There is nothing good for the Alliance or the BE(the weakest BCS league) if AQ goes away. The winners will be the large conferences..especially the SEC. It will allow them MORE opportunities for post season play. The Bowl ties in will most likely go away and the Alliance and BE will both be left with less opportunities for post season play. One should not want to see the AQ status go away...they should be just happy they have it.

So, is the Big East, which is trying to get as big of a TV deal as possible, supposed to go for a small town like ECU, when there are other programs that are similar in the football ratings right now, but in much larger markets? Programs with history such as Houston or SMU. Program that is closer than any other program in UCF- and in a much larger market. A program that is the #2 team in the country overall the last 4 years(Boise). San Diego St hurts I'm sure- but that's all location driven to set up a western division. If the Big East had chosen a team from a small city, then yes, you could say that the Big East was trying to take ECU down.... But, that's just simply not the case....

Why would any AQ team even if there were no AQ's want to go to the dump that is Legion Field?

Memphis has played 12 games vs AQ since 2004. 6 home and 6 away.... (lots vs Mississippi and Tennessee)

(12-08-2011 02:53 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If there were no AQ's right now- do you really think you would be in a different position right now?

Also, checked and in the last 8 years you guys have played 25 games vs AQ teams. 15 of those either home or neutral site.
2011 2 home, 1 neutral (0-3)
2010 1 home, 2 road(1-2)
2009 1 home, 2 road(1-2)
2008 1 home, 1 neutral, 2 road(2-2)
2007 2 home, 1 road(1-2)
2006 3 home(2-1)
2005 1 home 2 road(1-2)
2004 1 home, 1 neutral, 1 road(0-3)
so since 2004- 12 home, 3 neutral, 10 road

So, if your team in the current system is doing exactly what you are saying(except the winning, but say your team was 17-8)- what more do you want?

The problem I have with ECU and the others from the alliance- they want to just bring down the Big East, even if it means their program NEVER has a shot at the BCS. Just misery loves company. And, that's wrong. And watch, the Big East even still will have a lot more oppurtunities than the alliance ever will.

And then go back and look at our records against current AQ teams from 1990-99 and you will see what AQ status has done to us. In that decade before the BCS came into existance and the first 2 years after we were 20-28 against AQ's (not including BE teams that weren't in the BE during that time period). A much better percentage than what we have been able to accomplish in the 2000's. The breakdown of where those games were played was 13 home, 5 neutral, and 30 on the road. We were much more competitive and won nearly as many as we lost against AQ's during those days. I'd rather the old system come back. Our biggest issue back in the old system days was that with the much more limited number of bowl games back then we had a couple of 8-3 teams get left out of them.

(12-08-2011 03:10 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So, is the Big East, which is trying to get as big of a TV deal as possible, supposed to go for a small town like ECU, when there are other programs that are similar in the football ratings right now, but in much larger markets? Programs with history such as Houston or SMU. Program that is closer than any other program in UCF- and in a much larger market. A program that is the #2 team in the country overall the last 4 years(Boise). San Diego St hurts I'm sure- but that's all location driven to set up a western division. If the Big East had chosen a team from a small city, then yes, you could say that the Big East was trying to take ECU down.... But, that's just simply not the case....

ECU has a statewide audience in North Carolina and televisions actually exist there too. If you went by small towns, Chapel Hill is half the size of Greenville but they have fans all over the state. Virginia is in a small town. Auburn is in a small town. They have statewide followings. Half the BCS is in small towns. State College Pa's population is 38,420.
ECU draws better than anyone left in the Big East.
Stop making excuses to duck East Carolina. BCS teams from all over the east coast in the ACC, Big East and even an SEC school plays ECU home and home for years. Syracuse's Population is only 147306.
The whole world is laughing at the Big East for this brand of stupidity.
There isn't a big town in CUSA who draws better than Greenville NC.
You do want to look real on television don't you? I guess not.
SMU puts 12,000 in the seats. Big market? Where????
Houston barely puts 30,000 in the seats on a good year and most years
didn't have 20,000 in the joint.
San Diego State?
Dude, this is going to cost the Big East because they turned this into a war. Now they've got one.

A large part of the bad record was due to Steve Logan in 01-02 and then John Thompson in 03-04. Those guys those years- 0-13. If you take that out- 10-15 with 13 home, 10 away, 2 neutral. That's a minimal difference from 20-28. So can't really say that the 2000's since have been awful, because really it's not been.
2003- 0-4- 2 home 2 away
2002- 0-3 3 away
2001- 0-3 1 home 2 away
2000- 2-1 2 home 1 away
so 2000-2003 2-11 5 home 8 away
so 2000-2011 10-28 17 home 18 away 3 neutral

(12-08-2011 03:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  A large part of the bad record was due to Steve Logan in 01-02 and then John Thompson in 03-04. Those guys those years- 0-13. If you take that out- 10-15 with 13 home, 10 away, 2 neutral. That's a minimal difference from 20-28. So can't really say that the 2000's since have been awful, because really it's not been.
2003- 0-4- 2 home 2 away
2002- 0-3 3 away
2001- 0-3 1 home 2 away
2000- 2-1 2 home 1 away
so 2000-2003 2-11 5 home 8 away
so 2000-2011 10-28 17 home 18 away 3 neutral

Still a pretty big difference, especially when you factor in that now we play home and home's pretty much exclusively, while back then we played more than twice as many on the road. If we had played 50-50 home and home during the 90's it wouldn't be hard to argue some of those losses could have turned into wins. Also we had several down years in the 90's so I think it's fair to just look at the decades completely. Not to mention the begining of the end for Logan was when the BCS was formed. He was very vocal about what the system was going to do to schools like East Carolina, and sadly he was completely right.

I dunno- I saw Southern Miss if they don't lose to UAB is in the BCS this year.... So it is possible in this system. Boise, TCU, and Utah all made 2 BCS appearances(Boise getting an at large bid). So to have 6 teams make the BCS- it's very doable. Now, it's not going to be possible ever for any of those guys to make a major bowl. Is that so much better?

(12-08-2011 02:27 PM)Tampa Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-08-2011 02:06 PM)ImsogladIwenttotheUofM Wrote:  You're kidding, right?
The bowls are about selling tickets, not setting up good match-ups.

4th pick from SEC would be Georgia, this year. You think ANY bowl would choose to take the East Champ, West Virginia included even though they'll be gone soon, over the Bulldogs?

No way. UGA would bring a sea of red to wherever.

No AQ means the Big East is a have not conference in football, now.

Houston, SMU, UCF, Boise State, San Diego State moved for what amounts to one year to have a shot at being an automatic qualifier for a BCS game; then that window closes again one them. They'll be right back where they started, but now with greatly increased travel costs.

Funny.

Brother, your reading comprehension on this page has been atrocious.

First of all, Minutemen429 specifically said a non-AQ had to win their conference for the automatic bid. You retorted that he was wrong because of Bama, Michigan, and VT.

Second of all, 4th place in the SEC East this year was Vanderbilt, not Georgia.

Finally, to address your last point, it's pretty darn amazing that all of these new BE schools have made the wrong decision when you have all of the right answers, isn't it? Other than AFA and their special circumstances, I'm curious just how many alliance schools would have turned down an invite. I'd put the number somewhere around zero.

And your facts are atrocious, Vandy is not the fourth place team in the SEC this year, they finished fourth in the east, tied for eighth with MS State and a conference record of 2-6.

(12-08-2011 03:52 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I dunno- I saw Southern Miss if they don't lose to UAB is in the BCS this year.... So it is possible in this system. Boise, TCU, and Utah all made 2 BCS appearances(Boise getting an at large bid). So to have 6 teams make the BCS- it's very doable. Now, it's not going to be possible ever for any of those guys to make a major bowl. Is that so much better?

We aren't exactly in the same situation as the teams that have busted the BCS. Boise and Utah are out west, where there is much less competition for recruits in their home states. The are both basically their state flagships and then have California to recruit nearby. TCU has a lot more local competition, but they are also in a much more talent rich state. We probably have more AQ schools around us per capita that any other non-AQ program in the country. 4 in our state, 2 in VA, 2 in SC, 2 in Georgia, and 1 in Tennessee. That's who we have to recruit against, with one hand tied behind our backs being non-AQ. Our recruiting was much stronger when the BCS didn't exist, and our teams were much closer in talent level to those teams around us. That's what made the old system better for us. Not the actual bowl game access, but the doors that are closed to us in recruiting right now because of the fact that we are non-AQ. It's used by every school in the area against us. USM fans will probably tell you the same, that they recruited better in the old system and had more talented teams. If you notice they began to drop off a little as well right after the formation of the BCS. They were the dominate force of early C-USA, and then after the BCS formed their talent and recruiting slowly started to erode. They maintained better than we did, but it has hurt them as well.

Actually Georgia was second in the conference tied with Bama but by way of the championship would be second. Arkansas and South Carolina were tied for fourth and I feel sure that any New Years day bowl would take either of them over the big East champion most years if not all and smile all the way to the bank.

None of the teams turned the invite down except for Air Force for different reasons. Hard to blame Houston, UCF and SMU for going since they got all sports and their basketball league just improved dramatically however their football one I doubt is going to be any better once AQ is gone. Boise got the red ass because they were not invited to a BCS game this year and are chasing the golden carrot of AQ in hopes they don't get the shaft again, biggest risk as they are dumping their Olympic sports. SDSU got to come to the party only because of Boise, their basketball will take a hit as they are downgrading leagues. SMU is the one that smells like a rose and is the biggest winner in the whole deal. They have been basically irrelevant as a football program since the days of the Pony Express and have hovered down around 125 or lower most years in the BCS rankings, they do well to get 20K to most home games and some draw much less, they have no real basketball and yet they got in on market alone.

I think a larger thing though quite honestly moreso than the AQ/non-AQ was the fact that up until 1997 season, they were independent- as were a lot of teams. The better teams got plucked into conferences-
In 1990- there were 26 independents
Florida St- ACC
Syracuse, Temple, Va Tech, Boston College, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Miami- Big East
Penn St-Big Ten
South Carolina- SEC
By 1996, there were only 11 including ECU...

So, I think the independents falling apart is a much larger reason for why ECU got to where they are than anything else. The non-AQ didn't help obviously, but which conference would be treated better? The existing SEC/ACC/or new Big East(with 3 top 25 teams), or C-USA(who had 1 ranked team in their 1st year).

I'd love to see the champion of each side meet in a "BCS Bowl".

(12-08-2011 04:08 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think a larger thing though quite honestly moreso than the AQ/non-AQ was the fact that up until 1997 season, they were independent- as were a lot of teams. The better teams got plucked into conferences-
In 1990- there were 26 independents
Florida St- ACC
Syracuse, Temple, Va Tech, Boston College, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Miami- Big East
Penn St-Big Ten
South Carolina- SEC
By 1996, there were only 11 including ECU...

So, I think the independents falling apart is a much larger reason for why ECU got to where they are than anything else. The non-AQ didn't help obviously, but which conference would be treated better? The existing SEC/ACC/or new Big East(with 3 top 25 teams), or C-USA(who had 1 ranked team in their 1st year).

I can appreciate your position on this, we just disagree. I do think the shrinking of independents may have had something to do with it, but the clear line of seperation that was created when the BCS was formed is what I believe has set ECU back more than anything. It's not completely impossible to overcome, but due to the company we are surrounded by it makes it much harder on us than those out in the west with less local AQ competition. Also doesn't help that while NC is a pretty good highschool football state it's not one of the major talent producers like California, Texas, or Florida.

look at schedule in 1991
@ Illinois
Memphis
@ UCF
South Carolina
Akron
@ Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Tulane
@ So Miss
@ Va Tech
@ Cincy
NC St in Peach Bowl

compare to 1997
E Tenn St
@ West Va
@ S Carolina
UCF
So Miss
@ Miami
Ark St
@ Va Tech
Ohio
Memphis
vs NC St

And, I think everyone remembers Mr. Favre with So Miss taking down FSU back in 1989....

So, I think the independents hurt those schools way more than the AQ status....

Losing the AQ will hurt everyone not in the big 5. The BE still will be by far the #6 conf. They will lose out big time on bowl $$$ but still will end up with 5 to 10 mil per year per school TV $$$. The real losers will be the rest of the now non AQ, they will never ever get another shot at any big bowl. The BE with ND will get a couple of pretty decent tie in's before it is all done. Hopefully the alliance will be able to hold on to the new Tex bowl, as its place for champ.

(12-08-2011 04:23 PM)stever20 Wrote:  look at schedule in 1991
@ Illinois
Memphis
@ UCF
South Carolina
Akron
@ Syracuse
Pittsburgh
Tulane
@ So Miss
@ Va Tech
@ Cincy
NC St in Peach Bowl

compare to 1997
E Tenn St
@ West Va
@ S Carolina
UCF
So Miss
@ Miami
Ark St
@ Va Tech
Ohio
Memphis
vs NC St

And, I think everyone remembers Mr. Favre with So Miss taking down FSU back in 1989....

So, I think the independents hurt those schools way more than the AQ status....

I'm not even sure your point here with this one. Neither schedule was that much different than the other. Yeah we won a lot more games in 91, but that was a really great year, while 97 was a rebuilding year after losing the core of the back to back Liberty Bowl teams. During pretty much every year of the 90's we played 4-5 AQ teams (not including former C-USA members). Played the same number when there were more indys and the same when there were less. That's what we want to play, and the reason why it's also not real likely we are ever going to break through and go undefeated. Only way it's ever really going to be possible is for us to drastically change the teams we play OOC. We are going to have to drop all these major money making series we have signed against VT, USC East, UNC, WVU, NC State, and maybe play one low level AQ a year and a bunch of dogs. That's just not what we are ever going to do. So for me I would rather AQ's go away, our slim/none access to BCS bowls go away, but the clearly defined line of demarcation go away. Sure there would still be seperation, and sure our neighbors can still argue that they play in better conferences, but it removes a major obstacle that hurts us in our ability to beat these teams when we play them 3-4 times a year.

Why would ND's basketball team being in the east have anything at all to do with bowl tie ins for the conference? They are independent and probably will stay that way. I guess Marinara can always call the bowl and say hey, we got ND in basketball you know LOL. Bowl tie ins are going to be more back to attendance and ranked opponents to generate interest and sale tickets, not who your second cousin knows down at the diner.

I dunno- I mean- Illinois, S Carolina, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Va Tech in '91 vs West Va, S Carolina, Miami, Va Tech, NC St in '97. 5 both years. in '97 only 6 conference games, so still 5 OOC games... Now, with 8 game conference schedules, only 4 OOC games are possible(and in a year like 2004 for instance when there were only 11 games- only 3). So, I don't think there's a question that the losing of the Independents hurt ECU a LOT-- I think probably as much, if not more than losing AQ.

A GREAT example to me is South Carolina. Played them every year from '84-'99 but 1. Haven't played them since. That's got a lot more to do with South Carolina than it does ECU. They in early '00s only had 3 OOC games- and 1 was Clemson. So, not much flexibility.

Eagleweiser- The reason why the Big East will be able to parlay Notre Dame into good bowl arrangements is they will have provision in the contract allowing the bowl to select Notre Dame over Big East team like 1 time in 4 years...

That's how the Big East has the Champs Sports Bowl. Notre Dame took it this year, but last year and the next 2 years- it's a Big East Bowl.