Charles Fischer Administrator No. 1 Share Posted 13 hours ago Did you hear the TV analysts suggesting that Indiana did not belong, and thus the B1G is overrated? They continued that line to where they arrived at how, "The Big-12 and ACC are no different than the B1G." This, over ONE game? It is the Pac-12 all over again... 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevada Dawg No. 2 Share Posted 12 hours ago I will say that I think that, top to bottom, the PAC-12 was a stronger and more competitive league than the current B1G, in football at least. The addition of the West Coast teams strengthened the league IMHO, but it was possible for the three or four really solid teams to go a month at times without facing an opponent that appreciably raised the solid teams' pulse levels. Sorry, that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh No. 3 Share Posted 12 hours ago On 12/20/2024 at 10:29 PM, Nevada Dawg said: I will say that I think that, top to bottom, the PAC-12 was a stronger and more competitive league than the current B1G, in football at least. The addition of the West Coast teams strengthened the league IMHO, but it was possible for the three or four really solid teams to go a month at times without facing an opponent that appreciably raised the solid teams' pulse levels. Sorry, that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. The B1G has always had 1-3 teams that were top tier in college football and a whole lot of nothing else. The Pac-12 was competitive from top to bottom, the bottom team usually found a way to upset someone they shouldn't, but the top end was not as good as the B1G top end usually. This year in the B1G isn't much different. The top three teams are all pretty strong in Oregon, Penn State and Ohio State. Indiana got the invite and I think they deserved it because they played their schedule and their only loss was to Ohio State. Their schedule wasn't a strong schedule and they did precisely what they were supposed to do ... Win. I'm going to throw shade at Bama because they had 3 pretty weak OCC games and Wisconsin, who weren't very good but it was a decent team from a scheduling standpoint. But Bama didn't lose 2/3 of their games to ranked teams. They loss them to 6-6 Vanderbilt and Oklahoma. And I'll be honest... I don't think Indiana would have lost those games. Bama has a higher ceiling certainly... But they also proved this year they had a lower floor. I do believe Indiana needs to up their OCC schedule. However, they went from winning 9 games in three seasons to 11 games this year. They made a massive hire in Cignetti and Indiana has an OCC designed to get them some wins in a season... They weren't expecting to win this much in year one of Cignetti. Indiana deserved to be in this playoff. But what we'll soon find is that at least a third of the teams don't belong in the playoff as competitive teams. 1 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JabbaNoBargain No. 4 Share Posted 11 hours ago (edited) Indiana didn’t belong, as it turns out imo…but the only way to find out was to put them in. No 11-1 team from the P2 should be left out. That doesn’t mean Alabama did belong imo. Just means Indiana had an easy schedule with only 2 playoff team matches including tonight. They went 0-2 in those games, and it was a bad 0-2. Edited 11 hours ago by JabbaNoBargain 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike West No. 5 Share Posted 10 hours ago Indiana is a solid program in need of excellent players on the LOS. If they had that, they're top ten material. Both their OTs suffered from weakness. Their DL was mediocre. Their skill players are very good. They need a break away WR. Even with that they'd be dangerous. Lane Kiffin complained about the Irish victory. Well, Ole Miss looked worse against both Kentucky and Florida, so he's got nothing to complain about. Talk about no offense. I've never seen a unit disappear as fast as Mississippi's. As to Alabama, they looked even worse against Oklahoma. So all this stuff about potential is a bunch of malarkey. You perform, or you don't. This is truly the first year you can say "your record is exactly what it says it is" in the SEC. You were either very good, or pretty average. Beating a top five program and losing shortly after is like, well, Vanderbilt! 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJacksPlaidPants Moderator No. 6 Share Posted 5 hours ago Tonight’s OSU/Tenn game will be a good litmus test on the strength of the conference. If OSU wins handily then that changes the narrative. All of the top teams from both conferences have great defenses, but the SEC has pretty erratic QB play. Notre Dame is an excellent football team. They should beat UGA in the Sugar Bowl. Their defense will overwhelm Stockton, but I think the Dawgs defense can do the same against Leonard. It should be a good one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 7 Share Posted 4 hours ago I don't think the B1G was bad mouthed, 3 really good teams at the top, Oregon, osu2 & Penn State, Indiana was a book that was judged by its cover. It's unlikely that the B1G is going to be much deeper next season, though Michigan will have the "$10 Million Dollar Man" at quarterback. The ND-Georgia game is interesting. I can't get a read on ND from a W over Indiana. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonDucks No. 8 Share Posted 2 hours ago Yes, I heard the ESPN Gameday crew mentioning it but I take everything that ESPN/ABC says with a grain of salt because they are in bed with the SEC for a tune of $3 Billion. ESPN was also airing the 30-for-30 SEC "Decade of Dominance" last night (I decided to take a hard pass). LOL. Were they really proposing to put in a 3-loss Alabama team (who lost to not one but two .500 teams) in the playoffs over a 11-1 Indiana (or any mid major team)? Give me a break. ESPN Signs $3 Billion Deal for SEC Football as CBS Era Nears End SPORTS.YAHOO.COM Disney’s ESPN has finalized a deal to buy the rights to college football’s most-watched television package for $300 million per season—at least five times the $55 million per year fee that... 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 9 Share Posted 2 hours ago On 12/21/2024 at 8:07 AM, OregonDucks said: Were they really proposing to put in a 3-loss Alabama team (who lost to not one but two .500 teams) in the playoffs over a 11-1 Indiana (or any mid major team)? Give me a break. It would have been irresponsible to put Alabama in. Indiana's record put them in, though their expiration was inevitable. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartm25 No. 10 Share Posted 1 hour ago (edited) On 12/21/2024 at 9:07 AM, OregonDucks said: Yes, I heard the ESPN Gameday crew mentioning it but I take everything that ESPN/ABC says with a grain of salt because they are in bed with the SEC for a tune of $3 Billion. ESPN was also airing the 30-for-30 SEC "Decade of Dominance" last night (I decided to take a hard pass). LOL. Were they really proposing to put in a 3-loss Alabama team (who lost to not one but two .500 teams) in the playoffs over a 11-1 Indiana (or any mid major team)? Give me a break. ESPN Signs $3 Billion Deal for SEC Football as CBS Era Nears End SPORTS.YAHOO.COM Disney’s ESPN has finalized a deal to buy the rights to college football’s most-watched television package for $300 million per season—at least five times the $55 million per year fee that... And conversely, Colin Cowherd and Joel Klatt (with Fox and in bed with B1G) were discussing how the SEC had a weak/down year on their show a couple days ago. Edited 1 hour ago by cartm25 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM9 No. 11 Share Posted 1 hour ago I would think that since Oklahoma at 6-6 beat Alabama 24-3 , which is worse than Indiana's loss to an 11-1 team, maybe the experts shouldn't get so worked up over 1 game. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 12 Share Posted 1 hour ago On 12/21/2024 at 1:29 AM, Nevada Dawg said: I will say that I think that, top to bottom, the PAC-12 was a stronger and more competitive league than the current B1G, in football at least. The addition of the West Coast teams strengthened the league IMHO, but it was possible for the three or four really solid teams to go a month at times without facing an opponent that appreciably raised the solid teams' pulse levels. Sorry, that's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Another good take, NG. Thanks. Between losses to Georgia, what quality teams did Texas play in 2024? Texas missed Tennessee, Alabama, Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Missouri. Texas is 0-2 vs. the Committee's Top 25. Like Notre Dame, Texas did defeat 8-4 A+M. Which is nice. The SEC is aided by half of the conference being ranked throughout the season. Thus, a win over an average SEC team is a 'Good Win.' And ipso facto the SOS of SEC teams will be better than teams in other conferences playing and defeating average teams. The SEC is deeper than the B1G, no doubt. But any team that went 11-1 in the SEC even against a schedule as weak as Indiana's (like Mizzou?) would be in the PO. I take no offense at the B1G being called out, it comes with the territory. Interesting that in 2023-24 when UW defeated Texas, back-to-back, and Michigan defeated Alabama, no one, except FSU fans, beefed about the Tide and the Horns being in the Final 4. Hats off to Notre Dame. A team with a Blue Chip Roster won the LOS against a visiting team. It won a game it was favored to win. Perhaps this is the Year of the Irish. ND defeated Georgia Tech playing without its starting QB in Mrcedes Benz Stadium and will now play a Georgia team in New Orleans without Carson Beck. BTW, did Notre Dame play a daunting schedule? Hardly. I watched Georgia overwhelmed and embarrassed in Oxford. I understood that Georgia had a new O-line playing against an excellent D-line. Post-game, I still believed Georgia would play for the SEC title. I wasn't writing Georgia off as the result of one game. On the other hand, I watched Bama embarrassed in Norman, and with a third loss, I did not believe Bama should be in the PO. Losses have to count in the SEC too. No group of fans is as conference-centric as SEC fans which is fine. Had Indiana won last night legions of SEC fans would not be touting the B1G as the greatest CFB conference of all time. One favorite won last night. Let's see how Penn State, Texas, and Ohio State do today. There'll be some noise if Tennessee and Texas lose. If PSU and tOSU lose the noise will be deafening. GO DAWGS! Dash the Domers. And GO DUCKS! Make Heupel Your Huckleberry and Ryan Your Rasberry! 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 13 Share Posted 1 hour ago On 12/21/2024 at 2:17 AM, JabbaNoBargain said: Indiana didn’t belong, as it turns out imo…but the only way to find out was to put them in. No 11-1 team from the P2 should be left out. That doesn’t mean Alabama did belong imo. Just means Indiana had an easy schedule with only 2 playoff team matches including tonight. They went 0-2 in those games, and it was a bad 0-2. I find it a bit harsh to say a team that lost on the road to the No. 5 team in the nation didn't belong. How many teams would have defeated ND in South Bend last night? Oklahoma, Vandy, Mizzou, BYU, Miami, Bama on the road? Indiana deserved to be there and lost as an underdog on the road to a better team. If the loss had been closer would that equate to Indiana deserving to be there? An OT loss would still have had the 'B1G Stinks' honks out honking. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
