This is going to be a slightly unusual way of ranking teams. I'm putting them in order simply based on who I'd cheer for, assuming it had no impact on the Badgers, of course.
1. Wisconsin
Duh. And I'm rooting for whoever makes it easier for the Badgers to win the Big 10. Moving on, however...
I find myself rooting for these teams....
2. Michigan
I blame Norm for this. I do find an attraction in the tradition, Hail to the Victors, the winged helmets, and the fact that they don't run a (really) dirty program, at least as far as we've been able to tell. Plus, people from Ann Arbor can throw a good party and are fun to drink with.
3. Penn State.
Again, tradition, the plain blue uni's, Joe Pa's corpse being the head coach in the next 10 years, Weekend at Bernie's style, and the fact that they tend to make the Big 10 look good and don't choke on their cupcakes. (I'm looking at you, Michigan)
4. Nebraska
This is obviously subject to change, but them looking good this year really helps our street cred.
I'm rather indifferent to these teams....
5. Northwestern
They have the underdog thing going for them, but I'd like them a lot better if they didn't continually beat us in Evanston, even when they're not supposed to be good enough to do so. Expect games in the high 40's each between us there.
6. Indiana
Tough to dislike a team that doesn't beat you. Except for a bit of an issue around 2001-2002, we have beaten them consistently since 1992. Therefore, I tend to root for them by default, because they usually don't hurt us.
7. Michigan State
These guys annoy me more than anything. They tend to beat us when we're going good, but roll over for us when we're not. It seems to be vice versa with us, and we've both knocked down otherwise great seasons for each other.
8. Illinois
They aren't usually much of a threat, but every so often, they go nuts and have a great season, knocking us off along the way. It isn't really worth rooting for them, as when they're good, they're too good, and when they're bad, they're bottom of the barrel.
9. Purdue
I just don't like them much. It's just one of those things. There's no reason for it, they haven't done anything that would make it this way, it's just, yuck.
They're rivals, but I don't hate them TOO much....
10. Iowa
This is a rivalry in which you want to beat the other, you dislike the other, but you can appreciate their successes somewhat and tip your hat when they best you.
If they play each other, I root for a meteor....
11. Minnesota
12. Ohio State
Everything about these two schools rubs me the wrong way. Mind you, Ohio State isn't technically a "rival", but they will be a division mate, they run a dirty program (Tressel ran a dirty program at Youngstown State, and you KNOW Clarett wasn't eligible, but you don't see Ohio State forfeiting victories, while USC is the "worst thing to happen in college football in decades." Tell me how fair THAT is), and they're arrogant about the whole thing. Seeing them get it handed to them in BCS games, even if it hurts the conference, makes me happy. Minnesota taking a digger against South Dakota also makes me happy.
So there you have it. Besides the bottom two, who I wouldn't root for if my life depended on it, the others can be interchanged depending on the standings situation. But hey, this was fun to do, and it's something more than a link to the latest college roundtable. :D
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Roundtable, Part 4
http://thedetroittransplant.blogspot.com/2010/09/ncaa-round-table-part-iv.html, and stay tuned for a special this week, as MSU and Wisconsin duke it out.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
College Football Roundtable, Week 3
Yeah, yeah, I know. Week 4 is almost over. I was busy with friends and football. Here's what we have for the roundtable for week 3, and look for the link to week 4 soon enough.
1. What did you like about your team's performance this week?
Norm (Michigan): Shoelace. The offensive line was solid once again. Shoelace. Beating Notre Dame in their own house. Shoelace...and Shoelace. I think that just about covers it.
Doug (Michigan State): I don't know that it's possible to NOT get excited about having a 183 yard rusher, and the 3rd 100 yard rushing performance in 2 weeks. Baker is explosive, and he should be able to carry us for a season with Caper and Bell subbing in fairly consistently for fresh legs. This takes the pressure off Cousins, and as we've seen, he's had solid outings because the run game has been so effective. Right now, MSU is 11th in the nation in rushing yards-- not too shabby.
Joe (Wisconsin): We can play good old Wisconsin football. We can run effectively, and the defense seems to be able to make up for our offensive mistakes. Our kickers can do the job as well.
2. What didn't you like about your team's performance this week?
Norm: Almost everything else not named Shoelace. The running backs need to contribute more to Michigan's offense down the road. The defense gave up too many big plays and nearly gave the victory back to the Irish with stupid penalties at the end (thank you Dayne Crist for throwing that last pass over the endzone). The kicker sucked...and that description is about as polite as I'll get.
Doug: There wasn't a lot to complain about last week, but giving up 265 passing yards to FAU is never a good sign. We held them to under 50 rushing yards, which is good, but that kind of pass defense will get destroyed in the Big 10.
Joe: Our special teams, besides the guys that actually kick the ball, are special with a capital "Durrrr." We're short kick returners, and our kick coverage teams have been an issue for a few years. I'd advocate for the firing of the special teams coach if we HAD one. Instead, Bielema thinks he can make it work himself. It's clearly not.
3. What Big 10 team looks stronger to you this year than you thought?
Norm: I have two: Wisconsin and the team that shall not be named. Both teams have defenses that are stout and will cause problems for anyone they face. I can't wait until these two face each other, it's going to be a battle.
Doug: Without a doubt-- Michigan. Who would've thought the guy with a 38% completion percentage last season would be a heisman front runner? I mean, it's hard to read into at this point because they haven't played full-strength teams (just teams that were good last year and lost some good players), but I definitely picked them to lose to UConn, so they're already way better than I expected.
Joe: Michigan can score points, which I thought was going to be an issue, and Ohio State seems to be more than we expected, which is usually not the case.
4. On the flipside again, which Big 10 team looks weaker than you thought?
Norm: That's hard to say, really. I tend to think all teams in the Big Ten are weaker than those in other BCS Conferences (except the ACC and the Big East-those teams suck).
Doug: Penn State and Minnesota. Penn State is always decent, and Bolden looked good in his first week... Against a horrible school. Then they came out and laid an egg at 'Bama. How many red zone turnovers? It was ugly. Minnesota was at least decent last year, and I think we're seeing what happens when Eric Decker leaves your offense. They lost to USD and had a hard time with MTSU... Enough said.
Joe: You have to say Minnesota after they lost to what amounts to a Division II team. They did that a few years ago as well, so that should be proof enough a new stadium does not a football program make.
5. Can your quarterback tie his shoes, or does his mommy have to do it for him? :)
Norm: Of course he can. Now is there any defender out there quick enough to catch him and make him tie his shoes? There's still plenty of football left to be played but so far, the signs point to 'NO'.'
Doug: Kirk Cousins doesn't need to be a trend-setter. He goes out and takes care of business with his shoes tied, like any sensible football player would do. Stay safe kids, tie your shoes.
Joe: Scott Tolzien shows leadership in a lot of instances, and he also shows the younger players that tying their shoes is preferable to not tying their shoes. I can just imagine Robinson being caught by one of those flapping shoelaces and losing an ACL or Achilles. I'd be scared if I were a Michigan fan, but I suppose if I was a Michigan fan, I'd have bigger things to worry about.
1. What did you like about your team's performance this week?
Norm (Michigan): Shoelace. The offensive line was solid once again. Shoelace. Beating Notre Dame in their own house. Shoelace...and Shoelace. I think that just about covers it.
Doug (Michigan State): I don't know that it's possible to NOT get excited about having a 183 yard rusher, and the 3rd 100 yard rushing performance in 2 weeks. Baker is explosive, and he should be able to carry us for a season with Caper and Bell subbing in fairly consistently for fresh legs. This takes the pressure off Cousins, and as we've seen, he's had solid outings because the run game has been so effective. Right now, MSU is 11th in the nation in rushing yards-- not too shabby.
Joe (Wisconsin): We can play good old Wisconsin football. We can run effectively, and the defense seems to be able to make up for our offensive mistakes. Our kickers can do the job as well.
2. What didn't you like about your team's performance this week?
Norm: Almost everything else not named Shoelace. The running backs need to contribute more to Michigan's offense down the road. The defense gave up too many big plays and nearly gave the victory back to the Irish with stupid penalties at the end (thank you Dayne Crist for throwing that last pass over the endzone). The kicker sucked...and that description is about as polite as I'll get.
Doug: There wasn't a lot to complain about last week, but giving up 265 passing yards to FAU is never a good sign. We held them to under 50 rushing yards, which is good, but that kind of pass defense will get destroyed in the Big 10.
Joe: Our special teams, besides the guys that actually kick the ball, are special with a capital "Durrrr." We're short kick returners, and our kick coverage teams have been an issue for a few years. I'd advocate for the firing of the special teams coach if we HAD one. Instead, Bielema thinks he can make it work himself. It's clearly not.
3. What Big 10 team looks stronger to you this year than you thought?
Norm: I have two: Wisconsin and the team that shall not be named. Both teams have defenses that are stout and will cause problems for anyone they face. I can't wait until these two face each other, it's going to be a battle.
Doug: Without a doubt-- Michigan. Who would've thought the guy with a 38% completion percentage last season would be a heisman front runner? I mean, it's hard to read into at this point because they haven't played full-strength teams (just teams that were good last year and lost some good players), but I definitely picked them to lose to UConn, so they're already way better than I expected.
Joe: Michigan can score points, which I thought was going to be an issue, and Ohio State seems to be more than we expected, which is usually not the case.
4. On the flipside again, which Big 10 team looks weaker than you thought?
Norm: That's hard to say, really. I tend to think all teams in the Big Ten are weaker than those in other BCS Conferences (except the ACC and the Big East-those teams suck).
Doug: Penn State and Minnesota. Penn State is always decent, and Bolden looked good in his first week... Against a horrible school. Then they came out and laid an egg at 'Bama. How many red zone turnovers? It was ugly. Minnesota was at least decent last year, and I think we're seeing what happens when Eric Decker leaves your offense. They lost to USD and had a hard time with MTSU... Enough said.
Joe: You have to say Minnesota after they lost to what amounts to a Division II team. They did that a few years ago as well, so that should be proof enough a new stadium does not a football program make.
5. Can your quarterback tie his shoes, or does his mommy have to do it for him? :)
Norm: Of course he can. Now is there any defender out there quick enough to catch him and make him tie his shoes? There's still plenty of football left to be played but so far, the signs point to 'NO'.'
Doug: Kirk Cousins doesn't need to be a trend-setter. He goes out and takes care of business with his shoes tied, like any sensible football player would do. Stay safe kids, tie your shoes.
Joe: Scott Tolzien shows leadership in a lot of instances, and he also shows the younger players that tying their shoes is preferable to not tying their shoes. I can just imagine Robinson being caught by one of those flapping shoelaces and losing an ACL or Achilles. I'd be scared if I were a Michigan fan, but I suppose if I was a Michigan fan, I'd have bigger things to worry about.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
College Football Roundtable, Week 2
Check out Norm's blog here (http://farfromthenorm.wordpress.com/) to see our college football roundtable discussion for week 2. Next week, I do believe it's my turn. Now, time to think of some intelligent questions...
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wait a sec....
Manager, coach, player, and fan all ejected in last night's game?
I think Bob Davidson and crew hit a rare cycle for ejections.
I think Bob Davidson and crew hit a rare cycle for ejections.
Mid-Week Bullet Point Blog Post
Look for another roundtable coming up soon as well.
* The wife starts 13 hour days twice a week due to school, work, and interning. It's not gonna be fun.
* Football is officially back. I watched last night's Brewers game simply because there wasn't a football game to see. Glad I caught 600, because I doubt I would have otherwise.
* Speaking of which, this is a disgrace. Really, it's a disgrace on all levels, if the part about the slur is true, which I don't really doubt. On the other hand, I suppose it's nice to see Bob Davidson pay attention to SOMETHING, as he doesn't seem to pay attention to the strike zone and game winning hits.
* I rarely link to anything St. Louis related, but this is worth a link.
* Pizza's done. Gotta run. :D
* The wife starts 13 hour days twice a week due to school, work, and interning. It's not gonna be fun.
* Football is officially back. I watched last night's Brewers game simply because there wasn't a football game to see. Glad I caught 600, because I doubt I would have otherwise.
* Speaking of which, this is a disgrace. Really, it's a disgrace on all levels, if the part about the slur is true, which I don't really doubt. On the other hand, I suppose it's nice to see Bob Davidson pay attention to SOMETHING, as he doesn't seem to pay attention to the strike zone and game winning hits.
* I rarely link to anything St. Louis related, but this is worth a link.
* Pizza's done. Gotta run. :D
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Big 10 Blogger Roundtable, 9/4
Our Big 10 panel of experts (or whatever term you'd like to use :D) has completed a round-table discussion. See it at http://thedetroittransplant.blogspot.com/2010/09/round-table-ncaa-preview_03.html
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Big 10 Division Split
This is an issue that will likely be discussed in the roundtable discussion post later on, but I figure I'd tackle it now while it's fresh, from a Wisconsin perspective.
From my perspective, this sucks for Wisconsin. We got the worst of this entire deal.
Understand that I see the best way to do things as having the rivals play in each other's divisions, and to have an equal split of 3 opponents from the other division alternating evenly. That may give you an idea why this is so grating to me.
To recap for the uneducated, the Big 10 is splitting up as such:
Division 1: Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota
Division 2: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
I would have to say that Wisconsin's main goals out of all this were to face Minnesota every year (preserved because of the automatic cross-division matchup), face Iowa every year (nope, not happening), and in a perfect world, see Nebraska every year (not happening either).
One out of three might work in baseball, but in football, that's pretty bad.
I don't terribly mind facing Ohio State every year. Out of all the Big 10 teams, I have the least amount of like/respect for them. Penn State is always a top tier team as well, but don't color me too excited about Purdue, Indiana, and Illinois. None of them inspire rivalry talk, trophy games, and the like.
Here are the protected crossover games:
Michigan-Ohio State, Penn State-Nebraska, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Northwestern-Illinois, Purdue-Iowa, Michigan State-Indiana.
So, uh, tell me, Indiana and Purdue isn't enough of an in-state rivalry to be worth preserving? I can't see Purdue-Iowa or Michigan State-Indiana as being hot enough rivalries to trump that. Iowa-Michigan State would be an odd pairing, but no less odd than the two that exist now.
At least for the Michigan-Ohio State fans, they get everything they want. Besides that, though, I can't see how the Big 10 could have done any worse.
Since I've been attacking it for this long, I might as well give you my thoughts. Had they asked me, here's what they may have gotten.
West Division:
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Penn State
Illinois
East Division:
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Even this isn't perfect, as it splits Illinois-Northwestern, but that may be fixed with permanent crossovers, if necessary. Penn State could also be shuffled east, but that would put the traditional powers within one division, for the most part, and probably wouldn't fly. Not that one of those traditional powers has been powerful lately. *hides from Norm*
All right, enough of my whining. Let's see how this plays out.
From my perspective, this sucks for Wisconsin. We got the worst of this entire deal.
Understand that I see the best way to do things as having the rivals play in each other's divisions, and to have an equal split of 3 opponents from the other division alternating evenly. That may give you an idea why this is so grating to me.
To recap for the uneducated, the Big 10 is splitting up as such:
Division 1: Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota
Division 2: Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Illinois
I would have to say that Wisconsin's main goals out of all this were to face Minnesota every year (preserved because of the automatic cross-division matchup), face Iowa every year (nope, not happening), and in a perfect world, see Nebraska every year (not happening either).
One out of three might work in baseball, but in football, that's pretty bad.
I don't terribly mind facing Ohio State every year. Out of all the Big 10 teams, I have the least amount of like/respect for them. Penn State is always a top tier team as well, but don't color me too excited about Purdue, Indiana, and Illinois. None of them inspire rivalry talk, trophy games, and the like.
Here are the protected crossover games:
Michigan-Ohio State, Penn State-Nebraska, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Northwestern-Illinois, Purdue-Iowa, Michigan State-Indiana.
So, uh, tell me, Indiana and Purdue isn't enough of an in-state rivalry to be worth preserving? I can't see Purdue-Iowa or Michigan State-Indiana as being hot enough rivalries to trump that. Iowa-Michigan State would be an odd pairing, but no less odd than the two that exist now.
At least for the Michigan-Ohio State fans, they get everything they want. Besides that, though, I can't see how the Big 10 could have done any worse.
Since I've been attacking it for this long, I might as well give you my thoughts. Had they asked me, here's what they may have gotten.
West Division:
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Penn State
Illinois
East Division:
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Even this isn't perfect, as it splits Illinois-Northwestern, but that may be fixed with permanent crossovers, if necessary. Penn State could also be shuffled east, but that would put the traditional powers within one division, for the most part, and probably wouldn't fly. Not that one of those traditional powers has been powerful lately. *hides from Norm*
All right, enough of my whining. Let's see how this plays out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
