How will the Big 12 do in Bowl Games
- Thread starter Cyrocks
- Start date
I think you mean Arkansas State. Unless they play, you never know. I don't think that the "big 3" are that unbeatable, anything can happen. I don't know if they would win, but Iowa or OSU could give them a game.
Of the Big 12's 8 bowl opponents, 5 were unranked, with only 2 ranked in the top 20. And the Big 12 went 4-4.
Of the Big 10's 7 bowl opponents, 4 were ranked in the top 15. The Big 10 went 4-3, winning all 4 of those games.
Not even close.
Big 12 beat 2 ranked teams.
Big 10 beat 4 top 15 teams.
Big 12 won 0 BCS games.
Big 10 won 2 BCS games.
Come on people, take the blinders off. Every year, the measuring stick around the country is bowl season. Hell, posters on this very board even said they were waiting until bowl season to determine which conferences were good/bad.
It's obvious which conference was better between the B10 and B12. And it wasn't the B12.
Big 10 beat 4 top 15 teams.
Big 12 won 0 BCS games.
Big 10 won 2 BCS games.
Come on people, take the blinders off. Every year, the measuring stick around the country is bowl season. Hell, posters on this very board even said they were waiting until bowl season to determine which conferences were good/bad.
It's obvious which conference was better between the B10 and B12. And it wasn't the B12.
That is pretty tough to agrue. With the exception of having Texas in the NC game it is pretty cut and dry. The B10 took down the other confrences top teams this year.
I'm in agreement that the Big 10 had a better bowl season than the Big 12. Imo, there's no question. They came to play, and the conference deserves props. However, it does not signify that the "Big 10 is back!" and that they are again the most dominate conference in football. The glory days are gone and we will always have at least 2-3 dominant conferences, with foolishly futile arguments about who is better.
What I disagree with, is that you discount the Big 12 wins over Big 10 teams bc they are less significant games. This shows me that the middle and bottom of the Big 12 was stronger than the middle-bottom of the Big 10 this year, which is usually the reverse.
ISU was better than Minnesota. ISU was not very good, and obviously neither was Minnesota.
Which brings me to my next point, as bowl seeding indicates, Minnesota was better than Michigan/Illinois/Indiana/ & Purdue.
With the exception of RGII-less Baylor, I think the non-bowl Big 12 teams could beat their above mentioned Big 10 counterparts. CU/Mich might favor Meechigan. Baylor w/ RGIII is a different story.
My point is, the Big 12 held it's own this year and what I see is the bottom tier of the Conference has stepped up and isn't as bad as it was 2-3 years ago. Nebraska has certainly improved and could probably hang with anyone in the Top 10 outside of Florida/Bama. Next year will be an interesting year.
One thing is certain, it's going to be a looooong 7 months until August.
What I disagree with, is that you discount the Big 12 wins over Big 10 teams bc they are less significant games. This shows me that the middle and bottom of the Big 12 was stronger than the middle-bottom of the Big 10 this year, which is usually the reverse.
ISU was better than Minnesota. ISU was not very good, and obviously neither was Minnesota.
Which brings me to my next point, as bowl seeding indicates, Minnesota was better than Michigan/Illinois/Indiana/ & Purdue.
With the exception of RGII-less Baylor, I think the non-bowl Big 12 teams could beat their above mentioned Big 10 counterparts. CU/Mich might favor Meechigan. Baylor w/ RGIII is a different story.
My point is, the Big 12 held it's own this year and what I see is the bottom tier of the Conference has stepped up and isn't as bad as it was 2-3 years ago. Nebraska has certainly improved and could probably hang with anyone in the Top 10 outside of Florida/Bama. Next year will be an interesting year.
One thing is certain, it's going to be a looooong 7 months until August.
Iowa State won their Bowl game, that's pretty much all I give a hoot about.
That being said, Head to head is the only way you determine which conference did better. To say a ranked team definitely deserved that ranking over another 1 or 2 notches behind is really a stretch when determining which conference performed better. I think the Big 10 had a really good Bowl season. Anyone who denies that really does have blinders on. To say they were a stronger conference than the Big XII because of that, is a bit of a stretch though.
I'll definitely agree they had a better bowl season, but without head to head match ups top to bottom, it's only speculation to say one conference was better than another. Look at Head to head match ups between the conferences, how'd that go for the Big 10?
Last year, during one of these debates, I decided to look up the conference head to head records. Over the last decade, the Big Ten has a winning record against every conference. However, I would not say the BT has been the best overall conference over the past decade, just had favorable matchups.
This year, however, matchups were not favorable, and they still did well. ISU beating Minny was a solid win for the ISU program, but not for the Big 12. Tech beating a completely depleted MSU team by 3 or whatever was not a solid win at all for TTU.
Nice job of leaving out the fact that TT was in turmoil in response to the firing of Mike Leach. Not many teams would play up to their potential after the way the incident was handled.
Losing 14 players is much more detrimental to team chemistry (especially when 7 are starters) than a coach.
Again, so many people before the bowl season were hell bent on using the post-season as the measuring stick, and now that the Big Ten was more successful than the Big 12, and proved to be stronger, the tune has changed.
Oh, and here's another interesting stat: Big Ten has 3 top ten teams, the Big 12 has 1.
I guess I'm confused on why the Iowa State win is a solid win for us, but not the conference? I'd say it was a good match-up of your lower mid pack teams. And a good measuring stick for mid conference teams. As I said, head to head is the only way to look at it. For TTU MSU, Players missing is the way it goes. Look at Texas last night. How does that game go if Colt isn't hurt on the first series? No way to say they win, by any stretch, but if he doesn't get hurt, the big XII could be sporting the NC today. He got hurt though and they lost. It's the same at Michigan State, players were out and they lost. That's the way it goes. I just don't agree with picking some and saying "This is how we judge, while leaving others out." A wins a win and a loss is a loss.
Losing players due to eligibility or suspension for bowl games is nothing new.
Sure it hurts, but to sit here and say it matters but losing the head coach doesn't have that much effect is just crazy.
Sure it hurts, but to sit here and say it matters but losing the head coach doesn't have that much effect is just crazy.
It's even more crazy to claim a guy who doesn't play the game has as much of an effect as losing the players who do all the work.
Are you trying to say the coach isn't important?
I would argue he is the most important person on the team, and by a long shot.
Irregardless of which is more of a handicap, its intellectually dishonest to claim that team x lost because of a hardship, while ignoring that team y had a very similar hardship.
I don't know about you, but the Leach firing made a lot more press than Michigan St players being ineligible/suspended.
Really? Which part? That the coach isn't important, or that you can ignore one distraction but one is a valid reason for loss? I guess the Leach firing wasn't newsworthy at all. I mean it was only the most talked about story for a week or so.
This is such a silly argument. If you recall (or search for it!) I said big 10 was probably stronger than the big 12 this year. Big 12 had Texas, then big drop-off. Nobody in big 10 is better than Texas, but 3 teams in big 10 better than the rest of the teams in big 12.
But for crying out loud, TT beat Michigan St. Get over it. Players getting suspended, coaches getting fired happen, and are both part of the game.
Last edited:
It is a silly argument. I disagree with you on two accounts though. I'd argue that Iowa, PSU, and OSU would all give Texas a run for their money (just like Nebraska), and I disagree that Leach's firing had as much of an effect as MSU's suspensions.
I'm not arguing that the Leach thing isn't a big deal. It is. But losing 14 players is going to have a much bigger impact than a coach. Assistants are capable of knowing what to do, backups do not.
I would also argue that Nebraska could possibly beat any of the three big 10 teams that you mentioned.
