I think it would be good to start a thread using actual facts and on-field results against ESPiN's aggressive BE smear campaign. I realize most people don't know many of the data points, so this could be a thread that list as many as possible to counter against ESPiN's BE smear campaign. We got a weak leader who is afraid to speak the facts so we fans have to do it on the grass root level.

Taken from the UCONN board:

Quote:Just for S&G's I looked at the final 2012 cumulative computer rankings for all the teams, placing them in their new (or soon to be new) leagues. So this has Memphis, Navy, SDSU, etc... in the BE, WVU and TCU in the B12, TAM and Mizzou in the SEC and SyraPitt in the ACC. Averaging out all of the rankings for each conference from 2012 season, anyone care to guess who finishes in the Big 5? Any guesses on who is not in the Big 5? Anyone, anyone???

#1 B12 (avarage ranking of 30.4)
#2 SEC (average ranking of 33.5)
#3 B1G (average ranking of 48)
#4 P12 (average ranking of 50.5)
#5 BE (average ranking of 56)
#6 ACC (average ranking of 59.1)

The average ranking of 2 teams leaving the BE to join the ACC (SyraPitt) was 73. The average ranking of the 7 teams joining the BE was 58.5.

Doesn't change the fact that the perception of the BE is a dog, but even factoring Memphis (ranked 117) into the BE, the league still averages a higher ranking than the ACC. Does it matter in TV contracts, media attention, etc... no, absolutely not, but the league did get better on the field, you just won't hear anyone talking about it on TV. Our interim commissioner should have been prepared to slam ESPiN or anyone else he spoke to with these FACTS. He did not.

Excellent write up by an UCONN fan:

http://stholeary.blogspot.com/2012/07/do...4156519390

More facts from the UCONN board:

Quote:Games vs. major conference opponents: 2002-2004:

Louisville: Kentucky 17-22 (2002), Duke 40-3 (2002), Florida State 26-20 (2002), Kentucky 40-24 (2003), Syracuse 30-20 (2003), Temple 21-12 (2003), Kentucky 28-0 (2004), UNC 34-0 (2004), Miami 38-41 (2004) 7-2, although only two quality wins in the whole group, over FSU and Syracuse, and both of them lost 6 games the year Louisville beat them. Kentucky didn't suck in 2002 either.

Cincinnati: WVU 32-35 (2002), Ohio State 19-23 (2002), Temple 35-22 (2002), WVU 15-13 (2003), Temple 30-24 (2003), Ohio State 6-27 (2004), Syracuse 7-19 (2004) 3-4 with one quality win over WVU.

South Florida: Arkansas 3-42 (2002), Oklahoma 14-31 (2002), Alabama 17-40 (2003), South Carolina 3-34 (2004), Pitt 14-23 (2004). 0-5.

Overall, 10-11 with 4 quality wins and 6 wins over Temple, Duke and bad UNC and Kentucky teams.

Games vs. majors: 2009-2011:

Boise: Oregon 19-8 (2009), TCU 17-10 (2009), Virginia Tech 33-30 (2010), Oregon State 37-24 (2010), Utah 26-3 (2010), Georgia 35-21 (2011), TCU 35-36 (2011), Arizona State 56-24 (2011). 7-1, with every win on this list better than any win by the 3 additions from 2005.

San Diego State: UCLA 14-33 (2009), TCU 12-55 (2009), Utah 7-38 (2009), Missouri 24-27 (2010), TCU 35-40 (2010), Utah 34-38 (2010), Washington State 42-24 (2011), Michigan 7-28 (2011), TCU 14-27 (2011). 1-8, with most of them blowout losses until 2010.

Houston: Oklahoma State 45-35 (2009), Texas Tech 29-28 (2009), Mississippi State 31-24 (2009), UCLA 13-31 (2010), Mississippi State 24-47 (2010), Texas Tech 20-35 (2010), UCLA 38-34 (2011), Penn State 30-14 (2011). 5-3, with 3 very high quality wins.

SMU: Washington State 27-30 (2009), TCU 14-39 (2009), Texas Tech 27-35 (2010), TCU 24-41 (2009), Washington State 35-21 (2010), Texas A&M 14-46 (2011), TCU 40-33 (2011), Pitt 28-6 (2011). 3-5 with a great win over TCU.

Central Florida: Miami 7-27 (2009), Rutgers 24-45 (2009), NC State 21-28 (2010), Kansas State 13-17 (2010), Georgia 10-6 (2010), Boston College 30-3 (2011). 2-4, with a good win over Georgia.

Temple: Penn State 6-31 (2009), UCLA 21-30 (2009), UConn 30-16 (2010), Penn State 13-22 (2010), Penn State 10-14 (2011), Maryland 38-7 (2011). 2-4, with win over UConn counting as quality. Really just proved they could beat Edsall.

Memphis: Mississippi 14-45 (2009), Mississippi State 7-49 (2009), Tennessee 28-56 (2009), Louisville 0-56 (2010), Tennessee 14-50 (2010), Mississippi State 14-59 (2011). 0-6 with all blowout losses.

20-31 with 13 of the losses coming from Memphis and SDSU. SDSU has shown they can play with the big boys, they just need to pull out some W's. Temple has played Penn State tough 2 straight years, and is pulling out W's. UCF and SMU are equivalent to middle to bottom half BCS programs. Houston is a top half BCS program and Boise is a powerhouse. Memphis is terrible, and one of the worst teams in FBS.

I am confident that SDSU will be well positioned as we head into the BE. We expect to be contributors, not takers.

They do not care about facts; just spin.

Its has been that way since VT, Miami and BC left.

From my BCS AQ formula post from last month:

Quote:Looking at the first BCS criteria, average ranking of highest ranked team, with 2013 realignment and using the 2008-2011 seasons, we would see:

SEC - 1
XII - 2
PAC - 5
BE - 7
B1G - 8
ACC - 12
MAC - 29
CUSA - 30
All others had at least one year where I could not find a full BCS ranking, but it's really only the top 6 that matter. Note that the BE finishes 4th (thanks mostly to Boise).

The second criteria is rather tedious, but after doing 2 computers for the 2011 season, the average computer rankings for each conference are:

1. XII - 26
2. SEC - 34
3. B1G - 48
4. PAC - 51
5. ACC - 54
6. BE - 59
7. CUSA - 77
8. MAC - 87
9. SBC - 88
10. MWC - 89
11. WAC - 108

Using the point system and conference adjustment factor to judge the 3rd criteria on the past four seasons (2008-2011) with the 2013 realignment:

SEC - 60 points
XII - 60 points (includes 12.5% boost for only 10 teams)
B1G - 41 points
PAC - 36 points
ACC - 23 points
BE - 22 points
BYU - 4 points
MWC - 3 points (includes 12.5% boost for only 10 teams)
CUSA - 1 point
MAC - 1 point
ND, SBC, & WAC - 0 points

So using the BCS AQ criteria, the BE ranks 4th in the first and 6th in each of the second and third, and is a very sizeable gap ahead of 7th in both of those. If BYU is added, the BE ranks 4th, 6th (but closer to 5th), and 5th in the AQ criteria, respectively.

The bottom line is the BE is a power conference according to the BCS' own rules. The BE needs to make sure this message gets out.

Since I didn't finish the computer rankings (even for 2011), we can at least use the 2012 computer rankings from the OP and see that if the Big East adds BYU, then the Big East ranks 4th, 5th, and 5th using the AQ criteria. There are 6 power conferences and the Big East is one of them.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(07-10-2012 12:59 PM)sdsualum Wrote:  I am confident that SDSU will be well positioned as we head into the BE. We expect to be contributors, not takers.

I have little doubt SDSU will be a contributor once in the BE. Look what BE did for programs like USF and Cincy. SDSU has great upside potential in the BE. I have always said BE is like a growth stock and it will continue to grow once we get it together.

Main Fact: We will have multiple parties interested in our broadcast rights.

Who cares? ESPN will continue to throw feces at the Big East no matter how many facts you shove in their face. In six months the Big East will sign on with NBC/Comcast and finally have a public voice to promote the positive aspects of the conference.

Just be patient until then.

Final Highest Ranked BCS Team

2011 BE - 7 (Boise) ACC - 11 (VT)
2010 BE - 10 (Boise) ACC - 13 (VT)
2009 BE - 3 (Cincy) ACC - 9 (GT) NOTE: Boise also finished #6
2008 BE - 9 (Boise) ACC - 14 (GT) NOTE: Cincy also finished #12
2007 BE - 21 (USF) ACC - 3 (VT)
2006 BE - 6 (Louisville) ACC - 14 (Wake Forest) NOTE: Boise at #8
2005 BE - 19 (Louisville) ACC - 8 (Miami)
2004 BE - 9 (Boise) ACC - 8 (VT) NOTE: Louisville also at # 10
2003 BE - 17 (Boise) ACC - 7 (FSU)

5 Yr Avg: BE: 10 ACC: 10 Exact Tie

9 Yr Avg: BE: 11.22 ACC: 9.66 Slight edge to ACC by less than 2 pts.

(07-10-2012 01:09 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  From my BCS AQ formula post from last month:

Quote:Looking at the first BCS criteria, average ranking of highest ranked team, with 2013 realignment and using the 2008-2011 seasons, we would see:

SEC - 1
XII - 2
PAC - 5
BE - 7
B1G - 8
ACC - 12
MAC - 29
CUSA - 30
All others had at least one year where I could not find a full BCS ranking, but it's really only the top 6 that matter. Note that the BE finishes 4th (thanks mostly to Boise).

The second criteria is rather tedious, but after doing 2 computers for the 2008-2011 seasons, the average computer rankings for each conference are:

1. XII - 33
2. SEC - 38
3. B1G - 46
4. PAC - 51
5. ACC - 52
6. BE - 60
7. MWC - 79
8. CUSA - 82
9. MAC - 88
10. SBC - 91
11. WAC - 101

Using the point system and conference adjustment factor to judge the 3rd criteria on the past four seasons (2008-2011) with the 2013 realignment:

SEC - 60 points
XII - 60 points (includes 12.5% boost for only 10 teams)
B1G - 41 points
PAC - 36 points
ACC - 23 points
BE - 22 points
BYU - 4 points
MWC - 3 points (includes 12.5% boost for only 10 teams)
CUSA - 1 point
MAC - 1 point
ND, SBC, & WAC - 0 points

So using the BCS AQ criteria, the BE ranks 4th in the first and 6th in each of the second and third, and is a very sizeable gap ahead of 7th in both of those. If BYU is added, the BE ranks 4th, 6th (but closer to 5th), and 5th in the AQ criteria, respectively.

The bottom line is the BE is a power conference according to the BCS' own rules. The BE needs to make sure this message gets out.

Since I didn't finish the computer rankings (even for 2011), we can at least use the 2012 computer rankings from the OP and see that if the Big East adds BYU, then the Big East ranks 4th, 5th, and 5th using the AQ criteria. There are 6 power conferences and the Big East is one of them.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: I have done two computers for 2008-2011 (Anderson & Colley, I have not found the archives for the others beyond top 25). The Big East finishes 6th in the overall computer rankings, but would have an average ranking of 58 instead of 60 if they could add BYU.

In a sport where perception and tradition is what matters, why would anyone care about this?

Does no good to post things here. You have to send out facts to relevant people. I emailed some of this info to the Orange Bowl director and a few media people

(07-10-2012 12:39 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  More facts from the UCONN board:

Quote:Games vs. major conference opponents: 2002-2004:

Louisville: Kentucky 17-22 (2002), Duke 40-3 (2002), Florida State 26-20 (2002), Kentucky 40-24 (2003), Syracuse 30-20 (2003), Temple 21-12 (2003), Kentucky 28-0 (2004), UNC 34-0 (2004), Miami 38-41 (2004) 7-2, although only two quality wins in the whole group, over FSU and Syracuse, and both of them lost 6 games the year Louisville beat them. Kentucky didn't suck in 2002 either.

Cincinnati: WVU 32-35 (2002), Ohio State 19-23 (2002), Temple 35-22 (2002), WVU 15-13 (2003), Temple 30-24 (2003), Ohio State 6-27 (2004), Syracuse 7-19 (2004) 3-4 with one quality win over WVU.

South Florida: Arkansas 3-42 (2002), Oklahoma 14-31 (2002), Alabama 17-40 (2003), South Carolina 3-34 (2004), Pitt 14-23 (2004). 0-5.

Overall, 10-11 with 4 quality wins and 6 wins over Temple, Duke and bad UNC and Kentucky teams.

Games vs. majors: 2009-2011:

Boise: Oregon 19-8 (2009), TCU 17-10 (2009), Virginia Tech 33-30 (2010), Oregon State 37-24 (2010), Utah 26-3 (2010), Georgia 35-21 (2011), TCU 35-36 (2011), Arizona State 56-24 (2011). 7-1, with every win on this list better than any win by the 3 additions from 2005.

San Diego State: UCLA 14-33 (2009), TCU 12-55 (2009), Utah 7-38 (2009), Missouri 24-27 (2010), TCU 35-40 (2010), Utah 34-38 (2010), Washington State 42-24 (2011), Michigan 7-28 (2011), TCU 14-27 (2011). 1-8, with most of them blowout losses until 2010.

Houston: Oklahoma State 45-35 (2009), Texas Tech 29-28 (2009), Mississippi State 31-24 (2009), UCLA 13-31 (2010), Mississippi State 24-47 (2010), Texas Tech 20-35 (2010), UCLA 38-34 (2011), Penn State 30-14 (2011). 5-3, with 3 very high quality wins.

SMU: Washington State 27-30 (2009), TCU 14-39 (2009), Texas Tech 27-35 (2010), TCU 24-41 (2009), Washington State 35-21 (2010), Texas A&M 14-46 (2011), TCU 40-33 (2011), Pitt 28-6 (2011). 3-5 with a great win over TCU.

Central Florida: Miami 7-27 (2009), Rutgers 24-45 (2009), NC State 21-28 (2010), Kansas State 13-17 (2010), Georgia 10-6 (2010), Boston College 30-3 (2011). 2-4, with a good win over Georgia.

Temple: Penn State 6-31 (2009), UCLA 21-30 (2009), UConn 30-16 (2010), Penn State 13-22 (2010), Penn State 10-14 (2011), Maryland 38-7 (2011). 2-4, with win over UConn counting as quality. Really just proved they could beat Edsall.

Memphis: Mississippi 14-45 (2009), Mississippi State 7-49 (2009), Tennessee 28-56 (2009), Louisville 0-56 (2010), Tennessee 14-50 (2010), Mississippi State 14-59 (2011). 0-6 with all blowout losses.

20-31 with 13 of the losses coming from Memphis and SDSU. SDSU has shown they can play with the big boys, they just need to pull out some W's. Temple has played Penn State tough 2 straight years, and is pulling out W's. UCF and SMU are equivalent to middle to bottom half BCS programs. Houston is a top half BCS program and Boise is a powerhouse. Memphis is terrible, and one of the worst teams in FBS.

as of late, Memphis has generated some momentum with the hire of Coach Fuente. He's been steady in recruiting some guys who will really make a difference in Big East play for us next year. #Downbutnotout

(07-10-2012 12:39 PM)SF Husky Wrote:  Houston: Oklahoma State 45-35 (2009), Texas Tech 29-28 (2009), Mississippi State 31-24 (2009), UCLA 13-31 (2010), Mississippi State 24-47 (2010), Texas Tech 20-35 (2010), UCLA 38-34 (2011), Penn State 30-14 (2011). 5-3, with 3 very high quality wins.


20-31 with 13 of the losses coming from Memphis and SDSU. SDSU has shown they can play with the big boys, they just need to pull out some W's. Temple has played Penn State tough 2 straight years, and is pulling out W's. UCF and SMU are equivalent to middle to bottom half BCS programs. Houston is a top half BCS program and Boise is a powerhouse. Memphis is terrible, and one of the worst teams in FBS.

[/quote]

Might I add that all three UH losses were without Keenum for a full game and with a true freshman Quarterback manning the way. We probably lose at UCLA still but a healthy Keenum likely yeilds second victories over Trek and Miss State.

(07-10-2012 09:15 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  Does no good to post things here. You have to send out facts to relevant people. I emailed some of this info to the Orange Bowl director and a few media people

Totally disagree....because this site has been great at sharing information about the Big East (and even past ACC performance), information that is basically void and invisible on other sites.

One can't share ANY positive info about the Big East (or negative FACTS about the ACC) if one doesn't even know them.

I say POST AWAY any and all info...so others can SHARE.

There is a very good chance that the New Big East will be a much BETTER FOOTBALL CONFERENCE (especially at the top) compared to the OLD Big East Football Conf of the last few years.

In 2009, two Big East Teams of 2013 finished in the Top 9 of the USA TODAY Coaches Poll (# 4 Boise State, #9 Cincinnati)

In 2010, not ONE Big East Team finished ranked in the USA TODAY Coaches Poll Top 25...yet 2 Big East Teams in 2013 did (#7 Boise State, #20 UCF)

In 2011, 3 Big East teams in 2013 finished in the Top 25 (#6 Boise State, #14 Houston, #21 Cincinnati), plus another potential member, BYU, finished #25.

Bottom line, the NEW Big East Conf will more than likely have a lot more teams ranked in the Top 25 compared to past Big East Conf teams...as yes, the new conf can be better, (in some years, MUCH BETTER) than many past Big East seasons.

(07-10-2012 09:35 PM)EarthBoundMisfit Wrote:  as of late, Memphis has generated some momentum with the hire of Coach Fuente. He's been steady in recruiting some guys who will really make a difference in Big East play for us next year. #Downbutnotout

Memphis football has been good before and will be again.