Posted on 12/05/2006 7:33:22 AM PST by sean327
This years college football bowl pairings were released Sunday, and the last-place teams from the biggest conferences will be crying all the way to the bank. The top teams from the small conferences will be crying poverty.
In NCAA Division I football, profits are higher for doormats from the six "major" conferences--Atlantic Coast, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and Southeastern--than for champions from the five smaller conferences.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Some coaches don't...but when they also regularly lose to their rival, Michigan, they get the boot despite a history of fielding excellent teams.
USC/UCLA in the Rose Bowl is like spotting them 10 points. Not only is it a home game, it's a home game 3 time zones west and 40 degrees warmer.
lepton, you are continuing with some of the weakest excuse-making I have ever seen. As I have said before, the visiting teams come to the Rose Bowl at least a week ahead of the game. There is no such thing as an 8-day jet lag, especially for 21 year olds. You complain about the weather being different? It's 65-70 degrees out here when the Rose Bowl is played. Ohio State and Michigan can't play in that kind of weather? The Big 10 team regularly fills half that stadium with their fans. I have been to 11 Rose Bowls, I have seen it first hand. There is no home crowd advantage at the Rose Bowl. Along these lines, the Big 10 teams had trouble when Arizona State or Washington or anyone else was in there too? What home field advantage did these teams have?
Here are the facts, whether you want to acknowledge them or not. Throughout the 70's, 80's and to the mid 90's, the Big Ten teams, almost across the board, continued to embrace out-dated, rudimentary, slow, and unimaginative offensive approaches while the Pac-10 ran pro-style offenses, threw the ball effectively and played the game at a faster speed. And every year, a 10-1 Big Ten team with power running attacks (and a defense geared to stop the other power running attacks they faced in the Big 10) came to the Rose Bowl and was overwhelmed trying to keep up with the passing and speed they faced when playing the Pac-10 schools. From the early 70's to the mid 90's, the Pac-10 won 19 of 23 Rose Bowls. NINETEEN OF TWENTY THREE! Are you trying to tell me that it was jet lag or the sheer hell of having to play in 65 degree weather that accounted for this incredible gap between the leagues?
The upside to all of this for the Big 10 is that they finally began to change, they upgraded their offenses to the 20th century, they began to produce great quarterbacks and receivers to go with their running backs, and as a result, their defenses improved against the pass because they had to. And they finally started to win some Rose Bowls and the league is better as a result. Now, you have teams like this year's Ohio State and this year's Michigan that throw the ball as well as anyone. And you can credit all those Rose Bowl losses for the league's improvement.
...speaking of Pac-10 coaches, the word I hear out of Stanford is that (former NFL QB/current University of San Diego Head coach) Jim Harbaugh is their leading candidate for the head coaching position. I was hoping he would take over the offensive coordinator position at USC from Lane Kiffin. I think whoever gets Harbaugh will get a real good cooach.
Great analysis and your 100% correct. The Big-8 and South West conference suffered from the same problems especially when the met up against passing game and super fast defenses of Miami.
The SEC has always relied on speed and athleticism on both sides of the ball pretty much since the days of Bear Bryant. They can be pushed around at times (Nebraska vs UF in 1995) or passed into oblivion (USC vs Arkansas), but they generally hold up pretty well.
The SEC embraced the pro style offenses in order to keep up with Spurrier's UF teams but since he left, they have returned to a more ball control type style of offense.
I do believe that climate determines to a large degree what sort of offense a conference will gravitate toward. In the Big-10 and especially then Big-12 North, the winter conditions really require the ability to grind the ball out on the ground as passing in those conditions, especially by a college level QB, can be very challenging.
The weather does have something to do with it, but Washington, Washington State, Oregon and Oregon State have generally had fine passing attacks despite playing in a lot of lousy weather. Notre Dame has had great passing attacks for 30-40 years, and they are located right in the middle of Big 10 country. John McKay at USC and Bill Walsh at Stanford had much to do with the Pac-10 throwing the ball a little earlier than most other conferences. Then, over time, more and more teams started to realize they could compete with the better programs by throwing, it was an equalizer. The SEC has kind of been varied over the years, but generally more physical than finesse. But they have benefitted by Spurrier's influence, Tennessee has had some good passing offenses, and then even more recently by Auburn getting Borges from UCLA (and going 12-0 that first year in 2004 with a balanced offense) and then even more recently by the circus offenses that Florida and Arkansas are bringing to the league. That league will be even better as a result, because the other programs will have to ramp up to answer these different offensive approaches.
Agreed. The game a major program needs to win is the one played against a conference rival at 8PM on a Saturday night (or 3:30, etc.). Those are the games you bring the recruits to and try to win them over based on the atmosphere. A bowl game is a weeklong party, and if your team wins great...but if not you just move on to the next season.
Maybe then there would be some interesting OOC games scheduled, since losing them wouldn't mean you're out of the title chase anymore.
Not all of the Big10 teams had those schemes. Some were fast and passed like mad...and those that were built like the PAC-10 teams lost when the weather turned cold. Overall during the regular season the Big-10 v. the Pac-10 was pretty even, though a superficial glance suggests that it was mostly bottom-rung Big-10 teams playing (3-8 records show up frequently in USCs games), and a very notable difference in performance between home and away (with victories against mediocre Big10 teams at home being much larger than against poor Big 10 teams away).
A glance at Washington appears to show this too, though there are few examples.
78 RB Washington 27, Mich 20...but lost to 7-5 Minnesota
81 RB got hammered by Michigan, blew out winless Northwestern
82, RB 28-0 over 8-4 Iowa; DNP Big10, but lost 31-0 at UCLA.
91, RB 46-34 over 8-4 Iowa, but squeaked by 2-9 Purdue
92, DNP Big10, but was 12-0
You can find other examples of how different it is early in the season compared to later, like 1974 Ohio State beating UCLA 41-20, then losing 23-10 in the Rose Bowl. You can't make a sane argument that that was from slow v. fast.
From the early 70's to the mid 90's, the Pac-10 won 19 of 23 Rose Bowls. NINETEEN OF TWENTY THREE! Are you trying to tell me that it was jet lag or the sheer hell of having to play in 65 degree weather that accounted for this incredible gap between the leagues?
And...And...And...
It is commercially impractical to have the bowl games in the midwest in January...but you'd see the SEC and southern 3/4 of the PAC-10 get eaten, probably to a like degree (See Tampas record in games below 40 degrees, or New Englands for the opposite extreme). There's reasons the teams in the BIG10 were built the way they have been - it reliably works in the cold and ick. They've spent the last two months in winter, and function best at about 50-55 degrees, and advantageously below that. A Purdue or Illinois passing team falls apart in that weather and doesn't get to the Rose Bowl - not that either was top-notch this year anyways. Tressels teams have been more bowl-built than past OSU teams.
And Arizona State that went 1-1 in those three decades? That streak is almost all USC and UCLA with a few Washingtons stuck in there.
"Not all the Big 10 teams had those schemes, some were fast and passed like mad and those that were built like Pac-10 teams lost when the weather turned cold..."
That's complete baloney. Those lower level Big Ten teams were losers early in the year and late, it had nothing to do with weather. And the early attempts at passing offense in the Big Ten were as rudimentary as the power running attacks they hung onto for about three decades too long. The high schools in California ran more sophisticated schemes. In some cases, they still do.
Over all these years, why didn't Notre Dame suddenly start losing when the weather got cold? They generally play upper level Big Ten schools and they have something like a .680 career winning percentage against the Big Ten. Why have Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, BYU, Boston College and a host of other poor weather teams continued to embrace passing offenses and continue sending quarterbacks to the NFL? How did Brett Favre in Green Bay, John Elway in Denver, Jim Kelley in Buffalo, Tom Brady in New England, Terry Bradshaw in Pittsburgh, Fran Tarkenton in Minnesota (I could go on and on and on) put up huge passing numbers and go to Super Bowls coming from such lousy weather cities?
Bottom line is, you embarrass the Big Ten with your excuse-making. Basically you are saying that your league is so soft that they can only compete with good conferences under their terms, in their comfort zone. "They function best at 50-55 degrees"!! Oh God, gimme a break. Ohio State and Michigan just put up about 1,000 yards in offense against each other. I don't remember the weather getting in the way of that WAC-type contest.
And finally, before you try to say USC only played the lousy Big Ten teams, be very clear. 9 of the last 11 times they played either Ohio State or Michigan in the Rose Bowl, USC won. 9 of 11 against the best you had to offer.
Blasphemy! Get rid of other out of conference games before getting rid of the great rivalries! Those are some of the best games to watch!!
If they wouldn't be allowed to get into the playoffs without joining a conference, I'd suggest that Notre Dame might be willing to change her tune.
LOL. You don't understand the economics very well. Notre Dame does not need to go to bowl games, (they have turned down bowl invitations before) and the first time they were high ranked and were not invited, the playoff system would totally collapse.
They will sell out every game they play during the year regardless of where they play. That is how strong their following is around the nation. Their games are all on TV not just in Indiana, but around the country. No other school even comes close to having the fan base they do and they see no reason to split their revenues with some conference.
LOL. I wasn't suggesting that Notre Dame needs the REVENUE from bowl games, but rather appreciates the PRESTIGE that comes from winning a bowl game or a national championship. They do have an incredible fan base. That fan base likes to watch their team play, and play for the big prize if ND does well enough in a season. It's about bragging rights, not the money (although the $$ is a nice bonus).
The point I was trying to make was that IF the rule were to change to where participation in a 1A CONFERENCE is the ONLY avenue to get INTO a bowl game, then I imagine that some of their supporters might be vocal enough to cause Notre Dame to consider joining a 1A conference, rather than risk losing the bragging rights when trying to recruit students and athletes to their school.
Oh, and I am not a Notre Dame fan. As a kid, (an Irish Catholic kid at that) I worked Pitt games for 4 years as an usher, and I found Notre Dame fans to be obnoxious and developed an aversion to that team nearly 50 years ago that I have not gotten over to this day. ;~))
I suspect that ND could be one of the many reasons why there isn't a playoff system yet! ;~)
Pasadena, California got its start in the Midwest during a cold 1873 winter. An Indiana resident Dr. Thomas Balch Elliott assembled together a group of more than 100 families that had grown tired of the hard Indiana winters and desired more moderate weather throughout the year. They called themselves the California Colony of Indiana.
Geez, more inane guff. I can assure you that the players and coaches in Big Ten football programs do not share your views on how unequipped or unable they are to compete outside of their home cities, time zones, and/or weather comfort zones. They would probably scoff at the notions, frankly. None of your listed points seem applicable or counter arguments I've made, they just sort of exist in space. NFL playoffs being played in all weather? That makes my point, for crying out loud. All those NFL superstar QB's I listed from lousy weather locations illustrate the folly of your argument that you can't pass effectively if you play in a cold weather town. Most quarterbacks and receivers will tell you that they actually have a greater advantage over the defense when the field is wet, given they know where they are going each play, and it's harder for the defense to react quickly on a wet surface. You still haven't explained why Notre Dame can pass so well all the time and send so many quarterbacks to the NFL. Hell, Notre Dame beat USC 11 straight times during the 80's and 90's, and half of those games would have been out here. Why did the top Big Ten schools have such difficulty?
Bottom line is this. Michigan honks have been yapping for weeks about how they and Ohio State are the two best teams in the country, and that they should be playing for the national title, and that other teams weren't in their league this year and all this. Now, you're telling me that what they actually were saying is "We're the best two teams in the country, as long as we get to play these other teams we're better than in the cold weather, and we don't have to travel very far, and both sides agree to run the ball a lot." If you guys are that good, let's see you beat USC, how about just once? How about this year, when you have a three-year starter at QB and a three-year starter at running back, and the "best front seven in the country" and all this, while USC has a first year QB, all freshmen running backs, and is replacing two Heisman winners? Even though you will have the incredibly disadvantage of having to play the game in 65 degree weather, and the havoc that can wreak on a team's execution (my God), why don't you show me something and beat USC, just once this year, before you ever expect me or anyone else out here to listen to your claims about national dominance.
what an awesome guy I knew his dad Lee who was a D3 legend in Cleveland only father/son duo to win college football natl championships
How? ...Since my point was that ALL of the Rose Bowl games are played in what is effectively a home-game circumstance for the PAC-10 - especially USC and UCLA which make up the bulk of the games you are speaking of - one which is not only home, but also time zones off, and a very different climate. December in Ann Arbor has only about half the month on average where any portion of the day breaks freezing. All things being otherwise equal, you'd expect about an 80% win rate from that.
All those NFL superstar QB's I listed from lousy weather locations illustrate the folly of your argument that you can't pass effectively if you play in a cold weather town.
Nowhere did I make that argument. What I said was that you've got to be able to hunker down and play power football in the cold, and the more successful Big-10 teams built their teams to do so. The NFL teams you cited all have that ability, or they lose. Most have quite notable home field advantage vs. southern/mild climate teams come December and January, some even legendarily so.
I'll further note that with the increased emphasis on Bowl Games in general since 1990, that the teams HAVE changed.
Heck, the ND/USC weries was BEGUN over the issue of the weather. ...and yet again you use October games to suggest that January games don't matter. Now, you're telling me that what they actually were saying is "We're the best two teams in the country, as long as we get to play these other teams we're better than in the cold weather, and we don't have to travel very far, and both sides agree to run the ball a lot."
No. What I'm saying is that the Rose Bowl is essentially a home game for the PAC-10 representative against a conference whose teams have climate-related dictations to their build, which for the bowl game in question they are always playing outside of. I'm suggesting that if the games were home and home, that the balance during the time in question would likely have been a lot more even - as regular season results suggest. I'm suggesting that a 76 degree day in LA benefits USC against Michigan roughly as much as a 25 degree day in Ann Arbor benefits MI against USC. ...and that's just the way it is, since you're probably not going to get the money flowing into Ann Arbor in January that you get going into LA in January.
Heck, even AtlantaJeff (who agrees with your general assessment) concedes that point.
The Rose Bowl is a Pac-10 home game.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.