Anyone who watched the Sugar Bowl should have no problems with Cincinnati's ranking.

(08-22-2010 07:47 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 07:38 PM)LaBradfordsTWill Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 07:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Much...

I see. Say wat bitcruncher wants and all is cool. Got it.:ncaabbs:

Actually, the rule is make no absolutes that you have no control over...

And buck, the bias is to the southeast, except for BC, which happens to belong to a southeastern conference...

At least the SEC has actually won multiple MNC's-hard to argue with that. The MWC and WAC have been getting love more than they deserve while the BE has been bashed and left out of the rankings undeservedly so.

The SEC has done well. But what has the ACC done to deserve the respect they're getting? Answer me that one...

I agree that the Big East doesn't get the love it deserves, but how is the WAC and MWC getting too much love. Boise St. beat Oklahoma in one of the best games i've ever watched and won another BCS Bowl over a pretty good TCU team. Utah beat Pitt and Alabama in BCS Bowls. We can agree that the bottom tier teams of the MWC and WAC are garbage but Boise and the top 4 of the MWC are legit.

(08-23-2010 02:30 AM)animus Wrote:  I agree that the Big East doesn't get the love it deserves, but how is the WAC and MWC getting too much love. Boise St. beat Oklahoma in one of the best games i've ever watched and won another BCS Bowl over a pretty good TCU team. Utah beat Pitt and Alabama in BCS Bowls. We can agree that the bottom tier teams of the MWC and WAC are garbage but Boise and the top 4 of the MWC are legit.

Big East teams in WVU (Georgia and Oklahoma ) and Lousville (ACC champ wake) have also won BCS games. The main point is that their conferences are so weak. Yes they have "decent" teams at the top, but those teams are challenged much less per season than say, Big East teams are. Big East teams are playing a schedule of BCS level programs each year. Even in down years schools like Syracuse are winning at places like Notre Dame-how many lower MWC or WAC teams would do this? Not saying those schools shouldn't be ranked, but to have them in the top 5 and not even have a Big East program in the top 10 is a sad joke. Several Big East programs would run through their schedules every year with at most one loss, but I don't see them doing the same. It will be interesting to see Utah's performance in the PAC10 (although not a great challenge either IMO) as compared to the MWC. Of course they may already be seeing a recruiting boost.

(08-22-2010 12:46 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I don't see Temple or UCF in the top 25. Getting 3 poll votes between the 2 schools isn't being ranked. It never will be...

The majority of the Big East has ZERO votes in the poll. 3 is better than 0.

(08-23-2010 09:13 AM)GO_TU Wrote:  The majority of the Big East has ZERO votes in the poll. 3 is better than 0.

Huh? Half of the Big East conference teams received votes and two teams are ranked in the top 25.

(08-22-2010 08:02 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Anyone who watched the Sugar Bowl should have no problems with Cincinnati's ranking.

Yes, because one game in an otherwise perfect season, when the head coach leaves a couple of weeks prior to playing the bowl game, and assistant coaches are spending more time trying to secure new jobs instead of coaching the team had no bearing on the play of the team or the score of the game.

The Big East is still fighting the perception problems from the 2003/2004 raids. But another factor that hurts the BE is the perceived parity within the FB side of the league. Sure, it can be fun to see this parity within the league when it looks like any of the schools has a legitimate shot at the BE championship. But there is a flip side to this, and that is external perception of the league is that it is weak because none of the schools can rise to the top and solidify their position as the big dog of the league. If this league was more stratified with a clearly defined hierarchy of good vs mediocre vs bad teams, the BE would get more respect.

(08-23-2010 09:26 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:13 AM)GO_TU Wrote:  The majority of the Big East has ZERO votes in the poll. 3 is better than 0.

Huh? Half of the Big East conference teams received votes and two teams are ranked in the top 25.

We proved that Temple fans have trouble with mathematics long ago. What made you think that changed, bearcatfan?

(08-23-2010 09:29 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 08:02 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Anyone who watched the Sugar Bowl should have no problems with Cincinnati's ranking.

Yes, because one game in an otherwise perfect season, when the head coach leaves a couple of weeks prior to playing the bowl game, and assistant coaches are spending more time trying to secure new jobs instead of coaching the team had no bearing on the play of the team or the score of the game.

Bet Savage didn't have the same sort of words when the #1 and heavily favored Buckeyes with their coaching staff intact and everything in their favor lost to a much lower ranked and regarded UF team by the same margin just a few years prior.

UC ran through the Big East unscathed last year. Who's to say TCU or Boise wouldn't have done the same? Other than being a Big East homer, what basis do you have to believe that UC was really that much better than Boise or TCU?

(08-23-2010 09:29 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 08:02 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Anyone who watched the Sugar Bowl should have no problems with Cincinnati's ranking.

Yes, because one game in an otherwise perfect season, when the head coach leaves a couple of weeks prior to playing the bowl game, and assistant coaches are spending more time trying to secure new jobs instead of coaching the team had no bearing on the play of the team or the score of the game.

Excuses excuses. Don't expect national respect when you get Tebow'd on such a big stage. And this is on top of the Sugar Bowl debacle a year prior.

(08-23-2010 10:35 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(08-23-2010 09:29 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(08-22-2010 08:02 PM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Anyone who watched the Sugar Bowl should have no problems with Cincinnati's ranking.

Yes, because one game in an otherwise perfect season, when the head coach leaves a couple of weeks prior to playing the bowl game, and assistant coaches are spending more time trying to secure new jobs instead of coaching the team had no bearing on the play of the team or the score of the game.

Bet Savage didn't have the same sort of words when the #1 and heavily favored Buckeyes with their coaching staff intact and everything in their favor lost to a much lower ranked and regarded UF team by the same margin just a few years prior.

He also failed to mention that UF probably would have done the same to 90% of the teams ranked in the 25 right now in the preseason last year. Sure they beat up Cincy, but is Cincy that much worse than 90% of the teams ranked in the top 25 preseason right now last year? Also, UCONN got robbed too by not being ranked at the end last year despite finishing the season on a 4 game winning streak.

Savage is a BE hater. I am still trying to figure out what he is doing on this board.

(08-23-2010 08:58 AM)buckaineer Wrote:  Not saying those schools shouldn't be ranked, but to have them in the top 5 and not even have a Big East program in the top 10 is a sad joke. Several Big East programs would run through their schedules every year with at most one loss, but I don't see them doing the same.

But the BCS formula works in SOS, and those teams from weak conferences still finished within BCS eligibility. What a BE team could do vs the WAC is moot concerning just how good Boise St is. I'll come right out and say I wouldn't want WVU to have any part of Boise St this year, no matter us being in the Top 25, too.

I'd like to see WVU play Boise, this year or any other. I think we could take 'em this year. I think we could take VT too...

(08-23-2010 03:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I'd like to see WVU play Boise, this year or any other. I think we could take 'em this year. I think we could take VT too...

Yeah, but your job isn't on the line if the team gets saddled with a 'L'

If it were, I'd still prefer to play the best. If you're going to fail, you might as well do it with gusto. Only a 2nd rater wants to succeed while playing patsies...