The MWC is never going to over take the big east. the premise of that whole document is that the newly configured big east will fail. i can guarantee u that between West Virginia, Louisville, Pitt, and Syracuse one of those four teams will always be in the top 12. Further, i can almost guarantee u that there will be 2 more teams from the big east in the top 25 on a yearly basis. the new big east is going to be successful. the mwc will never take the big east's bcs autobid. hell, the bcs committee has almost guranteed the big east's automatic bid by throwing in attendance and most importantly market size.

lastly, the there is no way that the northeast is going to left out of the bcs picture. it's just too big of a tv market. i don't know who did all that research but The New Big East is one of 6th best conferences period. Not the MWC. Albeit Utah did beat Pitt last year but that is only one year. Even if MWC add Boise and Fresno St, I still feel that the New Big East is more stout. and it will be proven.

Being objective here...there is no question the MWC champ was better than any team in the BE last year.

However, that is the first time that the MWC has had the top non-BCS team since the BCS was started in what, 1998 I think.

As for overall conference strength, which they are looking at, the MWC only had 3 teams that were even bowl eligible last year. The rest of the conference was VERY weak. And yes I know you did not have a team as bad as an ECU or Army for example, but the BE had at least 4 teams that were all much better than anything the MWC could have offered up as their #2 team. 1 of those 4 is now gone but UofL more than replaces BC as 1 of those 4 teams. Heck, while they are down this coming year likely, I think UC would have been MWC #2 last year. The drop off from Utah was like the Grand Canyon.

CollegeCard Wrote:Being objective here...there is no question the MWC champ was better than any team in the BE last year.

However, that is the first time that the MWC has had the top non-BCS team since the BCS was started in what, 1998 I think.

As for overall conference strength, which they are looking at, the MWC only had 3 teams that were even bowl eligible last year. The rest of the conference was VERY weak. And yes I know you did not have a team as bad as an ECU or Army for example, but the BE had at least 4 teams that were all much better than anything the MWC could have offered up as their #2 team. 1 of those 4 is now gone but UofL more than replaces BC as 1 of those 4 teams. Heck, while they are down this coming year likely, I think UC would have been MWC #2 last year. The drop off from Utah was like the Grand Canyon.

Hell, I think Navy is STILL DRIVING on New Mexico.

Exactly about Utah, though I still believe Louisville was as good as Utah and that West Virginia could have given Utah fits. That being said, Utah was the only thing that made the MWC look anything at all like a BCS-caliber conference, and that team has been completely gutted. 5 of their 8 teams (6 of 9 if you count TCU, which you have to), had losing record. Yeah, they had down years, but so did many of the New Big East schools.

And Utah's coach has packed his bags and headed east! He saw the MWC potential! :wave: :wave: :wave:

The MWC is not a great conference. Last year, they did have a great team being coached by a great coach. Any win by Utah over a BE opponent certainly does not indicate the MWC is anywhere near the depth of the BE.

In my mind, Utah was arguably the 2nd best team in the country, perhaps the best.

They did not take the easy road last year (read the MWC). They played 4 bcs conference teams and defeated them all. Only one of those 4 had a losing record.

They beat North Carolina (by 30 pts) who defeated Miami and only lost to VT by 3.

They beat TX A&M (by 20 pts) who only lost to Oklahoma by 7.

USC beat OKLA by 36 incidentally.

Let's see. UT + 20 on A&M -7 for OKLA. Could UT have beaten OKLA by 13? We'll never know. UTAH has nothing to be ashamed of and neither does the Bigeast.

Had UT played in the BE, they probably could have won it. At the same time, only 2 of the 7 BE teams had losing records. It would have been harder than the MWC; that's a given. Why? because the BE is a much tougher conference.

For most teams, playing PITT, BC, WV, SYR, RUTGERS, CONN, TEMPLE would yield more losses than playing AIR FORCE, BYU, CO ST, UNLV, NM, SAN DIEGO ST, AND WY. Last year, it might not have made any difference to Utah, but let's be serious here, the BE is a much tougher road.



:wave:

JIM15068 Wrote:For most teams, playing PITT, BC, WV, SYR, RUTGERS, CONN, TEMPLE would yield more losses than playing AIR FORCE, BYU, CO ST, UNLV, NM, SAN DIEGO ST, AND WY. Last year, it might not have made any difference to Utah, but let's be serious here, the BE is a much tougher road.



:wave:

No kidding. While UTAH is a great team last year, the MWC is nowhere near the conference BE is. PITT was tied along with 3 other teams for the top spot for the conference. BE could have sent WVU to the BCS game instead of PITT. PITT was a decent team last year, but I would argue they were not the best in the BE last year. I seriously thought WVU had a better chance.

In the long run, I think BE has way more upside than MWC. I think the BE has to add one team for scheduling purposes, but it has to be a worthy team. I dont see any team worthy of an invite right now. I like Fresno and Boise, but both are way too far for an invitation. Teams with best chance of invite are ECU and UCF. However, both have to prove themselves on the FB field before being discussed as a possible team.