BIG TEN

[LABengalsFan09]

Absolutely Chris....

Most of the people on the east coast are in bed or at dinner by the time the West coast games start, so a lack of exposure hurts when "experts" make their claims...

If you want to rag on uniforms, then by all means continue, it displays what you really pay attention to when you "watch " football games...

[EdwardG]

I wasn't talking about the uniforms.

[Kirkendall]

I hope the Pac-10 does pick up. They always have one team that's pretty "big time" on the college scene.

There's no doubt that USC is pretty good, no one is arguing they are not, but their competition is very weak in the conference. How could that be disputed?

BTW - OSU 56, USC 10.

[LABengalsFan09]

"56-10" LOL

Dreaming.

I apologize that the Pac-10 games I watch have players who turn out to be studs on Sundays....

Edward, You were talking about the Mascots?

You're all mixed up man....

Watch the guys that throw the little brown thing around... it's far more entertaining than watching Donald Duck or Zippy dance around with the cheerleaders...

I'm sorry... I had to... I couldn't pass that up...

[EdwardG]

Sorry man. Everyone knows the only good thing about Pac Ten football is the cheerleaders.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Sorry man. Everyone knows the only good thing about Pac Ten football is the cheerleaders.

My God!! Is that oriental girl Lucy Lui? She's hot, and so is the cute little blonde to her left! Now that's a sandwich I wanna be the meat in!!

Dammit!!!****note to self...try to stay on topic!!

[Kirkendall]

Sorry man.  Everyone knows the only good thing about Pac Ten football is the cheerleaders.

My God!! Is that oriental girl Lucy Lui? She's hot, and so is the cute little blonde to her left! Now that's a sandwich I wanna be the meat in!!

Dammit!!!****note to self...try to stay on topic!!

My god Bill, is the only thing that causes you to say anything is when a hot chick appears on your monitor?

[BengalszoneBilly]

My god Bill, is the only thing that causes you to say anything is when a hot chick appears on your monitor?

Most of the time, yes it is. ***sob*** I'm so weak!!

[ackley1]

OK, first of all, you won ONE championship... you didn't win both so USC right there proves they are not the best in 2003. Seriously, you claim USC is the national champion, but that's not true; you have to share you little trophy with someone else, that's pretty weak.

OSU needed a LATE flag to beat Miami, do you think that that team last year, which didn't win the Small-10, could have beaten the Nat'l Champs? Herbstriet wouldn't buy that lame argument. Ohio St. couldn't have even beaten the most overrated team of all last year in the Sooners! Last season it was USC, LSU, Georgia and everybody else....

You go from 2002 to 2003? You're intelligent enough to realize that teams lose seniors and some juniors because of the NFL draft. Right?

BTW - USC had to share there pretty little trophy with someone else. How does it feel to be compare to LSU? I wouldn't know considering OSU won BOTH trophies in 2002.

If crappy competition wins titles, then why hasn't a team won it all from the WAC or the MAC, or Conf. USA, or Mtn. West?????

Funny how USC wins 2 games against a top-25 team and they are national champions. Seriously, I really laugh at that..

You're just another bitter west coast sports hater that is misinformed to what really goes on over here.

Do you want to go through the history of college football and see how many champions came from the west coast as opposed to the midwest and southern schools? If you want to, then fine.

BTW - USC had to share there pretty little trophy with someone else.

Your ideas are lame and your arguments are laughable, this year will be a big year for the Pac-10

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen in my entire life!

That doesn't take away from how good they were last year. Michigan had to share the title w/ the Cornholers in '97. but there's no doubt in my mind that we were the best team in the country. If it wasn't for that lucky ass TD the Cornholers got against Mizzou we would have been the undisputed champs!! Bottom line is college football needs playoffs....but it will never happen.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Bottom line is college football needs playoffs....but it will never happen.

No more true words have been posted in this forum. Until college football does as college basketball does...it will all remain pure, unadultrated speculation.

You don't hear people arguing who's the NCAA hoops champs do you!?! No you don't. Why? A playoff system works, all the rest is just a joke!

[Barbarian]

Bottom line is college football needs playoffs....but it will never happen.

No more true words have been posted in this forum. Until college football does as college basketball does...it will all remain pure, unadultrated speculation.

You don't hear people arguing who's the NCAA hoops champs do you!?! No you don't. Why? A playoff system works, all the rest is just a joke!

Billy,

Very well stated. The mere mentioning of a "Co-Champion" makes me mutter obscenities for 4 hours straight.

Collegiate Football should be taking notes from Basketball. That's the best competition on the planet. All activities cease to exist (other than The Big Dance) in America when the Final 64 (65) is on.

Imagine how many fans College Football would have if they had a Final 4 or Final 8????

Then there would be none of this Co-Champion f**king bulls**t piece of.................

[halp]

the big ten has football really, is that what you call it

[EdwardG]

I am totally against a playoff. In college football today, every game matters. You have to win your games to earn a shot at the championship. College basketball has become a joke - it is mostly unwatchable until March. Who cares if North Carolina beats Duke in the regular season - they are both going to make the tournament anyway. But when OSU played Michigan last year, we had the Rose Bowl and National Championship on the line.

Compare that to a playoff. No matter who would have won that game, they both would have been in the playoffs. Nothing will kill a rivalry more than making the game meaningless. A playoff will kill the spirit of college football.

[Kirkendall]

I am totally against a playoff. In college football today, every game matters. You have to win your games to earn a shot at the championship. College basketball has become a joke - it is mostly unwatchable until March. Who cares if North Carolina beats Duke in the regular season - they are both going to make the tournament anyway. But when OSU played Michigan last year, we had the Rose Bowl and National Championship on the line.

Compare that to a playoff. No matter who would have won that game, they both would have been in the playoffs. Nothing will kill a rivalry more than making the game meaningless. A playoff will kill the spirit of college football.

Great points. It does definitely make each week intense and full of excitement since it's do or die each game.

[Barbarian]

I am totally against a playoff.  In college football today, every game matters.    You have to win your games to earn a shot at the championship.  College basketball has become a joke - it is mostly unwatchable until March.  Who cares if North Carolina beats Duke in the regular season - they are both going to make the tournament anyway.  But when OSU played Michigan last year, we had the Rose Bowl and National Championship on the line. 

Compare that to a playoff.  No matter who would have won that game, they both would have been in the playoffs.  Nothing will kill a rivalry more than making the game meaningless.  A playoff will kill the spirit of college football.

Great points. It does definitely make each week intense and full of excitement since it's do or die each game.

Yep, great points--however, to get into the championship, you still have to be one of the 4 or 8 or whatever best teams in the country. So, therefore the season DOES matter. I say keep the BCS Rankings too--that is how you will seat the 8 best teams in the country for the tournament.

Regular Season would matter a hell of a lot more in College Football because you have only 11 or 12 games to prove yourself worthy of the Tournament.

[Kirkendall]

I wish they'd do something.. an LSU vs. USC game last year would have been awesome!

Then again, aren't they going to add a fifth BCS bowl game to determine a winner if one isn't picked unanimously?

[Barbarian]

I wish they'd do something.. an LSU vs. USC game last year would have been awesome!

Then again, aren't they going to add a fifth BCS bowl game to determine a winner if one isn't picked unanimously?

I wish it were that way, Kirk.

No, the 5th game is just another Bulls**t Game--it's a Non-BCS Conference Game. Like last year--Northern Illinois would have taken on Boise State in this new 5th game. It should be called the "WhoCares Bowl".

The way the BCS is set-up now is severe horses**t. Why doesn't the people who own the BCS know this??? It's all about the bling that makes the BCS what it is. The 5th game just adds more bling.

Here's exactly why there hasn't been a tournament proposed yet:

Because the BCS has partnerships with corporations like Tostidas and Nokia. Those companies lose money if there isn't a Fiesta or Sugar Bowl. The NCAA and BCS lose money by not having the Tostidas or Nokia names on their respective Bowls. It's really too bad that amateur competition is ruined by corporations who are only interested in making millions of dollars instead of doing the right thing here--a playoff is the only way to fix collegiate football.

There's another 2 cents.

[EdwardG]

USC and LSU would have been great last year. However, to have a real playoff, you would have needed a fourth team, and last year it would have been Michigan. Now, suppose Michigan would have beaten the Sooners in game 1 and LSU in game 2, and thus became national champs. Does that seem more fair or exciting? The reason last year was so screwed up was because there was no dominant team - USC, LSU, and OU all lost a game.

As I see it, the big problem would be if three teams go undefeated, or if one team goes undefeated and has to play a crappy 2 loss team. Last year we only had three above average teams and no great teams, which makes the rating system pretty difficult.

[Barbarian]

USC and LSU would have been great last year. However, to have a real playoff, you would have needed a fourth team, and last year it would have been Michigan. Now, suppose Michigan would have beaten the Sooners in game 1 and LSU in game 2, and thus became national champs. Does that seem more fair or exciting? The reason last year was so screwed up was because there was no dominant team - USC, LSU, and OU all lost a game.

As I see it, the big problem would be if three teams go undefeated, or if one team goes undefeated and has to play a crappy 2 loss team. Last year we only had three above average teams and no great teams, which makes the rating system pretty difficult.

Sure they all lost a game--that's why you pair them up in a 4-team competition. That's the only way you know who's King of the Hill. If MeatChicken beats Oklahoma, then MeatChicken (oh god!!!) is the better team. And Regular Season thus becomes important because it readies you for the tournament. If you play Utah State, Duke, and Army as Non-Conference Opponents--then that isn't going to ready you for Tournament play. However, if you play Wash St., Notre Dame, and Iowa--then you are more prepared.

Co-Champion. Mutha f**ker. Cock Sucker. Piece of s**t BC-f**king-S.

Ok, I'll stop there.

[pac10aintbad]

This topic is months old but some of the posts have stuck in my craw that long so I decided to wait till near the end of the season to post my points.

First, to anyone who said the PAC-10 is NOT a major conference I believe this year can put that to rest. Currently the conference has 2 teams in the top 5 and 3 in the top 25. By my count (and I may have missed a team) the BIg Ten also has 3 teams in the top 25 and NONE in the top 10!

Perhaps the Big Ten fans can now see what the PAC-10 has gone through the past several seasons and understand more. The Big Ten teams beat each other up this year as have the PAC-10 teams of the past. For example Ohio State is 7-4 and beat Michigan 9-2. Yet Northwestern beat Ohio State. Ohio State is a good team but this year they are near the middle of the Big Ten standings and they beat the conferences first place team, yet lost to a team lower in the standings. In the past the PAC-10 has seen occurances where a good middle of the conference team can beat the first or second place team and also lose to a last place or near last place team. Same is true for Big Ten this year. That is because there are GOOD teams in both conferences.

To further make my point, according to my memory the PAC-10 is 2-1 against the Big Ten in matchups this year with the PAC-10 loss being my Ducks to Indiana. I guess bowl games will tell.

Now overall the Big Ten teams had better records than the PAC-10 teams but PAC-10 teams might have taken on tougher competition this season. For example, Oregon State removed Tulane from their schedule to play a road game at LSU and Oregon put off Nevada to set up a home and home with Oklahoma. These teams are clearly not the bottom ofd the barrell.

I guess my main point is the PAC-10 is a major conference. I mean some here compared us to the WAC and MAC. Hey guess what, there is a reason the PAC-10 is a BCS conference! Yeah you could mention Oregon State lost at Boise State but heck BSU is #10 and OSU played them on a Friday night there after a heart breaking road loss to LSU the previous Saturday. Play that game on Saturday and I would be willing to bet that OSU is in that game.

Anyway I have rambled long enough. I am anxious to see the bowl matchups between the PAC-10 and Big Ten this year and how those games play out. I am willing to bet ya after those games, win or lose, the Big Ten teams will tell ya the PAC-10 is better than the MAC and WAC by far!