A&M will be a tough comparison because they changed coaches as well. They could have won the Big 12 last year for all we know.

You are right. We haven't see Rutgers and Maryland compete in the BIG. I have seen Maryland compete in the ACC for many years, and they struggle with consistency. That is why I have low faith in them. At least A&M had proven they could be good in the SWC and Big 12. Maryland hasn't proven jack. Rutgers could be decent but I think the stage will be overwhelming for a while. If recruiting picks up then maybe.

(05-04-2013 10:39 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 09:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  If Rutgers had to play Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa (some years), Purdue all the time then yes they should be successful. The problem is they were put into a division with Michigan, Mich St, Penn St, and Ohio State. The BIG is also going to 9 league games. This puts Rutgers behind the 8-ball big time. At least at 8 league games, they could schedule some patsies to get to bowl eligibility. With the new divisional setup and 9 league games, I'm not sure they'll consistently be bowl eligible.

I agree, let's look at it.

Rutgers vs Ohio State. Giving them a loss for this one. 0-1
Rutgers vs Michigan. Giving them another loss for this one. 0-2
Rutgers vs Penn State. Toss up, initially they might even get an early win in this series. Giving them a win just to show potential. 1-2
Rutgers vs Michigan State. Another toss up, I think it is a winnable game so I will give them a win even though they definitely wont win this all the time. 2-2
Rutgers vs Maryland. 3-2
Rutgers vs Indiana. They won't always win this but its possible so... 4-2.

Where it really gets questionable is how does the Big Ten spread out the scheduling against them since that game will be a hot commodity for the Western teams. I guarantee you schools like Iowa want that game and they don't necessarily want it to be a home game. They want to be seen over there. Rutgers could end up with some very favorable out of division schedules.

I have them at 4-2 above, add on a 2-1 from out of division and that makes for a 6-3 conference record. That is an incredibly positive outlook on it, I realize that but it's just one scenario. It is possible that Rutgers and Maryland could have good years going forward, Rutgers sooner than Maryland most likely due to their program being at a peak right now.

I don't think people are crunching the numbers enough and doing comparisons. I think it is very possible that Rutgers represents the Big Ten in a Bowl game in it's inaugural season.

But that's my point. In order for them to be bowl eligible, they are going to have to beat Maryland, Indiana, and at least one of the other 4 EVERY year. It will also depend on who they are matched with on the other side (3 games)..that would be against Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern. If they got Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...how many wins are there??

The margin of error for Maryland and Rutgers is razor thin. It's quite possible the winner of this game is the only one that becomes bowl eligible. It's also quite possible that neither do.

Yeah, but it's possible! They will land a better bowl in the Big Ten at 7-5 then they did this past season with a 9-3 record. They will also have all the other positives of being in the Big Ten. Are you now arguing that this is a bad move for Rutgers? You are kind of losing me here bud.

If your point is that it is bad for the Big Ten if Rutgers doesn't go to a Bowl often, then why is that bad for the conference? After all, Maryland and Rutgers are replacing some OOC games for Big Ten schools, very likely replacements for FCS opponents. You think those schools are upset about Rutgers and Maryland not being juggernauts?

They will have decent programs that have strong years and weak years just like many other Big Ten programs.

My point is they didn't improve the product. When the ACC added Pitt, ND, Louisville, Syracuse it improved the product in football and basketball. When A&M/Missouri went to the SEC, it improved both sports. A&M for football and Missouri basketball.

The Pac10 is still paying for getting Colorado and Utah who have done nothing for the league. I see the BIG getting Maryland and Rutgers in a similar light.

You think Missouri "improved" the SEC in basketball? They finished 5th in the league and lost their first game in the NCAA tournament. Colorado finished 5th in the Pac-12 and lost their first game in the NCAA tournament. The season before that, Colorado won the Pac-12 tournament and won a game in the NCAA tournament. CU is preseason top 25 for next year. Missouri, not so much.

(05-04-2013 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:39 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I agree, let's look at it.

Rutgers vs Ohio State. Giving them a loss for this one. 0-1
Rutgers vs Michigan. Giving them another loss for this one. 0-2
Rutgers vs Penn State. Toss up, initially they might even get an early win in this series. Giving them a win just to show potential. 1-2
Rutgers vs Michigan State. Another toss up, I think it is a winnable game so I will give them a win even though they definitely wont win this all the time. 2-2
Rutgers vs Maryland. 3-2
Rutgers vs Indiana. They won't always win this but its possible so... 4-2.

Where it really gets questionable is how does the Big Ten spread out the scheduling against them since that game will be a hot commodity for the Western teams. I guarantee you schools like Iowa want that game and they don't necessarily want it to be a home game. They want to be seen over there. Rutgers could end up with some very favorable out of division schedules.

I have them at 4-2 above, add on a 2-1 from out of division and that makes for a 6-3 conference record. That is an incredibly positive outlook on it, I realize that but it's just one scenario. It is possible that Rutgers and Maryland could have good years going forward, Rutgers sooner than Maryland most likely due to their program being at a peak right now.

I don't think people are crunching the numbers enough and doing comparisons. I think it is very possible that Rutgers represents the Big Ten in a Bowl game in it's inaugural season.

But that's my point. In order for them to be bowl eligible, they are going to have to beat Maryland, Indiana, and at least one of the other 4 EVERY year. It will also depend on who they are matched with on the other side (3 games)..that would be against Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern. If they got Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...how many wins are there??

The margin of error for Maryland and Rutgers is razor thin. It's quite possible the winner of this game is the only one that becomes bowl eligible. It's also quite possible that neither do.

Yeah, but it's possible! They will land a better bowl in the Big Ten at 7-5 then they did this past season with a 9-3 record. They will also have all the other positives of being in the Big Ten. Are you now arguing that this is a bad move for Rutgers? You are kind of losing me here bud.

If your point is that it is bad for the Big Ten if Rutgers doesn't go to a Bowl often, then why is that bad for the conference? After all, Maryland and Rutgers are replacing some OOC games for Big Ten schools, very likely replacements for FCS opponents. You think those schools are upset about Rutgers and Maryland not being juggernauts?

They will have decent programs that have strong years and weak years just like many other Big Ten programs.

My point is they didn't improve the product. When the ACC added Pitt, ND, Louisville, Syracuse it improved the product in football and basketball. When A&M/Missouri went to the SEC, it improved both sports. A&M for football and Missouri basketball.

The Pac10 is still paying for getting Colorado and Utah who have done nothing for the league. I see the BIG getting Maryland and Rutgers in a similar light.

You think Missouri "improved" the SEC in basketball? They finished 5th in the league and lost their first game in the NCAA tournament. Colorado finished 5th in the Pac-12 and lost their first game in the NCAA tournament. The season before that, Colorado won the Pac-12 tournament and won a game in the NCAA tournament. CU is preseason top 25 for next year. Missouri, not so much.

That's what Missouri was supposed to do. Missouri is basketball first which the SEC needed more of. Missou had a bad year. It happens. Colorado had a good year in basketball but Colorado is not a basketball school. They are a football school and they've been terrible.

(05-04-2013 11:00 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  A&M will be a tough comparison because they changed coaches as well. They could have won the Big 12 last year for all we know.

You are right. We haven't see Rutgers and Maryland compete in the BIG. I have seen Maryland compete in the ACC for many years, and they struggle with consistency. That is why I have low faith in them. At least A&M had proven they could be good in the SWC and Big 12. Maryland hasn't proven jack. Rutgers could be decent but I think the stage will be overwhelming for a while. If recruiting picks up then maybe.

Yeah, well we may find that Maryland is able to fare better against the footbal played in the Big Ten. Like you just said, we cant really make comparisons when the PAC and SEC schools have played a season in those conferences yet Rutgers and Maryland have yet to play a Big Ten schedule.

I can certainly understand why people will doubt but football is essentially a gladiatorial sport. Programs rise and fall. Rutgers and Maryland's destinies are in their own hands, fate is not involved.

A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

I watched Cuse beat WV like a drum in the Pinstripe Bowl and tie for the BE title with Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy.

Pitt didn't fare so well but they were bowl eligible. We'll see what Chryst can do against more desirable competition.

I did see a Rutgers team (1st place BE) get beat by a bad VT team who finished 4th in the Coastal DIVISION.

(05-04-2013 11:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

I watched Cuse beat WV like a drum in the Pinstripe Bowl and tie for the BE title with Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy.

Pitt didn't fare so well but they were bowl eligible. We'll see what Chryst can do against more desirable competition.

I did see a Rutgers team (1st place BE) get beat by a bad VT team who finished 4th in the Coastal DIVISION.

Chryst needs to keep his players away from drug dealers before he starts worrying about what happens on the field...

(05-04-2013 11:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

I watched Cuse beat WV like a drum in the Pinstripe Bowl and tie for the BE title with Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy.

Pitt didn't fare so well but they were bowl eligible. We'll see what Chryst can do against more desirable competition.

I did see a Rutgers team (1st place BE) get beat by a bad VT team who finished 4th in the Coastal DIVISION.

Guess you must have missed the Rutgers game against Louisville where Louisville barely squeezed out a win against them before going on to beat a Nationally Acclaimed Florida team.

(05-04-2013 01:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

I watched Cuse beat WV like a drum in the Pinstripe Bowl and tie for the BE title with Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy.

Pitt didn't fare so well but they were bowl eligible. We'll see what Chryst can do against more desirable competition.

I did see a Rutgers team (1st place BE) get beat by a bad VT team who finished 4th in the Coastal DIVISION.

Guess you must have missed the Rutgers game against Louisville where Louisville barely squeezed out a win against them before going on to beat a Nationally Acclaimed Florida team.

So you judge by one game? C. Michigan better than Iowa, right?

(05-04-2013 11:08 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:02 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:39 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:19 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:04 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  But that's my point. In order for them to be bowl eligible, they are going to have to beat Maryland, Indiana, and at least one of the other 4 EVERY year. It will also depend on who they are matched with on the other side (3 games)..that would be against Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern. If they got Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...how many wins are there??

The margin of error for Maryland and Rutgers is razor thin. It's quite possible the winner of this game is the only one that becomes bowl eligible. It's also quite possible that neither do.

Yeah, but it's possible! They will land a better bowl in the Big Ten at 7-5 then they did this past season with a 9-3 record. They will also have all the other positives of being in the Big Ten. Are you now arguing that this is a bad move for Rutgers? You are kind of losing me here bud.

If your point is that it is bad for the Big Ten if Rutgers doesn't go to a Bowl often, then why is that bad for the conference? After all, Maryland and Rutgers are replacing some OOC games for Big Ten schools, very likely replacements for FCS opponents. You think those schools are upset about Rutgers and Maryland not being juggernauts?

They will have decent programs that have strong years and weak years just like many other Big Ten programs.

My point is they didn't improve the product. When the ACC added Pitt, ND, Louisville, Syracuse it improved the product in football and basketball. When A&M/Missouri went to the SEC, it improved both sports. A&M for football and Missouri basketball.

The Pac10 is still paying for getting Colorado and Utah who have done nothing for the league. I see the BIG getting Maryland and Rutgers in a similar light.

You think Missouri "improved" the SEC in basketball? They finished 5th in the league and lost their first game in the NCAA tournament. Colorado finished 5th in the Pac-12 and lost their first game in the NCAA tournament. The season before that, Colorado won the Pac-12 tournament and won a game in the NCAA tournament. CU is preseason top 25 for next year. Missouri, not so much.

That's what Missouri was supposed to do. Missouri is basketball first which the SEC needed more of. Missou had a bad year. It happens. Colorado had a good year in basketball but Colorado is not a basketball school. They are a football school and they've been terrible.

Actually losing in the 1st round is what Missouri is supposed to do. They've made a habit of it. They are the school that's been in the NCAA the most times w/o ever making a final 4 and typically they are 1 and done.

(05-04-2013 10:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 08:29 AM)Maize Wrote:  ...so much for the "so-called" Big 4...no as Arute stated it is the SEC and then the B1G.

Myself, I see no real difference between the ACC & Big XII and going forward the $$$$ is going to be around the same....just found his statement interesting...

Sorry, "the $$$$ is [not] going to be around the same," but still very good....

B1G is making a projected gross of $310

PAC -----------------------------$303

ACC ----------------------------$293

SEC -----------------------------$270

B12 -----------------------------$262

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/16/401...-list.html

You are correct. The numbers aren't the same.

Big 10 12 schools $25.8 million per School

PAC 12 12 schools $ 25.25 million per School

ACC 14 schools $20.9 million per School

SEC 14 schools $19.3 million per School

Big 12 10 schools $26.2 million per School

(05-04-2013 01:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

I watched Cuse beat WV like a drum in the Pinstripe Bowl and tie for the BE title with Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy.

Pitt didn't fare so well but they were bowl eligible. We'll see what Chryst can do against more desirable competition.

I did see a Rutgers team (1st place BE) get beat by a bad VT team who finished 4th in the Coastal DIVISION.

Guess you must have missed the Rutgers game against Louisville where Louisville barely squeezed out a win against them before going on to beat a Nationally Acclaimed Florida team.

Keep in mind Bridgewater did not start that game (due to a broken wrist and a sore hip), but came off the bench in the second half to rally the Cardinals.

I do, however, agree with your overall point. Many thought Miami would own the ACC while BC would be a complete and utter dog, but that isn't what happened.

Like most things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

Lately? How about since 2010? Rutgers is 22-16 since 2010 playing a very soft OOC schedule and Syracuse is 21-17 since 2010 playing a much tougher OOC schedule. Rutgers is 1-1 in bowls, while SU is 2-0 in bowls.
Rutgers is 2-1 head to head the last 3 years.

(05-04-2013 02:50 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 08:29 AM)Maize Wrote:  ...so much for the "so-called" Big 4...no as Arute stated it is the SEC and then the B1G.

Myself, I see no real difference between the ACC & Big XII and going forward the $$$$ is going to be around the same....just found his statement interesting...

Sorry, "the $$$$ is [not] going to be around the same," but still very good....

B1G is making a projected gross of $310

PAC -----------------------------$303

ACC ----------------------------$293

SEC -----------------------------$270

B12 -----------------------------$262

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/16/401...-list.html

You are correct. The numbers aren't the same.

Big 10 12 schools $25.8 million per School

PAC 12 12 schools $ 25.25 million per School

ACC 14 schools $20.9 million per School

SEC 14 schools $19.3 million per School

Big 12 10 schools $26.2 million per School

1. The Kansas City article was done in Jamuary...a lot has changed since them especially with the advent of the SEC Network & the ACC Media Rework....the two key words that I said and got overlooked was "Going Forward".

2. Like a previous poster said earlier in this thread who is not a "ACC Fanboy"...if Swofford & ESPN get an ACC Network off the ground it really becomes a mute point.

In the end....all 5 Contract Leagues are going to bring in $$$ that would have been laughed @ as being unrealistic even 2 years ago...

(05-04-2013 03:26 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 02:50 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 08:29 AM)Maize Wrote:  ...so much for the "so-called" Big 4...no as Arute stated it is the SEC and then the B1G.

Myself, I see no real difference between the ACC & Big XII and going forward the $$$$ is going to be around the same....just found his statement interesting...

Sorry, "the $$$$ is [not] going to be around the same," but still very good....

B1G is making a projected gross of $310

PAC -----------------------------$303

ACC ----------------------------$293

SEC -----------------------------$270

B12 -----------------------------$262

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/16/401...-list.html

You are correct. The numbers aren't the same.

Big 10 12 schools $25.8 million per School

PAC 12 12 schools $ 25.25 million per School

ACC 14 schools $20.9 million per School

SEC 14 schools $19.3 million per School

Big 12 10 schools $26.2 million per School

1. The Kansas City article was done in Jamuary...a lot has changed since them especially with the advent of the SEC Network & the ACC Media Rework....the two key words that I said and got overlooked was "Going Forward".

2. Like a previous poster said earlier in this thread who is not a "ACC Fanboy"...if Swofford & ESPN get an ACC Network off the ground it really becomes a mute point.

In the end....all 5 Contract Leagues are going to bring in $$$ that would have been laughed @ as being unrealistic even 2 years ago...

It's laughable and at the same time sad at the difference in $$$ the BIG 5 are/and will be making when compared to the mid-majors. I know the AAC is only getting about $2 mil per school. Moreover, I read in another thread that the MAC and SBC schools are getting about $40,000 each (anybody please correct me if these amounts are wrong)....

(05-04-2013 03:03 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

Lately? How about since 2010? Rutgers is 22-16 since 2010 playing a very soft OOC schedule and Syracuse is 21-17 since 2010 playing a much tougher OOC schedule. Rutgers is 1-1 in bowls, while SU is 2-0 in bowls.
Rutgers is 2-1 head to head the last 3 years.

Seriously, Rutgers isn't any good. Anyone who has followed them knows how they're not just bad historically but one of the worst programs in the history of FBS. You can't compare them to Pitt or Syracuse because of a couple of 8-4 seasons. Pitt was a good team under Wannstedt but they made some bad coaching decisions so they've gone .500 the last two years which really isn't that bad considering the turmoil. Chryst will turn it around.

(05-04-2013 03:37 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 03:26 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 02:50 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 08:29 AM)Maize Wrote:  ...so much for the "so-called" Big 4...no as Arute stated it is the SEC and then the B1G.

Myself, I see no real difference between the ACC & Big XII and going forward the $$$$ is going to be around the same....just found his statement interesting...

Sorry, "the $$$$ is [not] going to be around the same," but still very good....

B1G is making a projected gross of $310

PAC -----------------------------$303

ACC ----------------------------$293

SEC -----------------------------$270

B12 -----------------------------$262

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/16/401...-list.html

You are correct. The numbers aren't the same.

Big 10 12 schools $25.8 million per School

PAC 12 12 schools $ 25.25 million per School

ACC 14 schools $20.9 million per School

SEC 14 schools $19.3 million per School

Big 12 10 schools $26.2 million per School

1. The Kansas City article was done in Jamuary...a lot has changed since them especially with the advent of the SEC Network & the ACC Media Rework....the two key words that I said and got overlooked was "Going Forward".

2. Like a previous poster said earlier in this thread who is not a "ACC Fanboy"...if Swofford & ESPN get an ACC Network off the ground it really becomes a mute point.

In the end....all 5 Contract Leagues are going to bring in $$$ that would have been laughed @ as being unrealistic even 2 years ago...

It's laughable and at the same time sad at the difference in $$$ the BIG 5 are/and will be making when compared to the mid-majors. I know the AAC is only getting about $2 mil per school. Moreover, I read in another thread that the MAC and SBC schools are getting about $40,000 each (anybody please correct me if these amounts are wrong)....

Man...I feel ya. That why I just shake my head @ who is the #3 or who is #5...in the end you are making more $$$$ per school then entire leagues and that is sad & a little scary.

Even though my school got the last lifeline into a Contract League and large part of myself is still with the BIG EAST/AAC. I know what it like being on the other side and I hope in the end you guys can and compete on the field with the Contract Leagues.

(05-04-2013 08:29 AM)Maize Wrote:  ...so much for the "so-called" Big 4...no as Arute stated it is the SEC and then the B1G.

Myself, I see no real difference between the ACC & Big XII and going forward the $$$$ is going to be around the same....just found his statement interesting...

Well, when Arute reports that the ACC has replaced the B12 in the Sugar Bowl, maybe he'll be on to something?

(05-04-2013 03:48 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 03:37 PM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 03:26 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 02:50 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 10:36 AM)Underdog Wrote:  Sorry, "the $$$$ is [not] going to be around the same," but still very good....

B1G is making a projected gross of $310

PAC -----------------------------$303

ACC ----------------------------$293

SEC -----------------------------$270

B12 -----------------------------$262

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/16/401...-list.html

You are correct. The numbers aren't the same.

Big 10 12 schools $25.8 million per School

PAC 12 12 schools $ 25.25 million per School

ACC 14 schools $20.9 million per School

SEC 14 schools $19.3 million per School

Big 12 10 schools $26.2 million per School

1. The Kansas City article was done in Jamuary...a lot has changed since them especially with the advent of the SEC Network & the ACC Media Rework....the two key words that I said and got overlooked was "Going Forward".

2. Like a previous poster said earlier in this thread who is not a "ACC Fanboy"...if Swofford & ESPN get an ACC Network off the ground it really becomes a mute point.

In the end....all 5 Contract Leagues are going to bring in $$$ that would have been laughed @ as being unrealistic even 2 years ago...

It's laughable and at the same time sad at the difference in $$$ the BIG 5 are/and will be making when compared to the mid-majors. I know the AAC is only getting about $2 mil per school. Moreover, I read in another thread that the MAC and SBC schools are getting about $40,000 each (anybody please correct me if these amounts are wrong)....

Man...I feel ya. That why I just shake my head @ who is the #3 or who is #5...in the end you are making more $$$$ per school then entire leagues and that is sad & a little scary.

Even though my school got the last lifeline into a Contract League and large part of myself is still with the BIG EAST/AAC. I know what it like being on the other side and I hope in the end you guys can and compete on the field with the Contract Leagues.

Thanks for the BIG EAST/AAC sentiment.... Louisville would have eventually been given a lifeline by the B12 if the ACC hadn't come to its rescue in my opinion. I think the B12 realizes the serious mistake it made by not taking Louisville along with WVU.

(05-04-2013 02:56 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 01:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:43 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-04-2013 11:33 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  A UNC fan talking about Rutgers being bad at FB? Really? Also has he watched Cuse or Pitt FB lately?

I watched Cuse beat WV like a drum in the Pinstripe Bowl and tie for the BE title with Rutgers, Louisville, and Cincy.

Pitt didn't fare so well but they were bowl eligible. We'll see what Chryst can do against more desirable competition.

I did see a Rutgers team (1st place BE) get beat by a bad VT team who finished 4th in the Coastal DIVISION.

Guess you must have missed the Rutgers game against Louisville where Louisville barely squeezed out a win against them before going on to beat a Nationally Acclaimed Florida team.

Keep in mind Bridgewater did not start that game (due to a broken wrist and a sore hip), but came off the bench in the second half to rally the Cardinals.

I do, however, agree with your overall point. Many thought Miami would own the ACC while BC would be a complete and utter dog, but that isn't what happened.

Like most things, time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Exactly, we can make educated guesses as to how the future will progress but these outcomes are never predictable. There are far too many variables.