In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1290
Online now 217 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Wisconsin has now been to the Rose Bowl six times. The only other teams with multiple trips to Pasadena are Michigan (4 times), PSU (2), and OSU (2). Northwestern, Illinois, and Purdue have each gone once in that timespan. IL, OSU, and PSU would each have had an additional appearance had the Big Ten placed teams in the Rose Bowl in 2001, 2002, and 2005.
For a program that isn't perceived as part of the "elite" of the conference, Alvarez and Bielema have done a heckuva job building teams that play a consistent style of football and always having Wisconsin ready to seize opportunities when they arise, as they did in 1999 and 2012, for example. I think Wisconsin deserves more recognition than they get.
This post was edited by Cambria Nittany 16 months ago
Or out another way, the Badgers have won the conference six times in the last 20 years. OSU has won it five times, PSU and Michigan each have three titles, and Illinois, Northwestern and Purdue each have one title. And I'm talking about who was the conference's BCS auto qualifier, not those goofy half titles like OSU claims to have shared with PSU in 05 and 08.
It is amazing they are doing that well.... they will never win a title so their success is not good for the conference. IMO only 3 teams can win a title here... PSU, OSU, and UM. The others are on the South Carolina level.
PENN STATE FOREVER
Think your giving the others too much credit. Not sure they are on the South Carolina level...
I think they are on the eUSC level. South Carolina has not lit it up until the past 2 years. Granted they are darn good now, but we have had some good mid level big ten teams.
Wisconsin can win a National Title. Actually should have already if you know anything about what the details of those 6 championships. In 1993 they should have won the N/C
I'm trying to be nice to Wisconsin here and then a Badgers fan makes a comment like this. Wisconsin had a good team in 1993, and it was all the more impressive considering the losing seasons you had in the years prior, but there is no way that the 10-1-1 team you had in 1993, with a loss to Minnesota and tie to Ohio State was better than FSU, Nebraska, or Notre Dame that year -- or even better than West Virginia, Auburn, or Florida, all of whom had good teams in 1993.
I would love for you to say that to Derrick Brooks' face.
"A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep"- Glenn Carson
technically, we've only won the conference once, right?
Naw they can't..... Not enough top end skill guys to compete.
in NCAA 13 only, the best team they fielded in years got their cheeks clapped by Oregon.
In the Bowl Coalition, BCS, and the old bowl formats, Wisconsin did not really have a chance. They could in a playoff format where you need to be one of the top 4 and then win 2 games.
1993 Final AP Poll
1 Florida State (46) 12-1
2 Notre Dame (12) 11-1
3 Nebraska 11-1
4 Auburn (4) 11-0
5 Florida 11-2
6 Wisconsin 10-1-1
7 West Virginia 11-1
8 Penn State 10-2
9 Texas A&M 10-2
10 Arizona 10-2
How should have Wisconsin been National Champs? They were 9-1-1 going into the bowl game. Nebraska was 11-0 and FSU was 11-1. A tie is a #$%^ing lose. Michigan going undefeated with 3 ties was a BIG JOKE in '92. The only thing Michigan cared about was going to the Rose Bowl. Penn State joining the Big Ten helped changed this MORONIC mentality. Ohio State have scrapped this Rose Bowl is the greatest thing mentality. Their goal is NC and before OT I couldn't see them going for a tie or 3 ties like Gary Moeller did in 1992. This might be my one beef with Wisconsin and is the thing holding them back from being a serious contender. IMO the Rose Bowl is still the most important thing to Wisconsin. I remember hearing Bielema talking Rose Bowl when they had their really good team a couple of years ago with an outside shot at a NC. He was talking about that a shot at a title would be nice but their goal was the Rose Bowl.
Classic Penn State highlights: http://www.youtube.com/user/vslice02
Thin about the cheesehead, the are okay with anything that does not involve there d!ick falling off, f*ck southern candians.
“Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns.”
So much stupid in this post it's absurd.
Why is it bad for a team in our conference to be successful? Especially one that we beat?
And Wisconsin could win a title, just the same as PSU. They've been far more successful on the national stage than we have been lately, and have done better in our conference than we have the past decade too.
People bring up Oregon-Wiscy in the Rose, but so quickly forget when we got embarrassed much worse than they did with the best team we fielded this decade ('08).
Wisconsin has had two good HCs bring their program to new heights, and have put themselves in the argument for the conference "elite." That's commendable, and doesn't show many signs of stopping other than Chryst going to Pitt. They're good, and they're going to be good for a while. And no, that is not bad for the conference.
Why should we have to go to class if we came here to play FOOTBALL, we ain't come to play SCHOOL, classes are POINTLESS
When was the last time a "top end skill guy" was the reason a team won a national title? Percy Harvin, arguably the most dynamic athlete to play the game in the 2000s? Cam Newton, who is once again a once-a-generation type athlete? I can't think of anymore this decade.
I can remember a lot more teams that won because of great defenses and great line play, which IMO had more to do with UF winning than did Harvin.
And many would consider RBs to be skill guys, and Wiscy has had some pretty darn good ones the last few years.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports