Rumor: A lot of big east teams to leave

[HuskyHawk]

You're right, sort of. All of this expansion has little to do with things that happened 25+ years ago, but about how you're doing now, and more importantly, how many people are going to tune in on TV and watch you.

Washington has four titles, only one of which is recognized by any real source - USA Today/Coaches, and none are recognized by the AP or other commonly accepted sources. By these standards of using obscure ranking sources, Oregon and TCU were also national champions last year, Missouri and USC were in 2007, and Boise State won in 2006. They also did not go to a bowl from 2002 until 2010, and have not won a Pac-10 title since 2000. Sure, we don't have such a resume in our past, but if you put us head to head over the last 10 years, it's a far more even comparison.

Syracuse, much the same, has success from even farther back. Sure, Ernie Davis is a legend, and his Heisman win is a huge accomplishment for the program. That Cotton Bowl win over Texas was also huge for the program - in 1959 when it happened. But the ACC did not say "Oh wow, they won a Heisman and a national title 50 years ago, we can't pass this team up." If that were the standard, the ACC and the Big 10 would be lining up to take Army.

In terms of success on the field, unless your program is legitimately a blue blood, your isolated year or two of success from 25 years ago is not going to be much of a factor in expansion. Syracuse was not taken by the ACC for their football accomplishments on the field. They were taken because of a large alumni base in NYC who will flip on the TV. And make no mistake, they don't flip on the TV to watch Syracuse football first.

I don't think we're far off on this. I think Washington is pretty much a blue blood that has fallen on hard times, much like Indiana basketball. Other than USC, and maybe Oregon, in the Pac I'd pick them as most likely to be a strong team in the future.

No, Pitt and Cuse are not blue-bloods. But Pitt has been better than UConn on the field of late, and Syracuse isn't that far removed from some success. Does UConn football turn on TV sets? Remains to be seen. One reason I have advocated that he best move for UConn football is the Big Ten, is that I think UConn vs Michigan, OSU and Penn State does turn on TVs in metro NY and even Boston. I'm not sure that is the case with Miami, VT and FSU. New England and New York markets are disinclined to associate with schools from the former confederate states. It's a fundamental mistake that BC made.

In short, I don't think the ACC can capture the NY market for FB, ever. I think the Big Ten can, especially with ND.

 

[BlueMAB]

so then you are the type of guy that says USF's accomplishments taking a team from NO conference, 1AA or otherwise, to a similar place is due to, wait for it, the weather. Fewer scholarship players? Is that what you want to use?

What accomplishments?

They fired the coach that built the program, they never won a conference championship, never played in a BCS game, have a .500 record against UConn, all with much better recruiting grounds while playing in a pro stadium.

You believe having fewer scholarship players is an excuse for losing, but being located in Florida isn't an advantage for recruiting.

Yes, that's wideley recognized as honest, fact driven criticism.

 

[jpm25]

That comment was not for you. It was for the guy who thinks he provides context by pointing out Edsall was a .500 coach at UConn, while ignoring the fact that record includes games played while we were upgrading and playing with fewer scholarship players.

I excluded the upgrade/transition years - let's just count 1A games since UConn joined the BCS. Same results.

 

[BlueMAB]

I excluded the upgrade/transition years - let's just count 1A games since UConn joined the BCS. Same results.

Thank you for your historical, fact driven context.

from 2003-2010, playing a full 1A schedule UConn went 59-40, 19 games over .500.
take out the one game a year against 1AA teams and UConn went 51-40, 11 games over .500.

Stand by that, but just remember your "historical, fact driven context" is only loosely based on "facts".

 

[jpm25]

What accomplishments?

They fired the coach that built the program, they never won a conference championship, never played in a BCS game, have a .500 record against UConn, all with much better recruiting grounds while playing in a pro stadium.

You believe having fewer scholarship players is an excuse for losing, but being located in Florida isn't an advantage for recruiting.

Yes, that's wideley recognized as honest, fact driven criticism.

1. What accomplishments? 48-29 since joining BCS, 3 wins against ranked opponents, a bowl each year, with 4 bowl wins. Never played in a BCS game, you're right.
2. Again, I excluded UConn's transition years - equal scholarships.
3. USF did not fire their coach for performance
4. Is USF supposed to be better than .500 against UConn? You cannot argue both sides.
5. Now the stadium is a consideration?

So USF has not accomplished anything, but UConn has accomplished a lot. In my view, these are two programs that have enjoyed a very similar amount of success, starting from very similar starting points.

 

[jpm25]

Thank you for your historical, fact driven context.

from 2003-2010, playing a full 1A schedule UConn went 59-40, 19 games over .500.
take out the one game a year against 1AA teams and UConn went 51-40, 11 games over .500.

Stand by that, but just remember your "historical, fact driven context" is only loosely based on "facts".

I counted since joining the Big East - 43-37 or .538

 

[BlueMAB]

I counted since joining the Big East - 43-37 or .538

We went 9-3 against a full D1A schedule the year before.

But that doesn't help your argument so I can see why you would ignore it.

 

[BlueMAB]

1. What accomplishments? 48-29 since joining BCS, 3 wins against ranked opponents, a bowl each year, with 4 bowl wins. Never played in a BCS game, you're right.
2. Again, I excluded UConn's transition years - equal scholarships.
3. USF did not fire their coach for performance
4. Is USF supposed to be better than .500 against UConn? You cannot argue both sides.
5. Now the stadium is a consideration?

So USF has not accomplished anything, but UConn has accomplished a lot. In my view, these are two programs that have enjoyed a very similar amount of success, starting from very similar starting points.

we're 59-40 since the upgrade was complete - equal scholarships.
Basically we're pretty evenly matched....except UConn has 2 conference championships, a BCS bid, and 1 win over a top 25 team. USF has 3 wins over top 25 teams and.......nothing else.

oh wait, they are 4-2 in bowl games and we are 3-2. Yeah, i'd trade two top 25 wins and 1 more bowl bid for 2 conference titles and a bcs bid. both programs only have 1 win over a BCS team in a bowl game by the way.

Yup, pretty even amount of success.

 

[UCHuskies08]

we're 59-40 since the upgrade was complete - equal scholarships.
Basically we're pretty evenly matched....except UConn has 2 conference championships, a BCS bid, and 1 win over a top 25 team. USF has 3 wins over top 25 teams and.......nothing else.

oh wait, they are 4-2 in bowl games and we are 3-2. Yeah, i'd trade two top 25 wins and 1 more bowl bid for 2 conference titles and a bcs bid. both programs only have 1 win over a BCS team in a bowl game by the way.

Yup, pretty even amount of success.

We're pretty even. You're both splitting hairs.

 

[jpm25]

We went 9-3 against a full D1A schedule the year before.

But that doesn't help your argument so I can see why you would ignore it.

I omitted it because it is not apples-to apples. We played only half a schedule against BCS teams, and went .500 in those games. If you would like to include the MAC wins, Edsall is a "better than .500 coach".

 

[BlueMAB]

We're pretty even. You're both splitting hairs.

2 conference championships, 1 bcs bid.

0 conference championships, 0 bcs bids.

Yup, splitting hairs.

 

[jpm25]

we're 59-40 since the upgrade was complete - equal scholarships.
Basically we're pretty evenly matched....except UConn has 2 conference championships, a BCS bid, and 1 win over a top 25 team. USF has 3 wins over top 25 teams and.......nothing else.

oh wait, they are 4-2 in bowl games and we are 3-2. Yeah, i'd trade two top 25 wins and 1 more bowl bid for 2 conference titles and a bcs bid. both programs only have 1 win over a BCS team in a bowl game by the way.

Yup, pretty even amount of success.

our top 25 win is against USF. Ironic.

USF is on the cusp of a BCS game and we backed our way into one first. I wouldn't beat my chest over this.

 

[uconnbaseball]

Actually, if we are going by an "end of the year" top 25 poll, our victory is over Cincinnati.

 

[jpm25]

2 conference championships, 1 bcs bid.

0 conference championships, 0 bcs bids.

Yup, splitting hairs.

5 teams shared those two conference championships. I agree this is meaningless hairsplitting.

 

[UCHuskies08]

2 conference championships, 1 bcs bid.

0 conference championships, 0 bcs bids.

Yup, splitting hairs.

Good, you're on board. Glad that's over.

 

[BlueMAB]

I omitted it because it is not apples-to apples. We played only half a schedule against BCS teams, and went .500 in those games. If you would like to include the MAC wins, Edsall is a "better than .500 coach".

So I can't include 1AA wins, and now I can't include MAC wins. How about this, you go over the records, pick out the games you want to count and then tell us what his real record is.

Why shouldn't we include MAC wins? We weren't a BCS team. We were basically a MAC program that year. Do realize that you are selectively picking and choosing which games to credit, which games to discount, and which ones to completely ignore, and the argument STILL isn't working out in your favor?

We were a D1A team, that had a full load of scholarships playing against other D1A teams with full loads of scholarships. We were a program that wasn't in a BCS conference playing other programs not in a BCS conference. How is that not apples to apples? That we won 9 games and went .500 against BCS programs BEFORE we became a BCS program helps my argument, not yours.

 

[BlueMAB]

5 teams shared those two conference championships. I agree this is meaningless hairsplitting.

If it's so easy, which one did USF share?

 

[BlueMAB]

USF is on the cusp of a BCS game and we backed our way into one first....

...I wouldn't beat my chest over this

There it is, didn't take as long as I expected.

What you call 'historical context' others call tearing down our accomplishments. We beat the two teams we tied with head to head, and had to win a tough one on the road to cement it. That's not backing in, that's taking control of your destiny.

And just the mere mention of it, and the fact it's a superior accomplishment to not doing it, isn't beating your chest. It's recognizing and appreciating what we accomplished, instead of wringing your hands just because it didn't come with a win over a top 25 team.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

If it's so easy, which one did USF share?

You're using conference championships as the only measure of success of a program, that's where your argument is flawed. In terms of regular season success, which is far more important in college football than other sports, plus bowl success, we're basically equals. USF has a much more impressive resume of OOC wins than we do, whereas our in-conference play has been better and the profile of bowls we've played in is better, despite them having a better bowl record.

 

[BlueMAB]

You're using conference championships as the only measure of success of a program, that's where your argument is flawed. In terms of regular season success, which is far more important in college football than other sports, plus bowl success, we're basically equals. USF has a much more impressive resume of OOC wins than we do, whereas our in-conference play has been better and the profile of bowls we've played in is better, despite them having a better bowl record.

the reason the regular season is so important is because of the impact each game has on the conference and national championships.
i'm not using championships as the only measure, i'm weighting them more heavily than any other measure. becuase that's why we play, to win championships. if that's flawed, then you'll have to tell me why a couple regular season wins over top 25 teams (that don't result in championships) is more important than a championship/BCS bid.

Ignoring rivalry games that get coaches fired when they lose, ask any coach in any conference if he would rather go 2-0 against OOC top 25 teams and miss out on a conference championship/BCS bid, or go 0-2 against OOC top 25 teams and still win/earn a conference championship/BCS bid. What do you think the answer will be?

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

and what I, and others, are saying is that USF's ooc record is significantly better than ours, which outweighs the one conference championship we have that holds any weight. the 2007 one we REALLY did back into and didn't earn on merit, especially considering the team we tied with absolutely pasted us that year. the significant outweighing of their OOC wins versus our relatively thin OOC record basically evens everything out, especially considering their bowl record is better than ours. end result - things are even, and any arguments here or there are basically arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[ctchamps]

The Big XII making a strong move to survive the shakeup can only push other conferences to act quickly. If 16 is a desireable number, and while I don't understand why it should be that seems to be what the networks are saying (because otherwise none of this would be happening), there are not enough tier one programs out there to have 5 sixteen team conferences. The Big XII was supposed to go away in this scenario. An attempt by the Big XII to move east (and if you're going to Morgantown and Cincinnati for the life of me I can't see why you wouldn't go to metro New York -- a long plane ride doesn't change with an extra few hundred miles on the end of it) forces the ACC, and to a lesser degree the SEC and Big Ten, to act now or find it much harder to expand in the future.

Of course, logic has been such a useless tool to explain how we are where we are now ....

IMO all of this has been emotional and then people try to backfill it with logic.

 

[jpm25]

So I can't include 1AA wins, and now I can't include MAC wins. How about this, you go over the records, pick out the games you want to count and then tell us what his real record is.

Why shouldn't we include MAC wins? We weren't a BCS team. We were basically a MAC program that year. Do realize that you are selectively picking and choosing which games to credit, which games to discount, and which ones to completely ignore, and the argument STILL isn't working out in your favor?

We were a D1A team, that had a full load of scholarships playing against other D1A teams with full loads of scholarships. We were a program that wasn't in a BCS conference playing other programs not in a BCS conference. How is that not apples to apples? That we won 9 games and went .500 against BCS programs BEFORE we became a BCS program helps my argument, not yours.

the fact that our best year in terms of W-L was before we joined the BCS does not help your argument that we were "growing up" as a program - the trajectory should go the other way. I'm not saying exclude MAC games, I just say count the program from when it joined the BE. Do the same for USF. The fact that you have to use 2003 to balance out later years does not help your argument.

 

[ctchamps]

If market size, rather than market share, was the leading force behind reallignment, then please explain why Quse and Pitt were added to the ACC and not Rutgers/UConn.

Market size and market interest are what's important. What is the market capture by these two schools?

One other thing to consider. The ACC may have been reactive and not proactive. Cuse and Pitt may have approached the ACC asking for an invite. These schools may have been the ACC's third and fourth choice with Notre Dame and UConn being one and two and Rutger'g being number five. The ACC may have decided to take three and four in an attempt to put pressure on one and two to join. They may have assessed one and two were not available as long as both thought the BE was a viable conference.

 

[BlueMAB]

and what I, and others, are saying is that USF's ooc record is significantly better than ours, which outweighs the one conference championship we have that holds any weight. the 2007 one we REALLY did back into and didn't earn on merit, especially considering the team we tied with absolutely pasted us that year. the significant outweighing of their OOC wins versus our relatively thin OOC record basically evens everything out, especially considering their bowl record is better than ours. end result - things are even, and any arguments here or there are basically arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic.

Why don't conferences treat OOC records like they do conference championships, you know with trophies and BCS bids and everything? Since they are apparently considered as important.

 

[businesslawyer]

and what I, and others, are saying is that USF's ooc record is significantly better than ours, which outweighs the one conference championship we have that holds any weight. the 2007 one we REALLY did back into and didn't earn on merit, especially considering the team we tied with absolutely pasted us that year. the significant outweighing of their OOC wins versus our relatively thin OOC record basically evens everything out, especially considering their bowl record is better than ours. end result - things are even, and any arguments here or there are basically arguing over deck chairs on the Titanic.

I don't want to get into the coaching crap, but "the one conference championship that holds weight?'' Are you insane? Should Cardinal and Rays fans avoid the playoffs this year because their wildcard berths "don't have weight."

You are a champion or you are not. You are a co-champion or you are not. These are 100% tangible, determinable goals. They are not subject to your opinion, my opinion or anyone else's opinion as to whether they truly count.

 

[jpm25]

Why don't conferences treat OOC records like they do conference championships, you know with trophies and BCS bids and everything? Since they are apparently considered as important.

Polls, bowl selection and media seem to weight it.

 

[jpm25]

I don't want to get into the coaching crap, but "the one conference championship that holds weight?'' Are you insane? Should Cardinal and Rays fans avoid the playoffs this year because their wildcard berths "don't have weight."

You are a champion or you are not. You are a co-champion or you are not. These are 100% tangible, determinable goals. They are not subject to your opinion, my opinion or anyone else's opinion as to whether they truly count.

Georgia Tech agrees with you.

 

[BlueMAB]

the fact that our best year in terms of W-L was before we joined the BCS does not help your argument that we were "growing up" as a program - the trajectory should go the other way. I'm not saying exclude MAC games, I just say count the program from when it joined the BE. Do the same for USF. The fact that you have to use 2003 to balance out later years does not help your argument.

I'm using 2003 because we had a full amount of scholarship players. You agreed that it's unfair to criticize him for playing teams with more scholarship players, did you not? In 2003, we had a roster full of scholarship players. We also weren't in the Big East yet, and nobody on that team was recruited to a Big East program. Now I can't include that season because we were playing inferior MAC programs? We weren't in the Big East, we were basically a MAC program, look at the schedule we played! Now you're moving the goalposts because it doesn't help your template that you're providing historical facts, when you actually aren't.

We can look at his entire record, and I can defend it. You're the one who has to pick and choose which years you want to include (only '04-'10), which games don't count (1AA), while claiming to be the one providing factual and historical context. which brings me back to where we started: 8ullsh!t.

 

[BlueMAB]

Polls, bowl selection and media seem to weight it.

Of course they do. I didn't say they weren't weighted. I said championships are weighted more. Which is why they give out trophies, and BCS bowl bids, and (depending on the conference) higher rankings for winning them.

Why don't conferences treat OOC records like they do conference championships, you know with trophies and BCS bids and everything? Since they are apparently considered as important