#24 Cyclones and barely beating Nebraska's worst team in the past century or so combine for some major bu++hurt.
Cyclones Ranked 24th
- Thread starter Remo Gaggi
- Start date
#24 Cyclones and barely beating Nebraska's worst team in the past century or so combine for some major bu++hurt.
Supposedly Drake's HC asked the players before accepting the game offer if they wanted to play it, and the players approved.
The west was 9-11 against the east this year by my count. Not saying the West was good, but I wouldn't put it in the bad Big 12 North category.
7 teams, 2 decent, 1 average, 4 suck.
Big 12 North fell off toward the end. For the entire first half of the Big 12 it was the stronger division quite clearly with half of its teams regularly challenging for the top 10. Which half of the seasons has the West been the better league than the B10E? I'll hang up and listen.
(of course the answer is never has been and never will be, the common thread in all of this is Nebraska going from Big 12 North NC Contender to a crap program)
That sounds right to me....I just can't imagine the players not wanting to do that.
Probably never, but they also have never been dominated as bad as the North either.
It's a coin flip. Suck is suck and the B10W has sucked. I'm certainly not going to argue the B12 North ISU tied for twice was any better. It definitely sucked then like your division sucks now and the winner was a sacrificial lamb in much the same way.
Crazy KF couldn't even get within 2 games, Iowa's advanced metrics are easily the best in the division.
3-11 against non Indiana/Rutgers is AWESOME. He's missing one anyway, should be 21.
The division champ is 0-2 against AP ranked teams this week.
Only played two teams in the current rankings and couldn't beat either of them. That says enough.
Second place team in the division is 0-3 against ranked teams. So 0-5 combined against ranked teams from your supposedly top two teams.
West Wins:
(6) Rutgers/Indiana
(2) Michigan State
(1) Maryland
Yeah, the West isn't complete ****.
I imagine they just went along and knew it was really out of their hands. Plus they will get to play in the big time atmosphere. I imagine it will be fun until the game starts. I imagine my brother wouldn't look forward to multiple attempts at tackling the likes of Butler or Montgomery. They just aren't on the same level.
I agree, Iowa should have won the west easily this year. 8-4 seemed about the worst they could have possibly done actually.
If I remember right 2005 Big 12 was similar to this year's big 10 in terms of division discrepancy. However, the 2004 Big 12 division discrepancy was unreal. I don't remember the record, but I want to say the North won 3-4 cross divisional games.That's why people claiming that loss to miss out on the Big 12 title game in 2004 was more disappointing than Texas this year are crazy.
Fair or not, having the division winner struggle in the non-con as it really drags down perception of the division. Outside of Iowa and Minn. the division teams really struggled in non-con.
To be fair, Purdue did curbstomp the East champ. Two years in a row a team from the West annihilated the East champ.
There's a ton of stats I can use to make you look dumb, it's so hard to pick from. I'll go with the division winner didn't win a non con game, and marquee win against the east was 7-5 Mich State. At least when the Big 12 North was hot garbage there was one or two teams worth a **** in it.
What??? The North when it was at its low for a few years was worse than the West is now. Colorado won back to back North titles by going 8-5 and 7-6 and getting beat by a total of 112-6 in the two conference championship games.
Lol, what do you think NW’s record is? While avoiding all but Michigan from the east.
You should go back to just repeating 13-3, at least that’s factual.