No, I said that the BE was only decent when those 2 played for WVU. Since then it has been all downhill.eersandbeers wrote:No it really didn't make sense. You said WVU only won those games because of White and Slaton. That is obvious as the best players on teams are usually responsible for the wins.LJ wrote:
No it doesn't, it doesn't fit your opinion. That's all.
It means everything...if you want to discuss WHY the Big East is continually considered as one AQ that should lose its status... then do so after you're done addressing what the conference needs to do as a whole to overcome the perceived lack of strength that it would appear the entire nation has, not just us clowns here on the huddle.Being considered for a bowl game, especially when the Big10 has two more teams, really counts for nothing
eersandbeers wrote: I wanted to go ahead and bust the myth so I'm using actual facts instead of hyperbole and conjecture. These are bowl games against other BCS opponents only.....
Your argument is also not logical.
It is clearly the fallacy of suppressed evidence. You are in other words cherry picking to make your argument look good.
The only way The Big East is goingt to lose their AB is if they are under .500 against other conferences as a whole not just bowl games. It might have to be for a couple years in a row. There is information of this online I have read it but do not have it memorized. I am close though.
But it is fun to get people riled up a bit.
Why does '05 make you laugh? Why would I include wins from teams that were not in the conference? Going before '05 will likely help my argument even more as Miami and VT were winning BCS games.ytownfootball wrote:It means everything...if you want to discuss WHY the Big East is continually considered as one AQ that should lose its status... then do so after you're done addressing what the conference needs to do as a whole to overcome the perceived lack of strength that it would appear the entire nation has, not just us clowns here on the huddle.Being considered for a bowl game, especially when the Big10 has two more teams, really counts for nothing
'05 still makes me laugh...wasn't the Big Easts AQ status afforded them when Miami and FSU were in the conference?
It appears you aren't using cherry picking in the correct manner. Cherry picking implies that I am picking evidence to help my argument when I have actually provided every piece of information possible.BCSbunk wrote:
It is clearly the fallacy of suppressed evidence. You are in other words cherry picking to make your argument look good.
The only way The Big East is goingt to lose their AB is if they are under .500 against other conferences as a whole not just bowl games. It might have to be for a couple years in a row. There is information of this online I have read it but do not have it memorized. I am close though.
But it is fun to get people riled up a bit.
Well these were all listed on their website at one point. It looks like they have changed it over the past year.darbypitcher22 wrote: You might as well post the rules/criterium for maintaining your BCS AQ status.... nobody in the country knows what the fuck the rules are anyways
jhay78 wrote: Gotta love the timing of this thread:
1) the day after the Big East banner carrier (and former "best team in Ohio") gets stomped in a BCS game
2) while the Big Ten is 3-2 in bowl games, with a bone-headed one-point loss (by Minn) and an OT loss by NW.
So yeah, let's go dig out the "facts" from a four-year period where the Big Ten has been down.
Umm no you are not. You selected 2005 and that is not all the information concerning the conclusion you have made.eersandbeers wrote:Why does '05 make you laugh? Why would I include wins from teams that were not in the conference? Going before '05 will likely help my argument even more as Miami and VT were winning BCS games.ytownfootball wrote:It means everything...if you want to discuss WHY the Big East is continually considered as one AQ that should lose its status... then do so after you're done addressing what the conference needs to do as a whole to overcome the perceived lack of strength that it would appear the entire nation has, not just us clowns here on the huddle.Being considered for a bowl game, especially when the Big10 has two more teams, really counts for nothing
'05 still makes me laugh...wasn't the Big Easts AQ status afforded them when Miami and FSU were in the conference?
People can ignorantly discuss why the BE should lose its BCS affiliation when they aren't even aware that the BE has met the qualifications to maintain their BCS bid. The ACC has not.
Also, I don't care about perception. I'm talking about facts, which don't seem to go over real well.
It appears you aren't using cherry picking in the correct manner. Cherry picking implies that I am picking evidence to help my argument when I have actually provided every piece of information possible.BCSbunk wrote:
It is clearly the fallacy of suppressed evidence. You are in other words cherry picking to make your argument look good.
The only way The Big East is goingt to lose their AB is if they are under .500 against other conferences as a whole not just bowl games. It might have to be for a couple years in a row. There is information of this online I have read it but do not have it memorized. I am close though.
But it is fun to get people riled up a bit.
I provided bowl records against other BCS opponents which allows us insight into the success of each conference. If you want to further break it down into whatever you'd like be my guest.ytownfootball wrote: eers, you may not care about perception, and you can bring up the 5 year span and use as facts all you want, it doesn't change the perception that the Big East has played th majority of their bowl games over the last decade more around Christmas rather than around New Years Day.
The point about Miami and FSU should concern you most because those two schools in the Big East are what got the Big East their AQ status, not Rutgers, not U Conn, not Pitt, not Syracuse. They're gone. The wins they had in bowl games benefits your argument, true, but that's not the point. The point is, without their historic winning percentages behind the Big East, there is more of a tendency to discount their achievements over such a short sample of time such as five years.
Whether you like it or not that's the perception and the reality they have fighting for their AQ status.
Yes I selected 2005 because that is the current Big East. I don't see what is difficult to understand about that. I am including every single year that has been played since that time so it is in no way skewed towards one conference over another.BCSbunk wrote:
Umm no you are not. You selected 2005 and that is not all the information concerning the conclusion you have made.
Basically your argument goes like this. Since 2005 the Big Tens record is X this is not acceptable and therefore they should be pulled from the auto-bid.
This is not all the information at all. You selected 2005 because that is when the Big East teams moved but that has nothing to do with the Big Ten and is in fact a non-sequitur.
Therefore you are cherry picking using a non-sequitur as your reasoning for cherry picking.
I don't suppose the fact they're still under contract has anything to do with it either. Your point that they've maintained despite piss poor viewership is irrelevant. Why is the Big East always brought up as the one AQ that shouldn't be getting it? Surely no one on here has anything to do with what the rest of the country feels. You're not an idiot so address what the real problem is and quit fiddle fuckin' around with your lousy five year sample, no one's buying it anyway.The current Big East has maintained the automatic qualification with the departure of those 3 schools so your point is irrelevant.
Which is flawed logic because if the Big East would win more games, they'd have more BCS bids.eersandbeers wrote:That is quite the illogical comparison. Obviously the current Big East hasn't played in 9 games so it would be hard to have 9 wins.LJ wrote: Seeing as how the current Big Ten has 9 BCS wins and the current Big East has 3, since the BCS started, yeah, the Big Ten should lose their bowl bid
I was mocking everyone else who said the Big East should lose their bid based on conference performance and BCS performance.
When it has been proven the current Big East has a better record (3-2) in the same time period against the Big10 who is 3-6.
It doesn't matter what bowl game your in, so long as you win it. Pitt can't control that they were the #3 team in the Big East and that they get the Meinke Car Care Bowl, they just need to make sure they win it, which they did.Little Danny wrote: I think a major reason the Big Ten looks better is because they have better bowl contracts. The Big East Commissioner and the rest of the boys in Providence needs to do a better job at securing better bowl games for the Big East Conference. Example: Northwestern, Michigan State sucked ass this season and got to go to a better bowl game than Pitt and WVU. Pitt and WVU had better records. Had Pitt and WVU played in say the Outback bowl and still lost, the perception is much better than winning or loosing the Meineke Car Care Bowl. As the old saying goes, Perception is Reality.
I've never said the B10 was bad. I merely pointed out people act as if the Big East has never won a bowl game since VT and Miami left. If you look at the facts, the Big East is not as bad as some of you folks think.DaBrowns41 wrote:It doesn't matter what bowl game your in, so long as you win it. Pitt can't control that they were the #3 team in the Big East and that they get the Meinke Car Care Bowl, they just need to make sure they win it, which they did.Little Danny wrote: I think a major reason the Big Ten looks better is because they have better bowl contracts. The Big East Commissioner and the rest of the boys in Providence needs to do a better job at securing better bowl games for the Big East Conference. Example: Northwestern, Michigan State sucked ass this season and got to go to a better bowl game than Pitt and WVU. Pitt and WVU had better records. Had Pitt and WVU played in say the Outback bowl and still lost, the perception is much better than winning or loosing the Meineke Car Care Bowl. As the old saying goes, Perception is Reality.
But the Big East officials can only do so much. A conference that is known for mediocrity isn't going to get a contract in great games, which is why the ACC's #6 seed is a bid in that game, and the Big East is the #3 seed.
Yes, since 2007, the Big Ten has been down, but that's 2 seasons, and this season they are looking much better.
The Big East hasn't accomplished hardly anything except for WVU since Miami and Va Tech left (I know BC left too, but they were never exciting).
So why would a better bowl game feel more obligated to give a #3 seed Big East team a chance, when they have done virtually nothing?
Notice that the game was set up in 2007, and has a contract through 2013. When the Big East hasn't been anything, a big bowl game isn't going to feel the need to ask for their services. Not to mention, the attendance numbers in the Big East are significantly smaller than those of other conferences. Usual attendance from those teams is around 35k-55k. Most of the Big Ten Stadiums average around 75k-100k in attendance, meaning that there is a MUCH bigger chance for fans to travel and for the bowl game to get money.
The Big East could help themselves immensely just by bettering their athletic buildings, and winning more games. It's really a simple task. Everybody wants to get all over the Big Ten because we have struggled from 2007-2009. In 2006, our bowl record was nothing exciting, but we still had 3 teams finish in the top 10. This year, we'll most likely have 2-3 teams finish in the top 10, depending on what Iowa does, along with a few other ranked teams.
The Big Ten isn't as bad as some of you folks think.
Or you could include the record of the CURRENT Big East teams from the beginning of the BCS vs the Big Ten from the beginning of the BCS. That's the only fair way. If the BE teams that are there now are so worthy, then they should have been having success beforehand as well.eersandbeers wrote:
Why does '05 make you laugh? Why would I include wins from teams that were not in the conference? Going before '05 will likely help my argument even more as Miami and VT were winning BCS games.
People can ignorantly discuss why the BE should lose its BCS affiliation when they aren't even aware that the BE has met the qualifications to maintain their BCS bid. The ACC has not.
Also, I don't care about perception. I'm talking about facts, which don't seem to go over real well.
ytownfootball wrote: My god eers the 2009 Orange Bowl was giving away tickets and pulled in a 5.4 Nielson. What does it take for you to realize the country doesn't feel the Big East is worth a shit?
I think you have shown more than a couple times throughout this thread that you really have no clue what you are talking about. The BCS reviews the automatic qualifiers every 3 years. Which means the BCS committee evaluated the 2004-2007 seasons to approve the automatic qualification again in 2008. And they will be approved again in 2012 if the conference still exists.ytownfootball wrote:I don't suppose the fact they're still under contract has anything to do with it either. Your point that they've maintained despite piss poor viewership is irrelevant. Why is the Big East always brought up as the one AQ that shouldn't be getting it? Surely no one on here has anything to do with what the rest of the country feels. You're not an idiot so address what the real problem is and quit fiddle fuckin' around with your lousy five year sample, no one's buying it anyway.
LJ wrote: Or you could include the record of the CURRENT Big East teams from the beginning of the BCS vs the Big Ten from the beginning of the BCS. That's the only fair way. If the BE teams that are there now are so worthy, then they should have been having success beforehand as well.
bulldog8 wrote: I just read through the 3 pages of this thread and boy does this make me laugh. This is the biggest joke of an argument that i've ever seen. Eers, you should focus on disproving why the Big East shouldn't lose their automatic bid rather than accusing another conference of deserving to lose their auto bid. I don't feel that the Big East should lose their automatic bid because it is evident by observing the records posted that a conference's success goes in cycles. I'm sure a year will come when the Big East has great success and produces a National Championship contender, if not a National Champion. But to say that the Big Ten is a worse conference than the Big East because of their record since 2005 against BCS opponents, get real!? I'll take any of the big powers from the Big Ten against the best teams from the Big East, ANY YEAR! This is evident by the final rankings each year. The powers of the Big Ten consistently finish ranked higher than the Big East's best and that reflects a whole season's work, not just success against BCS opponents. To claim that 5 years accurately depicts the success of a conference is ludicrous. That's like saying, well in a presidential election we will only consider the votes of a certain region of the country to determine who the next president is. How about you consider all the facts, records, and information before you make a bone-headed attempt to support your conclusion. This thread merely discredits your knowledge of the game. Should the Big East lose their auto bid? NO. Should the Big Ten lose their auto big? NO. I agree with your final conclusion, but before you go around accusing others of illogical arguments, maybe you should thoroughly consider your own argument because it's a tad bit illogical in itself.