(10-14-2009 03:35 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Its rather easy to exclude them. C-USA hasn't had, to my knowledge, a single team finish in the top 25 final poll since realignment. The WAC has, but its bottom appears to be much weaker than the MWC's.

In several computer rankings, the MWC is on an island. The MWC might be 2-3 points behind the AQ conferences, but the other non-AQs are often 6-7 points behind the MWC (around 8-10 points behind the lowest AQ conference).

I don't know if the WAC's bottom is weaker than the MWC's, especially this year. It's entirely subjective. CUSA hasn't had any ranked teams, no, but the MAC has had a few - are they BCS worthy?

I think the MWC is likely stronger than the others, especially at the very top, but I think the overall differences from top to bottom are not that staggering. Does a Utah victory over a medicore Pitt team and one admittedly impressive win over Alabama mean the entire conference is worthy of an auto-bid? Slightly over a year earlier, that same Alabama team lost at home to Louisiana-Monroe.

An autobid for the MWC means most years the winner of the league must beat 2 out of these 3 (Utah, BYU and TCU) and run the table against 6 other schools that wouldn't be out of place in the WAC or CUSA. OOC would no longer be relevent. Does beating Utah, TCU and a bunch of scrubs really mean a team deserves an automatic trip to the Fiesta Bowl? I dunno.

(10-14-2009 12:39 PM)Gray Avenger Wrote:  There is strength in numbers. The highest ranked team in the Big East is a former "C-DOA" school. Memphis, ECU and/or UCF are capable of doing as well as Louisville, Cincinatti and USF on an even playing field.

Your argument doesn't hold water. If what you are saying is true then why aren't Memphis, ECU and UCF always at the top of CUSA, I mean you are on an even playing field with those schools and probably even a bit better off than most financially, yet only once have ECU or UCF ended up at or near the top of that conference and they are usually not there. Memphis has done nothing. What makes you then assume just because you were in another conference you'd suddenly skyrocket to the top?

Louisville and USF were very competitive teams coming into the BE and had both beaten BCS schools just before coming in. Heck UL was a top 10 program at the time. USF and Cincinnati are located in fantastic recruiting areas as well. Don't know if you can say that of ECU or Memphis, UCF could make the argument but they don't have a competitive program.

(10-14-2009 04:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 03:35 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Its rather easy to exclude them. C-USA hasn't had, to my knowledge, a single team finish in the top 25 final poll since realignment. The WAC has, but its bottom appears to be much weaker than the MWC's.

In several computer rankings, the MWC is on an island. The MWC might be 2-3 points behind the AQ conferences, but the other non-AQs are often 6-7 points behind the MWC (around 8-10 points behind the lowest AQ conference).

Does a Utah victory over a medicore Pitt team and one admittedly impressive win over Alabama mean the entire conference is worthy of an auto-bid? Slightly over a year earlier, that same Alabama team lost at home to Louisiana-Monroe.

Hmmm...I have a feeling you don't make the same qualifications for WVU's victories over Georgia & Oklahoma.

(10-14-2009 05:32 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 04:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 03:35 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Its rather easy to exclude them. C-USA hasn't had, to my knowledge, a single team finish in the top 25 final poll since realignment. The WAC has, but its bottom appears to be much weaker than the MWC's.

In several computer rankings, the MWC is on an island. The MWC might be 2-3 points behind the AQ conferences, but the other non-AQs are often 6-7 points behind the MWC (around 8-10 points behind the lowest AQ conference).

Does a Utah victory over a medicore Pitt team and one admittedly impressive win over Alabama mean the entire conference is worthy of an auto-bid? Slightly over a year earlier, that same Alabama team lost at home to Louisiana-Monroe.

Hmmm...I have a feeling you don't make the same qualifications for WVU's victories over Georgia & Oklahoma.

So you're saying that the only reason the Big East kept its BCS bid is because of WVU's wins!?

(10-14-2009 02:41 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 12:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  You can't assume they will remain doormats either. But that seems to be your position on every count...

You seem to think that the Big East going to have no doormats. Let me know when there's ever been a league that has had that situation. Someone's going to have bring up the rear in the conference.

Then it makes sense for the Big East to look at schools like ECU and Memphis. You keep throwing a fit when those schools are mentioned, but then you mock people for saying that the Big East won't have doormats.

(10-14-2009 12:20 PM)Hoquista Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 10:24 AM)Stewart Mandel Wrote:  The Big East will always have an inherent "image" problem due to its size. The Big 12 can afford to carry four deadweight teams (Iowa State, Kansas State, Colorado and Texas A&M) without the league's overall standing suffering. Once you throw out non-factors Syracuse and Louisville, just six teams remain to carry the Big East.

These comments are always strange because if size really matters then would the BE be perceived differently if they had WKU, Rice, EMU, and UNM? Of course not. It would probably be perceived worse. Is CUSA or the MAC or Sun Belt perceived better than the BE? They all have more teams so they must be better, right?

Right or wrong, TRADITION matters in CFB as to the perception of the teams/universities and the league.

Tradition plays a lot in it, but the size of the conference is seriously hurting the Big East. Think about negotiations for bowls. What are bowls going to say? "What if 3 or 4 of your teams have a down period, you're going to be a 4 or 5 teams league. In the other BCS conferences if 3 or 4 teams are down, you have 6 or 7 teams to rely on. We're at a major disadvantage.

(10-14-2009 05:39 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 05:32 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 04:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 03:35 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Its rather easy to exclude them. C-USA hasn't had, to my knowledge, a single team finish in the top 25 final poll since realignment. The WAC has, but its bottom appears to be much weaker than the MWC's.

In several computer rankings, the MWC is on an island. The MWC might be 2-3 points behind the AQ conferences, but the other non-AQs are often 6-7 points behind the MWC (around 8-10 points behind the lowest AQ conference).

Does a Utah victory over a medicore Pitt team and one admittedly impressive win over Alabama mean the entire conference is worthy of an auto-bid? Slightly over a year earlier, that same Alabama team lost at home to Louisiana-Monroe.

Hmmm...I have a feeling you don't make the same qualifications for WVU's victories over Georgia & Oklahoma.

So you're saying that the only reason the Big East kept its BCS bid is because of WVU's wins!?

I didn't say that, though WVU's 2006 Sugar Bowl win over Georgia cannot be overstated in its importance to the conference. Utah has just as many BCS wins as WVU, so it's silly to downplay BCS bowl wins no matter who wins them.

No. You didn't say so in so many words. But you implied it, MS, which amounts to the same thing...

(10-14-2009 11:18 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'm not so sure that's a fair assessment. Syracuse is turning the corner on respectability, and Louisville is on the verge of a coaching change. As soon as those 2 programs step it up again, we won't have any weak sisters. A strong 8 team conference won't have any problems. All we need to do is what we've always needed to do. Take care of business on the field, and all our problems are solved...

Bit, your old time beast as am i , i was a bc fan till they left and i saw u guys in the 80's play live at bc, the old beast got a lot of respect.

now the conferences are bigger and the teams aren't traditional powehouses miami, syracues, vt, wv, bc who had tradition.

these new guys don't have tradition, lets just hope it stays together and coaches don't leave and in 3 yrs we will get tradition. i believe that to keep up with the joneses we need to get to 10 just to get the monkey (image) of our back. nd should be forced to join or be given the ultimatum and maybe add memphis contingent on them getting a top coach, if they bring fed ex and the liberty bowl good.

Take care of business on the field first and foremost. All else is secondary...

(10-14-2009 10:24 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Incidentally, an interesting Big East-related nugget fell into my inbox last week. Many fans and media seem to believe the Mountain West has a chance to "take away" the Big East's automatic BCS berth following the current four-year evaluation period (2008-11).

Many?

That email is sooooo was soooo stupid and baseless...it probably should have never even been recognized.

You know, Stookey, if you're truly an old-timer you'll remember when Miami, FSU, and Florida had no tradition of national prominence in football to speak of. Florida was an SEC member. But they were just another conference member, usually on a level with Vanderbilt. Not anymore. Tradition is what you make it. Look back in 20 years, and see what's happened. I think you'll be surprised by the result...

(10-14-2009 08:14 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  You know, Stookey, if you're truly an old-timer you'll remember when Miami, FSU, and Florida had no tradition of national prominence in football to speak of. Florida was an SEC member. But they were just another conference member, usually on a level with Vanderbilt. Not anymore. Tradition is what you make it. Look back in 20 years, and see what's happened. I think you'll be surprised by the result...

i hear what your saying taking care of business on the field i agree.
what do u do about the notre dame problem, they've bee nin the beast all sports for years, we need them to improve our fb image how do u get them to join w/out playing hardball???

if u look at uconns this year, all there games accept uri they fade in the 4th, the courant blogs are saying edsall plays not to loose, imo if we play this way against the eers we get killed again, what you think? pardon my caps, lack of, i'm on my back in bed w/ laptop on chest, i got serious lumbar spinal stenosis issues.......

I don't expect anything on the Notre Dame front, so I'm never disappointed. I know what I'd like. But I don't expect to see it, since the conference seems always prepared to drop pants for the Irish...

(10-14-2009 05:32 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 04:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(10-14-2009 03:35 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Its rather easy to exclude them. C-USA hasn't had, to my knowledge, a single team finish in the top 25 final poll since realignment. The WAC has, but its bottom appears to be much weaker than the MWC's.

In several computer rankings, the MWC is on an island. The MWC might be 2-3 points behind the AQ conferences, but the other non-AQs are often 6-7 points behind the MWC (around 8-10 points behind the lowest AQ conference).

Does a Utah victory over a medicore Pitt team and one admittedly impressive win over Alabama mean the entire conference is worthy of an auto-bid? Slightly over a year earlier, that same Alabama team lost at home to Louisiana-Monroe.

Hmmm...I have a feeling you don't make the same qualifications for WVU's victories over Georgia & Oklahoma.

The BE doesn't need those wins to be a BCS-level league under the rules. The league is far more than just those 2 wins.

The MWC's entire argument, however, rests largely on 2 games.