Big East - What Happens Next Year

[Abe Sargent]

The Big East was undefeated in Bowl Games and had three official good teams. What happens next year for the BE? Up? Down? How?

[st.cronin]

The Big East was undefeated in Bowl Games and had three official good teams. What happens next year for the BE? Up? Down? How?

I think it's going to be a very tough league, maybe the toughest in the country, but will still get no respect. Everybody will continue to say that the SEC is the best football conference, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[Young Drachma]

I think it's going to be a very tough league, maybe the toughest in the country, but will still get no respect. Everybody will continue to say that the SEC is the best football conference, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Pretty much.

[Easy Mac]

Depends on when it schedules the important games. If its late in the season, we'll get the its disrespected talk. Otherwise it will be between the ACC and PAC 10.

[miami_fan]

I am not so sure about the disrespected talk, if only because they will be getting more exposure next year. ESPN and the Big East signed new deals to enhancing coverage of the league.

[Easy Mac]

im saying the league and fans will say they get disrespected.

[WVUFAN]

im saying the league and fans will say they get disrespected.

That's because it is.

[Easy Mac]

meh... it gets the correct level of respect

[KevinNU7]

It all depends on who the top 3 teams have on their out of conference schedule and how they do on those games.

[cthomer5000]

Rutgers entire season really will depend on Teel at QB. If he plays like he did in the last couple games, they'll be very good again. If he plays like he did for almost the entire season, they'll take a step backwards to like 7-5ish territory.

Is next year 11 or 12 games? is 12 games permanent yet? or is that effective in a few years... i forget. THe first 11 games here are definite, the 12th is my guess as to the 12th game, it's definitely a road game (if there is a 12th game).

buffalo
navy
norfolk state
maryland
west virginia
cincinnati
USF
Pitt
@Louisville
@Uconn
@Syracuse
----
@ howard, ohio, or illinois?

[Swaggs]

If Brian Brohm returns for his senior season, Louisville and West Virginia (who will only lose a few linebackers and some interior linemen AND return all but three offensive starters) will likely each begin the season in the top 12. I'll be disappointed if they don't each finish the regular season with double digit wins.

I think South Florida and Rutgers will both be borderline top 25 to begin the year. I see Rutgers' success more based on how their o-line rebuilds and if their defense is, again, for real. South Florida has a ton of team speed, particulary on defense, and an exciting, sophomore-to-be QB in Matt Grothe. I think South Florida will be capable of beating any team next season, but will probably be young enough to slip up and lose some games that they shouldn't. I think they should each be expected to be in the 8-9 win range.

I think Cincy and Syracuse will struggle, but I can see Pitt and UConn making bowls next season. I haven't looked at UConn's schedule, but I know Pitt's is fairly weak, so they should be able to roll up some wins.

[Young Drachma]

Rutgers entire season really will depend on Teel at QB. If he plays like he did in the last couple games, they'll be very good again. If he plays like he did for almost the entire season, they'll take a step backwards to like 7-5ish territory.

Is next year 11 or 12 games? is 12 games permanent yet? or is that effective in a few years... i forget. THe first 11 games here are definite, the 12th is my guess as to the 12th game, it's definitely a road game (if there is a 12th game).

buffalo
navy
norfolk state
maryland
west virginia
cincinnati
USF
Pitt
@Louisville
@Uconn
@Syracuse
----
@ howard, ohio, or illinois?

They have Notre Dame in 2010, but until then...their schedule is pretty crap. They'll have to add a game or swap out one of their crap opponents for a better game.

[wade moore]

I think it's going to be a very tough league, maybe the toughest in the country, but will still get no respect. Everybody will continue to say that the SEC is the best football conference, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Mizzou B-Ball fan:EA :: st. cronin:SEC

[st.cronin]

Mizzou B-Ball fan:EA :: st. cronin:SEC

Not quite. I'll watch an SEC game occasionally.

[General Mike]

Rutgers entire season really will depend on Teel at QB. If he plays like he did in the last couple games, they'll be very good again. If he plays like he did for almost the entire season, they'll take a step backwards to like 7-5ish territory.

Is next year 11 or 12 games? is 12 games permanent yet? or is that effective in a few years... i forget. THe first 11 games here are definite, the 12th is my guess as to the 12th game, it's definitely a road game (if there is a 12th game).

buffalo
navy
norfolk state
maryland
west virginia
cincinnati
USF
Pitt
@Louisville
@Uconn
@Syracuse
----
@ howard, ohio, or illinois?

Road trip to West Point in November.

And I totally disagree that if Teel plays like he did in the beginning of the year that they will go 7-5. There is no way they lose 5 games with this crap schedule.

[RedKingGold]

Anyone else read this as "Big Easy", and hope there would not be any more hurricanes?

[Easy Mac]

no

[cthomer5000]

Road trip to West Point in November.

And I totally disagree that if Teel plays like he did in the beginning of the year that they will go 7-5. There is no way they lose 5 games with this crap schedule.

I have to agree with you. I made my 7-5 prediction blind before actually looking at the schedule. Cupcake city, and basically every game I would want at home is at home except Louisville. The schedule sets up well for a very good year (record-wise).

[waltwal]

i am not sure how good the Big East will be next year but i don't think that rating a conference by its bowl record is a good indicator of its strength. if Ohio state beats florida i don't think it means the Big 10 is better than the SEC.

I follow the Pac 10 more closely than any other conference and i think that the Pac-10 will be better than its been in a long time. I am not sure about Harbaugh but i don't see any weak coaching staffs in the conference. Further more USC,Cal,UCLA and Arizona are all returning a lot of good players. The thing that may be fueling a resurgence in the Pac-10 is the unbelievable recruiting by USC. There is just so much pressure on the other schools to keep up that it is having a strenghtening effect on the whole conference.

If you look at the average rating of each player recruited rather than the total points which favors the team that has more scholarships to fill USC may be in the process of recruiting the best class of all time at least since recruiting classes have been rated.

[Logan]

I think South Florida and Rutgers will both be borderline top 25 to begin the year. I see Rutgers' success more based on how their o-line rebuilds and if their defense is, again, for real.

Unless you mean your impression of who the top 25 teams are, you're crazy. Rutgers will be ranked in the top 15 to start the season.

We have 2 spots to fill on our offensive line. Our OL coach has to be the most underrated in the country; he's done an amazing job coaching guys up and getting them ready to fill in spots as others are leaving. I'm more worried about the C position than RG, but there's 3 or 4 guys on the roster who seem to be capable of taking over the role.

Defensively, losing Meekins will hurt the most. But it helps having a 1st-team All-American occupying the other DT spot. Losing Thompson and Frierson at LB are the next biggest losses. But I think back to a year ago -- we thought we were screwed when we lost our starting DEs, as they were the key to our defense making the jump from bad to respectable. So what happened by the end of 2006? A RS sophomore and a true freshman turned out to play better than Neil and Barnaby, as Westerman and Johnson were not only excellent pass rushers, but were really solid against the run. I think they'll both have huge seasons. Anyway, back to the point...we had less options to fill in the DE spots than we'll have next year when we fill the LB roles, so I'm not too worried.

With our schedule, the absolute worst I can see this squad doing is 9-3. If I were a betting man, I would take the over at 10.5 wins, as I can see us losing only one game, and I have a feeling it won't be either the Louisville or WVU games. If there's no slip-ups, and we play up to our potential in those 2 games, I'm hoping for a little extra controversy come BCS time.

[Blade6119]

Unless you mean your impression of who the top 25 teams are, you're crazy. Rutgers will be ranked in the top 15 to start the season.

We have 2 spots to fill on our offensive line. Our OL coach has to be the most underrated in the country; he's done an amazing job coaching guys up and getting them ready to fill in spots as others are leaving. I'm more worried about the C position than RG, but there's 3 or 4 guys on the roster who seem to be capable of taking over the role.

Defensively, losing Meekins will hurt the most. But it helps having a 1st-team All-American occupying the other DT spot. Losing Thompson and Frierson at LB are the next biggest losses. But I think back to a year ago -- we thought we were screwed when we lost our starting DEs, as they were the key to our defense making the jump from bad to respectable. So what happened by the end of 2006? A RS sophomore and a true freshman turned out to play better than Neil and Barnaby, as Westerman and Johnson were not only excellent pass rushers, but were really solid against the run. I think they'll both have huge seasons. Anyway, back to the point...we had less options to fill in the DE spots than we'll have next year when we fill the LB roles, so I'm not too worried.

With our schedule, the absolute worst I can see this squad doing is 9-3. If I were a betting man, I would take the over at 10.5 wins, as I can see us losing only one game, and I have a feeling it won't be either the Louisville or WVU games. If there's no slip-ups, and we play up to our potential in those 2 games, I'm hoping for a little extra controversy come BCS time.
The big east is example A of how to pad records...look at rutgers schedule a few posts up. Its a joke....they play 2 games all year worth a damn, and maryland is average at best. So 2.5 if your nice. So they will have a great record, but so will boise state. Doesnt mean their top 15 material

[JonInMiddleGA]

Doesnt mean their top 15 material

Which doesn't really matter in terms of their pre-season ranking either.

All that matters for that is how they're perceived. And I'd be surprised, bordering on shocked, if they're in the top 15 to start the season.

[Young Drachma]

The scheduling deal has nothing to do with them sucking, it's the fact that football schedules are done so far in advance, that you just have to be fortunate that the team you schedule a decade ago are good when it's time to play them.

[Easy Mac]

The scheduling deal has nothing to do with them sucking, it's the fact that football schedules are done so far in advance, that you just have to be fortunate that the team you schedule a decade ago are good when it's time to play them.

Yes, who knew Norfolk State would be perennial underachievers.

[Logan]

The schedule is pretty weak, but it's a 4 game schedule. USF, Maryland, WVU and Louiseville are all better than anyone that unmentionable non-conference whore team beat the last two years.

As for the conference, Pitt is making good strides, Cincy was solid this year and replaced their coach with a good one from CMU, Syracuse started showing some signs of recovering from the PP era, and UConn is developing a solid program. It's not the best conference by any means, but it's no worse than the ACC or Big 10 right now.

Pretty much exactly how I would've responded. Thanks for saving me the time.

[st.cronin]

meh... it gets the correct level of respect

I just want to point out that not only is the Big East undefeated in Bowls this year, they have covered the spread in each game as well.

[Young Drachma]

Yes, who knew Norfolk State would be perennial underachievers.

In Rutgers case, they sucked before. Who was willing to play them and destroy their SOS?

Or what I meant was, long live the mighty SEC and Florida's triumph over that powerhouse Western Carolina late this past season.

[Easy Mac]

In Rutgers case, they sucked before. Who was willing to play them and destroy their SOS?

Or what I meant was, long live the mighty SEC and Florida's triumph over that powerhouse Western Carolina late this past season.

You refute your whole SOS argument in your post, since FLA obviously didn't destroy theirs.

[VPI97]

As for the conference, Pitt is making good strides, Cincy was solid this year and replaced their coach with a good one from CMU, Syracuse started showing some signs of recovering from the PP era, and UConn is developing a solid program. It's not the best conference by any means, but it's no worse than the ACC or Big 10 right now.
Pitt sucks, Cincy lost their coach, Syracuse sucks and UConn sucks. The only reason the Big East is mentioned in the same breath as the ACC is because the ACC had to replace 7 or 8 QB's this past season and had a down year.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, and the top 2 teams in the BE beat down the top 2 teams in the ACC.

[VPI97]

Oh, and the top 2 teams in the BE beat down the top 2 teams in the ACC.
I wouldn't really categorize barely beating a mediocre GT team with mulitple starters missing and a close game against Wake as 'beat downs'. I save that terminology for the past two VT-WVU games where the Mounties were the best the Big East had to offer and they weren't in either game.

[ISiddiqui]

Ah living 2 seasons ago... well, if that makes you feel important...

And 'mediocre' GT team, that beat you earlier this season (with a QB that ANY GT fan will tell you was better than the QB that beat you).

[WVUFAN]

Pitt sucks, Cincy lost their coach, Syracuse sucks and UConn sucks. The only reason the Big East is mentioned in the same breath as the ACC is because the ACC had to replace 7 or 8 QB's this past season and had a down year.

Whatever. BE is 5-0 in bowls this year. What was the ACC's record in bowls? More sour grapes, per normal.

I'm sure if you respond you'll do so by saying "X team had a bad year, we had to rebuild ... blah blah blah". Bottom line, the Big East was BY FAR a much better conference, top to bottom, than the ACC this year. We were the only BCS Conference to go undefeated in bowls (two of which were against the ACC Champion and the ACC Runner-Up). Rutgers was dominate in their bowl.

If anything, the bowls proved the Big East teams deserved to be in higher impact bowls than they wound up in. This is certainly true of Rutgers, who probably deserved a BCS bowl this year.

[VPI97]

Whatever. BE is 5-0 in bowls this year. What was the ACC's record in bowls? More sour grapes, per normal.

I'm sure if you respond you'll do so by saying "X team had a bad year, we had to rebuild ... blah blah blah". Bottom line, the Big East was BY FAR a much better conference, top to bottom, than the ACC this year. We were the only BCS Conference to go undefeated in bowls (two of which were against the ACC Champion and the ACC Runner-Up). Rutgers was dominate in their bowl.

If anything, the bowls proved the Big East teams deserved to be in higher impact bowls than that would up in. This is certainly true of Rutgers, who probably deserved a BCS bowl this year.
X team had a bad year, we had to rebuild ... blah blah blah

[VPI97]

Ah living 2 seasons ago... well, if that makes you feel important...

And 'mediocre' GT team, that beat you earlier this season (with a QB that ANY GT fan will tell you was better than the QB that beat you).
Other than Louisville, Rutgers didn't beat anyone all season that was worth a damn.


Just sayin'

[st.cronin]

X team had a bad year, we had to rebuild ... blah blah blah

That's a good point.

[VPI97]

In all seriousness, the Big East was a better conference this season than I'll normally give them credit for...but at the same time, the conference is Louisville, WVU, Rutgers and a bunch of crap. Cincinnati is not a 'pretty good' team. South Florida is not a 'pretty good' team. Pitt is not a 'decent' team.

I put up with all of the 'Big Least' comments on this board when we were still in the conference and although I tried to argue that moniker then, in retrospect, it was accurate. The top echelon of the conference is promising, but until the Big East has a solid middle class, it's not on the level that you guy claim it to be. Rag on the ACC all you want, but between Wake, GT, VT, Clemson, Miami, FSU, Maryland, BC we have a bunch of team that have a possibility of winning the conference in a given season. That's a good thing for the ACC. It shows a solid upper and middle class. What you guys need is for the top three to keep on keeping on and for Cincy, USF and Pitt not to suck so much.

[Logan]

Other than Louisville, Rutgers didn't beat anyone all season that was worth a damn.


Just sayin'

Not even arguing your statement (which I'll obviously disagree with), but you can't diminish Rutgers' season when their one worthwhile victory (again, in your opinion) came against a team who would be playing OSU tomorrow night, if they hadn't lost to Rutgers.

[st.cronin]

If I were a Pac 10 fan, this thread would be a lot funnier.

[Logan]

The top echelon of the conference is promising, but until the Big East has a solid middle class, it's not on the level that you guy claim it to be. Rag on the ACC all you want, but between Wake, GT, VT, Clemson, Miami, FSU, Maryland, BC we have a bunch of team that have a possibility of winning the conference in a given season. That's a good thing for the ACC. It shows a solid upper and middle class. What you guys need is for the top three to keep on keeping on and for Cincy, USF and Pitt not to suck so much.

The main problem with what you're saying is due to the numbers. The BE is an 8 team conference right now. Look at it any way you want -- 37.5% of the conference will be ranked in the top 15 at the end of the season (probably more like top 13, but let's not get picky). It's hard to show a "solid middle class" when you're drawing it out of a pool of 5 teams. Next year, I would guess the performance of USF and Pitt could be on par with the ACC middle class. Cincy will take some more time. There's 2 teams in the conference (25%) who are bad to terrible, and that's equitable to the 3 ACC teams (UNC, NC St, Duke) who are also bad to terrible, with another in UVA who might be headed that way. But I'll guess that UNC will make the jump into that middle class pretty soon.

And also, your point about having so many teams who could win the conference is a little bit of a stretch, considering there's probably a 1% chance that you would have put Wake or GT on that list before the year. Let's see them keep it up.

And finally, I don't think parity is a good thing for a college football conference.

[VPI97]

It's hard to show a "solid middle class" when you're drawing it out of a pool of 5 teams.
67% of ACC teams were ranked at some point this season...so I think you're misguided to be satisfied with much less out of the Big East.

Next year, I would guess the performance of USF and Pitt could be on par with the ACC middle class.
Meh...I'd put up $1000 right now that says neither will be ranked at any point in the season. All of the ACC 'middle class' was ranked in 2006.

And also, your point about having so many teams who could win the conference is a little bit of a stretch, considering there's probably a 1% chance that you would have put Wake or GT on that list before the year.
GT was expected to be very good this year...Wake not so much, but it shows how good of a coach Grobe is.

[VPI97]

dola -

And finally, I don't think parity is a good thing for a college football conference.

Then I guess you're satisfied with how the Big East is now, and has always been. What I've learned from living in SEC country is that a top-heavy conference isn't all that great. When you have a set of teams where there are competitive games every week...now that's a good conference.

[Logan]

67% of ACC teams were ranked at some point this season...so I think you're misguided to be satisfied with much less out of the Big East.


Meh...I'd put up $1000 right now that says neither will be ranked at any point in the season. All of the ACC 'middle class' was ranked in 2006.


GT was expected to be very good this year...Wake not so much, but it shows how good of a coach Grobe is.

First and foremost...I agree about Grobe. I was hoping he and Schiano would each win their share of the 47 Coach of the Year awards. What he did while losing his starting QB and RB was awesome.

Of course I'm not satisfied that the other teams in the BE haven't stepped it up yet. Put any other coach in at Pitt and they're probably a top 15 team with the talent they have. Give Wanny another two years of sucking before he's let go, and watch some other coach come in and compete for a BCS spot with the players he's recruited in the past 2 seasons.

You would rather have a deep conference that didn't have a single team in contention for NC consideration after the midway point in the season. I'm glad you feel that way, because I don't see it changing anytime soon. I think there's a good chance your squad will come back to the top, but I think it's going to be awhile before Miami and FSU return to their level of just a few years ago.

Meanwhile, I'll take our top-heavy conference, as it stands right now.

[Logan]

Then I guess you're satisfied with how the Big East is now, and has always been. What I've learned from living in SEC country is that a top-heavy conference isn't all that great. When you have a set of teams where there are competitive games every week...now that's a good conference.

Sure it is...a good conference that wins half of its bowl games and doesn't produce a NC-worthy team.

[VPI97]

Meanwhile, I'll take our top-heavy conference, as it stands right now.
Then maybe you shouldn't complain when people say the Big East is a couple of teams and a bunch of shit. That's how you like it apparently.

[st.cronin]

My own personal rankings of the conferences this year:

Pac 10
Big 10
Big East
ACC
Big 12
Mountain West
WAC
MAC
CUSA
Sun Belt
SEC

[Logan]

Then maybe you shouldn't complain when people say the Big East is a couple of teams and a bunch of shit. That's how you like it apparently.

Yeah, the same people who also think the ACC is a good conference; i.e complete morons.

Amazing that you don't see any type of connection between your "deep" conference and the lack of any great teams.

[Logan]

My own personal rankings of the conferences this year:

Pac 10
Big 10
Big East
ACC
Big 12
Mountain West
WAC
MAC
CUSA
Sun Belt
SEC

BRILLIANT!

[VPI97]

Yeah, the same people who also think the ACC is a good conference; i.e complete morons.

Amazing that you don't see any type of connection between your "deep" conference and the lack of any great teams.
I don't? The reason we didn't have any 'great teams' is becasue it's such a deep conference...same reason why the SEC hardly ever has an undefeated team. Meanwhile, you keep thinking that there was a Big East team was one win away from a MNC appearance...now that's laughable. The voters would have done the same thing to Louisville that they did to Michigan. No chance in hell that a Big East team was going to play for the MNC over Florida...heck, they would have rather had the rematch of UM/OSU than put in some team from a conference like the Big East.

lol.

[st.cronin]

I don't? The reason we didn't have any 'great teams' is becasue it's such a deep conference...same reason why the SEC hardly ever has an undefeated team. Meanwhile, you keep thinking that there was a Big East team was one win away from a MNC appearance...now that's laughable. The voters would have done the same thing to Louisville that they did to Michigan. No chance in hell that a Big East team was going to play for the MNC over Florida...heck, they would have rather had the rematch of UM/OSU than put in some team from a conference like the Big East.

lol.

I don't know why I'm engaging this discussion, but if Louisville had gone undefeated they would absolutely be playing for the Championship. If you don't believe me just ask IMetTrentGreen.

[cartman]

IMeanwhile, you keep thinking that there was a Big East team was one win away from a MNC appearance...now that's laughable. The voters would have done the same thing to Louisville that they did to Michigan. No chance in hell that a Big East team was going to play for the MNC over Florida...heck, they would have rather had the rematch of UM/OSU than put in some team from a conference like the Big East.

lol.

If Louisville hasn't lost to Rutgers and gone undefeated, then they would have been in the BCS Championship game. No way a one loss Florida or Michigan team would have been ranked ahead of an undefeated Louisville.

[VPI97]

If Louisville hasn't lost to Rutgers and gone undefeated, then they would have been in the BCS Championship game. No way a one loss Florida or Michigan team would have been ranked ahead of an undefeated Louisville.
No way Michigan was supposed to drop from #2 to out of the MNC game. Just sayin'

[cartman]

No way Michigan was supposed to drop from #2 to out of the MNC game. Just sayin'

If Louisville didn't lose to Rutgers and was undefeated, then no way Michigan would have stayed at #2 after losing to Ohio State.

Just sayin'.

[VPI97]

If Louisville didn't lose to Rutgers and was undefeated, then no way Michigan would have stayed at #2 after losing to Ohio State.

Just sayin'.
A one loss Louisville was behind a couple of two loss teams in the final BCS rankings. Not much of a stretch to think that a zero loss Louisville would have been behind two other one loss teams.

Just sayin'

[cartman]

A one loss Louisville was behind a couple of two loss teams in the final BCS rankings. Not much of a stretch to think that a zero loss Louisville would have been behind two other one loss teams.

Just sayin'

LOL

[ISiddiqui]

I'll agree with everyone else that thinks VPI is a deluded freak, whose girlfriend must have been stolen by a guy going to a Big East school, to think that an undefeated Louisville wouldn't be in the NC game.

[st.cronin]

A one loss Louisville was behind a couple of two loss teams in the final BCS rankings. Not much of a stretch to think that a zero loss Louisville would have been behind two other one loss teams.

Just sayin'

Actually, it's a tremendous stretch that only somebody with a completely irrational hatred of the Big East could make.

[st.cronin]

dola

Then again, I really don't get how a 1-loss team from a weak ass conference like the SEC made the championship game over Wisconsin.

[VPI97]

Actually, it's a tremendous stretch that only somebody with a completely irrational hatred of the Big East could make.
The computer rankings hated Louisville all season...you're telling me that is was a sure thing that they would have made the champ game? Pffft.

[cartman]

The computer rankings hated Louisville all season...you're telling me that is was a sure thing that they would have made the champ game? Pffft.

Yep, since 2/3 of the poll is comprised of human voters, who had Louisville ranked at #3 when they lost.

[Logan]

Ummm, yeah...Louisville was ranked 3rd in the BCS before their loss to Rutgers, with a fairly large lead over #4 Florida. A win over (then) #13 in the BCS Rutgers, complete with winning out, would have kept them in the #2 spot over Michigan.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings?week=4

Keep digging yourself deeper though, it's great entertainment over here.

[VPI97]

Yep, since 2/3 of the poll is comprised of human voters, who had Louisville ranked at #3 when they lost.
Yep...and USC was one and two spots behind them in the final human polls, yet still finished ahead of them in the BCS rankings. You're telling me that it's impossible that UF or UM (who would have both been one and two spots behind L'ville in a final poll) could not have jumped the Cardinals due to their horrible CPU rankings?

[ISiddiqui]

Ummm, yeah...Louisville was ranked 3rd in the BCS before their loss to Rutgers, with a fairly large lead over #4 Florida. A win over (then) #13 in the BCS Rutgers, complete with winning out, would have kept them in the #2 spot over Michigan.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings?week=4

Keep digging yourself deeper though, it's great entertainment over here.

Not only that but they were ranked 3rd in the computer polls. The computers exacted a large penalty on them for losing to Rutgers. If they hadn't, I can't see the computers having them any lower than 4th. And with #2 in the Harris and Coaches, that would have definately been enough.

And, of course, before Rutgers lost to Cincy, they were ranked #2 in the computer polls.

[Logan]

Yep...and USC was one and two spots behind them in the final human polls, yet still finished ahead of them in the BCS rankings. You're telling me that it's impossible that UF or UM (who would have both been one and two spots behind L'ville in a final poll) could not have jumped the Cardinals due to their horrible CPU rankings?

Just say it..."I was wrong."

You don't even have to admit to being wrong about the BE sucking, or about the ACC being great. Just concede that you were talking out of your ass when you stated Louisville wouldn't have made the NC game, and all of us here will stop making you look stupid with facts.

[st.cronin]

Consider that 2 of Louisville's ooc games were absolute ass-kickings of Miami and Kentucky, and had they gone unbeaten, there would be zero controversy about them being in the title game.

[cartman]

Yep...and USC was one and two spots behind them in the final human polls, yet still finished ahead of them in the BCS rankings. You're telling me that it's impossible that UF or UM (who would have both been one and two spots behind L'ville in a final poll) could not have jumped the Cardinals due to their horrible CPU rankings?

Nothing is impossible, but the scenario you describe would be pretty close to impossible.

You are looking at the final polls, and not taking into account how they would be different with an undefeated Louisville. The vote totals for #2 and #3 were very close in both the USA Today and Harris polls. That is because there wasn't a consensus on who should be #2, Michigan or Florida. An undefeated Louisville would have been a consensus #2 in the human polls. Since percentage of the vote total is used for the human polls, this would have given Louisville an almost unsurmountable lead for the computer polls to overcome.

[VPI97]

Not only that but they were ranked 3rd in the computer polls. The computers exacted a large penalty on them for losing to Rutgers. If they hadn't, I can't see the computers having them any lower than 4th. And with #2 in the Harris and Coaches, that would have definately been enough.

And, of course, before Rutgers lost to Cincy, they were ranked #2 in the computer polls.

Factor in the lack of improvement in the CPU polls for UL playing USF, Pitt & UConn while UF shot up the CPU polls for beating FSU & Arkansas in that timespan. You guys seem to think that teams don't drop in the CPU polls when they win. Just playing those three teams would have been enough to drop L'ville behind UF.

Meh...go look for yourself. UL only improved .04 points in the timespan between losing to Rutgers and finishing their season...UF moved up .14 in the CPU polls during that timeframe. The .10 point difference is enough to make up about 1.6 ranking spots in the composite human polls.

[Logan]

Factor in the lack of improvement in the CPU polls for UL playing USF, Pitt & UConn while UF shot up the CPU polls for beating FSU & Arkansas in that timespan. You guys seem to think that teams don't drop in the CPU polls when they win. Just playing those three teams would have been enough to drop L'ville behind UF.

Meh...go look for yourself. UL only improved .04 points in the timespan between losing to Rutgers and finishing their season...UF moved up .14 in the CPU polls during that timeframe. The .10 point difference is enough to make up about 1.6 ranking spots in the composite human polls.

And once again you ignore the tremendous hit they took after LOSING to Rutgers, which made them no longer undefeated, i.e the whole point of this exercise.

[VPI97]

And once again you ignore the tremendous hit they took after LOSING to Rutgers, which made them no longer undefeated, i.e the whole point of this exercise.
Actually, you must have not comprehended what I wrote since I was only talking about the CPU fluxuation in the period of time after the loss to Rutgers...you know when Louisville had more chance to gain ground than UF? Even though there was more to gain, they didn't due to the SOS hit from finishing their Big East schedule.

What those numbers imply is that even if L'ville would have started ahead of other teams with a win over Rutgers, UF and UM (by virtue of just playing OSU) would have finished ahead of L'ville in the final CPU poll. By putting them at CPU #4 (or worse if USC would have still been ahead by virtue of the ND win), any difference in the human polls would have been negated.

[VPI97]

dola -

Either way, it's a good thing L'ville choked against Rutgers. That way we're going to actually have a good game tomorrow night instead of the potential of a massive OSU blowout over Louisville.

[st.cronin]

dola -

Either way, it's too bad Wisconsin choked against Michigan. That way we would actually have a good game tomorrow night instead of the potential of a massive OSU blowout over Florida.

fixed

[Logan]

Actually, you must have not comprehended what I wrote since I was only talking about the CPU fluxuation in the period of time after the loss to Rutgers...you know when Louisville had more chance to gain ground than UF? Even though there was more to gain, they didn't due to the SOS hit from finishing their Big East schedule.

What those numbers imply is that even if L'ville would have started ahead of other teams with a win over Rutgers, UF and UM (by virtue of just playing OSU) would have finished ahead of L'ville in the final CPU poll. By putting them at CPU #4 (or worse if USC would have still been ahead by virtue of the ND win), any difference in the human polls would have been negated.

Nope, I was right...you're an idiot. You said:

UL only improved .04 points in the timespan between losing to Rutgers and finishing their season...UF moved up .14 in the CPU polls during that timeframe. The .10 point difference is enough to make up about 1.6 ranking spots in the composite human polls.

All those numbers mean nothing, because you're saying they only moved .04 points (which wouldn't have been enough to make up whatever UF gained). But your number that UL is moving up from is a number that is significantly lower than it would have been had they beat Rutgers.

[ISiddiqui]

Meh...go look for yourself. UL only improved .04 points in the timespan between losing to Rutgers and finishing their season...UF moved up .14 in the CPU polls during that timeframe. The .10 point difference is enough to make up about 1.6 ranking spots in the composite human polls.

You do realize, if you look at Week 4 of the BCS, in the computer polls, Louisville was up on UF by 0.10, right?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings?week=4

And interestingly, after Louisville lost in Week 5, UF actually dropped in their computer number from .810 to .800.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/BCSStandings?week=5

I'm positive Louisville would have gone up from their .910 if they defeated Rutgers, a team ranked 13th in the BCS at the time (and 9th in computer average).

Hell, in fact, after Rutgers beat Louisville, it's computer rating was .950, which is .150 above Florida that week.

If Louisville beat Rutgers, I'd imagine they'd be between .920 and .950, Florida would have been .800. Florida gaining 0.14 would have given them .940. Louisville, even if they were still at .910 after the Rutgers game, gaining 0.04, would have given them .950. So Louisville would have finished AHEAD in the computers... and ahead in the human polls.

So sorry, try again... or better yet, if you don't want to look like a fool, don't :p.

[VPI97]

Nope, I was right...you're an idiot. You said:
I guess it says something about the validity of your argument since you've moved more towards personal insults.

All those numbers mean nothing, because you're saying they only moved .04 points (which wouldn't have been enough to make up whatever UF gained). But your number that UL is moving up from is a number that is significantly lower than it would have been had they beat Rutgers.
Again...you haven't understood what I'm saying...L'ville only moved .04 points up with their final three wins despite the fact that a) they had more room to move up than had they defeated Rutgers (due to being lower in the CPU rankings) and b)USC/Mich/LSU all lost.

People can say that the voters would have kept the Cardinals at #2 despite the polls keeping Mich there after their loss the next week, but you can't dispute that the cPU movement of L'ville was stagnant with their last three wins while a team like UF shot up the charts due to their final games.

[Logan]

I guess it says something about the validity of your argument since you've moved more towards personal insults.


Again...you haven't understood what I'm saying...L'ville only moved .04 points up with their final three wins despite the fact that a) they had more room to move up than had they defeated Rutgers (due to being lower in the CPU rankings) and b)USC/Mich/LSU all lost.

People can say that the voters would have kept the Cardinals at #2 despite the polls keeping Mich there after their loss the next week, but you can't dispute that the cPU movement of L'ville was stagnant with their last three wins while a team like UF shot up the charts due to their final games.

No, I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying. And I'll leave it at that.

[VPI97]

No, I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying. And I'll leave it at that.
Yes, you are.

[ISiddiqui]

Read my post above... he isn't.

[VPI97]

Read my post above... he isn't.
Your post wasn't very valid since is seemed like you didn't have much understanding of how the CPU polls worked. Your example would have been good if the CPU point numbers were awarded in a compliation methodology, but it's a percentile methodology...and that renders your calculations as not being applicable.

[Swaggs]

Bobby Petrino to the Atlanta Falcons, it appears.

That will not help the Big East next season. I would imagine this will have a very big effect on Bush and Brohm's decisions whether to stay at UL or declare for the NFL.

[General Mike]

Bobby Petrino to the Atlanta Falcons, it appears.

That will not help the Big East next season. I would imagine this will have a very big effect on Bush and Brohm's decisions whether to stay at UL or declare for the NFL.

Bad for the Big East, but good for Rutgers and WVU.

[gstelmack]

dola -

Either way, it's a good thing L'ville choked against Rutgers. That way we're going to actually have a good game tomorrow night instead of the potential of a massive OSU blowout over Louisville.

You mean like the Oklahoma blowout over Boise State?

[st.cronin]

Louisville is a good enough program now that I don't think this is that big a deal. I think, like Boise State, they'll just plug in the next guy and motor on.

[Logan]

My only concern for them is...where do you go from here? It's getting late pretty early.

[cartman]

Early word is that L'ville is going to go after Kragthorpe of Tulsa as their new coach.

[WVUFAN]

C'mon, VPI -- you're fighting a losing battle, and you know it.

You hate the Big East. We get it. You hate West Virginia. We get it. Just admit that for this year, the Big East had a pretty doggone good conference. You say South Florida isn't even a decent team. They won their bowl game convincingly. Cincinnati, who had the #3 toughest SOS in college football this year, won their bowl game. Rutgers dominated their game (as I said before, they deserved a bigger game than what they got). West Virginia, the #2 team in the Big East, beat the #2 team in the ACC. Louisville beat the ACC Champion.

You say you're rather have a bunch of decent teams and no bad ones. I'd rather have at least one team that had people in the media talking NC title game -- the Big East had THREE teams that at one point were all ranked in the Top 10.

I'll admit that normally the ACC has a fantastic conference. Not this year. The Big East were above and beyond anything the ACC had.

[VPI97]

Stuff.
I agree with you on all points.

[cthomer5000]

The big east is example A of how to pad records...look at rutgers schedule a few posts up. Its a joke....they play 2 games all year worth a damn, and maryland is average at best. So 2.5 if your nice. So they will have a great record, but so will boise state. Doesnt mean their top 15 material

Rutgers was scheduling these teams when they themselves sucked ass. So 1) You know they wanted to schedule some wins and 2) It's generally hard to get a big boy to play you when you're a lowly turd.

If I hear an annoucnement today that we're playing Norfolk State in 2012, id be pissed.

On the other hand I know we have likea 6-7 year series with Notre Dame starting in 2010 or so, so you cannot say Rutgers isn't trying to improve the out of confrence schedule.

Honestly, scheduling is very hard unless you always suck or are always great. Its toughest in general on the teams going through short term rises or falls... they end up with schedules that just dont match up with their level of play.

[ISiddiqui]

Wow... losing Petrino will hurt the BE. I'm hoping Louisville doesn't do a nose dive and Kragthorpe keeps them on the same keel they've been on recently.

[st.cronin]

I guess I'll have to be the one to point out the OBVIOUS flaw in this ranking: how can you possibly list the MAC ahead of CUSA this year? That's just redonkulous!

Keep in mind I made the list before the GMAC bowl kicked off.

[lynchjm24]

. I haven't looked at UConn's schedule

He he.

@ Duke
Maine
Temple
@ Virginia
Akron

[cartman]

My observation on these soft schedules is this. If they automatically lead to a great season, then how come Boise State is the only team that can seem to consistently take advantage of them? If it was such an easy way to a great season, then you'd think more teams would have a record such as Boise State's over the past 6 seasons. The Smurfturfers have 12 more wins than the next closest non-BCS team over the past 5 seasons.

[Logan]

My observation on these soft schedules is this. If they automatically lead to a great season, then how come Boise State is the only team that can seem to consistently take advantage of them? If it was such an easy way to a great season, then you'd think more teams would have a record such as Boise State's over the past 6 seasons. The Smurfturfers have 12 more wins than the next closest non-BCS team over the past 5 seasons.

I made this point repeatedly when Rutgers was undefeated and people were knocking them for the "soft" schedule: A loss to a team that you're supposed to beat hurts you a hell of a lot more than a victory over a team you shouldn't beat helps you. It's what ruins seasons and there's plenty of examples of this from this year alone. It's a big accomplishment to beat all the teams on your schedule that you're supposed to.

[gstelmack]

Do we want to rethink that Big 10 ranking again?

[Logan]

Early word is that L'ville is going to go after Kragthorpe of Tulsa as their new coach.

Louisville has apparently lost the commitment of Matt Simms, Phil's other kid. USF might be his destination.

[cartman]

Either way, it's a good thing L'ville choked against Rutgers. That way we're going to actually have a good game tomorrow night instead of the potential of a massive OSU blowout over Louisville.

I bow before your superior knowledge and insight into college football.

[Swaggs]

...and, with the Ohio State loss, the Big East is the only conference to win their BCS games in 2006 and 2007 (and yes, I realize that the B10 won 2 last year and the SEC won 2 this year). :)

[Mr. Wednesday]

Yep, since 2/3 of the poll is comprised of human voters, who had Louisville ranked at #3 when they lost.

That's misleading... the result of the weight is that if the two disagree within one place, the polls will carry, but if the disagreement is larger than that, the computers will have an effect.

e.g. if Louisville were voted #2, but the computers had them #7 and their #2 was the #3 in the polls, the #3 in the polls would be the #2 in the BCS, and Louisville would be down to third or fourth.

[SFL Cat]

My own personal rankings of the conferences this year:

Pac 10
Big 10
Big East
ACC
Big 12
Mountain West
WAC
MAC
CUSA
Sun Belt
SEC


PAC 10 no. 1?

In what? Women's volleyball?

[ISiddiqui]

Louisville has apparently lost the commitment of Matt Simms, Phil's other kid. USF might be his destination.

USF? But why? Even without Petrino, I'd take Louisville over USF, especially with Groethe as the QB there.

[cartman]

That's misleading... the result of the weight is that if the two disagree within one place, the polls will carry, but if the disagreement is larger than that, the computers will have an effect.

e.g. if Louisville were voted #2, but the computers had them #7 and their #2 was the #3 in the polls, the #3 in the polls would be the #2 in the BCS, and Louisville would be down to third or fourth.

Not necessarily. The human polls are weighted by % of total points possible in the poll, whereas the computers are strictly by the numerical position. Take into account the final poll, where Florida was #2 and Michigan was #3. But their vote totals were almost even, so it actually worked out that they were at #2.51 and #2.49, more or less, in the human polls. In the computer polls, it is absolute.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Fair warning: the writer of this column was not a poll voter this season.
But I suspect he isn't going to be horribly far off from what the pre-season poll looks like in the fall ... except that he wrote the column before tonight's national championship game.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/cfb/entries/2007/01/08/projecting_next.html
1. USC
2. WVU
3. Oklahoma
4. Ohio State
5. Florida
6. LSU
7. Texas
8. Michigan
9. Arkansas
10. Va Tech
11. Louisville
12. Wake Forest
13. Wisconsin
14. Auburn
15. Nebraska
16. Georgia
17. Tennessee
18. Rutgers
19. South Carolina
20. FSU
21. Notre Dame
22. Texas A&M
23. TCU
24. Boise State
25. Oklahoma State