Big East Meeting in Philly

[kingottoiii]

They would have a better criteria than the ACC? How? Because of Boise? If that's the case then Boise would be in an AQ conference no matter where they went, even if they went to the MAC or Sun Belt.

Like I said...the true power conferences are not going to stand for allowing a Big East team at the adult table for much longer.

Boise helps keep it but it wouldn't get an BCS on that alone. Why would they want to kick the BE out? Do a pro and cons for the Big 5 and you will see the cons outweigh the pros. In addition did you know that the highest non BCS team could get an auto bid? And that a non BCS team could still get an at large? Two years ago we had both Boise and TCU in BCS games. Now it will be virtually impossible for it happen. Utah, TCU, Boise, and HOU have all been added to BCS conferences. Who is left from the non BCS leagues? The WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt aren't a threat to steal bids. The MWC and CUSA went from two conferences trying for bids to one Alliance trying for a bid. It makes it much harder for those schools. In addition it will be harder because they no longer have the strong teams they used to.

On top of all this the BCS is looking to add another game (2 more slots). If you let the BE keep 1 of the 12, it will keep everyone happy. The Big 5 will end up getting 10-11 of the slots, depending on ND. Two years ago the Big 5 got only 7 slots. So they already WON.

 

[orangenirvana]

I am NOT talking about performance in the BCS games. But the actual ranking of the highest team, the BE beats the ACC. Where the BE struggles is having Top 25 teams. But so does the ACC. The last part of the criteria is avg computer ranking of all teams. If someone can find that info we can compare which conference comes out on top.

2011 (thus far)- BE has the highest ranked, ACC has more teams
BE- Boise #5, HOU #13
ACC- Clemson #11, VT #12, GA Tech #23

2010- BE had the highest rank, ACC more teams
BE- Boise #10
ACC- VT #13, FSU #23

2009- BE had the two highest ranked, ACC had more teams
BE- Cincy #3, Boise #6
ACC- GA Tech #9, VT #11, Miami #15

2008- BE had the two highest ranked, ACC had more teams
BE- Boise #9, Cincy #12
ACC- GA Tech #14, VT #19, BC #24

2007- ACC had four highest ranked, same amount teams
BE- USF #21, Cincy #22, Boise #24, Boise #25
ACC- VT #3, BC #14, Clemson #15, UVA #20

So the Big East can use Boise's ranking all the way back to 2007? That's nuts.

Highest ranking team is just one of the BCS criteria, btw.

Things will likely change once the BCS expires after 2013. For instance, bowl performances (specifically BCS bowls) having absolutely no bearing on the BCS criteria is crap.

 

[orangenirvana]

Boise helps keep it but it wouldn't get an BCS on that alone. Why would they want to kick the BE out? Do a pro and cons for the Big 5 and you will see the cons outweigh the pros. In addition did you know that the highest non BCS team could get an auto bid? And that a non BCS team could still get an at large? Two years ago we had both Boise and TCU in BCS games. Now it will be virtually impossible for it happen. Utah, TCU, Boise, and HOU have all been added to BCS conferences. Who is left from the non BCS leagues? The WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt aren't a threat to steal bids. The MWC and CUSA went from two conferences trying for bids to one Alliance trying for a bid. It makes it much harder for those schools. In addition it will be harder because they no longer have the strong teams they used to.

On top of all this the BCS is looking to add another game (2 more slots). If you let the BE keep 1 of the 12, it will keep everyone happy. The Big 5 will end up getting 10-11 of the slots, depending on ND. Two years ago the Big 5 got only 7 slots. So they already WON.

Why would they want to kick the BE out, you ask? Well, so that they can use that extra BCS bowl spot for themselves, for one.

None of what you say above proves that the Big 5 wants the Big East to keep getting an undeserved piece of the pie.

If what you say is true and the Big East's AQ status is so secure, then why is everyone freaking out and jumping off the ship? Why are Boise, Navy, and Air Force hesitating? Why does Boise want to be assured that the 27-month notification period is wiped out before they join the conference?

"Do a pro and cons for the Big 5 and you will see the cons outweigh the pros."

You have obviously already done this, so I'm very interested in seeing the results of your study.

 

[kingottoiii]

If what you say is true and the Big East's AQ status is so secure, then why is everyone freaking out and jumping off the ship? Why are Boise, Navy, and Air Force hesitating? Why does Boise want to be assured that the 27-month notification period is wiped out before they join the conference?

It has to do with TV money not the BCS. Our TV money will go up by nearly $10 million in the ACC. WV will go up by a lot as well. Not to mention that the ACC is a better fit for SU institutionally.

The new invitees are hesitating because they are looking for a commitment from the current BE schools. Cincy, UL, and UConn have all been to a BCS game. If all three are gone, what is the BE left with? Nothing. So why would Boise leave for the BE when they can work with the Alliance and try to obtain an auto bid there? That way they are in a conf with schools in the same area of the country.

If SU, Pitt, and WV were still in the BE our BCS bid woulda been safe.

 

[TexanMark]

At the end of the day an undefeated ACCteam will get a shot at the national championship game long before an undefeteated big east in the future conferrences

Holy Moly...on your avatar +1

 

[MaxwellCuse]

Why would they want to kick the BE out, you ask? Well, so that they can use that extra BCS bowl spot for themselves, for one.

None of what you say above proves that the Big 5 wants the Big East to keep getting an undeserved piece of the pie.

If what you say is true and the Big East's AQ status is so secure, then why is everyone freaking out and jumping off the ship? Why are Boise, Navy, and Air Force hesitating? Why does Boise want to be assured that the 27-month notification period is wiped out before they join the conference?

"Do a pro and cons for the Big 5 and you will see the cons outweigh the pros."

You have obviously already done this, so I'm very interested in seeing the results of your study.

"Why does Boise want to be assured that the 27-month notification period is wiped out before they join the conference?"

Where did you see that? I don't recall reading anywhere that Boise had a problem with the 27-month clause. Not saying you're wrong, but this is the first time I've heard this. How can Marinatto get his revenge against us "traitors" without his blessed 27-month clause?

 

[Stern]

I am NOT talking about performance in the BCS games. But the actual ranking of the highest team, the BE beats the ACC. Where the BE struggles is having Top 25 teams. But so does the ACC. The last part of the criteria is avg computer ranking of all teams. If someone can find that info we can compare which conference comes out on top.

2011 (thus far)- BE has the highest ranked, ACC has more teams
BE- Boise #5, HOU #13
ACC- Clemson #11, VT #12, GA Tech #23

That's BS because Houston or Boise haven't played a Big East Schedule. Granted the Big East isn't great but its better than their current conferences.

 

[kingottoiii]

That's BS because Houston or Boise haven't played a Big East Schedule. Granted the Big East isn't great but its better than their current conferences.

So that is the third time you have changed your tune. I agree long term the BE won't likely keep its BCS bid (if there is even a BCS in the long term). But they won't lose it by 2015, especially since they are guaranteed till 2013.

 

[Stern]

So that is the third time you have changed your tune. I agree long term the BE won't likely keep its BCS bid (if there is even a BCS in the long term). But they won't lose it by 2015, especially since they are guaranteed till 2013.

How have I changed my tune at all? Once let alone 3 times??? When? Where? And the Big East is guaranteed it till 2013, and I have said from post 1 and till now that they won't keep it after that. Next contract they are out, show a post where I haven't said that? And by 2015 (probably 2014 in reality) that's when its over and everyone will go their own way.

 

[PeteCalvin]

I probably have been the biggest proponent for Syracuse University's move to the ACC that I know. When others on the board pushed for the Big Ten I always insisted that the way to go was the ACC.

I have made my feelings known to the Univeristy over the past few years.

I was crushed when the move in 2003 was quashed.

So, I'm really, really happy about this move.

I have explained my feelings about saving the BE many times.

Again, the bottom line for me is this - I want the BE to remain a solid - though slightly lower tier - football conference that retains its AQ so UConn and Rutgers (and perhaps others) do not follow us to the ACC.

I feel that for recruiting/development purposes that is the best result for Syracuse University.

Not caring about what happens to the BE is not in my opinion what is best for SU.

Good insights, OPA. Again, I wasn't taking shots. I was just curious what your real stance was. I totally understand your POV. I guess I'm of the opinion that two things are inevitable: ND will eventually be in the ACC and that means UConn or Rutgers will be to. The BE will be what it will be until that happens, and beyond that, who knows.

In a strange sort of way I am also pissed to see the BE actually trying to do something now. It makes me mad that it took SU walking out the door for them to get their in order.

 

[longtimefan]

Why would they need to fight the government? You still haven't explained this. The BCS isn't doing anything illegal.

Without getting into the main fracas about the viability of the BE in the BCS going forward:

"Why would they need to fight the government?" Are you serious? Where were you in 2003? If not for the government, SU would have been in the ACC 8 seasons ago. Believe me, if a politician thinks he can score political points by making a stink about the BCS, he will.

 

[orangenirvana]

Without getting into the main fracas about the viability of the BE in the BCS going forward:

"Why would they need to fight the government?" Are you serious? Where were you in 2003? If not for the government, SU would have been in the ACC 8 seasons ago. Believe me, if a politician thinks he can score political points by making a stink about the BCS, he will.

2003 had absolutely nothing to do with "making a stink about the BCS." It had everything to do with making sure a Virginia state university stays financially stable.

Apples and oranges.

 

[longtimefan]

2003 had absolutely nothing to do with "making a stink about the BCS." It had everything to do with making sure a Virginia state university stays financially stable.

Apples and oranges.

It had everything to do with politicians getting involved with collegiate athletics.

 

[orangenirvana]

It had everything to do with politicians getting involved with collegiate athletics.

Yep. But that's not the issue we're talking about in this thread.

 

[longtimefan]

Yep. But that's not the issue we're talking about in this thread.

Just responding to your original "fight the government" statement.

 

[orangenirvana]

Just responding to your original "fight the government" statement.

You're still having trouble understanding? Read the thread.

 

[longtimefan]

You're still having trouble understanding? Read the thread.

Once it turns toward the personal, it's good to say "enough".

 

[Stern]

It had everything to do with politicians getting involved with collegiate athletics.

You are confusing a politician fighting for and voicing his opinion to get his local school into a conference with the federal government as a whole stepping in on the entire BCS system and taking action.

Its like comparing little league to MLB. Night and day and one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[longtimefan]

You are confusing a politician fighting for and voicing his opinion to get his local school into a conference with the federal government as a whole stepping in on the entire BCS system and taking action.

Its like comparing little league to MLB. Night and day and one has nothing to do with the other.

I never said the the federal government as a whole would get involved. Just politicians. Like McConnell, Rockefeller and Hanchin 10 days ago. If enough of them get their hackles up, who knows where it leads.

 

[Stern]

I never said the the federal government as a whole would get involved. Just politicians. Like McConnell, Rockefeller and Hanchin 10 days ago. If enough of them get their hackles up, who knows where it leads.

Well if the federal government isn't going to get involved who cares what a couple politicians opinions are. It leads nowhere. You are getting worked up over nothing.

 

[longtimefan]

Well if the federal government isn't going to get involved who cares what a couple politicians opinions are. It leads nowhere. You are getting worked up over nothing.

The Federal govt didn't get involved in 2003, and you see how that worked out. Which is to say, state politicians can cause grief also.

 

[Stern]

The Federal govt didn't get involved in 2003, and you see how that worked out. Which is to say, state politicians can cause grief also.

you are all over the map on this. First you say politicians will get involved with the BCS. Then you say they won't. Now you say state politicians will again. You area all over the map and talking in circles.

Bottom line, the BCS hasn't done anything wrong and nobody will get involved.

 

[longtimefan]

you are all over the map on this. First you say politicians will get involved with the BCS. Then you say they won't. Now you say state politicians will again. You area all over the map and talking in circles.

Bottom line, the BCS hasn't done anything wrong and nobody will get involved.

If you say so.

 

[Stern]

If you say so.

I don't say so. Your posts in this thread proves it