Rumor: A lot of big east teams to leave

[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

 

[BlueMAB]

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

I don't know, but I agree with you.

Nebraska is in the Big 10 and RU isn't for that very reason.

 

[businesslawyer]

Georgia Tech agrees with you.

I have no clue what that means. What did I say that anyone could possibly disagree with?

 

[UConnRock]

Didn't have time to go through the entire thread, but wanted to comment on why Pitt & 'Cuse may have been selected for ACC membership prior to UConn. Although I know the BC AD probably was adamantly against UConn due to BC's paranoia, and some of the football schools (FSU, Clemson) may have wanted better football histories, I thing the Pitt/'Cuse move was made directly at Notre Dame. Pitt is a long-term rival to ND and 'cuse is a similar private school that is also living on it's long football history and wants to forget the present. This was the ACC's attempt to box ND in a corner knowing that ND is not crazy about the B1G. The ACC is trying to take their best shot at the big prize and both Pitt and 'Cuse were a bit better bait than UConn.

I do agree that ancillary to the main reason, the desire to put a wall between PSU and the rest of the B1G could also have played a role in the decision. I am sure there are some that think PSU may be more interested in an ACC move with Pitt and 'Cuse in the fold, but I think there are higher odds of the B1G grabbing UConn and Rutty than PSU jumping ship.

The question remains, at what price do UConn and Rutgers become interesting targets for other conferences. One has to remember that Va Tech, Miami and BCU accepted 1/2 of the ACC distribution for 2 years before thay got full membership payout. UConn and Rutgers may have to accept much less to get out of the BE mess, wouldn't surprise me to see UConn and Rutgers accept 1/2 for five years or more.

From a pure business standpoint it may come down to finacial negotiations and UConn does not have much negotiating power if they want to move.

 

[BlueMAB]

If Pitt/Quse are more likely to help attract ND and hurt the competition than UConn does. Then they are more valuable than UConn. Too many people are looking at basketball, or market size, or academics, or the lawsuite, when it's a combination of everything that UConn can control, as well as a bunch of factors we can't control.

 

[jpm25]

I have no clue what that means. What did I say that anyone could possibly disagree with?

Nothing - no one can disagree with you.