I thought The Big East teams were picked mainly because of their catholic ties. 5 of the original 7 are catholic schools. I don't know how big of a tv market Storrs, CT and Syracuse, NY are. : )
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
Don't forget WVU. It's a Catholic school. Right? Uh...Ooops! It's an alcoholic school. My bad...
Zac
· 9 months ago
As one who was a member of the campus Newman Center, I can only say WVU at least supported Catholics, among others.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Schools like BC, Georgetown, Providence, St. Johns, Villanova, etc. (being Catholic) was in fact a coincidence, and actually had no where near the impact as to how the conference was put together, when compared with those markets within which these schools presided.
As for CT, this school has always had quite the following with the state's population, and Syracuse alum are all over the state of NY, not to mention the northeast & elsewhere. Our former plant manager (now at VY) is a Syracuse alum.
The point is the men who put the Big East together were actually business visionaries. They were looking for a unique (thinking out of the box) way to make money, not to mention a name, not to mention support what they enjoy - college sports. The kicker: It worked. Football has been more of a challenge to them, success wise, that is, but the basketball portion developed into quite the power house; not to mention, cash cow.
4cornerz
· 9 months ago
Too bad the Big East did not see the bigger picture and raided the ACC and C-USA first. If I was Mike I would have took Duke, UNC, FSU, and Louisville.
shiguy
· 9 months ago
Bet ya BC is having a little bit of a hangover. All that money spent on travel fees for the regular season and then the fees to fly down to that "lucrative" conference championship have got to be adding up.... Too bad too... they could have a real nice local rivalry with Uconn.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Agreed. We really don't want BC (well, I don't). They have no business being in the ACC, no historical rivals (outside MIA and VT), and it really makes no sense for them to be there.
If there was a way for the ACC to swap BC for WVU and keep the Boston TV money, they'd do it in a heartbeat...
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
I wasn't big on BC at first either. The problem is coming up with a school that not only has the athletics but also has the academics that the ACC requires. When you start to think about it that way, it's hard to come up with a better replacement.
In time, BC will develop more rivalries. It will take a while, but no rivalries start up overnight. I've enjoyed their fans so far, and they bring a very well rounded institution into the conference. So, I'm all for them now.
Regan
· 9 months ago
I agree with a lot of it; bitterness over the first 3x CLEM-BC games clouds my feelings towards the Eagles, but I'd still want someone else in the ACC that makes more sense instead of them, like SCAR, WVU, or USF.
Academics are not something I think about. The College of Charleston is the best academic school in the history of ever, and everyone else is in second or something like that....so I default to what makes sense CFB-wise, which handicaps me a little... :-)
shiguy
· 9 months ago
There are two reasons for WVU's academic situation. The first is WVU's let anyone have a chance policy. Personally I am all for this. WVU purposefully sets their entrance standards fairly low because they are under the impression that everyone should be given at least a chance to succeed. If the person actually works or not is up to them as i can tell you from going to both University of Maryland and West Virginia that my courses did not drop in workload at all. This though as you're about to read is not always the case
WVU's huge problem right now is the whole split campuses which causes split standards. The engineering department is very good with many national programs which it competes it (part of why i went there). The issue though is that a lot of the non-engineering or not science related majors are simply not up to par. you wouldn't think that having a split campus would cause something like this but strangely it does.
The engineering campus has been pulling their hair out for years because they feel that the other departments are not preparing the students for when they start taking more intensive engineering courses, particularly physics and math which is not on the engineering campus. Sucks because I know the engineering is and the forensics sciences are both good, but the other departments need to start stepping up because they're killing our academic status.
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
That's unfortunate because West Virginia would fit athletically in the ACC fairly well, in my opinion.
Low entrance standards and poorly performing colleges of the university prevented WVU from ever being given a chance. It was certainly discussed to no end on many message boards around the ACC as to why WVU wasn't being offered. A lot of ACC fans wanted them, and didn't understand why the original discussion was only going on with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College, instead of Miami, VT, and WVU.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Actually, CJ, it isn't a question of entrance standards. It's a question of WV state law. A statute exists, which directs any state school to allow entry of any prospective student with a 2.0 GPA or better (4.0 scale). Only non-residents are more scrutinized, as state schools are required to maximize the non-resident portion of their student population to 30%.
West Virginia also depends a great deal upon the use and sale of coal. Well, WV has a law which places a $0.075 surcharge on every KW of electricity sold outside the state. Given WV has no nuke plants, and given all the coal fired plants they do have, have you any idea as to the impact that law has placed upon coal production; not to mention, the state's economy?
WV really is a beautiful place. It's one of this country's best kept secrets. When my wife is ready to retire (I certainly will have by that time.) we hope to move back there. Sadly, they have some stupid people running the state. Eh, ya takes da good wit da bad.
Porcine
· 9 months ago
Almost heaven . . ..
TampaGator
· 9 months ago
Rhetorical question: why would Duke, Wake Forest, UNC, BC and UVA, who have excellent academic reputations, risk tarnishing their respective reps by associating with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami, and Virginia Tech, who do NOT command any respect whatsoever, academically?
Answer: Because there is no more risk of tarnishment to those schools' reputation, than there is benefit to the schools of questionable repute, for competing in ATLETIC events against those schools.
In other words, it's pure folly to think that membership in an ATHLETIC conference will have any bearing whatsoever, on one's academic reputation. The academic reputations of members of an ATHLETIC conference have virtually ZERO effect on the academic reputations of the other members. None. Zilch...zero...NADA!!!
The ACC is an ATHLETIC conference--secondary to being a PROFITABLE VENTURE among the member institutions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, if the ACC starts having spelling B tourneys, I may have to re-evaluate this assessment. Until then...
...you oughtn't flatter yourself to think that Clemson is on par academically with Duke/WF/BC..., simply because they play one another in hoops, FB, etc.
GO GATORS!!
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
First I'd like to start with a breakdown of the conference in natonal rankings. Feel free to check my reference here. 8. Duke (private) 23. Virginia 28. Wake Forest (private) 30. North Carolina 34. Boston College (private) 35. Georgia Tech 51. Miami (private) 53. Maryland 61. Clemson 71. Virginia Tech 83. NC State 102. Florida State
Every single one of our schools rank in the top tier in the national university rankings. There is only one other top conference that can claim that. However, West Virginia does not. Your opinion isn't really relevant here because the ACC would not consider WVU or any other school not in the top tier for that reason. At the time it was well documented around our campuses. On that same note, the Big Televen is often mentioned by pundits for expanding, and I know they will not expand unless it means adding one more top tier school. Both conferences take great pride in the fact that all of their member institutions rank very well nationally.
"...you oughtn't flatter yourself to think that Clemson is on par academically with Duke/WF/BC..., simply because they play one another in hoops, FB, etc." Like it or not, Clemson is the 22nd ranked national public university in the country. "...with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami, and Virginia Tech, who do NOT command any respect whatsoever, academically? " I'm sorry if you think that equates to commanding no respect whatsoever academically, but you may be alone with that opinion.
By the way, I never said that Clemson was on par with Duke, Wake Forest, or Boston College. Clemson isn't far behind them, but then again, it's tough to find many public institutions that can outrank strong private institutions such as the ones you mentioned.
When the ACC was expanding, it was the university presidents who went and toured the potential new members' campuses, not the ADs. The presidents were looking into the academic reputations of the other schools before they placed their votes. All of the schools that were looked into had the athletic reputation to join the conference, so that was a non issue at that point. The bottom line is not all conferences only care about athletics, and the ACC and the Big Televen are 2 of them.
TampaGator
· 9 months ago
Nice! Tier 1 schools--I wonder how many criteria you had to go through before you found a common denominator that fit all the members...
Couldn't help but notice that there isn't even a Tier 2 though. 130 schools in Tier 1 (or the "top tier", as you conveniently re-phrased it), then straight to Tier 3--quite a disctinction.
That said, ok, perhaps "...who do NOT command any respect whatsoever..." was bit harsh--even inaccurate.
My point stands though; the academic reputations of the member schools are not in any way shape or form, impacted by the other members' reps.
b/t/w: ALL of the SEC schools are members of an even more elite group than the 130 member "Tier 1" criterium you mentioned: They are all members of Division I (n/k/a FBS division)--comprised of a slightly more selective 119 members. ;)
GO GATORS!!
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
"Nice! Tier 1 schools--I wonder how many criteria you had to go through before you found a common denominator that fit all the members..." Really the entire research period consisted of a URL command of "g rankings national universities", <enter>, then 2 clicks. It really took me about 12 seconds. I don't think that's very much criteria to go through. Besides it's been well known for years that all member schools of the ACC fit that criteria, so inherently it wouldn't be difficult to find.
I don't know why there isn't a tier 2. Maybe they think there's enough of a gap there to warrant skipping it. Who knows?
"My point stands though; the academic reputations of the member schools are not in any way shape or form, impacted by the other members' reps." You're exactly right. They don't. However, for whatever reason, the ACC took academic reputation into account when expanding. When we first started to expand, a lot of students at Clemson, myself included, wanted to know why we weren't considering West Virginia and Louisville. We pounded the president and AD with emails, and they responded by telling us that those 2 schools didn't meet the "all around" criteria that the ACC was looking for, and that included academics. Duke was cited as being one of the major opponents to adding WVU or Louisville in the email. That was a long time ago, and I do not still have the email, so I cannot show you. I do remember it well, however, as it was a common topic for conversation around the bars at school during the offseason.
"...or the "top tier", as you conveniently re-phrased it" The site itself links to it with "Top Schools". Is "top tier" that far off on a tiered ranking system?
Doug Boninsegna
· 6 months ago
Clemson_Joe
"Get a grip on reality!"
You must be on another planet or you are grossly prejudicial toward the ACC, but the ACC academic standards as a whole are no where near as high as you claim they are.
Some other ACC fan made the statement that based on the latest US World News rankings, all the ACC schools rank in the top tier. By making that statement, they do a great diservice to the ACC. THEY DID NOT PERFORM A THOROUGH RESEARCH OF THE REORT!!
If you read the fine print of the report on the top schools, that is the methodology the US News used; accademics had very little to do with their rankings. Among other things, their rankings took into consideration the cost of tuition, the number of applicants, even the nightlife among other factors. NONE OF THESE CRITERIA HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ACADEMIC STANDARDS!!
If you want an honest, truthful, and totally objective assesment of the top Universities in Division 1-A, there is only 1 in the entire country. That is the NCAA's APR. I cannot speak for all the schools in the Big East, but, in the three years since using the APR as "THE STANDARD" of all schools participating in Division 1-A athletics, Rutgers has finished in the top ten every year. In fact, their lowest ranking was 6th (2007). Only 1 school in the ACC can make that claim. That is Duke. Not even Vanderbilt has equaled that accomplishment.
In fact, Rutgers is the only state university in the country to finish in the top 50 in 2008. (They finished 4th, tied with Duke.) In 2006, they finished 3rd.
In the past 5 years, Rutgers has had 3 finalists for the Draddy Award. That is the Heisman Trophy for Academics, given to the top college football player, based on academics, community service and performance on the field. One of those 3 finalists won the award, Brian Leonard.
The only other school I can comment about is the ACC's own University of Miami. As far as academic standards, they blow your claim out of the water. Miami has a reputation up and down the east coast, as fielding a team of county jail inmates. As far as their academic standards, Miami is on par with a community college, and that may even be considered an insult to community colleges.
Clemson_Joe
· 6 months ago
Your final statement loses any credibility you may have had prior. Miami likened to a community college or less? That's just absurd, and unfounded. Not to mention for some reason you think that the behavioral antics of the football players has anything to do with the institution's academic reputation and standards. Put down the pipe, and show me some quantifiable proof with actual numbers from a reputable publication like I did. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
What does Rutgers have to do with any of this? I am glad that you are proud of the State University of New Jersey, and kudos to them for their accomplishment.
I am speaking of conferences and their academic standards. Rutgers is but one single piece of the Big East that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ACC or its expansion. WVU was considered, but because of its academic reputation, was not extended an offer. I'm not sure if you're trying to pitch the idea of Rutgers being worthy of a target for another conference's expansion, but we're fine without them. Thanks anyway.
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
I should also point out how much of an embarrassment Boston College was to the league this year. It is a truly a miracle that they made it all the way through the regular season without getting exposed for having such a terrible backup QB. The Championship game, and their bowl game were both horrible, and I honestly felt bad for the rest of the players for having to play with that scrub that BC calls a QB.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
Good job Zac! The Zacarola with his first guest thread!
My preferred slight for the conference name is: Big Eas(y)t. You know, for the record.
As a result of the defections of 2003, the BE now is the least 'geographic' of the BCS conferences, raking in members from far and wide. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I fully expect that one day, when they finally back Notre Dame into a corner as far as joining the conference, it will be the Big East.
shiguy
· 9 months ago
I would say Bteleven will have a better shot. Better demographic, more rivalries.
Regan
· 9 months ago
Penn State too....wow, can you imagine that?
jake
· 9 months ago
Now would be a good time for ND to join the Big East. It could keep many of its traditional Big10 rivalries in the non-conf schedule while beating up the BE teams, resulting in a BCS birth. It wouldn't lose that lucrative NBC contract, so why not try winning a few more games?
Regan
· 9 months ago
Penn State should have always been in the Big East. If ND were to join the Big East, I think they could probably lure PSU away from the Big Ten (wishful thinking).
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
I agree completely. Penn State should definitely be in the Big East.
However, with that weird half football, half basketball membership thing they've going on, I don't know if that's plausible anymore. Unless of course, they shake up the membership even more and ditch that half an half thing.
Ben Prather
· 9 months ago
I agree the Big East will stay one of the top 7 conferences in the land for the forseeable future.
They have a Basketball indentity and are competitive in other sports as well. They strongly lack a football identity to guide them through the competitive arms race of college football conferences.
Is the Big East ready to make football a priority? If they do not they will slowly fade to a respected historical power with no present significance. Think Army-Navy. To revitalize the league they will need some young blood from C-USA or the MAC, expanding to 12 teams and adding a championship game. For the other sports this would involve a 1980's-1990's WAC mega conference with stretched rivalries and extream schedule difficulties trying to maintain traditional rivalries.
Is being an elite football conference worth the health of the other sports and risk of forcing a conference split? Not answering this question will lead gradually to football mediocrity.
PAC 10 expansion aptions are gradually decreasing with the improvement of the MWC. Does Utah have an easier road to the BCS in the MWC or the PAC 10? One day C-USA may gain some traction and start sending teams to at large spots reducing the Big East's expansion options. When that day comes the Big East will have waited too long.
shiguy
· 9 months ago
I think they may have waited a little too long already. Several of said teams in those midmajor conferences around the BE are picking up. When that starts happening, and the conference is currently on a down, why would one team leave? Personally i would love to see us get rid of some of these BBall only schools. So what if they make the conference good for BBall they are hurting the conf for every other sport. One of the major reason why the BE won't expand is because what do you do with a 17 or even 18 team conference? Let someone else pic up all the province, marquettes and st. john's in the current system. Nobody really cares about beating them in bball. I mean what would you consider a rival? a team that you play against in every major sport and are competitive in most of them? or some team that really doesn't compete in anything but BBall?
4cornerz
· 9 months ago
I never understood why TBE went after Marquette instead of another BBall and Football school. I understand DePaul for the Chicago Market, but I would have went for TCU for the Dallas- Fort Worth Market or U of Houston for the Houston Market. I do not want to hear it, La Tech is in the WAC which travels all the way to San Jose Cally for games.
shiguy
· 9 months ago
And they hate that. There have been so many complaints from the WAC teams talking about the conference being thrown around the country like a politicians travel schedule.
Tom22
· 9 months ago
It would be a terrible shame if a big east team went undefeated and they got to play in the Championship game ahead of a 2 loss SEC Big 12 or Pac 10 team. We've been lucky that there is just enough parity there to keep a team having a good year from sweeping the table.
There just isn't the football tradition there, no consistency, much fewer top notch players on the field that will play NFL one day etc.
Nice article though. Very odd to me that they've let them remain a Guaranteed BCS conference and that the teams get ranked like their record means the same as a similar record in a stronger conference.
GoCougs!
· 9 months ago
I think the Big East is going to struggle in the post Pat White era. Of course I'm biased because I want the conference to crash and burn. but I guess there is hope with South Florida and Rutgers. I'll be watching the Big East closely over the next few years.
badgerballer
· 9 months ago
As both a college football and a Big Ten fan, I have to say that the Big East is a JOKE. As a conference its been down for 4 or 5 years. Its a conference with only 1 team, 2 at best, with a legitimate chance of competing on a national stage. Its schools are in cold weather states and it struggles to recruit talent from the warm states in the south and west coast. Its middle-tier schools beat up on one another but would be .500 teams, at best, in the SEC or Big 12. It loses its under-card bowl games and gets embarrassed in its New Year's Day & later bowl games. Compared to the Big 10, the Big East is,....err,....ahh,......wait a minutes,........ahhhhh,...............nevermind.
4cornerz
· 9 months ago
Why cant we go back to Independent era of schools it was better times back them
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
With around three teams per season eventually claiming a MNC. Everyone wins! Yay!!!
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
The Big East had their shot to place a team into the BCS CG, but WVU fumbled that opportunity in the Back Yard Brawl in 2007.
If they had done that, oh what a boost the conference would have gotten.
The BE will need to expand quickly for their long-term survival. Picking up Army, Navy and Notre Dame would seal the deal.
wvumounties8
· 9 months ago
Excellent outline of the BE. I for one believe that the BE will continue to prosper as a BB and FB league.
Zac
· 9 months ago
A lot of points have been made regarding expansion of the Big East's football side of the house. Without question, it needs to be done, because it looks as if all of college football will head that way eventually; i.e. 12 team conferences. While it looks as if the Big East has painted itself into a corner with its 16 team mega-plex, there is a way it can be done. It doesn’t have to involve a "split" in the true sense of the word; rather establishment of two independent divisions: Basketball & Football.
The beauty of this idea: Notre Dame doesn't even have to join a conference full out; they can leave their independent football affiliation intact and still particpate in other Big East sports, including basketball.
Effectively the BB side of the house would look like this: DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, ND, Providence, St. Johns, Seaton Hall, & Villanova. Even if ND left to join the Big Ten, there are a number of options available from which to pick up an eighth school, such as St. Bonaventure, St. Joe's (Philly), UMass, or Xavier.
The football side has been speculated from New England to TX. If I were given the choice, this is what the Big East would look like: Army, BC, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pitt, Penn St, Rutgers, S. FL, Syracuse, UConn, VA Tech, WVU. (Note: This makes the assumption the ACC would be willing to take ECU & Navy, and that BC & VA Tech would return home where they belong. It also makes the assumption the Big Ten would trade Penn St for ND. I know; it's not very likely is it.)
More than likely, Big East football would look something like this: Army, C FL, Cincinnati, ECU, Louisville, Navy, Pitt, Rutgers, S FL, Syracuse, UConn, WVU. From among other schools, such as FL Atlantic, Marshall, Memphis, S MS, Troy, UAB, etc. substitutions for Army, C FL, ECU, & Navy could be speculated.
The point is it can be done. The two divisions, though independent, can play one another throughout BB season without impact to team standings within their respective division. At the end of the season the champions of each division can play-off. The separation of the football side from the basketball side weakens neither side. Those who founded the original Big East get to have their cake and eat it too. But, they'd better act fast. It's just a matter of time before somebody pulls another ACC-like hostile take-over. A second time will much more difficult to recover from; in fact, if there is a next time, it's likely they won't.
To one & all, thanks for the props, especially Kevin, WarEagle, & Bagerballer (laughed my a$$ off over that one).
vtmechE
· 9 months ago
virginia tech joined a conference in 1991 b/c they wanted some traction to get into the ACC, we joined the big east in order to get to the acc, that was our goal all along, we can drive to 8 conference schools within 6hrs of us: umd, uva, clemson, ga tech, wake forest, unc, duke, nc state, and it saves us some serious, i mean serious, travel costs
Zac
· 9 months ago
Actually, despite it's President & Board of Governors speaking openly in support of a strong Big East, it has been well known for a long time that VA Tech wanted into the ACC. Tech had lobbied to join for a number of consecutive years even after joining the Big East. At that time, however, the ACC was too serious about their BB to consider a school with a "sub-standard" team, despite Tech's academic achievements. I have to admit, given Tech's BB has improved so, and given Tech's football team won 3 ACC Championships since joining, were I a Tech alum, I'd have to ask, "How do ya like me now."
I can't argue with travel costs, given where Tech has been placed in the ACC South. That said, I do miss the annual Black Diamond Trophy between Tech & WVU. Would that we could resume the rivalry.
mr_unknown
· 9 months ago
I think that the NCAA should change their 12 team conference champ game requirement and lower it to 10. If that would happen conferences like the ACC would contract and get rid of BC and maybe Maryland. Or you can get rid of the conf champ games all together, 12 teams is too much in my opinion.
Joe Paterno lobbied to join the Big East and was turned down. Imagine having Penn State in the Big East? The Big East has some nice teams and Uconn and Rutgers are making solid progress, the Big East is here to stay.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Unknownster, oddly enough it was Paul Pasqualoni, a former student of the game tutored by none other than Joe Pa, who as the Cuse's HC, helped sponsor Penn St as a Big East prospective member. Big East Commissioner, Mike Tranghese saw this as a golden opportunity on the football side of the house. Along with Pasqualoni, VA Tech's, Frank Beamer, & WVU's, Don Nehlan, voted in favor of admitting Penn St. However, Pitt's coaches & commissioner rallied the rest of the conference against it. Tranghese wasn't surprised; rather, he was shocked & pissed. He told them "...they'd rue the day they didn't elect Penn St into the Big East..." Shortly after, Penn St became a full member of the Big Ten. Well, I supose it's better than the ACC having taken them.
vtmechE
· 9 months ago
were the big east to expand, making notre dame full time would be the first step, getting navy would help out, competitively, a mac team, or marshall would be next for me, as a geographical fit and another rival for wvu, and possibly swapping usf and bc, or just getting bc back
what i'd like to see: west: louisville, cincinatti, marshall, notre dame, pitt, wvu east: navy, uconn, syracuse, rutgers, BC, south florida/army
jake
· 9 months ago
I'd like to point this out to everyone who says the Big East teams are a bunch of doormats. I am not a BE fan per se but rather enjoy arguing the other side. I also root for the "underdog" in most occassions. The BE teams should not be reviewed solely based upon their records against other BCS teams. While many of you say this isn't the case, that apparently is the primary argument. Consider this: Most people think the BE is bad because of its record against other BCS teams in the non-conf schedule. I didn't hear that kind of bashing this year when the Big10 v. MAC and the Pac10 v. the MWC records were revealed! The BE teams, conversely, aren't losing often to weak non-BCS opponents, yet they are constantly ridiculed for having weak SOSs. So what's REALLY happening here? BE teams don't get the respect they deserve because each BE program really is developing in hopes of winning the conference championship (save 'Cuse for the time being). They are all caught in an arms race, resulting in a conference champion with 3 to 4 conference loses. They are beating each other up in conference play! Other conferences get the spotlight because they have prestigious, historic programs, but people forget about the junk opponents those glamour programs play each year in conference play. Those same junk teams get to stay in their respective conferences simply because of tradition or (in most cases) because they are good at basketball or academics (See: Duke, Arizona, Wazzu, Indiana, Miss. State, Vandy, etc.). Which football program in the BE is comparable to these "junk" football programs?...none (except 'Cuse as of recent - but we all know they'll be back). In conclusion, I don't think fans of other BCS conferences should be putting down the BE because of lack of their tradition, lack of size, or unimpressive recent non-conference schedule. Collectively, those programs bring a lot to the CFB landscape, and we should be celebrating resiliency to rebound so quickly from its fracture by the ACC. Let's all just step off our high horses, set aside our team loyalties, and simply support the blue-collar passion of BE football.
War_Eagle_Atlanta
· 9 months ago
They are beating each other up in conference play! Yea, Jake. Just like in the SEC, except that half the conference isn't ranked in the top 10.
The BE is given so much grief because almost half their conference defected and they were on life support for a while. The status quo will not do. They must take in some suitable boarders or be evicted from the BCS.
Mars
· 9 months ago
The Big East will have up years and down years, good teams and bad teams, but at the end of the day it matters most in the overall scheme on college football as the ultimate sign of hypocrisy.
The money monopoly says Cincinnati is a "major" team for no other reason than they say it is, and they say that Boise State isn't for no other reason than they say it isn't. South Florida is no different than BYU (no better, at least), but in our biased system one is magically a "have" and the other is a have not.
THAT is what the Big East is to the rest of college football.
Zac
· 9 months ago
Mars, I don't have an explanation for it, and I certainly don't have a fix. But I agree with you; I've never appreciated the "haves vs. have-nots" state of college football. The presumably better teams shouldn't fear playing at the site of presumably lesser teams. AND, just because a given team isn't a historical/traditional power house program, doesn't mean because that given team has a particularly fine year, it automatically means they should not reap the benefits that historical/traditional power house programs reap.
That said, here's the toughest part about being a fan of Big East football teams. It's been bad enough over the past 5 season that the 5 "toughest" conferences criticize the Big East and question whether or not they belong in the "Big Six", let alone should be automatic BCS bowl qualifiers. Now, there are teams from presumably lesser conferences trying to make their case for themselves and their conference's teams, AND their using the Big East as an example to do it. Bad enough the Big East is getting it from the Top-5, but now it's getting it from the rest. It's almost as if the Big East is in a class by itself, of which nobody wants to be a part. Of course, that's not entirely true. There are close to a dozen teams which would like to be in the Big East, but that's a subject for another debate.
4cornerz
· 9 months ago
The problem with TBE is it is Basketball powerhouse conference not football. The ACC sucked until V-Tech joined. Mike and TBE heard and saw the ACC was coming and did absolutely nothing about it until the last minute. If in 1979, TBE would have formed football too, things would be different today. I believe the major problem with Big East are the NCAA rules when it comes down to conferences. example if UCF wants to join the Big East and the Big East would say we only want UCF as football only school, and UCF would okay, then under NCAA rules UCF can join TBE for football but all other sports must be in a non football conference therefore UCF will look to join the A 10 or Big South for all other sports that rule sucks. Blame one conference for starting this mess The Big 8
Porcine
· 9 months ago
Big 8, huh?
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
The Big 8 was Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State, Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri. Basically the Big XII minus the 4 Texas schools. A lot of people blame/credit them for all of the expansion and the advent of the "superconference".
Porcine
· 9 months ago
Yeah I know, but it wasn't them who started it.
Clemson_Joe
· 9 months ago
"The ACC sucked until V-Tech joined." Yeah, Florida State was terrible before VT came to the rescue.
Virginia Tech wasn't even one of the original 3 approached about expansion. The Virginia state government forced their admittance. While I'm all for VT being in the ACC, it's worth noting.
God forbid schools have the freedom to choose what conferences they want to align with and what Bowls they want to work with...
TampaGator
· 9 months ago
Zac:
Great article. However, I couldn't help but miss one significant omission in your coverage of the BE--where I think you kinda' short changed the BE, at least in terms of recent history--the Thursday night games (maybe upsets is more accurate)--but ESPN's Thursday night games involving the BE have made for many an "instant classic," beginning with the Pitt-WVU game you mentioned.
I'll agree, the BE is still kinda' reelin from the defections to the ACC, still kinda' lookin' for an identitiy--but those Thursday night games have pretty much been their identitiy of late. I've lost count of how many times I counted on NOT watching the thursday night game, then got sucked in because the drama of those games was irresistable.
Again, beyond the that--which admittedly isn't necessary to your article abuot BE's history (just thought it would have been a good additional)--great read!
GO GATORS!!
Zac
· 9 months ago
Thanks for the props & constructive criticism. You're right. The Big East has more or less cornered the market on the Thursday night games. I have to admit that one of my favorites was Louisville at Rutgers (2006). The Knights were down at the half, but were within reach; not only clawed their way back, and shut down one of the most potent offenses that we'd seen in the 2nd half, but as you pointed out, it was one of those Thursday night games won in the final minutes. Quite the come-back story, if you ask me.
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
Zac -Congrats on you first thread-good read and interesting imput from others. I will try to attend one BigE game next season- UConn @ BU in Waco. The Bears gave them a great game last year and this year they have them at home.These are the kind of matchups are what the fans want to see. Good luck to your Moutaineers Adios Tomcat
Zac
· 9 months ago
By God, TC, if you can come up with tickets, I'll find a way to come down and join ya. So long it's before Oct 23, and isn't the same weekend of Oct 3rd, I think a visit to Waco just might be do-able. Glad you enjoyed the article, TC. Thanks!!!
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
Zac Floyd Casey in Waco hasn't sold out in years after 3-9 and 4-8 seasons there are usually plenty of tickets available- Last years game between UConn & BU was televised nationally. We attended the Texas A&M game there last year and about 45,000 in a stadium that holds 50,000- usually the A&M game has the biggest crowd. I'm not sure of the exact date- sometime in Sept- hopefully not the same date as Texas Tech @ Texas
Zac
· 9 months ago
If it's in Sept, get me the exact date (not to mention, the tickets), and I'm there!!!
1Tomcat
· 9 months ago
Zac Sept 19 time TBA tickets are not a problem. I look for BU to go bowling next season.They have Wake Forest on the road. Kent state,UConn and Northwestern St at home. They could make a good run next season they have some of their toughest opponents at home Neb, OK st and TTech. The games against OU and ISU both on the road and other than the game @ Norman, their schedule looks pretty good. They embarrassed A&M last year, but Kyle Feild aint a easy place to win at even when the Aggies are down. Other than the Horns & Sooners the Bears could possibly end up winning a few more than in previuos seasons, realistically 7 perhaps 8 wins, which would beat the heck outa 4-8. BTW the Texas Tech @ Texas game is the same day at 7;00pm CST it will be broadcast nationally on ABC- I'm not going to miss that one payback time
All Comments
As for CT, this school has always had quite the following with the state's population, and Syracuse alum are all over the state of NY, not to mention the northeast & elsewhere. Our former plant manager (now at VY) is a Syracuse alum.
The point is the men who put the Big East together were actually business visionaries. They were looking for a unique (thinking out of the box) way to make money, not to mention a name, not to mention support what they enjoy - college sports. The kicker: It worked. Football has been more of a challenge to them, success wise, that is, but the basketball portion developed into quite the power house; not to mention, cash cow.
If there was a way for the ACC to swap BC for WVU and keep the Boston TV money, they'd do it in a heartbeat...
In time, BC will develop more rivalries. It will take a while, but no rivalries start up overnight. I've enjoyed their fans so far, and they bring a very well rounded institution into the conference. So, I'm all for them now.
Academics are not something I think about. The College of Charleston is the best academic school in the history of ever, and everyone else is in second or something like that....so I default to what makes sense CFB-wise, which handicaps me a little... :-)
WVU's huge problem right now is the whole split campuses which causes split standards. The engineering department is very good with many national programs which it competes it (part of why i went there). The issue though is that a lot of the non-engineering or not science related majors are simply not up to par. you wouldn't think that having a split campus would cause something like this but strangely it does.
The engineering campus has been pulling their hair out for years because they feel that the other departments are not preparing the students for when they start taking more intensive engineering courses, particularly physics and math which is not on the engineering campus. Sucks because I know the engineering is and the forensics sciences are both good, but the other departments need to start stepping up because they're killing our academic status.
Low entrance standards and poorly performing colleges of the university prevented WVU from ever being given a chance. It was certainly discussed to no end on many message boards around the ACC as to why WVU wasn't being offered. A lot of ACC fans wanted them, and didn't understand why the original discussion was only going on with Miami, Syracuse, and Boston College, instead of Miami, VT, and WVU.
West Virginia also depends a great deal upon the use and sale of coal. Well, WV has a law which places a $0.075 surcharge on every KW of electricity sold outside the state. Given WV has no nuke plants, and given all the coal fired plants they do have, have you any idea as to the impact that law has placed upon coal production; not to mention, the state's economy?
WV really is a beautiful place. It's one of this country's best kept secrets. When my wife is ready to retire (I certainly will have by that time.) we hope to move back there. Sadly, they have some stupid people running the state. Eh, ya takes da good wit da bad.
Answer: Because there is no more risk of tarnishment to those schools' reputation, than there is benefit to the schools of questionable repute, for competing in ATLETIC events against those schools.
In other words, it's pure folly to think that membership in an ATHLETIC conference will have any bearing whatsoever, on one's academic reputation. The academic reputations of members of an ATHLETIC conference have virtually ZERO effect on the academic reputations of the other members. None. Zilch...zero...NADA!!!
The ACC is an ATHLETIC conference--secondary to being a PROFITABLE VENTURE among the member institutions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now, if the ACC starts having spelling B tourneys, I may have to re-evaluate this assessment. Until then...
...you oughtn't flatter yourself to think that Clemson is on par academically with Duke/WF/BC..., simply because they play one another in hoops, FB, etc.
GO GATORS!!
8. Duke (private)
23. Virginia
28. Wake Forest (private)
30. North Carolina
34. Boston College (private)
35. Georgia Tech
51. Miami (private)
53. Maryland
61. Clemson
71. Virginia Tech
83. NC State
102. Florida State
Every single one of our schools rank in the top tier in the national university rankings. There is only one other top conference that can claim that. However, West Virginia does not. Your opinion isn't really relevant here because the ACC would not consider WVU or any other school not in the top tier for that reason. At the time it was well documented around our campuses. On that same note, the Big Televen is often mentioned by pundits for expanding, and I know they will not expand unless it means adding one more top tier school. Both conferences take great pride in the fact that all of their member institutions rank very well nationally.
"...you oughtn't flatter yourself to think that Clemson is on par academically with Duke/WF/BC..., simply because they play one another in hoops, FB, etc."
Like it or not, Clemson is the 22nd ranked national public university in the country.
"...with the likes of Clemson, FSU, Miami, and Virginia Tech, who do NOT command any respect whatsoever, academically? " I'm sorry if you think that equates to commanding no respect whatsoever academically, but you may be alone with that opinion.
By the way, I never said that Clemson was on par with Duke, Wake Forest, or Boston College. Clemson isn't far behind them, but then again, it's tough to find many public institutions that can outrank strong private institutions such as the ones you mentioned.
When the ACC was expanding, it was the university presidents who went and toured the potential new members' campuses, not the ADs. The presidents were looking into the academic reputations of the other schools before they placed their votes. All of the schools that were looked into had the athletic reputation to join the conference, so that was a non issue at that point. The bottom line is not all conferences only care about athletics, and the ACC and the Big Televen are 2 of them.
Couldn't help but notice that there isn't even a Tier 2 though. 130 schools in Tier 1 (or the "top tier", as you conveniently re-phrased it), then straight to Tier 3--quite a disctinction.
That said, ok, perhaps "...who do NOT command any respect whatsoever..." was bit harsh--even inaccurate.
My point stands though; the academic reputations of the member schools are not in any way shape or form, impacted by the other members' reps.
b/t/w: ALL of the SEC schools are members of an even more elite group than the 130 member "Tier 1" criterium you mentioned: They are all members of Division I (n/k/a FBS division)--comprised of a slightly more selective 119 members. ;)
GO GATORS!!
Really the entire research period consisted of a URL command of "g rankings national universities", <enter>, then 2 clicks. It really took me about 12 seconds. I don't think that's very much criteria to go through. Besides it's been well known for years that all member schools of the ACC fit that criteria, so inherently it wouldn't be difficult to find.
I don't know why there isn't a tier 2. Maybe they think there's enough of a gap there to warrant skipping it. Who knows?
"My point stands though; the academic reputations of the member schools are not in any way shape or form, impacted by the other members' reps."
You're exactly right. They don't. However, for whatever reason, the ACC took academic reputation into account when expanding. When we first started to expand, a lot of students at Clemson, myself included, wanted to know why we weren't considering West Virginia and Louisville. We pounded the president and AD with emails, and they responded by telling us that those 2 schools didn't meet the "all around" criteria that the ACC was looking for, and that included academics. Duke was cited as being one of the major opponents to adding WVU or Louisville in the email. That was a long time ago, and I do not still have the email, so I cannot show you. I do remember it well, however, as it was a common topic for conversation around the bars at school during the offseason.
"...or the "top tier", as you conveniently re-phrased it"
The site itself links to it with "Top Schools". Is "top tier" that far off on a tiered ranking system?
"Get a grip on reality!"
You must be on another planet or you are grossly prejudicial toward the ACC, but the ACC academic standards as a whole are no where near as high as you claim they are.
Some other ACC fan made the statement that based on the latest US World News rankings, all the ACC schools rank in the top tier. By making that statement, they do a great diservice to the ACC. THEY DID NOT PERFORM A THOROUGH RESEARCH OF THE REORT!!
If you read the fine print of the report on the top schools, that is the methodology the US News used; accademics had very little to do with their rankings. Among other things, their rankings took into consideration the cost of tuition, the number of applicants, even the nightlife among other factors. NONE OF THESE CRITERIA HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ACADEMIC STANDARDS!!
If you want an honest, truthful, and totally objective assesment of the top Universities in Division 1-A, there is only 1 in the entire country. That is the NCAA's APR. I cannot speak for all the schools in the Big East, but, in the three years since using the APR as "THE STANDARD" of all schools participating in Division 1-A athletics, Rutgers has finished in the top ten every year. In fact, their lowest ranking was 6th (2007). Only 1 school in the ACC can make that claim. That is Duke. Not even Vanderbilt has equaled that accomplishment.
In fact, Rutgers is the only state university in the country to finish in the top 50 in 2008. (They finished 4th, tied with Duke.) In 2006, they finished 3rd.
In the past 5 years, Rutgers has had 3 finalists for the Draddy Award. That is the Heisman Trophy for Academics, given to the top college football player, based on academics, community service and performance on the field. One of those 3 finalists won the award, Brian Leonard.
The only other school I can comment about is the ACC's own University of Miami. As far as academic standards, they blow your claim out of the water. Miami has a reputation up and down the east coast, as fielding a team of county jail inmates. As far as their academic standards, Miami is on par with a community college, and that may even be considered an insult to community colleges.
What does Rutgers have to do with any of this? I am glad that you are proud of the State University of New Jersey, and kudos to them for their accomplishment.
I am speaking of conferences and their academic standards. Rutgers is but one single piece of the Big East that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ACC or its expansion. WVU was considered, but because of its academic reputation, was not extended an offer. I'm not sure if you're trying to pitch the idea of Rutgers being worthy of a target for another conference's expansion, but we're fine without them. Thanks anyway.
My preferred slight for the conference name is: Big Eas(y)t. You know, for the record.
As a result of the defections of 2003, the BE now is the least 'geographic' of the BCS conferences, raking in members from far and wide. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I fully expect that one day, when they finally back Notre Dame into a corner as far as joining the conference, it will be the Big East.
However, with that weird half football, half basketball membership thing they've going on, I don't know if that's plausible anymore. Unless of course, they shake up the membership even more and ditch that half an half thing.
They have a Basketball indentity and are competitive in other sports as well. They strongly lack a football identity to guide them through the competitive arms race of college football conferences.
Is the Big East ready to make football a priority? If they do not they will slowly fade to a respected historical power with no present significance. Think Army-Navy. To revitalize the league they will need some young blood from C-USA or the MAC, expanding to 12 teams and adding a championship game. For the other sports this would involve a 1980's-1990's WAC mega conference with stretched rivalries and extream schedule difficulties trying to maintain traditional rivalries.
Is being an elite football conference worth the health of the other sports and risk of forcing a conference split? Not answering this question will lead gradually to football mediocrity.
PAC 10 expansion aptions are gradually decreasing with the improvement of the MWC. Does Utah have an easier road to the BCS in the MWC or the PAC 10? One day C-USA may gain some traction and start sending teams to at large spots reducing the Big East's expansion options. When that day comes the Big East will have waited too long.
There just isn't the football tradition there, no consistency, much fewer top notch players on the field that will play NFL one day etc.
Nice article though. Very odd to me that they've let them remain a Guaranteed BCS conference and that the teams get ranked like their record means the same as a similar record in a stronger conference.
If they had done that, oh what a boost the conference would have gotten.
The BE will need to expand quickly for their long-term survival. Picking up Army, Navy and Notre Dame would seal the deal.
The beauty of this idea: Notre Dame doesn't even have to join a conference full out; they can leave their independent football affiliation intact and still particpate in other Big East sports, including basketball.
Effectively the BB side of the house would look like this: DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, ND, Providence, St. Johns, Seaton Hall, & Villanova. Even if ND left to join the Big Ten, there are a number of options available from which to pick up an eighth school, such as St. Bonaventure, St. Joe's (Philly), UMass, or Xavier.
The football side has been speculated from New England to TX. If I were given the choice, this is what the Big East would look like: Army, BC, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pitt, Penn St, Rutgers, S. FL, Syracuse, UConn, VA Tech, WVU. (Note: This makes the assumption the ACC would be willing to take ECU & Navy, and that BC & VA Tech would return home where they belong. It also makes the assumption the Big Ten would trade Penn St for ND. I know; it's not very likely is it.)
More than likely, Big East football would look something like this: Army, C FL, Cincinnati, ECU, Louisville, Navy, Pitt, Rutgers, S FL, Syracuse, UConn, WVU. From among other schools, such as FL Atlantic, Marshall, Memphis, S MS, Troy, UAB, etc. substitutions for Army, C FL, ECU, & Navy could be speculated.
The point is it can be done. The two divisions, though independent, can play one another throughout BB season without impact to team standings within their respective division. At the end of the season the champions of each division can play-off. The separation of the football side from the basketball side weakens neither side. Those who founded the original Big East get to have their cake and eat it too. But, they'd better act fast. It's just a matter of time before somebody pulls another ACC-like hostile take-over. A second time will much more difficult to recover from; in fact, if there is a next time, it's likely they won't.
To one & all, thanks for the props, especially Kevin, WarEagle, & Bagerballer (laughed my a$$ off over that one).
I can't argue with travel costs, given where Tech has been placed in the ACC South. That said, I do miss the annual Black Diamond Trophy between Tech & WVU. Would that we could resume the rivalry.
Joe Paterno lobbied to join the Big East and was turned down. Imagine having Penn State in the Big East? The Big East has some nice teams and Uconn and Rutgers are making solid progress, the Big East is here to stay.
what i'd like to see:
west: louisville, cincinatti, marshall, notre dame, pitt, wvu
east: navy, uconn, syracuse, rutgers, BC, south florida/army
The BE teams should not be reviewed solely based upon their records against other BCS teams. While many of you say this isn't the case, that apparently is the primary argument. Consider this: Most people think the BE is bad because of its record against other BCS teams in the non-conf schedule. I didn't hear that kind of bashing this year when the Big10 v. MAC and the Pac10 v. the MWC records were revealed! The BE teams, conversely, aren't losing often to weak non-BCS opponents, yet they are constantly ridiculed for having weak SOSs. So what's REALLY happening here?
BE teams don't get the respect they deserve because each BE program really is developing in hopes of winning the conference championship (save 'Cuse for the time being). They are all caught in an arms race, resulting in a conference champion with 3 to 4 conference loses. They are beating each other up in conference play!
Other conferences get the spotlight because they have prestigious, historic programs, but people forget about the junk opponents those glamour programs play each year in conference play. Those same junk teams get to stay in their respective conferences simply because of tradition or (in most cases) because they are good at basketball or academics (See: Duke, Arizona, Wazzu, Indiana, Miss. State, Vandy, etc.). Which football program in the BE is comparable to these "junk" football programs?...none (except 'Cuse as of recent - but we all know they'll be back).
In conclusion, I don't think fans of other BCS conferences should be putting down the BE because of lack of their tradition, lack of size, or unimpressive recent non-conference schedule. Collectively, those programs bring a lot to the CFB landscape, and we should be celebrating resiliency to rebound so quickly from its fracture by the ACC. Let's all just step off our high horses, set aside our team loyalties, and simply support the blue-collar passion of BE football.
The BE is given so much grief because almost half their conference defected and they were on life support for a while. The status quo will not do. They must take in some suitable boarders or be evicted from the BCS.
The money monopoly says Cincinnati is a "major" team for no other reason than they say it is, and they say that Boise State isn't for no other reason than they say it isn't. South Florida is no different than BYU (no better, at least), but in our biased system one is magically a "have" and the other is a have not.
THAT is what the Big East is to the rest of college football.
That said, here's the toughest part about being a fan of Big East football teams. It's been bad enough over the past 5 season that the 5 "toughest" conferences criticize the Big East and question whether or not they belong in the "Big Six", let alone should be automatic BCS bowl qualifiers. Now, there are teams from presumably lesser conferences trying to make their case for themselves and their conference's teams, AND their using the Big East as an example to do it. Bad enough the Big East is getting it from the Top-5, but now it's getting it from the rest. It's almost as if the Big East is in a class by itself, of which nobody wants to be a part. Of course, that's not entirely true. There are close to a dozen teams which would like to be in the Big East, but that's a subject for another debate.
Blame one conference for starting this mess The Big 8
Yeah, Florida State was terrible before VT came to the rescue.
Virginia Tech wasn't even one of the original 3 approached about expansion. The Virginia state government forced their admittance. While I'm all for VT being in the ACC, it's worth noting.
You are now contradicting your own point.
Great article. However, I couldn't help but miss one significant omission in your coverage of the BE--where I think you kinda' short changed the BE, at least in terms of recent history--the Thursday night games (maybe upsets is more accurate)--but ESPN's Thursday night games involving the BE have made for many an "instant classic," beginning with the Pitt-WVU game you mentioned.
I'll agree, the BE is still kinda' reelin from the defections to the ACC, still kinda' lookin' for an identitiy--but those Thursday night games have pretty much been their identitiy of late. I've lost count of how many times I counted on NOT watching the thursday night game, then got sucked in because the drama of those games was irresistable.
Again, beyond the that--which admittedly isn't necessary to your article abuot BE's history (just thought it would have been a good additional)--great read!
GO GATORS!!
We attended the Texas A&M game there last year and about 45,000 in a stadium that holds 50,000- usually the A&M game has the biggest crowd.
I'm not sure of the exact date- sometime in Sept- hopefully not the same date as Texas Tech @ Texas
BTW the Texas Tech @ Texas game is the same day at 7;00pm CST it will be broadcast nationally on ABC- I'm not going to miss that one payback time