USC Could Forfeit 2004 le if NCAA Rules Bush Guilty

[Blake]

Big12 hasn't been much better my friend.

Since 2000:

Big XII: 2 National Champions, 7 total appearances (3 different teams)

Big 10: 1 National Champion, 3 total appearances (all Ohio St)

yes, actually the Big XII has fared much better, imo.

[Blake]

And that's why conference smack is worthless

Michigan state arguing with tech about who's better, Texas or Ohio state

While LSU with possibly the worst QB- head coach combo in the nation, has to root for Florida and bama to keep some sort of fictional streak alive

why you crying

[NFO]

Since 2000:

Big XII: 2 National Champions, 7 total appearances (3 different teams)

Big 10: 1 National Champion, 3 total appearances (all Ohio St)

yes, actually the Big XII has fared much better, imo.

That is a weak arguement. You can look over any decade of time and point to conference X being better than confernce Z.

So the Big XII has more appearances than the Big 10, the Big XII's winning percentage in those games is less than the Big 10s. That coul dbe argues that the Big XII may have an easier road to the National le game.

Fact is the Big Ten has more BCS appearances (21) than any other conference like the Big XII (17). The Big 10 is 10-11 (.476) in those games while the Big XII is 7-10 (.438). Each conference has had 7 different representatives.

Big Ten:
Ohio State (5-3)
Michigan (1-3)
Wisconsin (2-0)
Penn State (1-1)
Illinois (0-2)
Iowa (1-1)
Purdue (0-1)

Big XII:
Oklahoma (2-5)
Texas (3-1)
Nebraska (1-1)
Kansas (1-0)
Colorado (0-1)
Kansas State (0-1)
Texas A&M (0-1)


Over the BCS era I would call the two conferences pretty much equal. While the Big XII has one more championship the Big 10 has more wins and a better winning percentage, so I would say it is pretty much a wash.

[mookie2001]

So in other words ^ this whole reply you could have just posted


Oklahoma.

[Blake]

That is a weak arguement. You can look over any decade of time and point to conference X being better than confernce Z.

yes you can. I point to the Big XII being better than the Big 10 in this particular decade.

So the Big XII has more appearances than the Big 10, the Big XII's winning percentage in those games is less than the Big 10s. That coul dbe argues that the Big XII may have an easier road to the National le game.

Winning percentage is a pretty weak argument when you are only talking about 3 trips. It's like saying the Raven are better for their one Super Bowl than the Bills 4 failed attempts.

If only Ohio St hadn't made it the last two times.......then your college would be batting 1000.

Fact is the Big Ten has more BCS appearances (21) than any other conference like the Big XII (17). The Big 10 is 10-11 (.476) in those games while the Big XII is 7-10 (.438). Each conference has had 7 different representatives.

Big Ten:
Ohio State (5-3)
Michigan (1-3)
Wisconsin (2-0)
Penn State (1-1)
Illinois (0-2)
Iowa (1-1)
Purdue (0-1)

Big XII:
Oklahoma (2-5)
Texas (3-1)
Nebraska (1-1)
Kansas (1-0)
Colorado (0-1)
Kansas State (0-1)
Texas A&M (0-1)

That's a pretty weak argument as well, considering Nebraska was a made field goal away from being in a BCS game.........which in turn would have taken UT out of the le game.

Payouts aside, you tell me which is better for the conference.......a team in the le game or two teams in BCS games.

Ultimately, in my opinion [again], having teams go to le games is definitely better for the conference in the long run.

Over the BCS era I would call the two conferences pretty much equal. While the Big XII has one more championship the Big 10 has more wins and a better winning percentage, so I would say it is pretty much a wash.

Nah. Big XII has 4 more trips to the le game than the Big 10 this past decade, so I would say Big XII > Big 10.

[Stump]

Yes naturally the sec is good, don't act like 6 years is historical or back in the day though, how old are you 19?

do you sport an SEC starter jacket? Would you buy a fly SEC fitted? No

never


That's not college football. That's espn talking head . I guarantee you if OU makes another le game I won't be rooting for them, the big 12 i'm a Texas fan. How sad it must be to not have a team that can stand on it's own

22, so I'm certainly no college football historian. I'm not an SEC fanboy at all. I rooted for Texas in the championship game a few months back and was not happy to see Alabama win it.

I can't and won't argue that the SEC was the best conference in 2004, but they were strong enough for an undefeated SEC champion to have a bad taste in their mouth about being left out of the championship game. Most people will agree that Oklahoma was overrated and Auburn should have taken their place.

My point was that if the 2004 situation happened in 2010, then Auburn would have gotten the nod because of the SEC's reputation. Due to the BCS's re ed method's, a conference's reputation is important.

[mookie2001]

Uhhh yeah I guess

the bcs system was designed to put the #1 and #2 teams in the BCS rankings in the same bowl, so that's not a method, it worked

my point is it's vacated, so nobody wins . It's almost like college football cannot be discussed without

1. Declaring the sec the best conference

2. Talking about bcs and realignment

that's not football, that's espn talking head bull

[Stump]

It's almost like college football cannot be discussed without

1. Declaring the sec the best conference

2. Talking about bcs and realignment

that's not football, that's espn talking head bull

Although I get that point, this is a thread about the bcs championship and an sec team's potential right to that crown. I think you clicked the wrong thread.

Plus it's the offseason. Not much to discuss.