I Wouldn't Be Surprised To Get An Acc Invite In The Next Week

[businesslawyer]

Don't forget 2011, seasons almost over.

It is clear by now that you have no interest in what others are saying, but that post proves my, and others, point as well as I ever could.

The whole fact that you want to add a partial year's result to help you make an argument that the ACC has in fact been superior over the last six or seven years makes it clear that there is no appreciable difference in the on field product. If the product is close enough that adding a partial year's results to a multi-year period is even relevant, your point is already disproved.

 

[upstater]

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2010/4/26/1444886/sec-dominates-bcs-automatic

(1) The ranking of the highest-ranked team in the final BCS Standings each year.
This looks at where your best team stacks up. If a conference doesn't have a team in the top 25, then the team with the best computer average takes this role. A non-AQ conference needs to be no lower than sixth in this to get a guaranteed bid automatically, and it must be no lower than seventh (while being fifth or higher in Criterion 2) in order to petition the Presidential Oversight Committee for an auto bid.
Here's how the top leagues stack up since 2006:

1. SEC, average finish of 1.75
2. Big 12, 4.25
3. Big Ten, 4.5
4. Pac-10, 6.0
5. Big East, 7.5
6. WAC, 8.25
7. ACC, 10.0
8. MWC, 11.75

As you can see, the WAC is actually in better shape in this category over the past four seasons than the MWC. That's because Boise State has been consistently up there (and Hawaii was in '07 when the Broncos were not), while the MWC has only had teams in the top 10 the past two seasons. It's no surprise seeing the ACC so far down there though, given the lack of any recent national title contenders from the league.
Here's how they look in the current evaluation period (since '08):

1. SEC, 1.5
2. Big 12, 1.5
3. MWC, 5.0
4. Pac-10, 6.0
5. Big East, 7.5
6. WAC, 7.5
7. Big Ten, 8.0
8. ACC, 11.5

I know there are a couple of ties there, but HTML ordered lists don't allow for ties. Anyway, things are a lot more bunched up with the MWC surging and the Big Ten falling. We can also see that the MWC has cleared the bar for automatic inclusion in this criterion, though it is by no means safe. If, for instance, the highest ranked MWC team next season is 20th, its average falls to 10, and it is in risk of not qualifying.
Either way you look at it, the SEC is doing great. Of course, it's the home of the last four national champions, and a team must be ranked either No. 1 or No. 2 to play for the honor. It makes sense.

 

[huskyrob1]

It is clear by now that you have no interest in what others are saying, but that post proves my, and others, point as well as I ever could.

The whole fact that you want to add a partial year's result to help you make an argument that the ACC has in fact been superior over the last six or seven years makes it clear that there is no appreciable difference in the on field product. If the product is close enough that adding a partial year's results to a multi-year period is even relevant, your point is already disproved.

Come on counselor, show me where I ever said the ACC has been superior to the Big East OVER THE LAST 6 OR 7 YEARS? Your original assertion a few days ago that the present Big East (This year, OK?) even now after losing Pitt, WVU, and Cuse is superior to the ACC in football, is what I took exception to and YOU KNOW THAT VERY WELL, but you have refused to admit that your crazy assertion was in error and have instead chose to blanket our debate with BS courtesy of BL.

 

[businesslawyer]

Come on counselor, show me where I ever said the ACC has been superior to the Big East OVER THE LAST 6 OR 7 YEARS? Your original assertion a few days ago that the present Big East (This year, OK?) even now after losing Pitt, WVU, and Cuse is superior to the ACC in football, is what I took exception to and YOU KNOW THAT VERY WELL, but you have refused to admit that your crazy assertion was in error and have instead chose to blanket our debate with BS courtesy of BL.

Well, that was a good, calm, analytical, non-personal response. Thank you for your contribution.

 

[huskyrob1]

Well, that was a good, calm, analytical, non-personal response. Thank you for your contribution.

You're welcome. Have a nice day.

 

[SAMCRO]

Come on counselor, show me where I ever said the ACC has been superior to the Big East OVER THE LAST 6 OR 7 YEARS?

Not that BL needs anyone to back him on this, but I'll take the bait. You implied it in your post that I copied below. The fact that you reference NC's won by Miami, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, and GT can only be talking many, many about years ago, b/c those teams haven't done squat in some time. When you refer to UNC and NCSU as strong programs year in and year out, you lose all credibility.

The ACC is not a better football conf than the Big East???? Are you crazy? Miami, Pitt, Syracuse, FSU, Clemson, and Georgia Tech have all won multiple NC's in football and don't forget very strong programs like Virgina Tech, NC State, and North Carolina year in and year out. All these schools have extremely strong and entrenched alumni and booster support and recruit circles around the Big East or what's left of it. In terms of scholastic ranking...well don't even go there.

BL and most here are talking about recent (post 2003 raid) on the field performance that the BE stacks up just fine v. the ACC in the actual on the field performance. I've shown you computer rankings to support this. Upstater has linked real data to show this. It's not even debatable. Where you are correct, is the NNBE doesn't stack up in prestige or history, or reputation. But where you're wrong is when you get in to discussing on the field results looked at by the unbiased computer rankings.

 

[huskyrob1]

Not that BL needs anyone to back him on this, but I'll take the bait. You implied it in your post that I copied below. The fact that you reference NC's won by Miami, FSU, Clemson, Syracuse, Pitt, and GT can only be talking many, many about years ago, b/c those teams haven't done squat in some time. When you refer to UNC and NCSU as strong programs year in and year out, you lose all credibility.

BL and most here are talking about recent (post 2003 raid) on the field performance that the BE stacks up just fine v. the ACC in the actual on the field performance. I've shown you computer rankings to support this. Upstater has linked real data to show this. It's not even debatable. Where you are correct, is the NNBE doesn't stack up in prestige or history, or reputation. But where you're wrong is when you get in to discussing on the field results looked at by the unbiased computer rankings.

huskyrob1 Active Member

businesslawyer said: ↑​

No. UConn would and should take it. The ACC is not a better football conference than the reconstituted Big East, but it will have more geographic cohesion, much better hoops, more prestige and more stability.​

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

I would be shocked if UConn got an ACC invite anytime prior to 2014.

 

[gars44]

gotta bottom line this issue. ACC has look/feel of being better than big east to the average consumer. The sophisticated consumer doesn't see a huge difference, nor do they care much about either conference.

 

[CTFootball]

We all know why the Big East was raided and what the intended consequences were. The BE was supposed to lose its BCS AQ status, be relegated to a minor TV contract, and die on the vine. It would eliminate competition for the other BCS conferences and ESPN.

The problem is that somehow the Big East has found a way to survive yet again. However, not only is the Big East surviving...but I would argue that they have strengthened for the future. While we may have lost some 'prestige' schools, we have added some huge TV markets and have added some teams with huge potential if given an opportunity and resources. This is starting to backfire huge for those that set out to kill the BE.

If this BE expansion goes through, not only will it arguably actually improve the BE in football...it will also firmly establish them as a BCS conference going forward. Once some of these teams establish themselves, combined with the service academies...there is no way they are going to lose the BCS AQ. Instead of minimizing competition, this raid will significantly increase the number of mouths to feed with the BCS and provide increased competition for many established programs.

The timeline has been set now...the BE will expand in a week. Part of me feels like those that intended to kill the BE are going to go for the kill shot while they still can. If they allow BE expansion to go forward, I don't think they will be able to kill off the BE in the future. I would not be surprised to see the ACC invite UConn and Rutgers and the B12 invite Louisville and Cincinnati. While I have not seen any increased activity or reports of this...I just have a feeling that this is spinning out of control for the interested parties and they are going to have to take the kill shot before it is too late!

Where is the invite - did I miss it?