And So It Is Written: No Bowl For Boilermakers

The resident college football geniuses, Mark Schlabach and Bruce Feldman (seriously), have posted their bowl game predictions for the upcoming college football season and the Purdue Boilermakers are no where to be found.

I'm not sure if this is more dumb or less dumb than when Sports Illustrated tries to predict the NCAA basketball tournament bracket, but it's definitely a close footrace.

It's hard enough to predict who's going to be good. It's got to be absolutely mind-numbing to have to predict who is going to be mediocre enough to go to the PapaJohns.com Bowl (West Virginia versus Arkansas, according to Schlabach or Cinci vs. Michigan, as per Feldman -- jiminy christmas, they can't even agree on two teams for this?).

The best part of this, though, was spotted by eagle-eyed Deadspin readers, who caught that for a little while, Feldman had brazenly predicted the Florida Atlantic Owls to be in the title game against Texas.

Hey, if the Florida Atlantic Owls can make it, so can we.

Easiest Big Ten Schedule -- According to a Dumbass

No, I don't mean any of us here at BS. I'm referring to my old friend Mark Schlabach of ESPN.com.

Mark has decided to do another of his completely meaningless, rambling, incoherent, inconclusive, random lists... and this time, he's listing the ten easiest schedules in the nation. Does this mean these teams should go 12-0? Who knows? I don't think it does, because judging by the top two easiest schedules, that would be one hell of a prediction.

Iowa is the number 1 easiest, followed by IU at the second easiest, according to the knuckle-dragging Schlabach.

Ohhhhhhh, I see. This is yet another shot at the Big Ten, only this time it's cleverly veiled since saying "Sorry everyone, OSU might make it back to the title game" was beginning to get a bit tired even for hacks like Schlabach.

Okay, I gotcha. And I see the Big Ten has the top two easiest schedules in the nation. Yes, yes, definitely see your point there, Mark. It's not like they play in a tough conference at all or play a schedule as hard as, say, Arkansas State or Idaho or whomever. Yeah, the Big Ten definitely deserves to coninue to have shots taken at it.

Mark Schlabach, you sir, continue to be a fool.

Schlabach and Maisel Continue Their Crusade Against The Big Ten

I've said it before, but for some reason Mark Schlabach and Ivan Maisel want everyone to believe the Big Ten is perpetually weak, despite always seeming to contend for the national title. This week they released their "Three Things I Can't Wait To See This Fall In The Big Ten."

Snappy title, boys.

From Maisel:

Behind the Buckeyes, the race gets interesting. Wisconsin will challenge. After the Badgers, which team comes next? Is Illinois ready to handle being the hunted? Can quarterback Juice Williams run for 755 yards again, without first-round draft pick Rashard Mendenhall there to distract the defense? Some challenger will emerge from mediocrity. Penn State? Iowa? Michigan State? Northwestern?

I always love it when a writer is supposedly giving some advanced scouting/reviewing knowledge to us and he mentions 64% of the teams in a conference. And with lots of question marks. Apparently, not only is Purdue not worthy of a mention as a potential emerger from mediocrity but neither is, um, Michigan? Perhaps you've heard f them, Ivan. And what kind of name is "Ivan," anyway? Are you a russky?

Other snippets from these two yo-yos:

Some challenger will emerge from mediocrity.

Linebacker U could use a linebacker.

Was Illinois' success in 2007 a fluke?

Can Ohio State return to a third straight BCS title game? Perhaps only Buckeyes fans want them back there.

Man, sure sounds like the Big Ten is a bunch of questionable suckiness. Even the teams that did well are either potential "flukes" or a team nobody wants to see return to the national title game. Everyone else is basically "mediocre."

And mind you, this is all within their three things they're looking forward to.

Solid reporting.

Glorified Mid-Major Purdue Creeps Into ESPN's Power 16

Andy Katz, ESPN.com's humorless, always-puffy-and-sweaty-looking college basketball writer reportedly referred to Purdue a "a glorified mid-major" last week.

Well, that glorified mid-major has climbed into the ESPN.com Power 16, a meaningless ranking that doesn't even mirror the real rankings. So what does this mean? About the same as a nerf vibrator. (I'll let your women explain that to you, guys.)

The Power 16 is voted on by a dozen ESPN bball "experts," and Purdue is currently 13th. But how did each of them vote? That's my favorite part. Let's take a look.

Jay Bilas has us at 11, two behind MSU (who we just beat) and one ahead of IU, who we haven't played with but are ahead of in the standings.

Hubert Davis does not have us in his top 16. Dirty Tar Heel. He does have MSU at #9. Okay.

Pat Forde ranks us 15th and has no other Big Ten teams in his Power 16. He has Drake, however, at number 9. Do with that what you will.

Fran Fraschilla and Andy Glockner both have Purdue at 12.

Doug Gottleib puts us at 16 and he, too, has no respect for the Big Ten since we're the only team he ranked. Also puts Drake ahead of us. Mmmmm, Drakes.

The aforementioned sweaty fratboy (Katz) lists us at 11, with Wisconsin the only other Big Ten team in his mix at 15.

Joe Lunardi, of whom we've expressed opinions on before, has us at a respectable 12, two ahead of his other Big Tenner, Wisco.

Dana O'Neil -- whom I'm not familiar with (male or female? you make the call!) -- has us all the way up at #9. NINE! Wow.

Reggie Rankin, from Scouts, Inc., does not rank Purdue in his Power 16, but does mail in Wisco at 11, IU at 13 and MSU at 15. Definitely some love for the Big Ten, but kind of uneducated love. Kind of like doing a Kinesiology major. (Another one you'll have to think about.)

Mark Schlabach, one of my favorite punching bags, shows some love, putting MSU at 10, Purdue at 13 and Wisco at 14.

And then, wrapping things up, is Dickie V. He doesn't think Purdue is shit. He does, however, like IU, State and Wisco, ranking them at 12, 14, and 15, respectively.

It's interesting to me to see these voters be all over the map. They can't even agree on the top teams, with Kansas being as high as #1 (Hubert) and as low as #6 (Rankin).

That's all. I have no way to end this post. Just sharing. How's your day going?

Mark Schlabach Still Hates the Big Ten

Just a quick hit to point out that Mark Schlabach continues to irrationally hate the Big Ten. This is not the first time I've tried to find some logic in Schlabach's anti-Big Ten comments.

Buried in this "College GameDay Final" article, we find this nugget from Schlabach:

WINNER: Big Ten. Frankly, the conference isn't very good. But five weeks into the season, Ohio State is ranked No. 4 and Wisconsin is No. 5. With a stingy defense and improving offense (as well as a soft schedule), the Buckeyes are 5-0. The Badgers have struggled to win their past four games. The Buckeyes and Badgers play Nov. 3 at the Horseshoe in Columbus, Ohio.

So let's look at this carefully.

WINNER: Big Ten.

Cool! Some props for the Big Ten!

Frankly, the conference isn't very good.

Oh. Then why are we "winners"?

But five weeks into the season, Ohio State is ranked No. 4 and Wisconsin is No. 5.

Ah, yes, disproving your previous sentence... I mean, how is it that a conference that "isn't very good" has two of the top 5 teams in all the land?

With a stingy defense and improving offense (as well as a soft schedule), the Buckeyes are 5-0.

So is Mark complimenting or bashing OSU in this comment? Is he fence-sitting?

The Badgers have struggled to win their past four games.

What's your point? Wisconsin is never flashy yet always seems to wind up with a solid record.

The Buckeyes and Badgers play Nov. 3 at the Horseshoe in Columbus, Ohio.

And that's it. That's his last line. Great reporting, Mark! Thanks for regurgitating what a refrigerator magnet schedule can tell us!

Did a fourth-grader from Madison, Wisconsin file this report for Mark? Maybe the rough draft looked like this:

"Wisconsin plays hard and wins. Ohio State is scoring lots and wins. These teams play each other."

And one more point on all this "The Big Ten isn't very good" baloney. What would make a conference good in Mark Schlabach's world? The Big Ten has two teams in the Top Ten. Here's how other major conferences break down:

Big Ten: 2 (OSU, Wisc)
Pac Ten: 2 (USC, Cal)
SEC: 3 (LSU, Fla, UK)
Big East: 2 (South Fla, BC)
Big 12: 1 (OK)

So, again, I ask what makes a conference better than "not very good"? You don't have to love the Big Ten, but we do ask that you show some damned respect. Does anybody meet your expectations, Mark?

My guess as to what makes a good conference in Mark Schlabach's world is one where Notre Dame is the charter member and wins the conference with an unblemished record every season, while Charlie Weis wears a toga and sways in a hammock while Schlabach feeds him grapes and pork rinds.

Why Does This Man Hate the Big Ten?

Mark Schlabach, when he's not ogling Notre Dame, seems to really hate the Big Ten. You can go back and look through the archives of his articles to find your own evidencee, but you can trust me; it's there.

His "Hot/Not" column for the upcoming college football season is out today and Mark, to his credit, actually admits that Notre Dame might struggle to win six games. Of course, if they eek out eight wins, he'll be able to write a fawning column about Charlie Weis' "vision."

He then goes into his hot and not baloney, and partway down we have this gem under the "Not" hot side:

Big Ten. Outside of Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State and reloading Ohio State, few Big Ten teams have a legitimate chance of making the postseason. Michigan State and Minnesota have new coaches, and Illinois, Indiana and Northwestern continue to struggle. No wonder people are jumping off the Big Ten bandwagon.

Now people can say we're imaging things when we say Purdue often gets overlooked by the national media, but here's a prime example. And mind you, we're past the point of really caring anymore -- it's become amusing at this point, sort of like saying "Brock Spack" and "gameplan" in the same sentence. But look at that stupid-ass paragraph... first, he mentions nine of the 11 Big Ten teams, omitting Purdue and Iowa. Are the Boilers and Hawkeyes just that middling? Perhaps. But I also like the way he clearly put very little thought or research into that paragraph.

Was his thinking like this?

"Yeah, the Big Ten sucks... I mean, well, except for Michigan, who might be the best team in the country. Oh, and Wisconsin, who lost one game in the Big Ten last year. Oh, and Penn State. Um, okay, and tOSU, the team that played for the National Title last year after being #1 all season. But besides them, the conference sucks!"

And then "Michigan and Minnesota have new coaches." ...And? Mark? Hello? What does that mean? That they'll automatically blow? I don't follow. You need to finish the thought.

Then he finishes by thinking of the perennial bad teams in the Big Ten and simply lumps them together under the "continue to struggle" label. No mention of IU playing in memory of Hoepp, no mention of Ron Zook quietly putting Illinois back together. Nope, they just all struggle, so get off the Big Ten bandwagon now.

In a related article, Ivan Maisel goes on and on about how the best teams in college football are in the South, particularly trumpeting the loaded SEC. (At the end of his article, he also brings up Hawaii.) Of course, a quick check of the preseason Top 25 shows that 30% of the top ten is comprised of Big Ten teams (Michigan, Wisco, OSU) while only 20% is made up of SEC teams (LSU, Florida).

Hmm. Interesting.