Why stop at 10 years when we started in 1993...and West Virginia won it.

AACardFan Wrote:Obviously Miami was far the better of the two. Overall, I'd still say Va Tech was 2nd best. Certainly if Miami didn't have to go through the turmoil of NCAA sanctions, then they would likely have won those years, too.

VT was Pitt's ***** for the last 3 years they were in the BE. Second best my butt.

You're getting mired in an irrelevant tangent. The point is the new Big East has something to prove before it gets any respect in the media. Agree or disagree?

But for the record, here are the # of BE conference wins recorded by each team from 1993-2003 and the average order of finish. Obviously I didn't count 2004 because Miami and Va Tech had already left. But even if you did count the wins in 2004, which would give Miami and Va Tech zero, they still have more overall wins than any other BE team. Argue with these numbers if you like, but I got them from the Big East Conference website.

TEAM____# wins_______ Average Order of finish
Miami_____65____________1.64
Va Tech___55____________2.36
Syracuse__47____________3.18
W. Va_____47____________3.18
BC_______37 ____________3.36
Pitt_______34____________4.55
Temple____13____________6.73
Rutgers____11____________7.18

I certainly don't have 10 years of who beat whom in BE play to recite, but it certainly looks to me like Miami and Va Tech finished, on average, at the top of the league.

Those numbers seem to be a little off. I had always heard that VT and SU were tied for second most wins in the BE. And its also interesting that Vt only won 1 BE title outright. And that was with Vick.

I don't dispute that the NBE has plenty to prove in the eyes of many people. My point is that the only real loss was Miami. We don't have a team of that caliber yet. Louisville, Syracuse, WVU, or Pitt could become that team. We have 3 teams; Pitt, WVU & Louisville that are all at the same caliber of VT or better. The loss of Miami is what is hurting the NBE's rep. VT didn't help but by itself it would be no big deal.

SP,
Your post was in reference to VT, "2nd best my butt." I was pointing out that they indeed were 2nd best. I believe if VT were still part of the BE, then there would be no talk of the future relationship of BCS and the BE. Yes, the conference was mostly weakened by the departure of Miami, but losing the #2 team in VT also hurt. Perhaps PITT owned VT for the last 3 years, but Pitt has been a mediocre team since the inception of the BE as evidenced by their record. My point remains: This conference has a lot to prove.

cuseroc Wrote:Those numbers seem to be a little off.  I had always heard that VT and SU were tied for second most wins in the BE.  And its also interesting that Vt only won 1 BE title outright. And that was with Vick.

Don't take my word for it. Visit the Big East website archives for yourself...

<a href='http://bigeast.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/m-footbl-records.html' target='_blank'>http://bigeast.collegesports.com/sports/m-...bl-records.html</a>

From the looks of it, VT was more consistent from year to year. Syracuse, WVA at Pitt were on roller coaster rides.

AACardFan Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:Those numbers seem to be a little off.&nbsp; I had always heard that VT and SU were tied for second most wins in the BE.&nbsp; And its also interesting that Vt only won 1 BE title outright. And that was with Vick.

Don't take my word for it. Visit the Big East website archives for yourself...

<a href='http://bigeast.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/m-footbl-records.html' target='_blank'>http://bigeast.collegesports.com/sports/m-...bl-records.html</a>

From the looks of it, VT was more consistent from year to year. Syracuse, WVA at Pitt were on roller coaster rides.

Thanks for providing the link. I counted 58 BE victories for SU, as opposed to 57 for VT since the BE formed in 1991. My numbers could be off, but I went over them twice.

Also, sorry but SU was not on that rollercoaster that you speak of. We have only had 1 losing season in 18 years. Going 6-6 the last 3 years is not good for SU. Also SU has gone to 2 BCS games during the time that Miami and VT were in the BE as opposed to VT going once.

I started from the 1993 season. Remember, the statement that got this whole issue started was "over the last 10 years." If you want to look at the success of teams another ten years back, then Syracuse would stand out much better.

Curiously, Temple has a better conference record than Rutgers over that period, yet Rutgers will remain.

AACardFan Wrote:I started from the 1993 season.

Curiously, Temple has a better conference record than Rutgers over that period, yet Rutgers will remain.

good point. But i think rutgers puts more rumps in the seats, not to mention part of the NYC market. Who knows what goes on in the minds of the leaders of major college fb.

Quote:AACardFan Posted on Aug 6 2005, 07:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SP,
Your post was in reference to VT, "2nd best my butt." I was pointing out that they indeed were 2nd best. I believe if VT were still part of the BE, then there would be no talk of the future relationship of BCS and the BE. Yes, the conference was mostly weakened by the departure of Miami, but losing the #2 team in VT also hurt. Perhaps PITT owned VT for the last 3 years, but Pitt has been a mediocre team since the inception of the BE as evidenced by their record. My point remains: This conference has a lot to prove.&nbsp;

Your statement that got you into trouble was that Miami and VT 'ruled' the BE for a decade. Do a similar analysis of FSU and the ACC during that same ten year period and you will see a single team that 'rules' a conference for over a decade.

And thanks for stating the obvious about the "BE" needing to prove itself. But that has always been true of the BE, even when we had such 'ruling' elite programs as Miami and VT. :rolleyes:

No, Shannon Panther has it right. Miami is the true loss in terms of powerhouse teams. Louisville will easily replace VT. Pitt, SU, and WVU will collectively be better over the next three years then the three have been prior in BE history (it always seemed that when one of them was good, the other two were down). UConn will surpass BC in about 5 years. Cincinnati, USF, and Rutgers will be better than Pitt, Rutgers, and Temple were in the 90s.

Top to bottom, the BE will be much better than the 'old BE' ever was and still the BE will be slighted because it won't have a Miami.

That's life in college football. And in the age of the super-conferences it's getting to be you need two Miamis, not just one.

Cheers,
Neil

omnicarrier Wrote:And thanks for stating the obvious about the "BE" needing to prove itself. But that has always been true of the BE, even when we had such 'ruling' elite programs as Miami and VT. :rolleyes:

It isn't so obvious to a lot of people who are complaining about being slighted by the analysts.

Quote:AACardFan Posted on Aug 7 2005, 07:52 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote: (omnicarrier @ Aug 6 2005, 08:18 PM)
And thanks for stating the obvious about the "BE" needing to prove itself. But that has always been true of the BE, even when we had such 'ruling' elite programs as Miami and VT.&nbsp;

It isn't so obvious to a lot of people who are complaining about being slighted by the analysts.

You aren't listening, or if you are, you are not comprehending.

Even when we had Miami ruling the nation, the BE conference itself still took a beating. Even though teams like Syracuse, VT, and WVU were 'winning' as well. It was Miami and the 7 dwarfs as far as the media was concerned. The only team to even make a breakthrough in that just a little was VT, thanks to Vick.

So, simply 'winning' isn't the answer. And the resentment you hear are fans venting their frustration because they are simply tired of the bashing and the same rules not applying to other conferences such as the ACC.

You do know that the ACC is 1-6 in BCS Bowls games, right? Yet no one is saying the ACC has to 'win' to prove itself. This only applies to the BE - and it has always been this way, even when Miami was a member.

So the fans of the 'old guard' BE teams know the bashing will continue regardless of whether we win or not.

Cheers,
Neil

Miami was respected because it was competitive nationally every year (save for the years of NCAA sanctions). The other BE teams were only sporadically competitive. Syracuse used to be consistent, but fell from grace a few years back.

So when I say these teams need to win in order to gain respect, I mean they need to win consistently year-in and year-out (like Miami) and against top-notch competition. We need to win every OOC game we play.

I have nothing to add regarding the ACC. I agree that they were (until recently) overrated as a conference. I've never understood why the analysts drool over Virginia and Georgia Tech. Those teams are still a notch below WVA and Syracus IMO.