re: To our Big 10 posters

quote:

---

This is just my opinion, and i understand other opinions may be different, but depth of a conference does make a difference as far as wins and losses are concerned. You have to go all the way back to 1986 to find another team (Penn State) besides Ohio State and Michigan that was strong enough to win a National Championship, and 1965 to find someone outside those three (Michigan State).

---

You make a good point but who’s to know if a playoff format had existed during the 80’s or 90s that the big ten wouldn’t have won a few more natties? I’m not defending the conference per se but they had some strong Michigan, OSU and Penn State teams back in the day. Teams who lost one game and were left out of the discussion. It’s history now so it adds up to a hill of beans but we just don’t know because hypotheticals

quote:

---

OSU beat one of the top SEC teams to start the season and I don't believe there is as much iron in the SEC as you obviously do. If Texas hadn't played OSU this season, they would be 8-1 and in the top 5.

---

In fairness I think you can throw out that first game because both teams were just feeling their way around each other and getting ready for the "real" season to start. Also, Texas is 5th in the SEC standings, and will possibly drop two more games (Georgia, Texas A&M), so I think you might be over thinking that first game. And, when you consider that if Texas loses those two games they will probably drop below Vanderbilt and possibly Oklahoma to finish 7th in the SEC. (It's possible they could also drop below Tennessee)

quote:

---

You make a good point but who’s to know if a playoff format had existed during the 80’s or 90s that the big ten wouldn’t have won a few more natties?

---

Is it possible? yes. But if they couldn't win in a two or four team format, I doubt adding weaker teams is going to change the results much if any. I mean, in 2012, for instance, if Georgia had beaten Alabama in the SECCG, I would have bet Georgia would have also beaten Notre Dame badly.

The argument you make makes sense, but you would also have to consider that one or more SEC teams would have won more titles some of those years.

quote:

---

It’s history now so it adds up to a hill of beans but we just don’t know because hypotheticals

---

True, so all we can go by is what actually happened.

quote:

---

I concur with your post but want to point out that USC has one several titles in the same time frame as SEC new additions Texas and OU.
Also, Oregon has played for 3 titles (close vs Auburn).

---

That's why I didn't add Oklahoma or Texas' titles tot he SEC titles.
Since 1990 34 National Champions have been crowned. 17 have come from the SEC.

And, more to your point, USCw has only won one title since 1990, and that one was vacated due to cheating. (The Reggie Bush thing)
Oklahoma and Texas has won 1 each since 1990.

I mean, this is not to say that the SEC will win the title this year or going forward. Who knows? The B1G might go on a dominant stretch that matches what the SEC has done. Penn State has improved over what they had done in the recent past, Michigan is capable, Oregon and Indiana has shown great improvement recently and, of course, Ohio State is a constant power.

quote:

---

I completely agree. The SEC has without question been the best conference of this century, and that doesn’t bother me one bit. The only team with more national titles than Ohio State this century is Alabama, and that’s what matters to me. I couldn’t care less what the rest of the Big Ten does.

---

Well, LSU has the same number as Ohio State.

That said, I am one that has an SEC bias and pull for SEC teams to do well overall. I just think the stronger the conference overall, the more elite players will want to play in that conference, so I think it helps all the teams (including my own favorite) for the conference to be strong.

People love to hate on Ohio State, Alabama and Notre Dame and a few others...but we all know it's because they are historically some of the best programs historically, and i will admit there is a certain amount of envy involved for me.

quote:

---

Sure but in any one given season, a team winning a relatively recent national title doesnt make them a quality opponent during that season. You guys seem to treat Auburn for example as a national championship level team when discussing your schedules but they haven't won a national title in 15 years and struggle to go .500 now. These teams are all different year to year so you cant really claim national championships from 15+ years ago make them good teams in the 2025 season.

---

This is a good and legitimate point. When it comes to Auburn, it is becauseyou never know what you are going to get from them....and they do tend to come close an awful lot. If you look at their past history they have fallen short of winning a title.

2013-Played for title-12-2
2010-Won Title-14-0
2006-11-2
2004-13-0 (Was not invited to play for title, and title was vacated by USCw)
Auburn will claim (And I tend to agree with them) that they could have won that title that year over Oklahoma.
There are other years in which they came excruciatingly close.

That said, they have been pretty meh of late, so your point is valid.

quote:

---

you cant really claim national championships from 15+ years ago make them good teams in the 2025 season.

---

My arguemnt has been that the SEC has been easily the most dominant conference since 1990, and it would be even more dominant if you only go back to 2000. Since 2000, 25 Champions have been crowned and 15 of those have come from the SEC, and Alabama, Georgia and LSU have been the most dominant since 2000.

But, we can go year to year and check to see how many strong B1G teams were around when Ohio State was not strong. The point is no team is going to be strong every single year. But if your strongest team has a "down" year, is there another team that can pick up the pace and win big. The SEC has that ability. (Or had)
Whe the SEC went on their unprecedented 7 straight title run, 4 different teams won titles. (Florida, Auburn, Alabama and LSU)

Yeah and I could cherry pick a bone headed series of calls from an sec team, probably Florida would be the easiest to find this season, and try to claim that makes the entire conference suck but that would be a pretty retarded argument.

Yes, that is a very honest take and I tend to agree with the majority of it. Thanks for the honest take.

I agree the Big 10's second tier teams aren't bad but as you said, need a few breaks here and there to compete. I also agree that due to the weather y'all have to design the style of football around that and I think even the new west coast teams will begin to do that, because they'll have no choice. You simply cannot sling it around as freely in the snow and cold weather like you can 75-80 degree weather.

The playoff should be interesting and I actually want to see an SEC team go play "up north" and I also want to see a Big 10 team come down and play in the south during the playoffs. I think it's a great design and it makes the regular season important. If you want to play in your home elements, then win as many games as you can in the regular season.

Thanks again for the take, I appreciate it. Roll Tide!

Yes, but USC is absolutely a blue blood.

tennesse came up to Columbus last year for the playoffs.... let me tell you as a native volunteer... most of you were good folks, but man the worst of you were absolutely embarrassing. all teams got em, but the amount of smacktalk was awful.

bigten teams go south all the time for bowls so that's not a unique situation, and didn't Ohio State play Texas in dallas for their game?

ohio state isn't a normal bigten team,. they have weapons to fight fire with fire,. bit not many of these teams can do that,. so they gotta grind you down and wait for the mistakes without making their own