Well, here's the catch...I don't think you can automatically go off the bowl games because there are too many factors in the exhibitions. I've said that for years. But on the flip side - given a lot of the Big Ten yap I heard two years ago when the SEC really took it on the chin in the bowl games (the West got smoked after looking like the best division all year long)....well, they either count or they don't.
What happened was an exposure here. I really, honestly thought Ohio State was a good all-around team....a little young, but it's hard to bet against Urban Meyer, too. And btw - we don't get to view these things anachronistically. You don't get to say AFTER Ohio State was blown out by Clemson, "well, they shouldn't have been there."
Seriously....who SHOULD have been there based on the regular season other than the Buckeyes?
If you argue Penn State then you have to have some decent explanation why I'm supposed to overlook their 39-point loss to Michigan AND their loss to Pitt merely "because they beat Ohio State head to head." (Do any of you seriously believe that 2006 Auburn or 2008 Ole Miss should have played in the national title game?)
So the Buckeyes still should have been there.
By the same token, however, it is now clear that the conference as a whole was overrated. This goes back to that circular argument. They had 'four really good teams' we were told. Two of them went 0-2 against the ACC, one beat a team that was only in the Cotton Bowl because of an impressive record against a mediocre schedule, and the other blew a two touchdown lead in the Rose Bowl. (Btw - is Penn State going to blame their loss like so many Big Ten fans want to impugn other conferences......on the weather? It was 52 degrees at kickoff, probably a heat wave for some Midwesterners.
So I don't mind saying the conference was unquestionably overrated this year. The SEC IS down from their glory years several years back BUT.....none of the other conferences have really stepped forward, either.
