It pretty much sums it up.





<a href='http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20051017-115909-5530r.htm' target='_blank'>http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20051017...15909-5530r.htm</a>

The BE will be alive and well.The choice between the MWC and its small marketplace is not only between the BE and MWC but between the MWC and entry but between the MWC and ND for a BCS slot.Would you rather have ND or TCU?

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Regarding the quality of BE football, I guess the article is realistic.

Thing is, nearly every team in the league is young and will have plenty coming back next year, and thereafter. There will be improvement all around.

The MWC is as good as it will ever get, and is STILL not as good as the BE :laugh:

When the MWC 2005 Champs loses at SMU then I have no reason to worry.

I just find Cowboy hilarious with his envy. Don't cry outloud. :laugh:

Until the Big East meets the BCS requirements (probably will happen) AND doesn't get embarassed in the BCS bowl, these articles will continue.

Oh well, it could be worse, we could be a mid-major.

The MWC is far from being as good as it will ever be. Remember we only have 9 teams in our conference and we have three top 25 football teams in our footprint that aren't in the MWC. The thing that's hurting the Big East, you don't have any expansion candidates that will help football in your part of the country. Out of the three evaluation criteria from year 1, the MWC won the highest ranked champion and overall highest ranked conference head to head against the Big East. If we expand with Fresno, Boise, and Utep, their rankings will count for us, and that will be a clean sweep of all three evaluation criteria for year 1. We're in year two now and it's a dead even heat. We both have 1 team in the top 25 and our conference strength is about the same. If we add Fresno, Boise, and Utep, we'll win two out of three most likely and we may sweep you again.

nflsucks Wrote:Until the Big East meets the BCS requirements (probably will happen) AND doesn't get embarassed in the BCS bowl, these articles will continue.

Oh well, it could be worse, we could be a mid-major.

Or the MWC, C-USA, Sunbelt, WAC or MAC.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:The MWC is far from being as good as it will ever be. Remember we only have 9 teams in our conference and we have three top 25 football teams in our footprint that aren't in the MWC. The thing that's hurting the Big East, you don't have any expansion candidates that will help football in your part of the country. Out of the three evaluation criteria from year 1, the MWC won the highest ranked champion and overall highest ranked conference head to head against the Big East. If we expand with Fresno, Boise, and Utep, their rankings will count for us, and that will be a clean sweep of all three evaluation criteria for year 1. We're in year two now and it's a dead even heat. We both have 1 team in the top 25 and our conference strength is about the same. If we add Fresno, Boise, and Utep, we'll win two out of three most likely and we may sweep you again.

Actually are on incorrect on the 2nd critieria. Even if you add Boise, Fresno and UTEP you will still be behind the Big East in 2004.

In case you did not know, in overall conference rating the Big East was the 5th best league not the 6th. That belong to the Big 10 not the Big East.

Your setting yourself up for a (mid) major disappointment, Cowboy Junky.

Does anybody still have the stats for the BCS criteria? I remember them circulating on these boards probably a week after they announced it.

Quote:Even if you add Boise, Fresno and UTEP

Are any of those teams in the BCS top 25? Looks like that trump card isn't all it's cracked up to be. Are any current MWC teams in the top 25?

I already posted it in another thread. What is funny is these MWC for some strange reason think we were the 6th best BCS league last year when it was the Big 10.

The problem is they only look at the Sagrain Rating and the wrong set of Sagrain Ratings at that and they don't take out BC and Temple and add Louisville, USF and UC. They also don't take into account TCU bring their league down with their pitiful rating last season.

I guess we now see who supplies Cowboy Junky with his fixes. The writer of this article. It's so full of holes and factual inaccuracies that this guy must have been getting high off his own supply when he wrote it.

Whether he likes it, or not, West Virginia is in line for a top bowl as long as they win the Big East title. Don't like it? Go take another toke! So the Mountaineers are 17th this week. The season isn't even half over.

The Big East is not "in jeopardy of falling behind" the MWC. People can say that all they want. But the computer data and the actual game results tell the truth. The Big East is doing okay and is getting better.

Louisville was annointed by the media to win the league. But guess what? The media don't play football games. Just like the media don't run the BCS. Obviously the media selected the wrong team. Get over it!

Then he claims the BCS "reassessments" will be made "following the 2009 season" even though everyone knows it will happen after the 2007 season! How can this sports writer get such a well known fact wrong?

Plus UConn is 4-2, 1-1, not 2-1 ... and hasn't played Rutgers ... yet. Nor is Rutgers part of any "soft middle" anymore. Things change. This is 2005. Not 1995. Rutgers is good enough to beat anyone in the MWC.

As for West Virginia's loss to Virginia Tech, he forgot one thing, teams improve as the season goes along. Most don't stagnate. Unless they happen to be those BCS "powers" like Duke or Kentucky that he loves.

Then he mentions last year's Fiesta Bowl. Utah had a great coach, a great quarterback, and some darn good players. They did a wonderful job. For one year. One bowl win doesn't make a team or league a power.

Cowboy, as many of my fellow posters here can vouge, I'm a very level headed poster. But today unfortunately for you is going to feature a very harsh post. Get a freaking life, pal, you will never attain BCS status for a myriad of reasons. We have the markets, we have the talent, we have the rising programs like Rutgers, UConn, and USF, we have tradition in WVU, Pitt, Syracuse, and even Rutgers considering we invented this whole thing, we have fire power in WVU and UL. Our teams are young and our most veteran team is Rutgers who will return 17 of 22 on the offensive 2-deep and 18 of 22 on the defensive 2-deep. We're playing mostly sophmores and freshmen ourselves. Dude, whatever your fetish for the Big East and its supposed failure is you need help with. I'm sick and tired of hearing how bad the Big East is from a conference that sucks 10x more than the Big East at its weakest moment. I'm sick and tired of not being recognized as a program or being ridiculed when we do (Rutgers). Guess what Rutgers will emerge a program far superior to TCU or Utah or especially Wyoming in the coming years, take that to the bank. We have the talent, the will, the hope, undying support of a fan base that has never given up in all the down years, we have a coach committed to making this the premier program in the East, we have the resources allocated, and now its starting to come together. Every team in this conference has the potential and the appearance of being damn good in the next few years, so we're weak for a couple years but I can assure you of this come split time we'll be damn attractive to join. The MWC's chances are best if they decide to add a 7th AQ conference thats all you've got. So Cowboy get a life and stop coming to our boards to tease us because you look like a clown hiding behind your keyboard trying to inflame people. Oh and one other thing, "You lose, good day sir!" (I believe Gene Wilder said this with great enthusiasm while playing Willy Wonka but I love the phrase honestly.)

This is exactly what the author of that article and I myself am talking about. When you are pinning your hopes of conference superiority on Rutgers(Bwahaaahaaa), two division 1aa teams, and the castaways on Gilligans Island, maybe your conference isn't as good as you think it is. When you're 0-9 against the top 50. When you've only got 4 wins against the BCS ooc and three of them came from the same team. When you've beat Buffalo three times ooc. When you have one team in the top 25, although you've set up the system to spot you 10 spots with voting blocks. Maybe, just maybe, it's time you realize the only reason you are still a part of the BCS is because you have lots of t.v. sets in your home cities. Congratulations on being blessed with lots of t.v. sets.

Cowboy Junky Wrote:This is exactly what the author of that article and I myself am talking about. When you are pinning your hopes of conference superiority on Rutgers(Bwahaaahaaa), two division 1aa teams, and the castaways on Gilligans Island, maybe your conference isn't as good as you think it is. When you're 0-9 against the top 50. When you've only got 4 wins against the BCS ooc and three of them came from the same team. When you've beat Buffalo three times ooc. When you have one team in the top 25, although you've set up the system to spot you 10 spots with voting blocks. Maybe, just maybe, it's time you realize the only reason you are still a part of the BCS is because you have lots of t.v. sets in your home cities. Congratulations on being blessed with lots of t.v. sets.

Thank you for actually trying to address my post in your response. Once again you lose, good day sir! Anyrate, get over yourself. In case you haven't been paying attention Rutgers is setup to have a heck of a season at last. And if any program finally gets over the hump and can turn itself into a national power its us with the talent in our backyard plus our Florida connections.

The Big east will be a fun league bfor its members but it is clear that as a BCS league 'doomed' would be the word to use. The question is when the BCS spot is gone will USF want to stay in it?

This is exactly my point. You are a Rutgers fan. Rutgers has been the stomping boy for the Big East for years. Now, due to a lower level of competition, the loss of three top 20 teams and replacing them with two division 1aa teams, Cincinnatti, and an always over-rated Louisville team, you suddenly think Rutgers has made some great strides forward. You're Rutgers. You suck. You always have sucked. You always will suck. It's what comes with being Rutgers.

This is what the world sees. Rutgers and two division 1aa teams are competing for the Big East title. The Big East's biggest win this year was an average Maryland team. Someone has to play in a BCS game at the end of the year. That's when your skirt is really going to come up and show your vajina to everyone.

TopCoug Wrote:The Big east will be a fun league bfor its members but it is clear that as a BCS league 'doomed' would be the word to use. The question is when the BCS spot is gone will USF want to stay in it?

Call us back in 2008, we have been supposed to be "Doomed" since 2003.

Wow...I don't know what is more suprising....an article out of ACC country bashing the BE or Cowboy Junky and Top Coug over here talking trash about it....this thread needs to be taken to the smack board...can't believe I wasted part of my lunch break reading it


Jackson

Jackson1011 Wrote:Wow...I don't know what is more suprising....an article out of ACC country bashing the BE or Cowboy Junky and Top Coug over here talking trash about it....this thread needs to be taken to the smack board...can't believe I wasted part of my lunch break reading it


Jackson

Jackson keep it here, we can use the comedy.

Remember when Coog was stating that the Big East Champ was only getting a partial share. Well he was part right, a Big East team will only get a partial share if they make it to a BCS Bowl. To bad he did not mention that Big East team is partial member Notre Dame.