Blog Entry

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

Posted on: September 8, 2009 4:42 pm
If this week's polls are any indication of the kind of season on tap in college football, the BCS is about to get embarrassed. Badly.

The Big East, a member of the BCS, has one ranked team ... No. 23 Cincinnati.

The Mountain West, a non-member of the BCS, has three ranked teams: No. 9 BYU, No. 16 TCU and No. 17 Utah.

Yet the winner of the Big East is guaranteed a spot in the BCS bowls, while the winner of the Mountain West is not. That's a problem, if this week's polls are any indication of the kind of season that takes place.

And the ACC isn't very good either. By the way.

I still don't like Boise State, even undefeated in December, as a national title contender. Not when its best win all season could end up being against an Oregon team that is now unranked.

Category: NCAAF
Tags: BCS

Since: Oct 26, 2006
Posted on: January 12, 2010 7:00 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

I couldn't agree with you more observer 50.

After the dust of the bowl season had settled, I planned to revisit this idea...what to do with the BE.... 

For a CBS sportswriter to write a lame article like this, and for the site to actually post it... is laughable.

Wouldn't most credible sportswriters look at the preseason rankings and question why the AP poll was the only one to rank a BE team?  I know I am a BE homer, but I asked the question to posters here and at other sites.

While I am not into the name calling... I love the fact that you came back to this thread to respond.

Now that the '09 season has finished... what will the BCS do with the BE issue?  Three BE teams finished ranked in the top 25... two of its teams finished in the top 15.

What can be served with crow to help get it down?

Since: Oct 9, 2006
Posted on: January 12, 2010 11:08 am

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

This is a good example of why you don't pretend that seasons are going to end the way they begin and why cbs should have writers with brains enough to know this stuff instead of idiots they do have.

Since: Dec 1, 2008
Posted on: October 29, 2009 9:53 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

How stupid does this Doyel guy look now? ha ha yeah, since the ACC isn't the worst BCS conference.  "Big East issue" - try this Gregg with two g's - the Big East has exceeded BCS criteria over the past decade, has the ACC even met it at all?  Wasn't last year the ACC's first ever BCS win?  Ever heard of week 1 and preseason rankings meaning nothing?  Unfounded?  
I've never heard of this Doyel character, but in reading a chain of websites talking about how pathetic the ACC is I stumbled upon him.  Great content ha ha sad

Since: Oct 20, 2006
Posted on: September 28, 2009 1:51 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

Way to make a relevant point there, xenon.  The Ivy League has a winning record all-time against the current BE members, as well as the current MW members and the current ACC members.  Therefore, THEY should get an automatic BCS bid?

Since: Aug 1, 2008
Posted on: September 9, 2009 7:26 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

I guess the Big East is only deserving of one Top Twenty Team. I mean, if the Pre-Season Polls aren't perfectly
accurate then what is the world coming to? Thanks Greg for falling into "The Majority has Spoken" rationale,
which, for purposes of actually finding the best teams, is pointless.

Since: Aug 31, 2006
Posted on: September 9, 2009 6:53 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue



Current Mountain West vs Current Big East  All Time

Record : 44-(26-16-1)--0.616

I don't know what it means for the present that TCU beat Syracuse in 1957 when TCU wasn't in the MWC
Or that Air Force beat Cincinnati in 1961 when Cincy wasn't in the Big East.

But since 1957, the teams that currently make up the MWC have beaten the teams that currently make up the Big East 61.6% of the time.

What does it mean ... well, it means that it is pretty hard to argue that the Big East is in the BCS because historically they have been better than the MWC ... when actually, historically the MWC has been better.

Again, the point is NOT that the Big East is BAD.  The point is that as far as on field arguements go, there really isn't a huge difference between the Big East and the MWC, and so there is no justification for one being IN and one being OUT.  Both IN or Both OUT makes more sense.

Since: Aug 31, 2006
Posted on: September 9, 2009 6:44 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

PittBaster ...

My arguement for Utah/Pitt being the best indicator is that it is the only game where I know the relative positions of the two teams that year in the two conferences ... they were both champs (or co-champs I guess).

Take the Syracuse - Wyoming matchup.  Was that game when Syracuse was a middle BigEast team or a Bottom BigEast team.  Since Wyoming has been down for most of the last decade, I'm assuming Wyoming was a probably a bottom MWC team for that game.  If it was a middle BE vs bottom MWC, that is not all that impressive of a win.  If it was a bottom BE vs bottom MWC, then it is a good win.

Flip side is Utah vs Louisville.  I think that game was in 2007.  If that is the case, Utah was tied for 4th in the MWC (i.e. middle) and Louisville was tied for 5th in the BE (i.e. middle).  If I got the year right, then that is probably a pretty good comparision game.

Anyway, all I meant by a good comparision was that was Champ vs Champ, which is really the best you can hope for for a comparision game --- you know exactly what that means.

I guess my point is, and I have a list of other stats to show this which I can dig up, when you do comparisions of the BE and MWC, most of those comparisions come out pretty even, like this one did.  2-2 over the last 5 years or so.  What does that mean ... I have a hard time finding justification for the BigEast being IN the BCS and the MWC being OUT, when most comparisions put the two conferences pretty close ....

That isn't meant to be "Anti-BigEast".  I think they should either BOTH be in or BOTH be out.  (Preferably in my opinion BOTH IN.)

Since: Jan 15, 2007
Posted on: September 9, 2009 4:49 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

Ok, Xenon, I'm not "anti-MWC" like some of the other BE fans seem to be right now, but one thing I really disagree with is calling Pitt vs. Utah the best indicator of strength.

Remember, Pitt was the winner of a 4-way tie for the conference crown...Utah ran away with its.  All four of the teams from the Big East that tied were probably superior to everyone form the MWC except Utah...who was the best team from either league, bar none.  This, like the arguments before it, is more an argument that the BCS is crap (no BE team had business in that year, but they were a decent league overall) than for MWC superiority.

Since: Aug 31, 2006
Posted on: September 9, 2009 4:25 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

I don't know why the Big East fans make this an "anti-MWC" thread, but hey, you asked ...

Big East/Mountain West showdown results (since the new Big East was formed)

Neutral Field: 1-0 in favor of MWC
Utah over Pittsburgh 35-7

Home Game for BigEast: 1-1 tie
Syracuse over Wyoming 40-34
Utah over Louisville 44-35
Home Game for MWC: 1-0 in favor of BigEast
Cincy over SDSU 52-23

I'd say the best indicator of relative strength is the Utah/Pitt game, because it was champion vs champion.  The other games are a little harder to judge because it might be a top team that year vs a bottom team that year, or visa versa.

Anyway, overall record of the New BigEast versus the MWC is 2-2.

Since: Apr 4, 2007
Posted on: September 9, 2009 4:00 pm

BCS needs to address its Big East issue

If the Mountain West is so great.  I think we need a Big East, Mountain West showdown each year to see what conference is better.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or