Not anymore. Sure, it's major in the sense that the winner will of course continue to go to the BCS. But like the Big East, it's time to attach an * any time a team from that conference goes undefeated, unless they've had an elite non-conference game or two. The fact that this Penn State team was an eyelash from playing for the national title (last second FG loss to Iowa) was an absolute joke. Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, USC -- all of these one-loss teams from major conferences deserved to be ahead of an undefeated Penn State. Voters need to remember that the next time PSU/OSU/whoever runs up a perfect record by virtue of a lack of legitimate competition. This Rose Bowl isn't about USC, whose sluggish offense struggled against the likes of UCLA, California and Arizona. It's yet again about the slow, methodical, uncreative Big 10 team and how they don't even belong on the same field as an elite team. I'm not suggesting anything drastic -- of course they can keep their Rose Bowl tie-in. But imo, we've reached the point where voters need to consider potential one/two loss teams from major conferences ahead of zero/one loss teams from the Big 10. It's that bad. By the way, for all the OU fans who used the transitive property of OU>Tech>Texas to justify their selection... what's happening here? Penn State routed Oregon State, who beat USC. Surely that means Penn State is superior to USC and worthy of a higher ranking regardless of today's result, right?
That's exactly right. I'm watching this ass kicking that SC is putting on Penn State. What a joke. Remember, the Big 10 sent Ohio State to the NC game the last two years, resulting in two straight blowout losses. Essentially, the system has been rewarding this crap conference by sending them into games they have no business being in. I have a feeling that the Fiesta Bowl is going to get really ugly on Monday night.
This blowout was almost as obvious as the sun coming up in the morning. I don't care about the Rose Bowl rules, let USC play a real powerhouse, like Texas, Texas Tech, Alabama or even the lowly Nebraska who could certainly put up much better fight than 31-7.
Georgia sleptwalked against MS and still won by 12. Ohio State embarrassed in two straight national title games. Michigan gets punked by Appalachian State, last season. Penn State look like a Division II team against an NFL team.
I love the Big 10 but they are a football joke. This Rose Bowl is an absolute disgrace. The one positive happened before the game started. Flying that B2 over the stadium as the national anthem ended was electric. I replayed it 8-9 times. WOW!
Penn State is a good team.. I think if you paired them with Alabama it might have been a close game. But USC, UT, OU, Florida are leagues ahead of them just due to talent and pure speed.
come on....none of those losers in norman honestly believe they deserve to be playing in the national championship game.
The most exciting thing about the game is the B2 flying over the stadium, when could you ask for a refund, if you actually went to the game? Joe Pa is a legendary coach, but Penn State can't beat any of those teams in the top 5, and it would've been perfectly fine if they went undefeated and still had the Sooners, Horns, Raiders, or Gators jump over them, even with all of them being one loss teams.
By the way, before anyone says "but Northwestern almost beat your Missouri team," I refer you to actually watch the game film. I've watched Chase Daniel start every game for three years, and that's by far the worst I've ever seen him play. He single-handedly gave Northwestern 14 of their 23 points (counting OT) off turnovers. By and large, the Missouri defense controlled the game. For anyone who has watched the Big 12 this season, think about that statement. The Missouri defense controlled the game. That says all there is to say about Big 10 football. Back on topic, I think in some ways it's as much of a mental problem for Big 10 team as it is physical. The USC offense clearly outclasses the PSU defense in terms of overall talent and speed, but I don't think the reverse is necessarily true. The PSU offense does have a lot of speed, and Clark is a very good QB. What turned this game was partially turnovers, but also unoriginal playcalling. Third and short? Insert slow-developing dive up the middle into the teeth of a fast defense. This killed several promising PSU drives, as well as prevented the PSU defense from taking a break. People want to chalk the demise of the Big 10 up to speed, and it's partially that, but it's not all that. At least on offense, PSU has very good team speed. It's the conservative, sluggish nature of the gameplans from coaches like Paterno and Tressel. Those don't work in this era of elite college football.
Regardless of anything else, this is nonsense. The three teams didn't play similar schedules, nor do they have equal numbers of losses only to each other. None of the things that made OU/Tech/Texas controversial apply here. As for the B10 being a crappy conference - it certainly is this year. But on a year-to-year basis, it's no worse than the ACC or Big East. So if your definition of "major conference" is B12/SEC/Pac10, then I guess it's not a major conference. This seems to be a growing problem year to year as more and more football talent seems to reside and stay in the southern half of the country.
No, it's not. You spelled out my biggest gripe with OU/Texas. I don't have a problem acknowledging the weakness of the head-to-head argument, if the teams play similar schedules and have equal numbers of losses. Texas and Oklahoma clearly played a superior schedule to Texas Tech by any metric (even if you take out the bonus game OU had of playing Mizzou), and that's why the Oklahoma argument was illogical. The overall bodies of work for those three teams were not on the same playing field. http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html Absolutely. As I said, it's relegated to Big East (or ACC) status. It's still major in the sense of having a BCS tie-in. But it's not major to the point where an undefeated Big 10 team automatically should be slotted in front of one-loss teams from far superior conferences. Voters clearly took that approach with PSU (before the Iowa game) this year, and it was absurd and easily could've robbed a very deserving team of playing for the national title. Let's hope they learn for the next time around.
When you look at the pathetic state of football in that conference, it's not hard to understand why the strongest opposition to a playoff system is coming from the members of the Big 10. This is just pathetic.
And yet Penn State has put up 24 points and over 400 yards on the "greatest defense of all time." The only thing worse that the Big 10 getting in bowl games they don't deserve is the excessive hype of USC.
Who the hell said that? That transitive property also equals out to Tech>Texas>OU or Texas>OU>Tech. Also, why would you even waste time arguing with someone that said that?
I think Penn State redeemed the Big Ten somewhat at the end of the game. As for conferences that shouldn't be major football conferences why is 12th ranked Cincinatti playing 19th ranked V. Tech in a BCS game?
Don't jump off a cliff here. The B10 is still relevant and still should have the right to win whatever subjective "Who deserves it?" argument you can come up with. You can't use this season alone as the basis for any argument. This year was a bit of an anomaly with a pitiful Michigan team and freshman-led Ohio State team so it's understandable this might amount to a knee-jerk thread. IMO, the best two teams in college football are Florida and USC. Using your "lack of legitimate competition" argument (which, ironically, you are using to defend USC) should I be allowed conclude USC is NC game worthy? Probably not. And no, nothing against Texas, Oklahoma or any of those other B12 teams that play no defense. Based on what i've seen, records and H2H's those are who I feel are the best two teams. I have no means, metric or formula to prove this. Neither does anybody, and that's always going to be the problem unless a playoff format is implemented. Given how flawed and controversial the BCS format is how can you possibly think you're helping matters by eliminating a major conference from NC game eligibility? Also, for those criticizing Tressel's record in Bowl games. Stoops is 10x worse.
Yeah, because nothing ever changes from year to year. Are you not a fan of a Rice team that went 3-9 just last season? Things change. OSU was pretty good that year and Texas, as Cat said, had a freshman qb in his 2nd game ever. We'll see the difference on Monday night.
