Everybody Hate on Ohio State
I can't really account for this - a writer I don't like that much, on a subject I don't really care about - but in the wee hours I was scanning Pete Fiutak's workmanlike breakdown of next year's frontrunners for the Trophy Which Must Not Be Named and came across this line under the entry for Beanie Wells:
- - -
Always wait for the entire story.
- - -
Unlike the not-so-lovable losers that taxed pro football's patience in the early nineties by merely winning the AFC over and over again, Ohio State can actually be derailed by sentiment. No writer could vote the national punchline out of Super Bowl XXVIII, but if December rolls around and there are any questions whatsoever about OSU's credentials - whether it's one of several one-loss teams vying for one of the mythical championship slots, or if the Buckeyes are up against two other undefeated heavies, however unlikely that is - the avalanche of columns under the umbrella of "What, these guys again?" will put the comment threads on mainstream sports pages and RSS feeds everywhere.
And there will be questions, all spring, all summer, through the season. You can bet that. They come with the premise, which is that there is something inherently flawed about Ohio State, and by extension the rest of the Big Ten over which it reigns, relative to the best teams in the Pac 10, Big 12 and, naturally, SEC. A conference championship in itself won't buy much respect; where did the last two Big Ten titles get OSU "when it counted"? For that, the Buckeyes will have to beat USC in September, and hope from there that the Trojans are still the Trojans - no more losses to Stanford or Oregon State. By the same turn, if Southern Cal turns out to be the one loss in question when it comes to the final vote, ongoing dominance against Michigan will be no salve. Ohio State fans know this. Thanks to two lousy games against teams it had a better-than-reasonable expectation of beating, Ohio State has forfeited the benefit of the doubt for itself and its conference.
So in that little throwaway line, I think Fiutak has overcome sleep deprivation and the electric shock collar Rupert Murdoch applied to keep Pete within reach of his dungeon laptop at all times and articulated one of the great themes of the next nine months. Anti-OSU - hence, anti-Big Ten - sentiment is real, and it's an insidiously anecdotal kind of disdain, like an urban myth that refuses to die. The Buckeyes have plenty of wind at their back in reality: the 2002 mythical championship win over loaded Miami and three other BCS wins since 1999, two straight conference championships, the second-best overall record (a half-game behind USC) over the last three years, and the best conference record. They're 25-7 against ranked teams since 2002.
But there's the steady accumulation of evidence in the long term, and there's the immediate, selective data retrieval of popular memory:

And there's no doubt which has a stronger grip right now on Ohio State's fate.
As a kind of addendum, although I don't think any amount of logic will overcome the gut level party line and its attendant chest-thumping, chanting and triumphant Photoshopping until OSU or the Big Ten reverses its fortune in the mythical championship game (other bowls don't count, as Michigan, Wisconsin and Penn State know well after beating SEC teams in January bowls the last two years), there is one persistent statistic that really needs to be put to bed: 0-9. That is, where the Big Ten as a whole is dead even as a conference with its Southern rivals in bowl games for the last decade, Ohio State is 0-9 against SEC teams in bowl games since its Sugar Bowl tilt with Alabama in 1978.
A judgment from nine games over 30 years is worse than judging two games out of 26 over two years. You can do a lot with a selective sample over a certain period of time. Like, for example, the SEC's record in games played on the West Coast this decade:
| 2000 | UCLA | 35 | Alabama | 24 |
| 2002 | Southern Cal | 24 | Auburn | 17 |
| 2002 | Oregon | 36 | Miss. State | 13 |
| 2002 | Hawaii | 16 | Alabama | 21 |
| 2003 | Hawaii | 37 | Alabama | 29 |
| 2005 | Southern Cal | 70 | Arkansas | 17 |
| 2007 | California | 45 | Tennessee | 31 |
| Avg. | West Coast | 37.6 | SEC | 21.7 |
Is there an overarching reason members of the SEC get the living crap kicked out of them every time one of them plays alongside the Pacific Ocean? Probably not, no more than there is for those same members being 6-17 against the Big East in the same span. It's just a matter of circumstance in a limited number of opportunities over a certain period of time, like flipping `tails' seven times in a row when "Losing My Religion" is on the radio and ignoring every other flip. You don't know anything about the coin unless you look at all the flips.
Unfortunately for Ohio State, as long as people think they know, perception is reality.
0 recs |
16 comments
Comments
I couldn't have picked 3 worse years...
That said, I can't really complain if OSU gets the short end of the stick (should they be objectively deserving), performance in 2008 be damned. When a school has had the chance to seize college football overlord status and laid two eggs, it has to be ready to deal with the consequences of the system we've chosen (or, more aptly, the system that has been chosen for us). (Insert pro-playoff argument here).
by osuvandy on Mar 26, 2008 12:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
re: (Insert pro-playoff argument here)
by Tim J on Mar 26, 2008 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
re
by osuvandy on Mar 26, 2008 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To finish my point...
by osuvandy on Mar 26, 2008 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kudos Hawkeye State
by SMQ on Mar 28, 2008 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fiutak/ Big 10 stigma
OSU's two MNC losses headline a list of black eye's for the Big 10: Appalachian State, Illinois' unfortunate match up with SC in the Rose Bowl, and Minnesota as arguably the worst BCS conference team.
by Jeff C on Mar 26, 2008 12:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm
Given that they play USC and three crap-filled non-conference games that means they'll have to lose to someone within the Big 10. That would be.... Wisconsin. Yeah, Wisconsin'll beat them and save the world.
or maybe they'll get beat in the Big 10 championship game.
http://www.cornnation.com
by Corn Nation on Mar 26, 2008 3:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I do not hate the buckeyes
by FredSez on Mar 26, 2008 5:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Even more evidence!
Seriously, one thing I think we should talk about is the role that the preposterous current system has played in creating this issue. SMQ pointed out that "no writer could vote the national punchline out of Super Bowl XXVIII," but no writers voted the Bills into XXV, XXVI or XXVII either. They got there through a playoff, which carries an inherent sense of legitimacy.
Even though OSU was the most logical choice for the championship game each of the past two years, the fact that opinion entered into the equation leaves room for fans of every other school to feel slighted, whether they were slighted or not. And that leaves room for an illogical level of resentment.
The current BCS system also gives people the impression that the key to success in college football is being the most convincing braggart, and the SEC seems to have taken this idea to heart, from the commissioner down to the fans. The constant propagandizing from all sides has lowered the quality of discourse regarding college football and made it less enjoyable to follow what is otherwise still a helluva fun sport.
I think this issue has risen to the level of a disgrace. In no other sport would a team that goes 23-3 over a two year period and falls one game short of two championships be treated like some sort of national pariah and insulted from January to August... or rather, from January until at least the following January, when a brand new national laughingstock can be lambasted for losing, possibly just once all season, but -- most importantly -- doing so while everyone is watching. *#$%$ ridiculous.
by still ill on Mar 26, 2008 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apples to Oranges
OSU's collective record for the seasons it played in those 9 bowl games is 83-28-1, for a 0.741 pct. On the other hand, the collective records for the SEC teams playing the Pac-10 during the mentioned seasons is 43-44, for a 0.494 pct. So, you're comparing the records of good OSU teams (vs the SEC) to bad SEC teams (vs the Pac-10) to support the conclusion that OSU's 0-9 record really doesn't mean what it seems because, if it did, then you'd likewise have to draw the conclusion that the Pac-10 "[kicks] the living crap" out of the SEC.
The reason the 0-9 stat is flaunted so much (other than because ESPN currently has a hard on for the SEC) is because it represents good OSU teams vs good SEC teams. That can't be said of your SEC-Pac10 argument. A more pertinent analogy, in my opinion, would be to compare SEC vs Pac-10 in bowl games to give a better (although certainly not accurate) idea of the head-to-head competition between the upper echelon of the conferences when they play one another. The answer to that, by the way, is the SEC leads 12-7-3 (or thereabout, I used the records for conferences as they exist today) -- so it's actually pretty close. That's apples compared to apples.
To answer the question, yes, there's a reason those SEC teams got stomped by the Pac-10: They were, with a couple of exceptions, decidedly shitty teams. As an aside, I think OSU and Michigan would fit in nicely in the SEC as yearly title contenders.
by lsufiend on Mar 27, 2008 1:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Apples and apples
by SMQ on Mar 27, 2008 3:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
sampling
9 games is a significant sample size, it doesn't matter whether the 9 games happened over an extended period of time or not. In fact, I would argue that an extended time period is more convincing, not less.
It boils down to what sample size you consider significant. In college football, I would argue that the boundary is somewhere between 5 and 10 games. In other words, any "trend" based on less than 5 games wouldn't convince me at all, whereas more than 10 is pretty convincing. While I agree that the 0-9 is overblown, I can't completely chalk it up to randomness or coincidence.
by ejuban on Mar 28, 2008 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Statistically...
The argument in favor of "randomness" is only bolstered when looking at how Very Good Big 10 teams have fared against Very Good SEC teams recently. OSU has consistently beat just about every program in the Big 10 over the past few years, and they have done very well against top SEC competition.
SMQ's point is that the SEC>Big 10 comparison only holds if you remove OSU from the rest of the Big 10 and look at OSU individually, rather than the dominant team of a conference that, as a whole, holds its own against the SEC.
That is called cooking the statistics. Like he rhetorically did with the SEC-Pac10 example.
by Reese on Mar 28, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





