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.
"I'm suggesting that a 76 degree day in Los Angeles benefits USC against Michigan as much as a 25 degree day in Ann Arbor benefits Michigan against USC."
Flawed thinking, not even close. You are suggesting that 76 degree weather would have impact on a team's ability to function and perform the skills of the game. Where does 76 degrees impact any team's ability to play? What area of their game is impacted by GOOD WEATHER? That is just absurd logic. Bad weather is an equalizer for lesser teams, because it would have some impact in some circumstances. Good weather simply allows the teams to execute their skills. If you are saying that you need the equalizer in order to beat the Pac-10 teams, OK, I'll agree with you there. History would show that to be true.
You are trying to justify the Big Ten's pitiful Rose Bowl record by hoping someone will buy "well, if we could have played those games in the snow, we would have won more of them." Great, if that makes you feel better about the Big Ten's pitiful Rose Bowl record, then you continue to feel that way. Basically, you are trying to stretch an incredibly trivial factor into a broad justification for the Big Ten losses. Fine, you have that right if it makes you feel better. But you're gaining no traction with me. You wouldn't gain any traction with Big Ten coaches or players either. Those teams have changed over the last 30 years. They have adopted the very offenses that used to kick their ass on a regular basis out here almost every year. And their defenses have had to adjust as well, to counter these offensive advances. And as a result, the league is better today than it was back in the Woody Hayes, Bo Schembechler days. C'mon, look at Bo's bowl record. Are you kidding me? You think that was weather, or do you think it might have had to do with an approach they have since abandoned?
In fact, that is the key question here. Ohio State is playing for the national title this year. Are they more of a passing team or a running team? Is their running back going to win the Heisman, or is their quarterback going to win it? Is Michigan 11-1 this year because they are more of a passing threat this year (with their 3rd-year quarterback and several big receivers) or more of a running threat (with that midget who got about a yard and a half per carry the last time they played USC)? These teams have adjusted to the realities of the game, and their historical failures. And they are better as a result. And again, you can thank several decades of almost annual thumpings out here for pushing the league to change.