header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Big Ten championships since 2011 if there was no CCG

 (Read 436 times)

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 36161
  • Liked:
Re: Big Ten championships since 2011 if there was no CCG
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2026, 02:22:39 PM »
All that for gold pants and tats. What a joke, although the penalty was really against Tressel if I remember right.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

ManHawk

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
  • Text
  • Liked:
Re: Big Ten championships since 2011 if there was no CCG
« Reply #15 on: May 29, 2026, 02:51:47 PM »
OSU was ineligible for the post season in 2012, but they were eligible for regular season titles; ie: they won their division. So that would have been another outright Big Ten title.
Oh ok.  I will confess i did not research this very much in detail.

But  can't we just throw Fearless a bone and still say Nebraska won in 2012.  Ohio St already has 8 other championships it could claim since 2011.
We are all equal but some are more equal than others.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 54537
  • Liked:
Re: Big Ten championships since 2011 if there was no CCG
« Reply #16 on: May 29, 2026, 02:55:41 PM »
Yup, obviously OSU was ineligible
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

bayareabadger

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10514
  • Liked:
Re: Big Ten championships since 2011 if there was no CCG
« Reply #17 on: May 29, 2026, 09:39:58 PM »
I'm honestly not sure why Bert hired Matt Canada in the first place, if he wasn't going to let him do his thing.

It's also well known that Canada isn't the easiest guy to work with. He's had a lot of jobs.


His was an odd run. I think Bret added him because he had the promise of being a little more modern, but keeping the downhill power style.

I don’t exactly know what level of handcuffing there was (fewer fly sweeps?), but I do remember that offense started out abysmally for like six reasons. By the end it did have its moments.

It was interesting because some of his offenses looked cooler than they were effective. And it sounded like he was just perpetually bad to work with, which couldn’t have helped. (at least he was better than Longo)

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.