Why not Michigan State?

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

After another season of B1G-bashing by sportswriters and posters...myself included...I thought the B1G teams looked pretty good against their SEC competition yesterday.

I think it's interesting to see how the conferences do in bowls, and you can take some things from them, but I don't think you can make absolute arguments about conference strength based on bowl results. Just too many variables.

1) Not every team plays and prepares at the same motivational level
2) Many teams have distractions and question marks related to potential coaching vacancies & maneuvers
3) These games are all about individual match ups. Team A from the Big 10 might match up better with an 11-1 team from the Pac 12 than they would a 9-3 team from the same conference, just based on their scheme and style.
4) Competitively unbalanced. The bowl match ups are driven by television and fan base travel, not by competitive pairing. Conference A might have a better bowl record than Conference B in large part because they played inferior opponents. The suits don't want the two best teams, they want the two best money-making teams. If they also happen to be the two best teams available, then all the better.

[The Seer]

Other than Sparty, the Pac12's bowl opponents were absolutely horrific. They should be 8-1 without question.

There's just something eerie about SECFAN commenting about opponent strength...Last time I checked, teams don't choose their bowls or competition....and, it can be assumed that if a team qualified for the post season others in their division did not - you know, the ones that the SEC schedules.

And, since when does Houston, Iowa, Nebraska, Duke, Rice, Georgia Tech, & Wisconsin constitute murderers row?

And, maybe if you have time you can check how many points were scored vs. the sec teams this bowl season vs the Pac teams...you know, the Pac 12 where defense isn't played?

[WolverineSteve]

Having seen the Sugar Bowl....why not State?