ADVERTISEMENT

thorsin and Oliver aren't good enough

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've often argued that balanced might be strong as a whole. But really 2000 was not. Obviously out of conference games will help make clearer if its balanced and weak or balanced and strong. In 2000 the Big Ten was 25-17, one of its worst marks since Penn State joined. It was ranked between 4th and 6th best conference in most computer rankings. I'm not sure why anyone would spend 50 posts defending it as a strong conference.

eg. Sagarin:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2000/conference/
 
I've often argued that balanced might be strong as a whole. But really 2000 was not. Obviously out of conference games will help make clearer if its balanced and weak or balanced and strong. In 2000 the Big Ten was 25-17, one of its worst marks since Penn State joined. It was ranked between 4th and 6th best conference in most computer rankings. I'm not sure why anyone would spend 50 posts defending it as a strong conference.

eg. Sagarin:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2000/conference/

I'm not sure why anyone would spend 50 posts defending anything, but the Interweb bears strange fruit.
 
I've often argued that balanced might be strong as a whole. But really 2000 was not. Obviously out of conference games will help make clearer if its balanced and weak or balanced and strong. In 2000 the Big Ten was 25-17, one of its worst marks since Penn State joined. It was ranked between 4th and 6th best conference in most computer rankings. I'm not sure why anyone would spend 50 posts defending it as a strong conference.

eg. Sagarin:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2000/conference/
Thanks. That should end the discussion. Probably won't but it should.

Fact is he uses that championship as a backdoor way of suggesting that Fitz has done a poor job because "Before he took over the reigns, they won three championships in 6 years" I will acknowledge the accomplishments of Barnett but would suggest his accomplishments have now exceeded those of Walker (who won his Championship with Barnett's recruits) on all but one criteria. That is that he has not gotten a 6th conference win (which Walker did exactly once) . That that conference record won a BIG championship that year was more a matter of luck (conference weakness, balance and gimic offense)
and would not have won a Championship (under the old rules) any year since. He then insists it was such a strong conference (basically to justify his position so he can continue to not acknowledge that the program is in pretty good hands.)
 
Walker was not exactly the master of OOC. He had what, 3 wins against any OOC foe with more than 4 wins? Just saying some of his foes, like 0-11 Duke in 2000 might as well have been FCS.

Please! Fitz did the same with EMU(1-11, 4-8, 0-12), WMU (1-11), CMU (3-9), Miami (2-10, 1-11), and other poor MAC schools ON TOP of scheduling 10 FCS schools. A three-game series with EMU?

Walker played two games against horrible Duke teams, but he also played TCU, ASU, and Kansas in a single season. Fitz stopped with the weak scheduling in 2012 and we're better off for it, IMO, but the pussy-wishers probably disagree.
 
Please! Fitz did the same with EMU(1-11, 4-8, 0-12), WMU (1-11), CMU (3-9), Miami (2-10, 1-11), and other poor MAC schools ON TOP of scheduling 10 FCS schools. A three-game series with EMU?

Walker played two games against horrible Duke teams, but he also played TCU, ASU, and Kansas in a single season. Fitz stopped with the weak scheduling in 2012 and we're better off for it, IMO, but the pussy-wishers probably disagree.

Well, I think the days of week scheduling have pretty well ended with the move to a nine-game league schedule and the mandate not to schedule FCS schools. From what I've seen of the schedules for the next couple of years, we'd better have some guys at NU who can play the game or it's going to get very ugly.
 
I've often argued that balanced might be strong as a whole. But really 2000 was not. Obviously out of conference games will help make clearer if its balanced and weak or balanced and strong. In 2000 the Big Ten was 25-17, one of its worst marks since Penn State joined. It was ranked between 4th and 6th best conference in most computer rankings.
When a conference ends with nearly 50% of its teams in the top 25 (out of 120 teams) either right before or after the bowls that is a VERY STRONG conference. Even more considering that some of the 'weaker' teams actually held ranking positions for multiple weeks. In fact, only 2 of 11 teams failed to crack the top 25 at any point in the season.

It is foolish to argue that the raw win/loss record defines the strength of a conference without considering the strength of the opponents. What if the 2000 B1G opponents were on average stronger than usual?

It's like when someone says this school is 9-1 against the B1G, and you later find out most of their B1G games were against Indy, PU and Illinois, Obviously, it depends on which team plays which.

As indicated above, in 2000 some weak/mediocre B1G teams defeated top 15 ND, a PAC10 co-champ (supposedly the stronger conference that year per Sagarin) and an 8-4 Cinci (plus UCLA).

That doesn't at all sound like a weak conference.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT