CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on October 20, 2025, 12:40:27 PM
-
- 7-0 Ohio State is off
- 7-0 Indiana -24.5 vs UCLA Sat at noon on FOX
- 7-0 aTm -2.5 at #20 LSU Sat at 730 on ABC
- 6-1 Alabama -13.5 at USCe Sat at 330 on ABC
- 6-1 Georgia is off
- 6-1 Oregon -34.5 vs UW Sat at 7 on FS1
- 7-0 GaTech -17.5 vs Syracuse Sat at noon on ESPN
- 6-1 Mississippi +4.5 at #13 Oklahoma Sat at noon on ABC
- 5-1 Miami -30.5 vs Stanford Sat at 7 on ESPN
- 6-1 Vanderbilt -2.5 vs #15 Mizzou Sat at 330 on ESPN
- 7-0 BYU +2.5 at ISU Sat at 330 on FOX
- 5-2 Notre Dame is off
- 6-1 Oklahoma -4.5 vs #8 Ole Miss Sat at noon on ABC
- 6-1 TxTech -38.5 vs OkSU Sat at 4 on ESPN
- 6-1 Mizzou +2.5 at #10 Vandy Sat at 330 on ESPN
- 6-1 Virginia -10.5 at UNC Sat at noon on ACCN
- 5-2 Tennessee -9.5 at Kentucky Sat at 740 on SECN
- 6-1 South Florida -3.5 at Memphis Sat at noon on ESPN2
- 5-1 Louisville -25.5 vs BC Sat at 730 on ACCN
- 5-2 LSU +2.5 vs #3 aTm Sat at 730 on ABC
- 6-1 Cincinnati -5.5 vs Baylor Sat at 4 on ESPN2
- 5-2 Texas -6.5 at MissSt Sat at 415 on SECN
- 5-2 Illinois +4.5 at Washington Sat at 330 on BTN
- 5-2 Arizona State -8.5 vs Houston Sat at 8 on ESPN
- 5-2 Michigan -14.5 at MSU Sat at 730 on NBC
Ranked vs ranked are:
- #3 aTm -2.5 at #20 LSU Sat at 730 on ABC
- #8 Ole Miss +4.5 at #13 Oklahoma Sat at noon on ABC
- #10 Vandy -2.5 vs #15 Mizzou Sat at 330 on ABC
So ABC has ranked-vs-ranked all day long but that is it.
Now in the B1G:
- 7-0/4-0 Ohio State
- 7-0/4-0 Indiana -24.5 vs UCLA Sat at noon on FOX
- 6-1/3-1 Oregon -34.5 vs UW Sat at 7 on FS1
- 5-2/3-1 Northwestern +6.5 at UNL Sat at noon on FS1
- 5-2/3-1 USC is off
- 5-2/3-1 Iowa -8.5 vs MN Sat at 330 on CBS
- 5-2/3-1 Michigan -14.5 at MSU Sat at 730 on NBC
- 5-2/3-1 Minnesota +8.5 at Iowa Sat at 330 on CBS
- 3-4/3-1 UCLA +24.5 at IU Sat at noon on FOX
- 5-2/2-2 Illinois +4.5 at Washington Sat at 330 on BTN
- 5-2/2-2 Nebraska -6.5 vs NU Sat at noon on FS1
- 5-2/2-2 Washington -4.5 vs IL Sat at 330 on BTN
- 4-3/1-3 Maryland is off
- 3-4/0-4 Michigan State +14.5 vs M Sat at 730 on NBC
- 3-4/0-4 Penn State is off
- 3-4/0-4 Rutgers -2.5 at PU Sat at noon on BTN
- 2-5/0-4 Purdue +2.5 vs RU Sat at noon on BTN
- 2-5/0-4 Wisconsin +34.5 at Oregon Sat at 7 on FS1
Assuming that Indiana beats UCLA we will get our first mathematical eliminations this weekend as the PU/RU loser and Wisconsin (assuming they lose at Oregon) and Michigan State (assuming they lose to Michgian) will be mathematically eliminated.
-
The "September Maryland" thing is ridiculous. We've been talking about it for years and it is uncannily reliable and it is shocking how big of a difference it makes.
Mid-way through the third quarter on October 4 the Terrapins were 4-0 and up 20-0 against a team whose only previous loss was to the #1 team in the nation. Since then they:
- Gave up 24 straight points in the final 19 minutes to lose 24-20 to Washington
- Lost 34-31 at home to Nebraska
- Lost 20-17 at UCLA
So now they are 4-3 and after taking this week off they have three ranked teams on the first four Saturdays in November.
-
If Northwestern wins at Nebraska on Sat, is that enough for NW to be ranked?
-
perhaps
only 2 losses but, a win over UNL won't be very impressive
-
If Northwestern wins at Nebraska on Sat, is that enough for NW to be ranked?
I doubt it simply because Tulane beat them handily and the Green Wave aren't ranked.
-
I doubt it simply because Tulane beat them handily and the Green Wave aren't ranked.
Yes, I guess that early loss to Tulane will keep NW out of the rankings. I still look at NW's win @ PSU as a decent victory, despite PSU's 4 game losing streak. That counts for something.
I guess we will find out in the next couple games if NW has truly turned things around. They have games @Neb, @USC and Mich coming up.
-
Tulane is a 1 loss team that is 28 in the AP. A first game loss to them on the road isn't completely terrible.
-
Tulane is a 1 loss team that is 28 in the AP. A first game loss to them on the road isn't completely terrible.
I would agree *IF* it had been a competitive loss but it wasn't. Tulane outgained NU by nearly double and Northwestern trailed the entire game other than the first few minutes before Tulane's first score. It wasn't within one score anytime after the middle of the second quarter and it wasn't a two-score game anytime after halftime.
Obviously things can change. Based on the first week it looked like FSU was a contender and Bama was hot garbage. That said, I think that NU is going to have to pick up a quality win* or two to get that level of respect. They have chances. Their next two are at Nebraska and at USC.
*Quality win:
In theory the win at Penn State is a quality win but I think most everyone sees that as being more about PSU cratering than anything else. I'll also add, as an Ohio State fan, that PSU scares the crap out of me. I know that @SuperMario (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1596) always laughs at this but I see PSU as the ultimate "High Ceiling / Low Floor" team. They were preseason #2 for a reason. There is a lot of talent on the roster. That talent gives them a VERY high ceiling because if they have a game where everybody is on the same page and they play to their potential they have AT LEAST a top-10 level ceiling. OTOH, their floor has been evident in embarrassing losses at UCLA and at home to NU. It is a no-win situation for Ohio State. If the Buckeyes win it will just be viewed as beating a crappy, 5-loss team that fired their coach.
-
They were preseason #2 for a reason. There is a lot of talent on the roster. That talent gives them a VERY high ceiling because if they have a game where everybody is on the same page and they play to their potential they have AT LEAST a top-10 level ceiling.
They lost their starting qb and their head coach. If the chiefs lost 4 in a row and then lost Andy Reid and Mahomes, I don’t think there’s an argument there’s a reason everyone expects them to be one of the best teams.
-
They lost their starting qb and their head coach. If the chiefs lost 4 in a row and then lost Andy Reid and Mahomes, I don’t think there’s an argument there’s a reason everyone expects them to be one of the best teams.
I get what you are saying and I don't think and didn't say "NC level ceiling". I still think there is enough talent that they *COULD* show up any given week and play like a team MUCH better than their record. The Chiefs without Mahomes/Reid aren't a terrible team. They obviously aren't as good as they are with Reid coaching and Mahomes playing but they aren't awful.
There are five 0-4 teams in the B1G currently:
Which one would concern you the most as a Michigan fan? Maybe MSU due to rivalry but ignoring that it simply HAS to be PSU.
For me as a tOSU fan it is easily PSU. Purdue has plenty of upsets over the Buckeyes and MSU has a few notable ones as well but those games are, IMHO, not nearly as scary as PSU. I'll put it this way: I feel that if Ohio State showed up and played a reasonably good game (not great but not terrible) they would beat MSU, RU, PSU, or UW no matter how well those teams played. If the Spartans, Scarlet Knights, Boilermakers, or Badgers played the absolute game of their lives against a reasonably good Ohio State game, it might be somewhat close but the Buckeyes still win. Penn State is a different animal. If they show up and play the game of their lives, Ohio State can only beat that by playing a REALLY good game themselves.
-
Not sure where to drop this, but here are the updated cumulative league records of each team's opponents:
(https://i.imgur.com/1gvB8Zg.png)
The fact that the two remaining undefeated teams have the two worst opponent winning percentages is helping to keep the CG race interesting. Obviously the Hoosiers and Buckeyes control their own destiny. If they keep winning, they are going to meet in Indianapolis but if either of them lose a game the tiebreakers are VERY unfavorable for them.
FWIW:
Ohio State's and Indiana's opponents are so bad because they are the only two teams in the league to play four of the five winless teams. They each play PSU, PU, and UW. Ohio State also plays Rutgers while Indiana also plays Michigan State. Their other five opponents are 13-7 (tOSU) and 12-8 (IU) but obviously playing so many of the bottom-feeders drags down the percentage.
-
I get what you are saying and I don't think and didn't say "NC level ceiling". I still think there is enough talent that they *COULD* show up any given week and play like a team MUCH better than their record. The Chiefs without Mahomes/Reid aren't a terrible team. They obviously aren't as good as they are with Reid coaching and Mahomes playing but they aren't awful.
There are five 0-4 teams in the B1G currently:
Which one would concern you the most as a Michigan fan? Maybe MSU due to rivalry but ignoring that it simply HAS to be PSU.
For me as a tOSU fan it is easily PSU. Purdue has plenty of upsets over the Buckeyes and MSU has a few notable ones as well but those games are, IMHO, not nearly as scary as PSU. I'll put it this way: I feel that if Ohio State showed up and played a reasonably good game (not great but not terrible) they would beat MSU, RU, PSU, or UW no matter how well those teams played. If the Spartans, Scarlet Knights, Boilermakers, or Badgers played the absolute game of their lives against a reasonably good Ohio State game, it might be somewhat close but the Buckeyes still win. Penn State is a different animal. If they show up and play the game of their lives, Ohio State can only beat that by playing a REALLY good game themselves.
In those terms, I completely agree with you. PSU would be what I would consider the toughest test. That being said, it's like asking a Chiefs fan who is your biggest fear, the Jets, Saints, Titans or Browns... and the true answer is.. none of them.
OSU should have zero fears until the UM game and that solely because that game has had bizarre outcomes. The game against PSU, sit back and enjoy the blowout. It's coming.
-
the UM game and that solely because that game has had bizarre outcomes. The game against PSU, sit back and enjoy the blowout. It's coming.
While you were posting that I was posting a CG race analysis. Given Michigan's remaining schedule, there is a pretty good chance that they'll head into The Game at 9-2/7-1. In that case, there is a whole host of extra issues for Ohio State wrt The Game.
For one thing, if Ohio State gets there at 11-0 then not only will a CFP spot be assured but a first round bye would be a distinct possibility EVEN with a loss. Michigan, OTOH, probably can't make the CFP at 9-3* so for them The Game would be the end-all-be-all.
*FWIW:
The CFP Committee doesn't seem to care about what we used to call 'bad losses'. Ie, to me a 9-3 Michigan with the third loss being to tOSU is basically the same thing as a 9-3 Michigan with a win over tOSU and the third loss coming to say Purdue. In my mind the 'bad loss' and the 'good win' offset. The committee has shown pretty clearly that they disagree. They don't seem to care in the slightest about 'bad losses' but they REALLY care about quality wins. Thus, IMHO, a 9-3 Michigan with the third loss coming to Ohio State is hopeless for the CFP because their best win would be an unranked or barely ranked team. However, a 9-3 Michigan with a bad loss to say Purdue and a win over tOSU is in.
Consequently, my view of Michigan's chances is that they can't make the CFP without beating tOSU but if they DO beat tOSU then they can afford a mulligan somewhere along the way.
-
I think the USC loss was their mulligan, but besides that I agree with that. What's really interesting is Michigan wouldn't have to worry about the Big10 championship game, where a 3rd loss could possibly knock them out of the playoffs if they did beat OSU.
I will find it interesting if it does play out with OSU winning out and Michigan winning out until The Game. Will it lessen the importance to OSU? On the surface i would say no, but it's not a must win like it would be for Michigan.
-
I will find it interesting if it does play out with OSU winning out and Michigan winning out until The Game. Will it lessen the importance to OSU? On the surface i would say no, but it's not a must win like it would be for Michigan.
It's ALWAYS a must win
-
I think the USC loss was their mulligan, but besides that I agree with that. What's really interesting is Michigan wouldn't have to worry about the Big10 championship game, where a 3rd loss could possibly knock them out of the playoffs if they did beat OSU.
I will find it interesting if it does play out with OSU winning out and Michigan winning out until The Game. Will it lessen the importance to OSU? On the surface i would say no, but it's not a must win like it would be for Michigan.
Well it depends on the strength of "the bubble" but at this point I think:
- Michigan is in at 9-3 with a win over tOSU and a loss to MSU/PU/NU/UMD.
- Michigan is out at 9-3 with a loss to tOSU and wins over MSU/PU/NU/UMD.
You brought up the CG and my observation has been that the committee has been VERY hesitant to punish a team for losing a game that they earned their way into so I agree that Michigan wouldn't have to worry about the CG because I think that Michigan is absolutely in at 10-3 by winning out to the CG and then losing the CG. The only scenario where I think a CG loss might knock Michigan out is if they lost to one of MSU/PU/NU/UMD, beat tOSU, then lose the CG. At that point the problem is that the win in The Game looks distinctly like an anomaly. They'd be 1-3 in games against ranked teams (possibly better if USC/UNL/UDub sneak in). That doesn't look like a great team, it looks like a not-so-great team that pulled off one good win (like FSU).
Back to the CG:
Assuming that Michigan and Ohio State win out to The Game and then Michigan wins, they would both be 8-1. Michigan would win a two-way tie based on H2H but there is a strong possibility that Oregon would also be 8-1 and Indiana could lose a game and finish 8-1 as well. In any of those scenarios H2H would be cast aside and the tie would be broken based on league winning percentage of league opponents. Among those teams at this point that is:
- .500 Oregon
- .417 Michigan
- .361 Ohio State
- .333 Indiana
To get to the CG Michigan would most likely need for either Oregon or Indiana to lose a game. As of right now:
Three-way tie at 8-1 between tOSU/M/Ore for second (assumes IU is 9-0): Ducks/Hoosiers in the CG.
Three-way tie at 8-1 between tOSU/M/IU for first (assumes all others are 7-2 or worse): Buckeyes/Wolverines in the CG.
Two way tie at 8-1 between tOSU/M for second (assumes IU is 9-0 and all others are 7-2 or worse): Wolverines/Hoosiers in the CG.
I think that covers all the plausible possibilities involving Michigan.
-
It's ALWAYS a must win
It is for us as fans but . . .
In the NIL/transfer portal era do the players feel that way? I'm sure there are plenty of Ohio kids who grew up cheering for Ohio State and for them it is but for the mercenaries playing for us solely because we were the highest bidder, do they care?
-
Bama has beaten 4 ranked teams in a row with out having a bye week,dayum - Georgia,Vandy,Mizzou,Vols. But that lost to FSU isn't looking good they way they have taken a dive.perhaps a combination of Tide resurgance and the rest of the SEC-SEC slip sliding away.Not sure sure who is the most dangerous out there right now Tide,Hoosiers or the 'Canes - CRAZY.
-
It is for us as fans but . . .
In the NIL/transfer portal era do the players feel that way? I'm sure there are plenty of Ohio kids who grew up cheering for Ohio State and for them it is but for the mercenaries playing for us solely because we were the highest bidder, do they care?
This is such a phenomenal question to pose.
-
It is for us as fans but . . .
In the NIL/transfer portal era do the players feel that way? I'm sure there are plenty of Ohio kids who grew up cheering for Ohio State and for them it is but for the mercenaries playing for us solely because we were the highest bidder, do they care?
This is such a phenomenal question to pose.
I dunno... I think there's still a "team culture" aspect that can't be overlooked.
Look to the NFL. They're all mercenaries. But there are some rivalries that are real, and it certainly seems like the players care. I think there's a level of team culture that persists in those locker rooms that make rivalries important.
I don't see that NIL / transfer portal can kill that. It might reduce it, to an extent, but I don't think it'll kill it.
-
I dunno... I think there's still a "team culture" aspect that can't be overlooked.
Look to the NFL. They're all mercenaries. But there are some rivalries that are real, and it certainly seems like the players care. I think there's a level of team culture that persists in those locker rooms that make rivalries important.
I don't see that NIL / transfer portal can kill that. It might reduce it, to an extent, but I don't think it'll kill it.
I think you are right in a way.
As you guys know, I'm a bit of a history buff and in the reading I've done I've learned that the vast majority of soldiers (same demographic as football players, young men) don't actually fight for ideology so much as 'brotherhood' or basically what you called "team culture".
It is romantic to think of Union Soldiers or WWII American Soldiers risking life and limb "to free the slaves" or "end the Holocaust" and distasteful to think of Confederate and German WWII Soldiers fighting to "perpetuate slavery" or "support fascism" but in reality only a VERY few viewed those wars in those terms. They mostly fought because they were on a team. The view of the average soldier was MUCH narrower than our view looking back. For the most part they weren't looking at the big picture questions, they were looking at being a part of their team (and I don't mean this on a national or even divisional level but more of a squad level) defeating the pillbox in front of them or taking hill #372 or somesuch miniscule piece of the overall situation.
One little note on this:
Admirals and Generals for generations were aware of this at least conceptually and it was one of the reasons that they resisted splitting up the kids from the same hometown. Many of "the brass" thought that soldiers would fight harder if they were in units with their brothers, cousins, neighbors, etc than they would if they were thrown in with a bunch of strangers.
This led to some very unfortunate results. In warfare if one side takes say 10% casualties it isn't usually randomly every 10th guy. If an Admiral sends out 10 ships each with 100 crewmen and one of them gets suck you don't lose 10 guys from each ship, you lose all 100 guys from one ship. Similarly, on land, if a general sends out 1,000 guys to take a given objective and 100 of them are killed it isn't usually 10% of each regiment. Instead it is typically something more like 90% of the one regiment that got cut off and 1% each of the others.
A well known example of the potential results of keeping guys from the same area together is the case of the Sullivan Brothers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_brothers). They were five brothers who all served together on the USS Juneau and all died when that ship was sunk in what became known as Ironbottom Sound (due to all the ships sunk there). There are plenty of other examples. Due to the geographic organization of most Civil War units some American towns saw nearly their entire population of young men wiped out while others saw few or no causalities.
So back to football:
I think you are right at least in so far as it concerns the players immediate motivation. It really isn't to win for "the school" so much as to win for "their team", what you called "team culture". That said, however, from that perspective does it really matter who the guys on the opposite sideline are? They could be Wolverines, Boilermakers, Badgers, whatever the only thing that matters is that they are "the other".
Edit to add that I'd be interested to hear @SFBadger96 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=51) 's thoughts.
-
Well that's a big topic...
The best way to build effective teams is through effective leadership. And yes, teams generally fight for the person next to them more than some intangible thing. That said, any well-led organization has a mission statement that everyone understands and believes in, from the very top to the very bottom. One of the best ways to get people to fight for each other (I don't mean just warfare, I mean putting all they have into the problem they are trying to solve) is for them to believe that they are fighting together for the same thing. Mission matters. Values matter. Those help bond the people who are next to each other, whether in a foxhole, on the defensive line, in the mailroom, or in the boardroom. There is a natural bond--a common set of values--you get from family, friends, and other tribes that we belong to together. But that's really what it comes down to: the people believing in the tribe they are a part of. In the warfare context, where the human desire to survive is literally our strongest instinct, it isn't at all surprising that the guy next to you--fighting literally for the same thing, his survival--is your most obvious tribe.
I think when it comes to NIL, coach-shopping, and other things like that, yes, the money certainly helps--and people will resist going somewhere that they don't feel appropriately values them (money is the easiest way to measure that), but seeing that the culture is a positive one helps, and once they get there, being drawn into that culture--which is normally leadership driven--is what builds effective teams. So successful teams have successful cultures. Those cultures include the rivalries and why those things are important. Successful teams are more likely to have strong rivals because that is part of the successful culture.
My favorite sports analogy for this is the Bruce Bochy-led SF Giants and their three championships. Player for player they were never the best team in baseball. But they clearly had a culture that brought out the best in each other when it mattered. That comes from leadership, not paychecks. You have to have a paycheck, but that's not what makes your team come together.
Obviously it's easier if those paychecks bring the very best performing people, e.g., the highest spending teams will have the most talented people to choose from, but they still need effective leadership to perform at their best.
I have other thoughts about the issue of casualties in warfare--that's not necessarily an indication of how effective the unit was; it is often more an indicator of how terrible a situation they were put in. The first wave that hit Omaha Beach could have had the best and brightest top to bottom, they were still wading into an absolute hornets nest. No amount of leadership, unity, esprit d'corps, etc., would have saved most of those men. But they still had to do it. And the leadership higher up realized that and had to make the decision to send them anyway. War really sucks.
-
So back to football:
I think you are right at least in so far as it concerns the players immediate motivation. It really isn't to win for "the school" so much as to win for "their team", what you called "team culture". That said, however, from that perspective does it really matter who the guys on the opposite sideline are? They could be Wolverines, Boilermakers, Badgers, whatever the only thing that matters is that they are "the other".
I agree. I think for the most part, these guys are playing for each other, and for their coaches, primarily. I think ultimately for all the things they say about the fans, the school (for CFB), the city (for NFL), these are more PR than anything. Why do I think that? Because the minute a player moves in the transfer portal or in a trade / free agency, they start talking about how great the fans and the new city/school are, and how happy they are to be there...
But they're all still human, and all still respond to propaganda. If you're a new transfer portal addition at OSU and you've spent all year hearing about how much you HAVE to beat TTUN and how disappointing it would be to lose THAT game, even more so than any other game, I have to believe it'll have an effect. In the way that you prepare, in the way that you enter the game emotionally, everything. Once the ball is kicked off, how much difference does it still make? I don't know. Maybe at that point you're just playing football. But I'd be at least a little surprised if there isn't a bit of carry-over into the game. Especially with what will be outsized fan/crowd reactions above and beyond "typical" games.
-
I have other thoughts about the issue of casualties in warfare--that's not necessarily an indication of how effective the unit was; it is often more an indicator of how terrible a situation they were put in. The first wave that hit Omaha Beach could have had the best and brightest top to bottom, they were still wading into an absolute hornets nest. No amount of leadership, unity, esprit d'corps, etc., would have saved most of those men. But they still had to do it. And the leadership higher up realized that and had to make the decision to send them anyway. War really sucks.
100% agree. I meant this even if I didn't describe it as well as you did. Most of the time when a unit takes horrendous casualties it is simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Your example of the first wave to hit Omaha is spot on. No matter how smart or tough the individuals were and no matter how good their leadership, unity, etc were, that was going to be bloody.
-
It is for us as fans but . . .
In the NIL/transfer portal era do the players feel that way? I'm sure there are plenty of Ohio kids who grew up cheering for Ohio State and for them it is but for the mercenaries playing for us solely because we were the highest bidder, do they care?
A player would transfer from UM to OSU (and vice versa) if the other offered a dollar more. We all know this.
-
A player would transfer from UM to OSU (and vice versa) if the other offered a dollar more. We all know this.
I get the point you are making. But that is just not true for MANY players.
-
For a dollar more? No. For substantially more money, to get more playing time, to be closer to people that matter, to work with a coaching staff and teammates they like better? Sure. But that calculus is different for every player.
-
Wolverines could be poached pre NIL. Boren, Dakich...
-
For a dollar more? No. For substantially more money, to get more playing time, to be closer to people that matter, to work with a coaching staff and teammates they like better? Sure. But that calculus is different for every player.
This! It’s far deeper than money and different level of depth per individual player.