Started By
Message

re: SEC might have a little competion

Posted on 7/31/09 at 10:43 am to
Posted by Ross
Member since Oct 2007
47824 posts
Posted on 7/31/09 at 10:43 am to
2006 Ohio State is seen as overrated because of the perception that the Big 10 was weak; Michigan getting destroyed in their bowl game; and of course Ohio State getting dismantled in the national title game.

It also didn't help that Texas; who was #2 when they played and was considered Ohio State's biggest win of the season until they beat Michigan decided to drop it's last two Big 12 games dropping them to #18.
Posted by Buckeye Fan 19
Member since Dec 2007
36166 posts
Posted on 7/31/09 at 12:56 pm to
quote:


It also didn't help that Texas; who was #2 when they played and was considered Ohio State's biggest win of the season until they beat Michigan decided to drop it's last two Big 12 games dropping them to #18.


McCoy was injured in one and recovering from that injury in the other. (Not that his backup at the time, Jevan Snead, is a joke, or anything) Texas did beat Oklahoma by 18 that year (the same OU that lost to BSU in the Fiesta Bowl, leading many to complain about the Broncos not getting a shot. And I know you can't do transitive property in football, but just to give an idea, that's people talking about a team that's virtually equal with OU, who lost to Texas by 18 at a neutral site, who lost to OSU by 17 at HOME, who got destroyed by the NC on a neutral site).
Posted by pitbull1Ark
Bella Vista, Arkansas
Member since Sep 2008
1212 posts
Posted on 7/31/09 at 12:57 pm to
My biggest complaint was that those two years McFadden got beat out of the Heisman by two qb's that really shouldn't have won it. Troy Smith was overrated, but DMAC was a sophmore so I can give him a break on that one. The next year DMAC got beat out by Tebow and Tebow was only a Sophmore himself so I don't think he should have gotten it.
Posted by Tebow4ReElection
Member since Aug 2008
89 posts
Posted on 7/31/09 at 1:06 pm to
Edit: @Ross

That is definitely the kind of reasoning that people use to support the idea that Ohio State was not as good as they were generally believed to be before the title game. But I think it is because of the lopsided result of that title game that people have revised their perception of that team and its competition so that it is probably significantly more negative than the reality.

I say that because if you actually do compare who beat whom, there is little reason to believe that Ohio State was anywhere near as bad, relative to Florida, as they were in the title game.

Michigan lost to USC by 14, but that was the same USC team that beat the SEC runner-up on the road by a much wider margin than Florida did. Michigan also beat Vanderbilt by a much wider margin than Florida did and beat Notre Dame, at Notre Dame, by roughly the same margin that LSU did in the Sugar Bowl. Penn State beat Tennessee by a wider margin than Florida did.

I am not saying Ohio State was the best that year or that comparing common opponents is always an accurate measure of relative strength, just that the disparity between Florida and Ohio State was probably not nearly as great as the result of 1 game played 1-2 months after the regular season might lead someone to believe.
This post was edited on 7/31/09 at 1:08 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter