keggerz Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 My point is... the mid-majors have won ONE BCS bowl... and it was vs a Big East team, and one of the better Big East teams at that. (yeah pitt is down now, but they sure had a lot of preseason hype last year). Add Louisville that year, you think the result is any different? Absolutely not. Regardless, it's no more crazy too look at that, as it is to look at Louisville losing to Virginia Tech in last years Gator Bowl. Theres no such thing as a quality loss (unless you're notre dame). And lets look at the season in question... Louisville beats tthere chest about beating the worst Miami team in almost a decade at home. WVU beats there chest about beating Georgia LAST SEASON, and Rutgers best out of conference win was vs ILLINOIS, the worst big ten team there is. They have the worst out of conference record as a conference, and yet, we're supposed to take them seriously? Why? Because the BCS includes them? The Big East is nothing but a glorified mid-major (which I think is better than the ACC at the very least this year). Everyone says that if the BCS is serious about itself, then a Big East Champion who goes undefeated should be in. I totally disagree with that. I don't doubt that teams have backed out of playing the Big East teams. While you can't help but play the schedule in front of you, you shouldn't be immune from the consequences of it's sh|ttyness either. I think Big East fans should just be happy that they have teams in the discussion of national championship possibilities. Edit to Add: The Big Ten consistantly sends lower tier teams to face teams from the upper tier from other conferences. The most notable examples are Purdue over Kansas State in 1998, and 8th place Wisconsin over Big 12 North Champion Colorado in 2002. So to answer your question, I'd give Purdue a pretty good chance of beating Boise State, and Purdue isn't even gonna go to a bowl. Actually that game would be pretty fun. Lots of offense. what does the past have anything to do with this year? that imo is the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 what does the past have anything to do with this year? that imo is the problem You tell me what the past has to do with it? As I said in that post you're questioning... it was a response to Cardinalempire who seems to think Louisville should be getting respect for the quality LOSS they suffered in last years Gator Bowl to Virginia Tech. Louisville fans are also thumping there chests about the big epic win over the worst Miami team in almost a decade. And WVU is STILL hanging there hat on the win against Georgia. Not 1 single Big East team has done ANYTHING this year, other than beating each other. Notice, THIS YEAR. I'm not saying these teams are bad, I'm simply saying they aint that great either, and it's pretty sad when you have to illustrate your point by pointing at LOSSES in bowl games from last year, and for that matter even wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 You tell me what the past has to do with it? As I said in that post you're questioning... it was a response to Cardinalempire who seems to think Louisville should be getting respect for the quality LOSS they suffered in last years Gator Bowl to Virginia Tech. Louisville fans are also thumping there chests about the big epic win over the worst Miami team in almost a decade. And WVU is STILL hanging there hat on the win against Georgia. Not 1 single Big East team has done ANYTHING this year, other than beating each other. Notice, THIS YEAR. I'm not saying these teams are bad, I'm simply saying they aint that great either, and it's pretty sad when you have to illustrate your point by pointing at LOSSES in bowl games from last year, and for that matter even wins. sorry if i didnt read your post correctly...my original question ended up going astray a bit...i dont pretend to follow College Football that much, just that i had a what IF...seems many said because of SOS and who they play and such and some seemed to point to what those(BE) programs have done in the past..to me none of that makes any sense when ranking teams for the 2006 season...simply put there seems to be a bias in college football that favors these really big schools and confs...i know that the BCS is far from perfect etc....but now the computers come out with a ranking having RU in the top 3 and as far as i know a computer cant be biased all i know is that I am rooting for the david to take down goliath...so with that GO RU! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 keggerz, the one thing I will say, is I LIKE RUTGERS. I hope they do go undefeated. They are the only Big East team I have ever liked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffeeman Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 They would be my fave, if USC loses. Gotta like the Cinderella matchup, esp. vs. a Big10 rematch or even the Hogs, who got spanked at home by USC in Game 1. Could not root in anyway for ND or FLA... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalEmpire.com Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 sorry if i didnt read your post correctly...my original question ended up going astray a bit...i dont pretend to follow College Football that much, just that i had a what IF...seems many said because of SOS and who they play and such and some seemed to point to what those(BE) programs have done in the past..to me none of that makes any sense when ranking teams for the 2006 season...simply put there seems to be a bias in college football that favors these really big schools and confs...i know that the BCS is far from perfect etc....but now the computers come out with a ranking having RU in the top 3 and as far as i know a computer cant be biased all i know is that I am rooting for the david to take down goliath...so with that GO RU! See, and that's the thing about pointing to the past. The SEC homers do this all the time in talking about tradition and year-to-year excellence in the conference. The exact same argument I am pretty sure was used here to explain why Texas gets a pass on having two losses and so does LSU (I've debated this in other places this week, so I am getting confused as to what was posted where). But the minute that Big East defenders come back with the same logic, it's not sound and has no relevance? Which side of the mouth are we talking from, folks? The simple truth is that the human polls are showing themselves to be greatly biased this season and from what appears to be an "outdated" source of proof. LSU is a Top 10 team by losing EVERY important game but one (at Tennessee), barely getting by a very average Alabama team, and waxing a bunch of cupcakes (sound like a familiar beef?). How are they doing that (hint: a recent national title helps)? Notre Dame hasn't looked impressive against anyone (maybe Penn State?) and still finds itself in the national title hunt. Why (huge national following, tradition that hasn't been relevant in over a decade)? And Florida has been hanging on by the skin of their teeth for a month and is still in line to play in the BCS title game just by hanging on for two more weeks. It seems to me like folks bashing the Big East keep angling for a new and unique point of argument for why they are irrelevant. But as soon as a counter-point is made, it's on to the next half-brained argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 That very average Alabama team you're talking about would probably win against 1 or 2 of the Big 3 in the Big East, and would definately be among the cream of the crop in that conference. That's the difference between the conferences. The computers aren't that great either. All they look at is the team you play, there record, and margin of victory in most cases. It says, wow, Rutgers beat 6-4 Pittsburgh, and according to the computers that's more impressive than Ohio State beating 4-7 Michigan State, even though, Michigan State hammered Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh. Fair or not? You tell me. Tons of examples can be used to illustrate this point. Computers only look at raw numbers. No one can tell me, that beating 6-4 Pittsburgh is somehow really impressive, when they got smoked at home by a team from another major conference that won't even be going to a bowl game. The examples are endless, not the least of which the Big East as a whole, has the worst out of conference record, and that's without playing really anyone meaningful. So you have a losing record against lousy teams. Not good. Not good at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 The simple truth is that the human polls are showing themselves to be greatly biased this season and from what appears to be an "outdated" source of proof. LSU is a Top 10 team by losing EVERY important game but one (at Tennessee), barely getting by a very average Alabama team, and waxing a bunch of cupcakes (sound like a familiar beef?). How are they doing that (hint: a recent national title helps)? Thanks for bringing up LSU National Title. Seems like most the media like to say USC won it that year. Thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalEmpire.com Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 The examples are endless, not the least of which the Big East as a whole, has the worst out of conference record, and that's without playing really anyone meaningful. So you have a losing record against lousy teams. Not good. Not good at all. Ignoring the rest of your post for a second, how do you argue that the Big East has the worst non-conference record? ACC: 28-15 (8-1 v. I-AA) Big East: 32-8 (6-0 v. I-AA) Big Ten: 32-11 (5-2 v. I-AA) Big XII: 33-15 (10-1 v. I-AA) Pac-10: 20-9 (5-0 v. I-AA) SEC: 35-7 (7-0 v. I-AA) http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/2006/Internet/n...nconference.HTM So not only does the Big East NOT have the worst record OOC, they have the 2nd best record OOC while playing the second fewest I-AA teams of any league. I know, I know, there are fewer teams in the conference than in any other one, so they SHOULD play fewer I-AA opponents. But if THAT'S your argument, then per team the Big East has EASILY the most OOC wins overall (average of 4 per team compared to 3.25 per team for the next best league). Please stop spouting "facts" unless you have something to back them up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 my apologies, I think I was looking at a different stat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) what does the past have anything to do with this year? that imo is the problem Not sure if you have an answer for your question, but I'll ask. What would you use to rank 100 teams in any sport at the beginning of any season? Have you ever been involved in seeding a baseball, basketball, softball or volleyball post season in something like a little league world series or AAU tourney. If so, then you know you must revert back somewhat to the year before to have any chance of getting the seeding as correct as possible. It's not perfect, but it certainly beats ranking teams from all over the country simply based off their own league record. Edited November 13, 2006 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted November 14, 2006 Author Share Posted November 14, 2006 Not sure if you have an answer for your question, but I'll ask. What would you use to rank 100 teams in any sport at the beginning of any season? Have you ever been involved in seeding a baseball, basketball, softball or volleyball post season in something like a little league world series or AAU tourney. If so, then you know you must revert back somewhat to the year before to have any chance of getting the seeding as correct as possible. It's not perfect, but it certainly beats ranking teams from all over the country simply based off their own league record. i was talking about once the season was well under way...i understand PS polls but once the games are being played they truly shouldnt hold much water if any....my comment was also more directed at the back in 1998 and stuff like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I was just answering the question about what would the Big Ten do if they had to send there bottom tier teams to bowl games to face top tier teams from other conferences, and my answer to that was the Big Ten consistantly does it almost every year in bowl games, and are usually pretty successful. I was just using those 2 years as notable examples of when the Big Ten has done that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 The Big East is not THAT bad. I mean the top 3 are pretty solid football teams... Thats about as far as I can take it though. Sounds alot like the SEC, Big Ten, etc. 3 Good teams then a bunch of middle of the roaders. In the SEC you basically have Florida, which eeked out wins over USC and TN, and then who? LSU, who lost to Auburn, who in turn got drummed by Georgia, a team that lost to KENTUCKY and VANDY..with the Vandy game between the hedges? Arkansas is the only other team in the SEC that warrants being called top tier.In the Big 10 you have three legitimate top tier teams, OSU, UM, and Wisconsin. In my opinion, the BE is the only other conference with three like that...let's not forget that Louisville has been missing their best player since the 3rd quarter of week one and they lost their QB for a month as well. The Pac 10 has USC only...Cal got rolled by Tennessee and lost to Arizona...Oregon should have three losses right now. Notre Dame has only 1 loss, but they got smoked in their only game against a good team, and were given a gift vs. MSU, not to mention the 50+ yard TD in the last minute to sneak by UCLA. The perception is that the Big East is inferior to the other "power" conferences. Truth is, their champ beat the SEC Champ in what was basically a road game in January. I am a diehard UK fan and therefore SEC supporter, but the facts point out that the BE is right there with the SEC this year. I fully believe that WVU would likely have had the best shot in the country of beating OSU or MU, but turnovers and the injury to Slaton in Louisville prevented it. If Rutgers runs the table (they won't, WVU will beat them in Morgantown) they deserve the shot. The other top 5 teams simply do not have a strong enough case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 That very average Alabama team you're talking about would probably win against 1 or 2 of the Big 3 in the Big East, and would definately be among the cream of the crop in that conference. That's the difference between the conferences. The computers aren't that great either. All they look at is the team you play, there record, and margin of victory in most cases. It says, wow, Rutgers beat 6-4 Pittsburgh, and according to the computers that's more impressive than Ohio State beating 4-7 Michigan State, even though, Michigan State hammered Pittsburgh at Pittsburgh. Fair or not? You tell me. Tons of examples can be used to illustrate this point. Computers only look at raw numbers. No one can tell me, that beating 6-4 Pittsburgh is somehow really impressive, when they got smoked at home by a team from another major conference that won't even be going to a bowl game. The examples are endless, not the least of which the Big East as a whole, has the worst out of conference record, and that's without playing really anyone meaningful. So you have a losing record against lousy teams. Not good. Not good at all. This is completely false. The BE in fact has the 2nd best OOC record. And you can play the whole "this team beat this team therefore they could beat that team game" all you want. Louisville DESTROYED Kentucky, who beat Georgia, who beat Auburn, who beat Florida, who beat LSU......so this must mean that Louisville would be the best team in the SEC right? Sarcasm aside, I watch a minumum of two SEC games every week and am a rabid supporter of that league, but Bama would be 0-3 vs RU, WVU and UL this year, as would alot of other SEC teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 This is completely false. The BE in fact has the 2nd best OOC record. And you can play the whole "this team beat this team therefore they could beat that team game" all you want. Louisville DESTROYED Kentucky, who beat Georgia, who beat Auburn, who beat Florida, who beat LSU......so this must mean that Louisville would be the best team in the SEC right? Sarcasm aside, I watch a minumum of two SEC games every week and am a rabid supporter of that league, but Bama would be 0-3 vs RU, WVU and UL this year, as would alot of other SEC teams. I'm not saying ANY team is better than a team due to wins over another team. What I'm saying is, Rutgers gets more credit for beating Pittsburgh, than Ohio State does for beating a BETTER Michigan State team that has a worse record. Why do you think Rutgers is #2 in the computers? It's because there undefeated vs a bunch of teams with winning records. There SOS is actually pretty good. But that's my beef with the computers; just because you have a winning record vs crappy competition doesn't mean you're good. Sorry, but I don't think Pittsburgh is that good. You are right, it's crazy to say any team is better because of those teams all beating another team, but it's equally crazy to suggest the computers are somehow the perfect measure of how good teams are, when it's just raw numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 I'm not saying ANY team is better than a team due to wins over another team. What I'm saying is, Rutgers gets more credit for beating Pittsburgh, than Ohio State does for beating a BETTER Michigan State team that has a worse record. Why do you think Rutgers is #2 in the computers? It's because there undefeated vs a bunch of teams with winning records. There SOS is actually pretty good. But that's my beef with the computers; just because you have a winning record vs crappy competition doesn't mean you're good. Sorry, but I don't think Pittsburgh is that good. You are right, it's crazy to say any team is better because of those teams all beating another team, but it's equally crazy to suggest the computers are somehow the perfect measure of how good teams are, when it's just raw numbers. This I can agree with...MSU is better than their record, and Pitt is probably worse than their record. I think we can also agree that nobody knows how team A would perform if in team B's conference and vice versa. I think the Big East if probably better than most people think and the SEC is probably not quite as good as advertised. I just hope to God that USC does not sneak into the title game, and I don't think they should if RU is undefeated...nothing personal coffeeman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 This I can agree with...MSU is better than their record, and Pitt is probably worse than their record. I think we can also agree that nobody knows how team A would perform if in team B's conference and vice versa. I think the Big East if probably better than most people think and the SEC is probably not quite as good as advertised. I just hope to God that USC does not sneak into the title game, and I don't think they should if RU is undefeated...nothing personal coffeeman. SEC is probably not quite as good as advertised right now because they spent all season beating each other up mentally and physically. Brought up this stat a few weeks ago. Did you know that every team that has played LSU hasn't beaten the spread the following week? The reason why is LSU punishes their opponents physically. One of the biggest complaints fans had about LSU's win over Bama this past weekend is that they didn't play as physical as they normally due. Some joke they took it easy on Bama so they could beat Auburn in the Iron Bowl. The point I'm making is that the so called better teams from a confernce like the "Big East" don't have to play as physical week in and week out, so they don't have as many bumps and bruises as teams from the SEC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted November 15, 2006 Share Posted November 15, 2006 This I can agree with...MSU is better than their record, and Pitt is probably worse than their record. I think we can also agree that nobody knows how team A would perform if in team B's conference and vice versa. I think the Big East if probably better than most people think and the SEC is probably not quite as good as advertised. I just hope to God that USC does not sneak into the title game, and I don't think they should if RU is undefeated...nothing personal coffeeman. I think you and Brian are on the money, and maybe the BE is better than advertised, but you know what? we just don't know bc they don't play anyone worth a sh1t out of conference.... if USC finishes by beating Cal, ND & UCLA- you kidding me? they will deserve it over RU without any doubt whatsoever IMO. Their schedule is just too tough to ignore, beating up on a potential SEC champion, and BCS team in Ark... I have watched a ton of Pac 10 games this year- UL, RU, WVU all would have 2-3 L in the Pac 10- fwiw- I am so tired of this talk- I mean, let's all argue over who is the #15, #16 teams in a tournament and be done with this crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclones Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 SEC is probably not quite as good as advertised right now because they spent all season beating each other up mentally and physically. Brought up this stat a few weeks ago. Did you know that every team that has played LSU hasn't beaten the spread the following week? The reason why is LSU punishes their opponents physically. One of the biggest complaints fans had about LSU's win over Bama this past weekend is that they didn't play as physical as they normally due. Some joke they took it easy on Bama so they could beat Auburn in the Iron Bowl. The point I'm making is that the so called better teams from a confernce like the "Big East" don't have to play as physical week in and week out, so they don't have as many bumps and bruises as teams from the SEC. So you've stepped on the field for both an SEC game and a Big East game this year and the SEC game gave you a worse pounding? How'd you talk the NCAA into letting you play for 2 schools in the same year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 (edited) So you've stepped on the field for both an SEC game and a Big East game this year and the SEC game gave you a worse pounding? How'd you talk the NCAA into letting you play for 2 schools in the same year? Cyclones, how do you know your dog's $hit don't taste good? Did you have to try some? Hope not, most of us can tell by the smell. Now think of the Big East as a dog turd and the SEC as a burrito which one do you like more the turd or the burrito? Edited November 16, 2006 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalEmpire.com Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 I think you and Brian are on the money, and maybe the BE is better than advertised, but you know what? we just don't know bc they don't play anyone worth a sh1t out of conference.... Again, if you "Big 4" homers have a problem with this, tell your AD's to quit cowering behind their desks, man up, and schedule West Virginia, Louisville, or any other top Big East team to a home-and-home. You argue that the Big East doesn't play anyone worth a sh!t out of conference, but your conferences refuse to return phone calls and cancel existing contracts if they were dumb enough to sign them in the first place (see above posts for details). Louisville did not beat Miami, Kansas State, and Kentucky (all likely bowl teams from other power conferences) by accident. We know schedules like this are rare for Big East teams, but it's only because it's rare for ANY SEC, ACC, Big XII, or Big Ten AD to draw up the papers to make it happen on a more regular basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Schedules are made years in advance. Iowa plays Syracuse this year and next year (usually a pretty good program, clearly going through some rebuilding) and we also have a home and home with Pitt, in a couple years. Lets not forget Wisconsin had a home and home with WVU a few years ago and beat them both times. In fact, the Big Ten regularly beats up on Big East teams. You're wanting the big boys, yet you can't even beat the 2nd tier programs. Oh I know, but Wisconsin didn't play WVU this year, again the schedules are made years in advance. The fact is... when all of these teams got to add a 12th game, there was no way they'd take on really tough games. NO ONE did. That's why you saw a ton more games vs Div 1AA teams this year. Why would Ohio State add West Virginia when they were already travelling to Austin, a team they had a contract with for many years already? Why would Michigan add them when they were already traveling to South Bend for a game against a BCS team from a year ago? The fact is, NOBODY, when adding that 12th game, added a toughey. NO ONE did. If they had a tough out of conference team on there schedule, it was because they already had a previous contract with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalEmpire.com Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 Again, arguing out of both sides of your mouth. If you have a problem with the schedule, then demand that all these "quality" opponents sign up to play the Big East teams. West Virginia, Louisville, and probably most everyone else isn't backing down from playing a BCS team from another conference. They may not win them all, but the more chances they get the more chances they win and disprove this silly concept that the Big East is a conference built on its own "weak schedules" and "playing nobody". As far as teams adding quality opponents, I'd look at Georgia for one example. They've already signed up Louisville for a home-and-home beginning in 2009. It remains to be seen if they actually HONOR it, but the contract is on paper. The Cards are also in talks with LSU, some Pac-10 teams, and other Big XII programs. We'll see what comes of that. Sure, MOST teams are choosing to make their 12th team a I-AA opponent. Doesn't make it right and CERTAINLY doesn't give fans of those teams any right to throw stones at the Big East teams who AREN'T playing lower-division competition (see the OOC records) and are making the best of a bad scheduling situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted November 17, 2006 Share Posted November 17, 2006 As far as teams adding quality opponents, I'd look at Georgia for one example. They've already signed up Louisville for a home-and-home beginning in 2009. It remains to be seen if they actually HONOR it, but the contract is on paper. The Cards are also in talks with LSU, some Pac-10 teams, and other Big XII programs. We'll see what comes of that. Explain what you mean by home-and-home? Does that mean both games are at Georgia? Not sure about LSU right now. Their fans aren't happy with what happen this season with Fresno State. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.