a neutral field. Considering Purdue's schedule, I don't put a lot of stock in their accomplishments so far. Never mind the rankings, Purdue hadn't even played a team with bowl hopes til the OSU game. Mizzou has played some far more impressive teams - a 41-6 beating of Nebraska sounds much better to me than beating up on CMU or Eastern Illinois. Maybe we'll find out the answer to this question in the Alamo Bowl

There's a whole lot of talk about who beat who in this thread, and a lot of meaningless opinion (not just by you).

But I'm waiting for somebody to mention Wyoming somehow.

 

[MaxBuck]

The talk about Illinois being the best team in the B11 is foolishness. With that being said, I'm a lot less confident relative to the outcome of our game with the Illini than I was at the beginning of the year, and that is given the terrific improvement the Buckeyes have made.

Illini have serious speed and athleticism, and that's no joke; in those metrics, they are probably second in the conference only to tOSU. We'd be well-advised to take this team pretty seriously.

 

[Dryden]

Would you honestly pick Purdue to beat Missouri?

Fuck no. They're Missouri and Purdue. Nobody in their right mind would bet on a game like that. That'd be about as stupid as betting on UCLA vs Notre Dame, or a John L Smith coached team versus anybody.