Wilkie01 Wrote:Jackson I figured it out. The Post writer sucks. We really need to split and form an all-sports conference and leave those losers behind!

Georgetown, Notre Dame, Villanova, Marquette...those "losers" are doing quite well this year...

[b]"Not enough quality outthere to go to 12."[/b]

Cuban, this is not true. Sure some of you are still hanging hopes that ND and Penn St will make a move over to join you in a new conference but that isn't going to happen. Also, it's been great seeing USF move up the ladder after joining the BE and I enjoyed the bowl game against you even though we got beat. It was a measuring stick for us, just as the previous year was a measuring stick for you against NC State.

The very thing that has given USF the opportunity to move up in the ranks will be the very same thing that allows 1, 2, or 4 other teams to advance their program.

What is it? It's called BCS status. Plain and simple. I was in Tampa for a week about a month after USF got the invite and that was the topic all around town. BCS status. It was going to make us great. We now have the opportunity to compete with UF, FSU and Miami.

So I ask, if it can work for USF, why can't it work for others?

Krocker Krapp Wrote:Since a possible split is three or maybe five years away, in the meantime, perhaps we should be thinking about more constructive ways to get a fittingly proportional number of Big East bids to the NCAA Tournament over the ensuing few seasons.

I think everyone needs to stress the size of the Big East all season. Make sure it is planted deeply in the heads of the Selection Committee that the Big East is the size of two leagues. I think I even saw a quote by Rick Pitino last week saying this.

Knock them over the heads with this fact. We are really two leagues. We should be getting at least 10 bids every year and sometimes 12. Make sure the CBS and ESPN announcers repeat this mantra during every game. That should have an effect.

I don

RaliLlama Wrote:Since WVU was in the Atlantic Ten in 1991, I seem to remember doing a lot more complaining about the Big East getting seven out of nine teams in then than I did last night night when ten of sixteen were left out.
And besides, maybe the conference will receive eleven bids next year. The conference as a whole should have performed better in November and December in my opinion.

It is incumbant upon the BCS conference representatives to pound on the mid-majors and the lower than mid-minors in both the NCAA and NIT tourneys. That might free up a couple or three more spots. George Mason was a feel good story last year for someone, but not for BE fans. They beat UConn in order to go to the final four.

it wasnt the mid-majors who cost you guys a bid. it was arkansas, illinois, and stanford that cost you guys another bid.

aTxTIGER Wrote:

RaliLlama Wrote:Since WVU was in the Atlantic Ten in 1991, I seem to remember doing a lot more complaining about the Big East getting seven out of nine teams in then than I did last night night when ten of sixteen were left out.
And besides, maybe the conference will receive eleven bids next year. The conference as a whole should have performed better in November and December in my opinion.

It is incumbant upon the BCS conference representatives to pound on the mid-majors and the lower than mid-minors in both the NCAA and NIT tourneys. That might free up a couple or three more spots. George Mason was a feel good story last year for someone, but not for BE fans. They beat UConn in order to go to the final four.

it wasnt the mid-majors who cost you guys a bid. it was arkansas, illinois, and stanford that cost you guys another bid.

All mid-majors.

L-yes Wrote:

aTxTIGER Wrote:

RaliLlama Wrote:Since WVU was in the Atlantic Ten in 1991, I seem to remember doing a lot more complaining about the Big East getting seven out of nine teams in then than I did last night night when ten of sixteen were left out.
And besides, maybe the conference will receive eleven bids next year. The conference as a whole should have performed better in November and December in my opinion.

It is incumbant upon the BCS conference representatives to pound on the mid-majors and the lower than mid-minors in both the NCAA and NIT tourneys. That might free up a couple or three more spots. George Mason was a feel good story last year for someone, but not for BE fans. They beat UConn in order to go to the final four.

it wasnt the mid-majors who cost you guys a bid. it was arkansas, illinois, and stanford that cost you guys another bid.

All mid-majors.

ATX is right. People can't blame the so-called mid-majors for this mess. Arkansas, Georgia Tech, and Stanford clearly do not belong in this year's NCAA Tournament. Those spots should have gone to Syracuse, West Virginia, and Kansas State. As far as the Big Ten goes, why do people keep bringing up Illinois and/or Purdue, it seems like Michigan State is less deserving than either of those two squads? If the NCAA Tournament was at 68 teams, with four "play-in" games - instead of 65 teams with just one "play-in" game - though, there probably wouldn't be nearly as much teeth gnashing about this subject right now.

Additional play-in is an interesting ideal but how would you use it? Would only mid-major teams participate?

Follow BCS system, where only major conference teams get direct access. So all qualified major conference teams get direct access to 64-tournament field and questionable mid-major conference teams need to earn their ways into the tournament.

If there were more play-in games then the teams that did not get into those would complain too.

SO#1 Wrote:Additional play-in is an interesting ideal but how would you use it? Would only mid-major teams participate?

Follow BCS system, where only major conference teams get direct access. So all qualified major conference teams get direct access to 64-tournament field and questionable mid-major conference teams need to earn their ways into the tournament.

Weakest four autobid teams against the weakest four at-large teams. Winners move on to get slaughtered by the #1 seeds.

Cubanbull Wrote:Not enough quality outthere to go to 12.

Not enough quality?

Was USF "top" quality in Nov 2003 when USF was invited to join the Big East for the fall of 2005?

No.

USF was an ok football team that had an ok record in CUSA (8-8) , and one that had a losing basketball program.

However, USF Football improved...as USF used that BCS invite to help their Feb 2004 and Feb 2005 recruiting classes...prior to the start of playing in the Big East (fall 2005).

Same can be said for almost any other school...as a BCS "label" (at least initially) will help said school attract better players.

Maybe the right word would be "potential"...as USF had "potential" in both sports back in Nov 2003 (obviously only one has prospered), but the same could probably be said for say Memphis, ECU, or any other school out there.

BCS normally helps, not hinders one's potential.

KL

KnightLight Wrote:

Cubanbull Wrote:Not enough quality outthere to go to 12.

Not enough quality?

Was USF "top" quality in Nov 2003 when USF was invited to join the Big East for the fall of 2005?

No.

USF was an ok football team that had an ok record in CUSA (8-8) , and one that had a losing basketball program.

However, USF Football improved...as USF used that BCS invite to help their Feb 2004 and Feb 2005 recruiting classes...prior to the start of playing in the Big East (fall 2005).

Same can be said for almost any other school...as a BCS "label" (at least initially) will help said school attract better players.

Maybe the right word would be "potential"...as USF had "potential" in both sports back in Nov 2003 (obviously only one has prospered), but the same could probably be said for say Memphis, ECU, or any other school out there.

BCS normally helps, not hinders one's potential.

KL

Think real hard for a second about the situation when USF was added as opposed to the current situation. They are completely different. USF was added on potential and loaction not to mention the Big East had to have another member to exist as a D1A Football Conference. A couple of seasons later the Big East is entrenched in the BCS. It has no need to expand unless a new member adds TANGIBLE value, not merely potential. Pardon USF but they were a nessessary reach. The Big East is no longer in the position where it needs to gamble on potential or scramble for survival. A new addition on potential is only another mouth to feed.

South Florida and Cincinnati were in the right place at the right time. Nothing wrong with that.

3601 Wrote:South Florida and Cincinnati were in the right place at the right time. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing at all. But in UC's case, more than luck was involved. UC showed the commitment to athletics in facilities and had (at the time) a strong basketball program and a respectable football program. And they met the non-athletic criteria as well.

bearcatfan Wrote:

3601 Wrote:South Florida and Cincinnati were in the right place at the right time. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing at all. But in UC's case, more than luck was involved. UC showed the commitment to athletics in facilities and had (at the time) a strong basketball program and a respectable football program. And they met the non-athletic criteria as well.

Exactly UC's AD had vision and got off his arse to get his "programs" rolling. It always helps when you are committed to your atheletic programs as a whole. Building new facilities, hiring good coaches, and academics is what helped UC. Everybody knew UC and UofL where in regardless. UC basketball is just in a transitional period. This is really the first season in a while where UC stunk it up on the court. Next year may be down but the year after that UC should be back to a NCAA tourny team. USF's location played a huge role but they were also building a solid football program. Right USF is proven to be a great choice for the league.

DFW HOYA Wrote:

Wilkie01 Wrote:Jackson I figured it out. The Post writer sucks. We really need to split and form an all-sports conference and leave those losers behind!

Georgetown, Notre Dame, Villanova, Marquette...those "losers" are doing quite well this year...

You are a loser, if you can not afford to play D1 football, in my opinion!

For the knight and Pirate fan
Im not doubting that if either of your schools were admitted to BE they would improve due to BCS. My comment on not enough quality out there to go to 12 teams is MONEY, adding FOUR more football schools will not bring enough money to make up for the new four mouths to feed. The reality is that none of the teams in consideration would bring an increase in TV royalties etc to make up for their additions.
Thats why i said adding one to even schedules out would be pushing it. If its Memphis and they bring Liberty Bowl with them thats some money BUT unless ECU, UCF and any other team can increase TV revenues or Bowl lineup I dont think is feasible.
It has nothing with any of your schools ability to improve

Wilkie01 Wrote:You are a loser, if you can not afford to play D1 football, in my opinion!

I think you mean I-A football. Georetown and Villanova do play in Division I, albeit in another subdivision.

The fact is that if your're not a publicly funded (read=state) university, gaining the funds for a I-A sized budget is very difficult. Since I-A's split with I-AA in 1978, not a single private school has been able to move up.

kardphan Wrote:

bearcatfan Wrote:

3601 Wrote:South Florida and Cincinnati were in the right place at the right time. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing at all. But in UC's case, more than luck was involved. UC showed the commitment to athletics in facilities and had (at the time) a strong basketball program and a respectable football program. And they met the non-athletic criteria as well.

Exactly UC's AD had vision and got off his arse to get his "programs" rolling. It always helps when you are committed to your atheletic programs as a whole. Building new facilities, hiring good coaches, and academics is what helped UC. Everybody knew UC and UofL where in regardless. UC basketball is just in a transitional period. This is really the first season in a while where UC stunk it up on the court. Next year may be down but the year after that UC should be back to a NCAA tourny team. USF's location played a huge role but they were also building a solid football program. Right USF is proven to be a great choice for the league.

Actually this none of this is really debatable and it's stickied to the top of this board in the form of the Big East Notes.

I wouldn't even wipe my ass with that article. Two minutes of my life I'll never get back.

DFW Hoya, I have nothing against the private basketball schools ability but the Big East 1A football can never grow to its true potential in the Big East's configuration. I wish Notre Dame, G-town, and Villanova would join us for football but it will never happen. Notre Dame's greed, and G-town, and Villanova lack of funding will prevent it from happening. I should have not called you losers but we do have different destines!