I still think Temple / Memphis were awful additions

[UConnDan97]

Somehow a team by your definition can be good without being average. Was UConn good last year?

Yes, they were good. They weren't very good. They certainly weren't great. But they were good.

Some signs of why we were a good team: dominating inferior teams (Fordham, Buffalo), winning some tight games (USF, Syra) against other "good" competition. Blasting your main rival (Rutgers) when they were poised to win the conference. Having the leading rusher in the conference. Yeah, I'd say they were good...

 

[UConnDan97]

It's not personal and I'm not looking to battle over nothing - we just disagree on 'good'. I don't see how beating Edsall twice, Wyoming and Buffalo makes a team good. I see a team that never in their affiliation beat a single MAC team with a winning record, is picked 7th or 8th in the 2012 Big East and is probably somewhere between 70th and 90th nationally - that falls nowhere near good for me. There are 124 teams - 62 is average and maybe the 45th best team qualifies as good for me. Temple is nowhere near the 45th best team or program in the country.

They stunk beyond belief - then found their level in the MAC and had a good coach in Golden. They will be back over their heads in September. Maybe Addazio is a good coach, but if he is he'll be around as long as Golden. I work with a lot of Temple grads - they hold their own program in destain.

If I didn't value your opinion I wouldn't bother engaging you - for example I am ignoring the poster who thinks UConn is going to play Colorado, Texas, Michigan and Tennessee in the same season - you know a schedule that no one in the country has played in decades.

Okay, that's fair. And I appreciate that you value my opinion.

Let me just touch upon the statement you made that a team has to be ranked around 45th in the country to be considered "good". I can live with that definition, if that's what you'll stand by. Here are the Sagarin ratings for college football last year. Notice which team is ranked 46? (here's a hint: it rhymes with "Pemple")

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt11.htm

Also, on those same ratings, I'm going to list some teams that would not make your criteria of being "good" due to their positions:

Ohio State (49)
Tennessee (50)
Miami (52)
Texas Tech (53)
UNC (54)
Ga Tech (56)
NC State (57)
USF (59)
Louisville (61)
(Purdue, UCLA, Virginia, Pitt, etc., you get the point)

Not bad for a team that isn't "good"...

 

[whaler11]

Yes, they were good. They weren't very good. They certainly weren't great. But they were good.

Some signs of why we were a good team: dominating inferior teams (Fordham, Buffalo), winning some tight games (USF, Syra) against other "good" competition. Blasting your main rival (Rutgers) when they were poised to win the conference. Having the leading rusher in the conference. Yeah, I'd say they were good...

Well if you think UConn was good last year, I'd hate to see who was bad. What was Western Michigan? Great? Tremendous? Excellent?

Syracuse and South Florida won 2 combined Big East games - beating them in close games at home is the sign of a bad team not a good team.

 

[whaler11]

Okay, that's fair. And I appreciate that you value my opinion.

Let me just touch upon the statement you made that a team has to be ranked around 45th in the country to be considered "good". I can live with that definition, if that's what you'll stand by. Here are the Sagarin ratings for college football last year. Notice which team is ranked 46? (here's a hint: it rhymes with "Pemple")

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt11.htm

Also, on those same ratings, I'm going to list some teams that would not make your criteria of being "good" due to their positions:

Ohio State (49)
Tennessee (50)
Miami (52)
Texas Tech (53)
UNC (54)
Ga Tech (56)
NC State (57)
USF (59)
Louisville (61)
(Purdue, UCLA, Virginia, Pitt, etc., you get the point)

Not bad for a team that isn't "good"...

Purdue, UCLA, Miami... God those teams stunk last year. USF went 1-7 in the frigging Big East they were terrible The Sagarins are horsecrap, I'd like to see legitimate computer rankings there is no way that USF was better than Louisville, but yeah most of those teams were far from good. Ask a Tennessee or Ohio State fan if they were good last year. Ha.

 

[UConnDan97]

Well if you think UConn was good last year, I'd hate to see who was bad. What was Western Michigan? Great? Tremendous? Excellent?

Syracuse and South Florida won 2 combined Big East games - beating them in close games at home is the sign of a bad team not a good team.

Okay, so here is where our disagreement lies. You believe that a good team cannot lose a game to a BCS team. You also believe that a good team cannot lose a game to a non-BCS bowl team. I doubt you'll change your mind on that, and you of course know that I think those statements are preposterous! USF beat Notre Dame last year, and they're not good? Syracuse beat West Virginia and they're not good? I'm not saying these are great teams that we beat, but they were good teams. They had BCS-level talent and they were not walk-over teams like Duke or Washington State. They won big games too.

So now that we know that it is a bridge too far, I guess we can call it quits on the discussion. I just hate to see Temple fall victim to the same prejudice that the Big East has suffered from as a conference; that its perception is lower than its reality.

 

[UConnDan97]

Purdue, UCLA, Miami... God those teams stunk last year. USF went 1-7 in the frigging Big East they were terrible The Sagarins are horsecrap, I'd like to see legitimate computer rankings there is no way that USF was better than Louisville, but yeah most of those teams were far from good. Ask a Tennessee or Ohio State fan if they were good last year. Ha.

Purdue won their bowl game last year and UCLA was a PAC-10 championship game away from representing them in the Rose Bowl. They don't classify as good teams, though? I'm not saying "great" teams! It doesn't matter, I guess...

 

[UConnDan97]

By the way, there is no such thing as a "legitimate computer ranking." Sagarin is one of the measurements in the BCS formula. It's not some dude's made-up blog...

Addendum: I just found some more of the computer rankings used in the BCS formula:

Massey - Temple 57
Anderson and Hester - 61
Colley - 49
Billingsley - 56
Wolfe - (couldn't find the results posted)

 

[whaler11]

Okay, so here is where our disagreement lies. You believe that a good team cannot lose a game to a BCS team. You also believe that a good team cannot lose a game to a non-BCS bowl team. I doubt you'll change your mind on that, and you of course know that I think those statements are preposterous! USF beat Notre Dame last year, and they're not good? Syracuse beat West Virginia and they're not good? I'm not saying these are great teams that we beat, but they were good teams. They had BCS-level talent and they were not walk-over teams like Duke or Washington State. They won big games too.

So now that we know that it is a bridge too far, I guess we can call it quits on the discussion. I just hate to see Temple fall victim to the same prejudice that the Big East has suffered from as a conference; that its perception is lower than its reality.

Jesus Syracuse was good?

I can't even spend time on the rest. Syracuse was good? Syracuse frigging sucked.

USF beat Notre Dame in a reverse miracle.

You can not go 1-7 in the Big East and be good. You probably can't go 1-7 in the Big 10 or SEC and be good.

Good teams lose to bad teams once in a while. Good teams don't lose more games than they win. Good teams don't go 0-7 against teams in the Big East not named Syracuse.

By your definition everyone is good. That's absurd - the word isn't defined that way.

 

[UConnDan97]

Jesus Syracuse was good?

I can't even spend time on the rest. Syracuse was good? Syracuse frigging sucked.

USF beat Notre Dame in a reverse miracle.

You can not go 1-7 in the Big East and be good. You probably can't go 1-7 in the Big 10 or SEC and be good.

Good teams lose to bad teams once in a while. Good teams don't lose more games than they win. Good teams don't go 0-7 against teams in the Big East not named Syracuse.

By your definition everyone is good. That's absurd - the word isn't defined that way.

USC, Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville, UConn, Pitt, South Florida. Those were the losses that Syracuse had. Which one is a bad team again??

The Big East is a tougher conference than anyone gives us credit for, including "us" apparently. There is no shame in losing to USF or Pitt or....gasp...UConn...

 

[whaler11]

By the way, there is no such thing as a "legitimate computer ranking." Sagarin is one of the measurements in the BCS formula. It's not some dude's made-up blog...

Addendum: I just found some more of the computer rankings used in the BCS formula:

Massey - Temple 57
Anderson and Hester - 61
Colley - 49
Billingsley - 56
Wolfe - (couldn't find the results posted)

So Temple was average last year. When they were in the Big East they went about 10-80. They were so bad they got kicked out. They beat a 2-10 Maryland team, Wyoming, and one good UConn team when Todman coughed a ball up in the second half. They never beat a MAC team with a winning record - but somehow on faith I'm supposed to believe they are 'good' in spite of decades of evidence that they aren't.

Can't Temple or any other school actually prove ANYTHING before they get credit? Maybe they will be good - they are not, nor have they been.

 

[whaler11]

USC, Rutgers, Cincy, Louisville, UConn, Pitt, South Florida. Those were the losses that Syracuse had. Which one is a bad team again??

The Big East is a tougher conference than anyone gives us credit for, including "us" apparently. There is no shame in losing to USF or Pitt or....gasp...UConn...

There isn't shame in losing any single game. But when you lose all of them you aren't good. When you need a blown call on a PAT to beat Toledo and lose 6 of 7 conference games in a BCS conference that went like 3-13 against other BCS leagues you are not good.

Syracuse is so far away from good it's almost not funny. Let's just stop - your premise is so ridiculous I can't even take it seriously. Syracuse had a good football team in 2011.

Good teams do not beat Rhode Island by 7 and Tulane by 3 at home.

Last 5 games: Lost by 17. Lost by 7. Lost by 20. Lost by 17. Lost by 13.

Any of those 5 get them bowl eligible and they lost 5 games by a combined 74 points.

 

[UConnDan97]

So Temple was average last year. When they were in the Big East they went about 10-80. They were so bad they got kicked out. They beat a 2-10 Maryland team, Wyoming, and one good UConn team when Todman coughed a ball up in the second half. They never beat a MAC team with a winning record - but somehow on faith I'm supposed to believe they are 'good' in spite of decades of evidence that they aren't.

Can't Temple or any other school actually prove ANYTHING before they get credit? Maybe they will be good - they are not, nor have they been.

I know what they WERE. Everyone on this board (I think) knows what they WERE. Can we stop talking about 2003, please? It is 2012 now. It's almost a decade later. You have to get over what teams WERE. Again, this is the problem with the national perception of the Big East in general. They see Cincy for who they WERE, and USF for who they were. But you and I should both know better, right?

I'll call Temple good. You can call them average. We'll both sleep soundly tonight...

 

[whaler11]

Is there a single person in the world who thinks that Syracuse had a good team in 2011? Is anyone willing to put in writing - yes SU had a good team last year.

 

[UConnDan97]

Is there a single person in the world who thinks that Syracuse had a good team in 2011? Is anyone willing to put in writing - yes SU had a good team last year.

They had five 1st team All BE and two 2nd team All BE players last year (we had three and five respectively). Ryan Nassib was more than noticeably better than McEntee last year, and they had a player drafted in the NFL higher than we did.

And now I really hate you for forcing me to make an argument that Syracuse may have had the better talent than we did!

 

[whaler11]

I know what they WERE. Everyone on this board (I think) knows what they WERE. Can we stop talking about 2003, please? It is 2012 now. It's almost a decade later. You have to get over what teams WERE. Again, this is the problem with the national perception of the Big East in general. They see Cincy for who they WERE, and USF for who they were. But you and I should both know better, right?

I'll call Temple good. You can call them average. We'll both sleep soundly tonight...

I can tell the difference. USF had a good basketball team this year. Baylor had a good football last year. Florida did not have a good football team last year.

Temple has done nothing to think they will be a good Big East team in 2012 or beyond. Until they prove they are - I'll assume they aren't because they never were and wouldn't have been since they left.

 

[whaler11]

They had five 1st team All BE and two 2nd team All BE players last year (we had three and five respectively). Ryan Nassib was more than noticeably better than McEntee last year, and they had a player drafted in the NFL higher than we did.

And now I really hate you for forcing me to make an argument that Syracuse may have had the better talent than we did!

And UConn wasn't good. Good teams don't finish 5-7.

Having some good players does not make a team good. By that definition BC is good.

 

[UConnDan97]

I can tell the difference. USF had a good basketball team this year. Baylor had a good football last year. Florida did not have a good football team last year.

Temple has done nothing to think they will be a good Big East team in 2012 or beyond. Until they prove they are - I'll assume they aren't because they never were and wouldn't have been since they left.

I'll call them good. You call them average. A win-win...

 

[Dann]

They had five 1st team All BE and two 2nd team All BE players last year (we had three and five respectively). Ryan Nassib was more than noticeably better than McEntee last year, and they had a player drafted in the NFL higher than we did.

And now I really hate you for forcing me to make an argument that Syracuse may have had the better talent than we did!

now just wait a goddam minute, rondell!

 

[whaler11]

I'll call them good. You call them average. A win-win...

Average for a few seasons. They enter 2012 as one of the three worst overall BCS programs and that is generous.

 

[UConnDan97]

now just wait a goddam minute, rondell!

You know that deep down I don't believe Syracuse is more talented than UConn. They can take that orange and shove it up their...

 

[phillionaire]

I don't see why UCONN fans are looking down on Temple and Memphis. Seriously. What have we done in the football world that lets us look down on them?

 

[Waquoit]

They can't beat a good MAC team, proved they couldn't compete in the old Big East but are going to keep up this time based on beating Wyoming and not getting killed by Penn State. I'll believe it when I see it.

Let's be honest, in UConn's best season, Temple blew UConn off the field.

 

[whaler11]

Let's be honest, in UConn's best season, Temple blew UConn off the field.

That is their best win in a decade. They hardly blew UConn off the field. If Todman doesn't get stripped UConn probably wins.

 

[ZooCougar]

That's a big if.

 

[Adios]

I don't see why UCONN fans are looking down on Temple and Memphis. Seriously. What have we done in the football world that lets us look down on them?

All three of us have neat histories. None have national championships. We have a very similar amount of NFL players produced as Temple so far but are really uptrending. Temple has two Hall of Fame head coaches who coached them for around 13 seasons. Memphis will probably have a Pro Football Hall of Famer in Isaac Bruce. Memphis is starving for high tier football.

 

[ZooCougar]

All three of us have neat histories. None have national championships. We have a very similar amount of NFL players produced as Temple so far but are really uptrending. Temple has two Hall of Fame head coaches who coached them for around 13 seasons. Memphis will probably have a Pro Football Hall of Famer in Isaac Bruce. Memphis is starving for high tier football.

No they aren't. Everyone in Memphis is a Tennessee/Ark/Ole Miss fan. Memphis fans are notorious part time fans.

The bottom line is that Memphis should not have been invited into this conference. The place is like a giant red flag.

 

[Hoophound]

No they aren't. Everyone in Memphis is a Tennessee/Ark/Ole Miss fan. Memphis fans are notorious part time fans.

The bottom line is that Memphis should not have been invited into this conference. The place is like a giant red flag.

I hope they prove you wrong, but I share the same concerns on Memphis. I think they will be very, very good in a short time. I also think they will cheat to do it.

 

[Waquoit]

Just win, baby.

 

[huskypantz]

I don't see why UCONN fans are looking down on Temple and Memphis. Seriously. What have we done in the football world that lets us look down on them?

Well, it's really what they haven't done that separates us. Temple averaged about 1 win a year in their initial run as a BE team. They played in 2 bowl games since 1980, and won 1. We have 6 8+win seasons in the past decade (our complete FBS existence). They have 3, and you have to go back a long time before those years to see anything that doesn't look inept. Even when they win games, they rarely beat .500+ teams. They have horrible home attendance. We don't need to look down on them, but there is no reason to believe that we're not a much stronger program.

 

[ZooCougar]

I feel like a Syracuse fan when I bash a program that beat us the last we played them.

Temple always gave us a game. We were one call away from losing two against Temple. I want to beat them thorughly before we begin bashing them.