Ratings have to do with how good a conference is? Wow, talk about reaching.

It has everyting to do with whether the BCS keeps a conference and it's AQ status, try to follow along.

And they will be approved again in 2012 if the conference still exists.

Why on earth wopuldn't the Big East exsist? Please answer this as it cuts right to the heart of what we're talking about here. Try to follow along if you can.

Again you're not stupid, address the real issue with the Big East, you've done nothing to bolster your argument unless I'm wrong in assuming anyone buys the 5 year BS you're passing off as relevant.

And for the record, I don't think they should lose their AQ.

Eers, comparing records from 5 years is completely illogical. Post the records of these teams from a larger time frame and then maybe you will be able to "properly grasp the basic concepts necessary to provide an argument." I don't care when certain teams left the conference, that means nothing. Dig deeper for more records and i'm sure you will find that the big ten has seen quite a bit of success prior to 2005. You're right, the rankings are opinionated, but unfortunately, those rankings are what college football depends on and what success is determined by. Until a playoff is instituted, those rankings will continue to mean far more than they should. I fully comprehend your argument, which is why I think your mocking is extremely unappreciated. Maybe you should understand that when you make overzealous comments like you have, that you will upset many unbiased fans of the game. You mock those who claim that the Big East should lose their auto bid - maybe you should be the bigger person and let them look like idiots instead of making a completely rash argument like you have here. I do not think that the Big East should lose their bid, but as an OSU fan that has never belittled the Big East, I find your intransigent argument very uncalled for.

ytownfootball wrote:

Ratings have to do with how good a conference is? Wow, talk about reaching.

It has everyting to do with whether the BCS keeps a conference and it's AQ status, try to follow along.

TV ratings have nothing to do with whether or not a conference excels on the field. If this factored into the equation then the ACC would have lost their bid awhile ago as they generally have a horrible fan following.

ytownfootball wrote: Why on earth wopuldn't the Big East exsist? Please answer this as it cuts right to the heart of what we're talking about here. Try to follow along if you can.

Again you're not stupid, address the real issue with the Big East, you've done nothing to bolster your argument unless I'm wrong in assuming anyone buys the 5 year BS you're passing off as relevant.

And for the record, I don't think they should lose their AQ.

The future of college sports is 14-16 team superconferences. The ACC and the Big10 have already talked about the possibility of doing this. Pitt would likely head to the Big10 and 3 or 4 BE teams would probably head to the ACC.

A 5 year period is an adequate sample size to determine recent trends in conference bowl success.

I'm not saying I "buy the 5 year BS" thing, but I understand what he is trying to say. Why would he include the BCS berths that Miami and Va Tech made while they were in the Big East?? You know very well that as soon as he did that, he would get blasted because those teams aren't in the conference anymore. Eers is simply taking the data from the time the current Big East has been in existence.

bulldog8 wrote: Eers, comparing records from 5 years is completely illogical. Post the records of these teams from a larger time frame and then maybe you will be able to "properly grasp the basic concepts necessary to provide an argument." I don't care when certain teams left the conference, that means nothing. Dig deeper for more records and i'm sure you will find that the big ten has seen quite a bit of success prior to 2005. You're right, the rankings are opinionated, but unfortunately, those rankings are what college football depends on and what success is determined by. Until a playoff is instituted, those rankings will continue to mean far more than they should. I fully comprehend your argument, which is why I think your mocking is extremely unappreciated. Maybe you should understand that when you make overzealous comments like you have, that you will upset many unbiased fans of the game. You mock those who claim that the Big East should lose their auto bid - maybe you should be the bigger person and let them look like idiots instead of making a completely rash argument like you have here. I do not think that the Big East should lose their bid, but as an OSU fan that has never belittled the Big East, I find your intransigent argument very uncalled for.

This is from sportswizuhrd.

He said he was comparing the same stats since the inception of the BCS.


ACC- 26-34(60)
BIG 10- 31-39 (70)
BIG 12 33-39 (72)
BIG EAST 24-19 (43)
SEC 47-32 (79)
PAC-10 26-20 (46)
Notre Dame 0-6 (6)

eersandbeers wrote: This is from sportswizuhrd.

He said he was comparing the same stats since the inception of the BCS.


ACC- 26-34(60)
BIG 10- 31-39 (70)
BIG 12 33-39 (72)
BIG EAST 24-19 (43)
SEC 47-32 (79)
PAC-10 26-20 (46)
Notre Dame 0-6 (6)

Come on, is the Notre Dame record really needed in this discussion??
:dodgy:

And why is the "superconference" being explored? Because it keeps as many teams getting the gauranteed money the BCS offers as a privately funded organization, I'm not surprised by this.

ACC=Big East as far as viewership/following is concerned so that's a wash, it doesn't mean that the MWAC is more desrving though imo, their following would be lower in this regard and is the only reason imo the BCS keeps the Big East and ACC as opposed to them. They generate more revenue, it doesn't have anything to do with their performance on the field.

The Big 10 generates huge amount of cash flow that can't be denied or argued. You want to throw performance into the question, were it an NCAA sanctioned event, the argument would have merit. As it stands, the BCS is all about generating income, the ACC and the Big East are at the bottom of the pack in this regard and you're intelligent enough to understand it.

Eers, providing the entirity of the numbers strengthens your argument......I think it's evident by those numbers that although the big ten has more wins, the big east has a better win percentage. Irregardless, I don't think either of these conferences are in jeopardy of losing their auto bid. I think a more pertinent argument would be that all of this controversy could be avoided with the institution of a playoff. I think the bowls and auto bids are a hoax anyways.

When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

Same can be said for OSU in the two recent national championship games or the 07, 08, 09 Rose Bowl games

karen lotz wrote:

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

Same can be said for OSU in the two recent national championship games or the 07, 08, 09 Rose Bowl games

Really? As an ND fan, do you really think you should be pointing out who should be speaking and when? Are you seriously that starved for attention?

priceless.

So because Notre Dame has been down their fans can't offer opinion? Why is it fair to say that the Big East shouldn't be talking because their champ has been dialed for two years? The Big Ten champs got "dialed" in all 5 of the games I listed.

eersandbeers wrote:

bulldog8 wrote: Eers, comparing records from 5 years is completely illogical. Post the records of these teams from a larger time frame and then maybe you will be able to "properly grasp the basic concepts necessary to provide an argument." I don't care when certain teams left the conference, that means nothing. Dig deeper for more records and i'm sure you will find that the big ten has seen quite a bit of success prior to 2005. You're right, the rankings are opinionated, but unfortunately, those rankings are what college football depends on and what success is determined by. Until a playoff is instituted, those rankings will continue to mean far more than they should. I fully comprehend your argument, which is why I think your mocking is extremely unappreciated. Maybe you should understand that when you make overzealous comments like you have, that you will upset many unbiased fans of the game. You mock those who claim that the Big East should lose their auto bid - maybe you should be the bigger person and let them look like idiots instead of making a completely rash argument like you have here. I do not think that the Big East should lose their bid, but as an OSU fan that has never belittled the Big East, I find your intransigent argument very uncalled for.

This is from sportswizuhrd.

He said he was comparing the same stats since the inception of the BCS.


ACC- 26-34(60)
BIG 10- 31-39 (70)
BIG 12 33-39 (72)
BIG EAST 24-19 (43)
SEC 47-32 (79)
PAC-10 26-20 (46)
Notre Dame 0-6 (6)

Sportswizurd, do those stats include only the current members of each conference?

You're offering an opinion that OSU should STFU since the lost the last couple bowl games including 2 national championships...

But as an ND fan you can say whatever you want...ironic I think

You just don't know when to shut up and it appears you never will...carry on I guess.

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

true or false...the Big Ten champs were "dialed" in the games I listed.

ytownfootball wrote: You're offering an opinion that OSU should STFU since the lost the last couple bowl games including 2 national championships...

But as an ND fan you can say whatever you want...ironic I think

You just don't know when to shut up and it appears you never will...carry on I guess.

and who are you to determine who can post opinion on an internet message board?

Just pointing out the irony of you running your mouth chief...post away.

karen lotz wrote:

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

true or false...the Big Ten champs were "dialed" in the games I listed.

True or false, Notre Dame hasn't beat a ranked team since week 2 of the 2006 season?

LJ wrote:

karen lotz wrote:

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

true or false...the Big Ten champs were "dialed" in the games I listed.

True or false, Notre Dame hasn't beat a ranked team since week 2 of the 2006 season?

It is true, didn't think that was up for debate. And does that somehow cancel out the Big Ten champs getting "dialed"?

karen lotz wrote:

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

Same can be said for OSU in the two recent national championship games or the 07, 08, 09 Rose Bowl games

ie; you really shouldn't be talking.

you're an idiot

karen lotz wrote:

LJ wrote:

karen lotz wrote:

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

true or false...the Big Ten champs were "dialed" in the games I listed.

True or false, Notre Dame hasn't beat a ranked team since week 2 of the 2006 season?

It is true, didn't think that was up for debate. And does that somehow cancel out the Big Ten champs getting "dialed"?

How about you worry about your own team? And "getting 'dialed'"? Way to make up your own monikers. Yep, the Big Ten champs were perfected in those games.

ytownfootball wrote: ie; you really shouldn't be talking.

you're an idiot

technically, Notre Dame isn't in a conference so that wouldn't apply in this scenario, right??

LJ wrote:

karen lotz wrote:

LJ wrote:

karen lotz wrote:

dwccrew wrote: When your conference champ gets dialed two years in a row, you really shouldn't be talking.

true or false...the Big Ten champs were "dialed" in the games I listed.

True or false, Notre Dame hasn't beat a ranked team since week 2 of the 2006 season?

It is true, didn't think that was up for debate. And does that somehow cancel out the Big Ten champs getting "dialed"?

How about you worry about your own team? And "getting 'dialed'"? Way to make up your own monikers. Yep, the Big Ten champs were perfected in those games.

Why would I make up my own moniker? I was quoting someone else, hence the use of the quotation marks.

karen lotz wrote:

ytownfootball wrote: ie; you really shouldn't be talking.

you're an idiot

technically, Notre Dame isn't in a conference so that wouldn't apply in this scenario, right??

They have auto qualifer status pertaining to their ranking and record, which includes them in this convo.

The Mountainqueers and the Cincitucky Cubcats both got worked in 2010 and thats all that counts today.