OT- How Bad Is The Big East???

Submitted by swdude12 on

How bad does the BCS look when one of these teams gets the automatic bid? The BCS is garbage.  I mean a .500 team could get in a BCS game! Seriously? Dont forget about the ACC either.  Can the BCS just get rid of automatic bids? what about just using the top 10 standings in the BCS? I mean a good team is gonna get hosed out of going to a BCS game, most likely a Big Ten Team. Would love it to be MSU tho. Thoughts?

 

Big East Standings

TEAM CONF OVERALL
Pittsburgh 3-1 5-4
Syracuse 3-2 6-3
South Florida 2-2 5-3
Connecticut 2-2 5-4
Louisville 2-2 5-4
West Virginia 1-2 5-3
Rutgers 1-2 4-4
Cincinnati 1-2 3-5

WestCBlue

November 12th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^

at this point.  It's hard to argue that the automatic bids are still relevant.

Given the NCAA's stupidity in all things, I am sure they will find a way to make that argument.

Their motto:  Harm the most athletes possible, especially those at revenue producing schools.

Maizeforlife

November 12th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^

It's scenarios like this that will spell the end of the BCS.  People can't take this system seriously when teams like Pitt and Va Tech are in BCS games.  There is no reason they should be leapfrogging teams like Boise St., or any high-quality teams from the Big Ten, PAC 10, Big 12 or SEC. 

Doctor Wolverine

November 12th, 2010 at 11:39 AM ^

I was thinking this exact same thing last night while watching this (MAC level) game.  I think the BCS is a total joke.  Nine games into the season they were projecting (prior to the game) that 6-3 Pitt would be in a BCS game and 9-0 Boise State would be left out.  I think AQ teams should be held to the same standard as non-AQ teams.  They should need at least 9 wins and be in the top 14...at least give me the top 20!!!  If the top team in your conference can't meat those standards, then they don't deserve an automatic bid to begin with.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 12th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^

Nonsense.  I fail to see how this is some kind of big problem specific to the BCS.  Autobids are a fact of life.  A lot of really good, talented teams got left out of March Madess because it's somehow more important to give obviously-out-of-their-league East Tennessee State a bid too.  We take the NCAAs seriously even with ETSU and Lehigh involved, so I doubt the BCS will face this massive uprising over the Big East.

Nothsa

November 12th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^

Sure, ETU won't win the thing, and, say, Minnesota had a better pedigree. But it doesn't matter, because the hypothetical just-beyond-the-bubble-Gophers couldn't get out of the first weekend anyway. Aside from some of the fans, who cares if the 53d best team didn't make the field of 64?

The BCS, on the other hand, is not a tournament with enough slots for all the teams that could conceivably make a football Final Four. It is a small collection of very large payout bowls. If you autobid a very average BCS conference team into one of just a couple of slots, it represents a serious blow to a much more deserving team, a dramatic shift in dollars, and of course a shoddy matchup in one of those handful of bowls that is supposed to be nationally interesting.

 

As far as whether seeing Pitt or some other shoddy team in a BCS game will cause a massive uprising, I'm in agreement - this won't change a thing if all of the other BS that's gone on in the BCS era couldn't effect change.

I Blue Myself

November 12th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

The problem with the BCS as opposed to March Madness is that only some conferences get autobids, and they're not necessarily the strongest conferences.  Certainly this year (and very possibly for the last 2-3 years) the Mountain West has been a stronger conference than the Big East, especially at the top of the league.  Yet the Big East gets an autobid, and the MWC doesn't.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

November 12th, 2010 at 2:45 PM ^

Certainly this year (and very possibly for the last 2-3 years) the Mountain West has been a stronger conference than the Big East, but only at the top of the league.

FIFY.  IME, the enormous suckassitude of the bottom of the MWC is ammo enough not to replace the Big East's autobid with the MWC.  The Big East is weak this year, sure.  But I don't think you can call a league "better" because they have a couple of better teams.  Not when the bottom of the league is so horrendous.  That just inflates the top of the league.  FWIW, Sagarin still ranks the Big East higher.

psychomatt

November 12th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

UM's 105th ranked scoring defense held UConn to 10 points. If UConn beats Syracuse next week and Pitt loses one more game, UConn most likely will win the Big East.

Hoke_Floats

November 12th, 2010 at 10:51 AM ^

I like the idea that if you win your conference you get a good bowl game, conference winners should be rewarded somehow

 

You have to hand it to UCONN going for it on 4 and 1 at their own 20 late in the 4th Qtr.  That and their willingness to lose to UofM makes them my Big East favorites

willywill9

November 12th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^

The problem with the Big East is that it's gotten away this long with 2-3 good teams, and a few pretenders, and then a few really bad teams.   Pitt, WVU and maybe Cinci over the last ten or so years.  These good teams though, would not necessarily dominate in the Big 10, SEC, but might do real damage in the ACC.

All that being said, aside from the current BCS conferences... what conference should dethrone it?  (Assuming we need the additional BCS slot.)

MGoCards

November 12th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^

Very Bad. 

All the years of the good coaches being poached and bad hires (or, in the case of my beloved Cards, both), are starting to really show. Or show more, at least.  It's sad, really, because it was a very strong, unfairly maligned conference a few years ago. Now all the maligning is fair; fair as can be. When Petrino was at Louisville and RR was at WVU, those teams were some of the most fun to watch, most inventive, teams in the country. The dropoff from those guys, both offensive geniuses, to f-ing Steve Kragthorpe and Bill Stewart was like the dropoff from Justin Timberlake to Kevin Federline (yay, dated pop cultural references!) while HC GERG was at 'Cuse and, you know, Wannstedt continuing his incredible "how does this guy keep getting hired?!" streak at Pitt. UCONN was basically building a program from scratch, South Florida being the Duggar Familiy "Little Brother." Brian Kelly looked like a genius but he was, probably, merely (slightly above) competent and he's gone now too. I know, I know it's the Decimated Conference excuse that we're all sick of hearing. But, dammit, it's true. I'm loving Louisville's turnaround in Charlie Strong's first season  (sometimes racism works out in your favor) and look forward to a) future dominance in an improved BE or, b) more conference expansion dominos fall and Louisville somehow lands in a 16 team ACC.

RED DAWN

November 12th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^

I think the need for coaches recruiting successfully is more important for the Big East schools.  The success they've had playing in the spotlight on Espn on Thrusdays.  And one thing they can use when talking to recruits is that a BCS bowl is guaranteed to the conference winner.  Take that away and they might become the Sun Belt.

Kilgore Trout

November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^

It's bad, but it's maybe better than it would have been without the BCS.  I'm sure a "major" bowl would have signed up to take the Big East champion, especially if they negotiated the contract when Va Tech and Miami were in the conference.  Say the BCS never happens, the Big East becomes somewhat legit, and the Orange Bowl decides to take the BE champ every year to play the Big XII champ?  Or what if the Fiesta Bowl gets nervous about not having any tie in, and grabs the BE champ?  At least in the current scenario, you can shuffle the BE champ to a place that minimizes the damage instead of having it disrupt a potential championship game.  Imagine if last year had Texas vs. Cinci in the Orange Bowl while Alabama played an at large or the ACC champ or something in the Sugar Bowl?

The BCS has problems, no doubt, and I would take a playoff in a heartbeat, but I think it's better than the previous scenario.

M2NASA

November 12th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

The Big East is having a down year, but still owns a very good record in bowls, and unlike the Big Ten and a lot of other BCS conferences, actually has a winning record vs. the SEC in bowls.

The BE having a BCS bowl slot has nothing to do with the Mountain West.  There's no reason we both can't have one, especially with now five BCS bowl games.

I personally favor a playoff where every conference champion gets an auto-bid.  In the NCAA tournament, the Patriot League champ isn't a strong team, but still deserves its shot or why bother having any conference outside of the current BCS ones play in Division I-A?

West Virginia never would have gotten its chance to beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, or Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl in the last few years if we went by popular opinion.

mfan_in_ohio

November 12th, 2010 at 11:58 AM ^

1.  It might forestall the 16-team superconferences that appear to be coming to our citaay.  Who would want to expand that far at the risk of making it harder for each team within the conference to get the autobid?  If I'm a Big East team, I wouldn't want TCU in those circumstances, and we can all agree that putting TCU in the Big East is just stupid.

2. Less controversy over selection of teams.  You don't like that you didn't get in the playoff?  Win your conference next time.

3.  Allows/forces the current non-AQ schools to prove themselves.

4.  The regular season still holds meaning, because the top few spots would get to face the champions of such not-very-illustrious leagues as Conference USA, the Sun Belt, and the Big East. (Zing!)

5.  Makes it harder for Notre Dame to reach the playoffs, not that that will be an issue for quite some time.  But still, screw ND.

M2NASA

November 12th, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^

I'm a big proponent of breaking up the Big East.  I want Syracuse out big-time.  The 16-team conferences are eventually going to happen, and whether the Big Ten or ACC, we're going to have a home.

I favor an auto-bid playoff that tries to incorporate tradition:

First round example:  Big Ten Champ vs. MAC-Champ in Motor City Bowl, PAC-10 Champ vs. WAC Champ in Holiday Bowl

Second Round:  Winners play in the Rose Bowl (yes, you may have a WAC or MAC team make the Rose Bowl, but it would happen far less often than non-Big Ten or non-Pac-10 teams are making it).

etc. etc.

bronxblue

November 12th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^

As Young Pretty already alluded to, about this bad:

But yeah, the problem wth the Big East is that it doesn't have a dominant recruiting edge in any region over any other conference.  The Big 12 has Texas and Oklahoma, SEC has the South east, the Pac-10 has California and the rest of the West, and the Big 10 has the Midwest.  If you look at the weaker conferences the past couple of years (ACC and BE), neither has a region of the country where they reign over recruits.  Sure, FSU, Miami, and VaTech pull in some decent talent in the South and around the D.C. area, but they are competing with the rest of the SEC and large swaths of the Big 10 in each region respectively, and the BE (unfortunately) sits in a region of the Northeast that simply doesn't produce enough significant football talent to power a whole conference.  Plus, lots of teams in the Midwest pilfer from Pennsylvania, NJ, and NY.  Unless some team manages to make significant recruiting inroads and then turns that into consistent winning seasons, don't expect the BE to improve markedly.

M2NASA

November 12th, 2010 at 2:04 PM ^

2006 WVU over Georgia, 2008 WVU over Oklahoma.

If you're going to indict the Big East over games like that one and last year's Cincinnati game, might as well indict the Big Ten over Ohio State being the Buffalo Bills of the BCS Championship, or our poor track record in the Rose Bowl against USC.