Skip to main content

Big Ten Update

There were six Big Ten games this weekend - three good and three not so good. We'll start with the not so good. Penn State ended Indiana's run at going bowling at season's end with a 45-22 win against the Hoosiers, dropping them to 4-7 on the season. The same thing happened with Iowa, as they were trounced in Ann Arbor by Michigan, 42-17, to fall to 4-7. Nebraska dominated the now 6-5 Golden Gophers of Minnesota by the final score of 38-14. In the three decent games, Purdue defeated Illinois 20-17 to improve to 5-6 and keep their bowl hopes alive. Northwestern and Michigan State were back and forth for sixty minutes, before the Wildcats were able to prevail in East Lansing by the final of 23-20. Lastly, it took overtime, but Ohio State found a way to remain unbeaten with a 21-14 overtime win against Wisconsin in Madison.

With one week left to go in the Big Ten regular season, it's official that 7-4 Wisconsin (4-3 in-conference) will represent the Leaders division in the Big Ten Championship game. If Nebraska defeats Iowa next week, they'll face the Badgers in the title game. If the Huskers fall to the Hawkeyes and Michigan finds a way to defeat unbeaten Ohio State, the Wolverines would represent the Legends division in the Big Ten title game.

For the time being, just two teams are uncertain about their bowl-eligibility fate - Michigan State and Purdue. The Spartans will go on the road to take on Minnesota next Saturday. Purdue will play host to 4-7 Indiana. I think I give an edge to Michigan State in the first game, which would likely send them to a bowl game with a 6-6 record. The second of the two games I mentioned could go either way. Due to both Ohio State and Penn State being ineligible for bowl games due to NCAA violations, there are currently only five Big Ten teams that are eligible for bowl games (seven maximum if both Michigan State and Purdue win next weekend). For the time, it appears as if Nebraska, Michigan, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Wisconsin will go to bowl games, while Iowa, Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, and Illinois will be staying home. Sadly, if Purdue falls to Indiana next week, the Leaders division will only have one bowl-eligible team - that being Wisconsin.

The Big Ten has been a very mediocre conference this year and that's being kind. A perfect example of this is the fact that Wisconsin could very well lose to Penn State next week, fall to 4-4 in-conference, 7-5 overall, and represent the Leaders division in the Big Ten title game. If they lose the Big Ten title game, that'd drop them to below .500 in-conference play and only one game over .500 overall. If they won the game, the Big Ten would send a five-loss team to a BCS bowl game. How's that for "mediocrity" right there? If they don't play well in their bowl games, their image will suffer even more as a result.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/standings

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/scoreboard?confId=5&seasonYear=2012&seasonType=2&weekNumber=13

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"