Even though the B10 doesn’t _technically_ have a championship game, 80% of the time the OSU/Mich game is for the championship, & it’s the last game of the season.

You’re right – last year, UM’s loss to OSU for the Big 10 title cost them a shot at a BCS game.

I was largely referring to the last couple of years because the idea that the Big Ten is overrated seems to be have come about in that time period. I never heard many people talk about the Big Ten being overrated before the last few years. Perhaps they were underdogs in many of their bowl games then as well (I don’t know), but I don’t remember many people saying the Big Ten needed big bowl showings in those years to prove themselves.

Also – the Big XII has had two 5 years if you are counting this year (which you seem to be doing for the other conferences).

As a side-bar, I had no idea the ACC was 1-9 in BCS bowls. That is terrible.

“The Big XII are also getting two teams into the BCS on a regular basis”

Well, if by “regular basis” you mean the last two years only. Number of years that a conference has sent two teams to BCS bowls (out of 11):

Big 10: 8
SEC: 6
Big 12: 4

And half of the Big 12′s 4 were last year and this one (07-08). Clearly not a trend.

“I guess the difference is that the Big Ten’s second team generally doesn’t seem to deserve to be in a BCS bowl (tOSU this year, Ill last year)”

…that’s exactly my point, although it’s not as simple as “doesn’t deserve.” Again, the Big 10 (1) too popular and (2) too good for its own good. Too many big 10 teams consistently finishing in the top 10 every year, combined with their huge fanbases makes for an attractive package, even if it’s #15 Illnois against #5 USC, or #3 Texas against #10 OSU.

No other conference has to deal with that, in part because (1) no other conference finishes two teams ranked in the top 10 as consistently as the Big 10 does, and (2) no other conference has as many fans who are willing to travel to warm climates in January, making their BCS selection more attractive to bowl administrators.

While this is generally true. The bowl affiliations are just long term agreements – they can change. The latest round of bowl arrangements has seen the Big East get shoved down to worse bowls because of the perceived weakness of the conference.

“But back to the main point: The Big 10 isn’t getting bad matchups because they’re a weak conference. They’re getting unfavorable matchups because their popularity is resulting in getting two teams to BCS games on a regular basis, leaving at least one of those two in a bad spot, while the “meat” of the conference deals with the mismatches that result.”

The Big XII and SEC are also getting two teams into the BCS on a regular basis – and it isn’t resulting in unfavorable matchups. I guess the difference is that the Big Ten’s second team generally doesn’t seem to deserve to be in a BCS bowl (tOSU this year, Ill last year), whereas the Big XII’s second team does (Texas this year, Kansas last year).

i mean, stranger things have happened (see: 9-4 northwestern comparend to 2007)…

One correction: Michigan lost to Appy State on the Big Ten Network, not on National TV. The highlights spread so fast that it just seemed like it was on national TV.