jjc@houxl.UUCP (J.CARBONARO) (11/13/85)
<Obviously this poor deluded fool would prefer to antagonize than to be <informative. As I read and write to this notesfile for a purpose, let's <shatter some myths: <The Big Ten last won the Rose Bowl in the mid seventies (I don't remember the <exact year), so it hasn't been all that long. Too, despite the last few <years of a consecutive Pac 10 streak, the Big Ten still leads in career <victories in the Rose Bowl. NOW Who's Zooming Who? Too, the records of the <Pac 10 rep in the Rose Bowl has been worse than the record of the Big Ten rep <for the last five years! The Big Ten team goes in expecting it to be easy, <and it hasn't been. Once reason is hhome field advantage. For the last five <years, the Pac 10 rep in the Rose Bowl has been USC or UCLA, both really close <to the Rose Bowl site. I know for a fact that the Big Ten does NOT receive <the selling rights to half of the seats in the stadium (a third if we're lucky, <usually a fourth to a sixth of them), so the majority of spectators are Pac 10 <fans. And since that d*mn stadium is like an echo chamber, crowd noise is a <big factor. If the Pac 10 fans would be good sportsman and let the teams <themselves battle the game, perhaps the Pac 10 would not have enjoyed its <"dynasty" of Rose Bowl victories in the last few years. At least the Big Ten <can say that they had huge streaks of consecutive victories at the Rose Bowl <when good and proper sportsmanship was in vogue, so the Big Ten team beat the <Pac 10'er fair and square. I doubt the same thing can be said of the Pac 10 <presently. < <Robert A. Ekblaw Where do you get all this nonsense from? I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this reasoning, and before I go any further, let me say I don't watch a lot of college football and have no allegiances whatever. 1) I think someone has recently cleared up when the last Rose Bowl was won by the Big Ten rep (1981), but you say that from "the mid-seventies" until now is "not all that long". Heck, that sounds like AL-NL All-Star game talk. Ten years is a long time when it's 50/50 each year! 2) re: Big-Ten reps having better records than Pac-10 reps. What does that show - unless they've had a lot of common opponents. Have they? Who's to say that it's not just a question of having a tougher division? I'm not saying that that IS the reason, but how can you tell? 3) re: the Big Ten goes in expecting an easy time. ARE YOU KIDDING?!? THAT's a reason for losing!?! I'll bet the alumni love hearing THAT excuse. Besides, with this so-called jinx they have, I'd think they wouldn't take ANYthing for granted. In fact, I wonder how many Big-Ten rep coaches have said EXACTLY that in the locker room before the game - "don't take these guys lightly, remember last time...". Wasn't Illinois rated well above UCLA a couple years ago and then lost by 5 TDs? Do you think it's because they took them lightly - 5 TDs!!!! 4) Home field advantage. I'll buy that - to a certain extent. But what is the home field worth, usually - about a FG? If the Big Ten teams are so much better, why do they lose so OFTEN, and why, sometimes, by so MUCH? 5) Sportsmanship? The Big-Ten loses because the Rose Bowl fans are mean to them? Oh, gee whiz! Another excuse the alumni will appreciate. I'm sorry, Bob, but that is REALLY a cry-baby excuse. Sure crowd noise makes a difference. In fact, it's probably more important in College than in the Pros, since they ARE just kids. But you keep saying the Big-Ten team is obviously BETTER, so it shouldn't' make that much difference. Now, if you could point to some instances like the following, you'd have an argument: - the recent snow-ball incident at the Broncos-49ers game. - a couple years ago, the Patriots beat the Dolphins 3-0 in deep snow on a FG that was kicked after a plow came out and cleared off that section of the field. The only thing I can think of that seems to hold water is the type of game (running or passing) both teams play. The Big-Ten seems to have that "5 yds and a cloud of dust" gameplan. Although the Pac-10 has had some great running backs, they appear to pass a LOT more than the Big-Ten (At least more so than the Rose Bowl rep). Look at how much scoring has increased in the Pros since teams pass more (of course the rules have made it easier). ANY team in college with a good passing game can give even the BEST run-oriented teams a good fight. If you can throw, you're never out of it. If you can't, and you get behind early, you're your own worst enemy. Sorry if I've antagonized - I don't mean to.
jeff@hpcnoe.UUCP (11/18/85)
> The Big-Ten seems to have that >"5 yds and a cloud of dust" gameplan. Not recently. During the early seventies this applies to Ohio State and Michigan. It might still apply today to Michigan in terms of mentality (Bo seems to be ultra-conservative in Big games). > ANY team in college with >a good passing game can give even the BEST run-oriented teams a good fight. >If you can throw, you're never out of it. If you can't, and you get >behind early, you're your own worst enemy. I agree that a good passing game will give you a chance in ANY game... but it is easier to win consistently in a 11 game season with a run-oriented attack. It just seems that the big ten teams cannot prepare adequately for a bowl game. This could be attributed to the lack of practice-- the big ten only sent one team to the bowl games until the late 70's or that having 1 month to prepare for a game has an equalizing factor. -- Jeff Wu