The Big Easts RECENT bowl success has done little to rid the conference of that shadow. Until they can show consistency there's little chance of shaking it either, simply due to their top to bottom quality.

It wouldn't hurt were they to win against other conferences 1's &2's rather than 4/5's either.

I think UC gets Bama/Florida which is gonna sting

eersandbeers wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:
I won't argue about the BCS wins, as it is a good way to rate a conference, but I still can't agree that the Big East isn't the weakest conference of the BCS conferences.

On a yearly basis the BE is ranked 3rd or 4th best conference. They win most of their bowl games and most of their OOC games (granted not against great competition all the time). I don't know how else you want to judge a conference.

There is a big anti-Big East bias in the media, and it just doesn't hold true to reality.

The fact that their OOC schedules are VERY weak is a big reason why they are a weak conference. I mean Rutgers played 2 FCS schools, and another school 2-3 years removed from the FCS this season... I mean, come on now. Lol.

But the BCS wins are impressive. I just don't see them keeping it up.

I think both Pitt or Cincy would lose this season, easily.

The Big East has to schedule more crap teams because their are only 8 teams in the conference. It is hard to fill those extra holes in the schedule with decent competition.

We'll find out if UC will lose this season. I doubt they'll be going up against a mid-major in their bowl game.

Just because they can't help but schedule crap teams, doesn't make it ok to call them a worthy conference.

If OSU played two FCS schools and Western Kentucky or FIU, PLUS the weak Big Ten, and went to the NC game, people would be furious, because they wouldn't deserve to play against an SEC or Big 12 team that actually won games against talented teams.

I know it's not their fault, but it doesn't make them worthy.

Cincy won't play for the title if they go undefeated and if they end up in the Orange they'll play the ACC winner(probably Georgia Tech), a game they should control

ytownfootball wrote: The Big Easts RECENT bowl success has done little to rid the conference of that shadow. Until they can show consistency there's little chance of shaking it either, simply due to their top to bottom quality.

It wouldn't hurt were they to win against other conferences 1's &2's rather than 4/5's either.

Bowl tie-ins are a huge problem with the conference. I think this is the last year the Gator will take a BE team so its going to get even worse. I'm not really sure how they can fix it either. That stupid bowl in Yankee stadium definitely wasn't the solution.

DaBrowns41 wrote:
Just because they can't help but schedule crap teams, doesn't make it ok to call them a worthy conference.

If OSU played two FCS schools and Western Kentucky or FIU, PLUS the weak Big Ten, and went to the NC game, people would be furious, because they wouldn't deserve to play against an SEC or Big 12 team that actually won games against talented teams.

I know it's not their fault, but it doesn't make them worthy.

Well your one example, Rutgers, won't be playing for the national title anytime here soon anyways. Bowl games are the only way to really judge just how good conferences are so it will have to be the standard until there is a playoff.

OSU already made it twice with a weak Big10 and we saw how that turned out.

yeah the tie-ins they have definately don't help... Outside of the BCS game and the Orange the Gator was the strongest they had... at least they're not like th Eaglebank Bowl and the ACC tie in there, or the Big Ten and the Little Ceaser's Pizza Bowl

eersandbeers wrote:
OSU already made it twice with a weak Big10 and we saw how that turned out.

Thus, proving my point.

DaBrowns41 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:
OSU already made it twice with a weak Big10 and we saw how that turned out.

Thus, proving my point.

I would say that proves my point though. It is more about perception than the actual talent level of teams.

The SEC is perceived to be the best conference on a yearly basis. Some years they are and some years they aren't. However, when there is a bad loss its because they beat up on one another. When the BE has a bad loss its because the BE sucks.

Its all about a subjective opinion. Which is why the BE and great mid-major teams will continue to get screwed on a yearly basis.

darbypitcher22 wrote: yeah the tie-ins they have definately don't help... Outside of the BCS game and the Orange the Gator was the strongest they had... at least they're not like th Eaglebank Bowl and the ACC tie in there, or the Big Ten and the Little Ceaser's Pizza Bowl

Well the Big East has the International Bowl in Toronto against a MAC team. I can't think of a worse place to be than Toronto in December.

eersandbeers wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:
OSU already made it twice with a weak Big10 and we saw how that turned out.

Thus, proving my point.

I would say that proves my point though. It is more about perception than the actual talent level of teams.

The SEC is perceived to be the best conference on a yearly basis. Some years they are and some years they aren't. However, when there is a bad loss its because they beat up on one another. When the BE has a bad loss its because the BE sucks.

Its all about a subjective opinion. Which is why the BE and great mid-major teams will continue to get screwed on a yearly basis.

The BE can't get screwed... They have an automatic bid.

Either way, SOS is VERY important when determining BCS births, IMO. Yes, Boise did surprise in 2006. Yes, WVU did surprise against Oklahoma.

Do these teams deserve to play for a BCS game if they are undefeated? I agree that they do. But at the same time, it's hard to pick a team that played the 70th hardest schedule in the nation to play an SEC team that's undefeated, when a team that has 1 loss to a top 15 team is around the corner that played the 40th or higher SOS.

You are right, though. It's all subjective.

I just felt that it proved my point because it seems that 9/10 the team with the significantly weaker schedule doesn't live up to the undefeated expectations.

eersandbeers wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:

eersandbeers wrote:
OSU already made it twice with a weak Big10 and we saw how that turned out.

Thus, proving my point.

I would say that proves my point though. It is more about perception than the actual talent level of teams.

The SEC is perceived to be the best conference on a yearly basis. Some years they are and some years they aren't. However, when there is a bad loss its because they beat up on one another. When the BE has a bad loss its because the BE sucks.

Its all about a subjective opinion. Which is why the BE and great mid-major teams will continue to get screwed on a yearly basis.

The SEC beating up on each other and everyone else just sucks we agree on. It used to be that way in the Big 10, but having the Big East alligned the way they are now I'm not so sure is the same.

And let's be honest, it's not really subjective opinion as much as it is about the benjamins.

yep... show me the $$$$$$$

DaBrowns41 wrote:
The BE can't get screwed... They have an automatic bid.

Either way, SOS is VERY important when determining BCS births, IMO. Yes, Boise did surprise in 2006. Yes, WVU did surprise against Oklahoma.

Do these teams deserve to play for a BCS game if they are undefeated? I agree that they do. But at the same time, it's hard to pick a team that played the 70th hardest schedule in the nation to play an SEC team that's undefeated, when a team that has 1 loss to a top 15 team is around the corner that played the 40th or higher SOS.

You are right, though. It's all subjective.

I just felt that it proved my point because it seems that 9/10 the team with the significantly weaker schedule doesn't live up to the undefeated expectations.

I'm talking about screwed in the media in terms of perception and respect. Which I guess doesn't really matter until we have multiple unbeatens like this year.


You are also correct about the SOS being important. UC has the 77th hardest schedule right now. That is before playing Pitt. Their hardest games were at the end of the year.

Florida has played just about as difficult as a schedule as WVU though. If WVU was undefeated do you honestly think they would be ahead of Florida?

WVU would probably be behind Florida.

If you wanna get real techinical about it Florida shouldn't be undefeated after Bobby Petrino and Arkansas got the shaft in the Swamp.... BUT, that's for another thread....

eersandbeers wrote:

DaBrowns41 wrote:
The BE can't get screwed... They have an automatic bid.

Either way, SOS is VERY important when determining BCS births, IMO. Yes, Boise did surprise in 2006. Yes, WVU did surprise against Oklahoma.

Do these teams deserve to play for a BCS game if they are undefeated? I agree that they do. But at the same time, it's hard to pick a team that played the 70th hardest schedule in the nation to play an SEC team that's undefeated, when a team that has 1 loss to a top 15 team is around the corner that played the 40th or higher SOS.

You are right, though. It's all subjective.

I just felt that it proved my point because it seems that 9/10 the team with the significantly weaker schedule doesn't live up to the undefeated expectations.

I'm talking about screwed in the media in terms of perception and respect. Which I guess doesn't really matter until we have multiple unbeatens like this year.


You are also correct about the SOS being important. UC has the 77th hardest schedule right now. That is before playing Pitt. Their hardest games were at the end of the year.

Florida has played just about as difficult as a schedule as WVU though. If WVU was undefeated do you honestly think they would be ahead of Florida?

1) The BCS cares about money, not perception or respect. Is it BS? Sure. But what can ya do? You know?

2) You bring up a good point. If we're talking about this year, however, a team with an equally as difficult schedule wouldn't jump a team that's already #1. But even if UF was #5 all year long and nobody ahead of them lost, WVU would be #6 based on the voters.

I think you and I actually have the same idea, and agree on the same things, but disagree on the one big thing and that's about the Big East being a true BCS conference.

One thing I think you have to look at though is consistency. In an always tough conference with high SOS's the SEC almost always has a top 5 team.

The same cannot be said for the Big East. Do they beat each other up? Yes. The SEC can beat each other up as well, but there's always 1-2 teams that only loses 1-2 games. Just like Ohio State, Michigan and PSU. Generally one of those teams is always a 1-2 loss team, while the rest of the conference beats each other up.

West Virginia messed up their NC hopes a couple years ago when they lost to Pitt at the end of the season. Had they lost at the beginning, they'd probably have had a small chance... But that's yet another flaw in the BCS.

There's too much in the BCS that can be argued really. Lol.