Boise withdraws from MWC

[Marty Jackson]

Yeah BC is bad because they are in the ACC. Not because they had a really good coach and got rid of him because he interviewed for an NFL job. It's their conference affiliation - not the coach and AD.

I noticed you omitted VPI. Guess, it didn't happen to them.

I get it... BC sucks because their coach left (like 10 years ago).
But we'll continually point out that Cincy lost a BCS game to Florida by 30+ points and never mention that Kelly screwed his team by announcing his departure essentially during the national anthem.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Do you not get that the opinions that people have of schools and conferences are based on long history developed over decades?

So yes the fact that the SEC has been hammering Houston, Cinci, Memphis and others for years matters. On top of the obvious visual evidence that the SEC is better than the Big East - a sample of 11 games where there are two wins over teams not named Kentucky or Vanderbilt means nothing. Note Rutgers and Syracuse didn't even play a game against the SEC - I'll spoil it though, they weren't going to beat anyone with a pulse.

If you want to draw conclusions about the Big East going forward based on a handful of games that WVU won that's your business, but it's laughable to anyone in the country who isn't a Big East fan trying to fool themselves about this league.

Would you argue that the Big East is a far superior basketball conference than the SEC? Well that link says they are only 45-40 against the SEC since Louisville joined - I guess that means they are really really close! Let me guess that you don't really believe that because it's nonsense.

We can spin this anyway we want. The fact is, the BE has gone head to head with the SEC and held it's own.
In a system that is so skewed to provide the SEC with every advantage imagineable the fact that the BE played even is an accomplishment.

 

[Marty Jackson]

Whaler, all I'm saying is things change. Boise was nothing, now it's respected. Houston is winning respect. Definitely some programs benefit from a long history, and the Big East doesn't have any of them. But that doesn't mean the Big East has no future.

There is one. Rutgers has a pretty long history.

 

[zls44]

There is one. Rutgers has a pretty long history.

He said benefits.

 

[Marty Jackson]

He said benefits.

On the surface, I would say Rutgers benefits from their long history... It's like going to a bar with a fake id.

It get's them to the door of the 'schools with a long history and rich tradition' club.
Unfortunately if anyone is checking id's or asking questions at the door, they're exposed and not getting in.

 

[whaler11]

You have to understand that Whaler just loves to be a contrarian. Next up, he is going to pull out UConn's records against New Hampshire and Hofstra, because some of those games were in the 90's, and that should reflect who we are now...

Maybe a contrarian compared to a half dozen posters on this website. The rest of the country mock Memphis and Temple and the league in general.

EDSBS had a great line about Temple, I won't get it right but:

Boise was flipping a quarter to help decide leaving Mountain West... When they realized that was more than Temple's annual football budget.

 

[UConnDan97]

Maybe a contrarian compared to a half dozen posters on this website. The rest of the country mock Memphis and Temple and the league in general.

EDSBS had a great line about Temple, I won't get it right but:

Boise was flipping a quarter to help decide leaving Mountain West... When they realized that was more than Temple's annual football budget.

My comment about you being a contrarian was in regards to you quoting historical records for the SEC versus new Big East members as a way to show that we are drastically inferior. Nobody on this board or anywhere else will argue that we are as good as the SEC, but the use of records that date back to the 60's and 70's in order to try to "one-up" another poster's point seemed a bit much.

That only counts if you will allow us to revisit Houston and SMU ala the late 70's and early 80's, where they were winning national championships and battling against ND in the Cotton Bowl, right?

 

[whaler11]

My comment about you being a contrarian was in regards to you quoting historical records for the SEC versus new Big East members as a way to show that we are drastically inferior. Nobody on this board or anywhere else will argue that we are as good as the SEC, but the use of records that date back to the 60's and 70's in order to try to "one-up" another poster's point seemed a bit much.

That only counts if you will allow us to revisit Houston and SMU ala the late 70's and early 80's, where they were winning national championships and battling against ND in the Cotton Bowl, right?

Im sorry. Im just trying to explain why the country looks down on the league.
There might be a small sample where the current Big East teams went 5-6 against mostly crappy SEC teams. The country remembers when the best Big East team in the decade... got beat 800-4 by an unmotivated Florida team.

You keep trying to pretend that I'm lumping SMU and Houston in with Temple and Memphis. Boise, Houston and SMU were the three best available programs since BYU wasn't willing to join the league. SDSU is a decent addition when considering Boise's wishes. Navy has prestige and while I'm not sure they can compete long term or be happy in a league I fully welcome them.

Why wasn't it enough to take those programs. Why not skim the top of the pool and take those four and maybe UCF. Why dip into the muck and take Memphis and Temple?

Some of the moves were good and some were bad? Why do you feel the need to defend bad moves so strongly?

 

[UConnDan97]

Im sorry. Im just trying to explain why the country looks down on the league.
There might be a small sample where the current Big East teams went 5-6 against mostly crappy SEC teams. The country remembers when the best Big East team in the decade... got beat 800-4 by an unmotivated Florida team.

You keep trying to pretend that I'm lumping SMU and Houston in with Temple and Memphis. Boise, Houston and SMU were the three best available programs since BYU wasn't willing to join the league. SDSU is a decent addition when considering Boise's wishes. Navy has prestige and while I'm not sure they can compete long term or be happy in a league I fully welcome them.

Why wasn't it enough to take those programs. Why not skim the top of the pool and take those four and maybe UCF. Why dip into the muck and take Memphis and Temple?

Some of the moves were good and some were bad? Why do you feel the need to defend bad moves so strongly?

I'm not trying to pretend that you are doing anything. The stats you provided are below, and there is no mention of Temple and a definite mention of Houston, Cincy, and the Ville:

"Through 2010 SEC versus:
houston 58-28
Cinci. 39-7
Memphis 99-36
LV 21-10"

Look, I understand what you're getting at. I know that most people outside of the league think of the times that Florida smoked Cincy in a BCS game, rather than to talk about the fact that WVU beat Georgia in the BCS (or Boise beating Georgia, if you don't want us to have credit for the WVU wins....or the Miami BCS wins against the SEC as a Big East member). They won't remember the curb-stomp that UConn put on South Carolina, because unfortunately we lost to Vandy two years later.

The toughest thing that the Big East has always had to overcome is the perception. In order to overcome perception, we don't just need to get to a 50/50 proposition. Unfortunately, and unfairly, we have to win almost every time we see them, so that we make sure they remember who we are...

 

[whaler11]

I'm not trying to pretend that you are doing anything. The stats you provided are below, and there is no mention of Temple and a definite mention of Houston, Cincy, and the Ville:

"Through 2010 SEC versus:
houston 58-28
Cinci. 39-7
Memphis 99-36
LV 21-10"

Look, I understand what you're getting at. I know that most people outside of the league think of the times that Florida smoked Cincy in a BCS game, rather than to talk about the fact that WVU beat Georgia in the BCS (or Boise beating Georgia, if you don't want us to have credit for the WVU wins....or the Miami BCS wins against the SEC as a Big East member). They won't remember the curb-stomp that UConn put on South Carolina, because unfortunately we lost to Vandy two years later.

The toughest thing that the Big East has always had to overcome is the perception. In order to overcome perception, we don't just need to get to a 50/50 proposition. Unfortunately, and unfairly, we have to win almost every time we see them, so that we make sure they remember who we are...

Yeah it's not fair. When UConn hammers South Carolina the masses excuse it as USC wasn't motivated because it was Birmingham.

You are a smart guy with good opinions. Please don't tell me you think the Big East can lay claim to wins by teams that aren't in the league going forward.

 

[UConnDan97]

Yeah it's not fair. When UConn hammers South Carolina the masses excuse it as USC wasn't motivated because it was Birmingham.

You are a smart guy with good opinions. Please don't tell me you think the Big East can lay claim to wins by teams that aren't in the league going forward.

Thanks for the compliment. I don't believe that we can take any credit whatsoever now for wins that Miami achieved under the Big East banner. I also think that we can only take marginal credit for the WVU wins (they haven't played a down under the Big12 banner and all their kids were recruited under the Big East name). The marginal credit that we draw from WVU will fade away pretty fast.

Still, if we must relinquish those victories, it means that we can begin to take credit for Boise's (who hasn't played a down yet for the Big East). So when we look back at their wins against Georgia, Va Tech, etc., we can feel proud I guess that the Big East continues to have some good moments in history against "the big boys".

As for South Carolina not being up for the game because it was in Birmingham; that may be their excuse, but anyone who saw the game knows differently and also knows that a 20-7 scoreline didn't do UConn's curb-stomping justice!