Started By
Message
re: To our Big 10 posters
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:41 am to TexasWranglers
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:41 am to TexasWranglers
quote:
The sec added 2 blue bloods that will spend resources to compete to the already best conference. The BIG added programs that may compete, that’s the difference. Had the BIg added Texas and OU it would have balanced it out way more
True, but Oregon did win the conference last year. The PAC teams are competing right away...even UCLA, as crappy as they are, causing problems for teams
1
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:45 am to BuckeyeGoon
What the BIG added and what the SEC added are not the same historically.
Oregon has been good as of late but they are have never won anything, ever.
Comparing OU and Texas to what the BIG added isnt the same at all. Which means much more competition in an already crowded talented conference.
Oregon has been good as of late but they are have never won anything, ever.
Comparing OU and Texas to what the BIG added isnt the same at all. Which means much more competition in an already crowded talented conference.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:47 am to EV
quote:
Is Ohio State as good as last year? Hard to tell with their piss poor schedule
I don't understand this at all really
LINK
OSU is the only 4-0 team against top 30 opponents this season according to objective metrics. OSU is also 4-0 against top 30 opponents in SP+ rankings as well
Bama would be in that ranking as well, but they lost to FSU who somehow is in the top 30 of both those metrics (honestly just as headscratching as LSU and PSU being still in the top 20 themselves)
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:48 am to EV
Yes Oregon won, I am just making the point (maybe poorly) that adding TX and OU (and I am obviously biased) is no the same historically, talent wise, or resource wise as adding UCLA, Oregon, USC and UW. Those teams may pop up on occasion as decent but will never have the consistent ability like TX and OU.
Maybe its closer than I think but I think my argument that adding 2 Blue Bloods to already the best conference is why its much tougher to win in the SEC than ion the BIG.
Maybe its closer than I think but I think my argument that adding 2 Blue Bloods to already the best conference is why its much tougher to win in the SEC than ion the BIG.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:52 am to TexasWranglers
quote:
What the BIG added and what the SEC added are not the same historically
[USC enters the chat]
LINK
USC definitely has an edge on Texas historically
And for USC vs. Oklahoma:
USC vs Oklahoma
By the way, when you look at these pages, don't just compare head to head....scroll down and compare stats
USC has had 8 heisman winners
2nd in First Round picks and NFL Draft Picks
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:54 am to TexasWranglers
quote:
I am just making the point (maybe poorly) that adding TX and OU (and I am obviously biased) is no the same historically, talent wise, or resource wise as adding UCLA, Oregon, USC and UW. Those teams may pop up on occasion as decent but will never have the consistent ability like TX and OU.
Historically USC is certainly a better program than Texas and resource wise Oregon has more money than anyone
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:55 am to TexasWranglers
Texas is not a blue blood. Neither is Oklahoma.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 9:58 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I don't understand this at all really
just Sayin...I don't think we'll really know how good Ohio State is this year till we hit the playoff. And Ohio State will be in regardless of the Michigan game.
So schedule criticism doesn't really mean anything. Last year, Ohio State looked dead after the Michigan game, and then tore through the playoff for the Title
Ohio State will be judged in the playoff, not the regular season, which is what most teams strive for
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:07 am to NWLA_Bama
Of course all the responses are from Buckeyes. A better question to ask, "why are Ohio state fans obsessed with the SEC. You have a much easier path in the big10."
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:14 am to EV
quote:
Ohio State will be judged in the playoff, not the regular season, which is what most teams strive for
Completely fair.
I think OSU has been suffocating in games so they are deemed "boring". And that's fine. I think people are looking at box scores and not watching and again I don't blame people for not watching them beat Minnesota or Washington. But I've watched a lot of good to really good to great OSU teams the past 25 years and this one is operating at a consistently high level even compared to those teams.
Again I can be proven completely wrong and SEC fans can say OSU was a fraud, but nothing in the metrics indicates that, and nothing from watching every snap says that either
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:14 am to Simple Solution
Then, why do the same two teams win the SEC Championship Game? Alabama and Georgia have the easiest path to the playoff, and it is not even debatable.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:18 am to Buckeye06
quote:
I objectively believe OSU is 10 points better than anyone else in the country and anyone who says there is no dominant team this year hasn't been watching.
You were 7 points better than Texas at home so that statement is already false. The whorns have been very pedestrian in conference. Not being challenged the entire year will come back to bite them in the arse in the playoffs.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:20 am to NWLA_Bama
There is really only one fanbase that chimes in here from the B1G. So the title is a bit misleading. Occasionally I see a random Michigan poster in here, or Indiana or Oregon. Or that Purdue fella. Radio One
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:21 am to EV
quote:
Is Ohio State as good as last year? Hard to tell with their piss poor schedule
Indiana looks better this year IMO. Much better on defense
Oregon? They have games against Iowa, USC, and Washington left...I think Oregon is overrated and will flame out
The teams to watch are Michigan and USC. Both could make a late season push, especially with Ohio State and Oregon to play respectively
If Michigan wins out and beats Ohio State, tell me they don't make the playoff...The game is in Ann Arbor
Your post sums it up well. Oregon, USC, and Michigan all have a chance to prove themselves
Biggest differences in the conferences:
1) B1G will be healthier and less worn down in the playoffs. It takes something out of team having to “get up” for every game. Advantage for OSU and IU
2) Bottom half of the B1G is much worse than SEC. These are the teams your top half is playing. OSU and IU don’t need to have their “A” game every week.
3) Stadium atmospheres are totally different and there’s only a few exceptions to this rule. We see it in every sport where a crazy home atmosphere has an effect on the game. It absolutely changes the score
4) Much more talent top to bottom in the SEC. Objectively a fact going by 3rd party ratings in the form of NFL draft picks. NIL has distributed this talent more evenly
Ohio State won it all last year BECAUSE they were tested in the B1G. They were bloodied. They overcame and won it all because of that. The big storyline is how will IU and tOSU fare when they aren’t tested. Honestly i think the loser of the B1GCCG has the advantage in the CFP. It’s not too dissimilar to A&M. We’ve had less of a test this year with only 4 ranked teams to play. We need to play Bama to become battle tested. Losing that game might be just as good as a win in terms of preparing for the CFP. Teams need to face adversity
This post was edited on 11/3/25 at 10:26 am
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:22 am to NWLA_Bama
quote:
Big 10 posters
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:24 am to Gimme Vaughn
quote:
You were 7 points better than Texas at home so that statement is already false.
I know the edumacation system in Okalohma ain't not the best, but I obviously meant moving towards the playoffs and forward. Teams get better throughout a year, well some teams do at least
quote:
The whorns have been very pedestrian in conference
pedestrian means average. Texas is 4-1 in conference, with a 3 possession win over OU.
quote:
Not being challenged the entire year
You just indicated above that Texas had challenged OSU. So which is it?
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:25 am to BuckeyeGoon
Ole Miss would beat Michigan? Way to go out on a limb. Oklahoma beat Michigan.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:27 am to TexasWranglers
USC is a much more storied program than Texas
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:32 am to Nasty_Canasta
quote:
There is really only one fanbase that chimes in here from the B1G. So the title is a bit misleading. Occasionally I see a random Michigan poster in here, or Indiana or Oregon. Or that Purdue fella. Radio One
It was an open invitation for Big 10 folks, not just those from one fanbase who decide to post. I know there are others who just lurk. I was trying to get an opinion from them as well.
Posted on 11/3/25 at 10:37 am to Simple Solution
Nice try Bama but you are welcome that Texas and OU helped grow the sport (alongside Bama).
Page 2 of 8
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News