(08-20-2012 05:09 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 04:58 PM)TOGC Wrote:  The Big East should be higher than the ACC. The All Carolina Conference signed a bad, long-term deal that was backloaded. The Big East will beat that one easy.

Wait, you think this new Big East is better than the ACC? Heck, the old Big East wasn't better than the ACC.

Yep, I agree 100%... The ACC has been stronger, historically, and will continue to be better than the NBE, especially with the reloaded teams that aren't anywhere near the level of the ACC teams...

(08-20-2012 08:16 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  C'mon TOGC, you can't be serious. Your just towing the party line right? You can't possibly be this big of a blind homer.

No, I'm just reading what's being reported. With the trio of Aresco, Bevilacqua, and Carparelli, the Big East has assembled a Dream Team for negotiating television rights. Aresco was a VP at CBS, Bevilacqua helped negotiate the Pac 12 deal, Carparelli was former Director of Operations for the New England Patriots.

The ACC screwed up by signing a long-term deal that was backloaded. They won't reach $17M for all-sports teams until 2020.

The Big East is looking at possibly beating that right away. With a dozen schools in the top 50 television markets (and covering four time zones), the Big East is very television friendly. Throw in a bidding war between ESPN, NBC, and CBS and it drives the price up considerably. Most of the rumors abou the deal were from ESPN, and they were in the $6-10M range. Those rumors have ballooned to $16-18M by most reports.

John Marinatto turned down a nine-year, $1.4 billion deal from ESPN for football. Most insiders are saying that the price has gone up since then. Aresco will negotiate a much better deal than Marinatto could ever dream of.

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars...tv-efforts

(08-20-2012 08:35 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Maybe Im the only one, but I think the Pac 12 is a better league then the Big 12. Oregon, USC, and Stanford represent 3 top 10 programs in that league, Big 12 just has usually one per year.

If conferences only had three teams, you might have a point. A conference is judged by all teams, not just a few.

The Big East lost West Virginia, Pitt, and Syracuse.

But it added Boise State, Houston, and SDSU.

Overall, it got better in football.

(08-20-2012 06:33 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 04:58 PM)TOGC Wrote:  The Big East should be higher than the ACC. The All Carolina Conference signed a bad, long-term deal that was backloaded. The Big East will beat that one easy.

Yeah...keep telling yourself that. Lets not pay any attention to half the current Big East practically begging to leave or annything. Its so bad West Virginia joined the Big 12...a Southwest based conference.

West Virginia paid like $20 MILLION to get out of the Big East.

TOGC, your supposed TV deals mean nothing. the ACC is a stronger Conference all around than the nBE. No one who has any ammount of objectivity will say otherwise.

(08-20-2012 09:55 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  TOGC, your supposed TV deals mean nothing. the ACC is a stronger Conference all around than the nBE. No one who has any ammount of objectivity will say otherwise.

Really?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc11.htm

2011 SAGARIN COLLEGE FOOTBALL RANKINGS BY CONFERENCE

1 BIG 12
2 SOUTHEASTERN
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-12
5 BIG EAST
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS
7 ATLANTIC COAST
8 CONFERENCE USA
9 MOUNTAIN WEST
10 WESTERN ATHLETIC
11 MID-AMERICAN
12 SUN BELT

http://warrennolan.com/football/2011/conferencenpi

2011 WARRENNOLAN.COM COLLEGE FOOTBALL NPI BY CONFERENCE

1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 BIG 10
4 PAC 12
5 BIG EAST
6 ACC
7 MOUNTAIN WEST
8 INDEPENDENT
9 CONFERENCE USA
10 MAC
11 SUN BELT
12 WAC




If that weren't enough, the new Big East teams went 6-2 in bowls last year while the new ACC teams went 2-6. I'd say it's pretty clear that the Big East is better than the ACC.

Let's see how the two leagues fair this coming season in head-to-head meetings.

(08-20-2012 10:10 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 09:55 PM)Burn the Horse Wrote:  TOGC, your supposed TV deals mean nothing. the ACC is a stronger Conference all around than the nBE. No one who has any ammount of objectivity will say otherwise.

Really?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc11.htm

2011 SAGARIN COLLEGE FOOTBALL RANKINGS BY CONFERENCE

1 BIG 12
2 SOUTHEASTERN
3 BIG TEN
4 PAC-12
5 BIG EAST
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS
7 ATLANTIC COAST
8 CONFERENCE USA
9 MOUNTAIN WEST
10 WESTERN ATHLETIC
11 MID-AMERICAN
12 SUN BELT

http://warrennolan.com/football/2011/conferencenpi

2011 WARRENNOLAN.COM COLLEGE FOOTBALL NPI BY CONFERENCE

1 SEC
2 BIG 12
3 BIG 10
4 PAC 12
5 BIG EAST
6 ACC
7 MOUNTAIN WEST
8 INDEPENDENT
9 CONFERENCE USA
10 MAC
11 SUN BELT
12 WAC




If that weren't enough, the new Big East teams went 6-2 in bowls last year while the new ACC teams went 2-6. I'd say it's pretty clear that the Big East is better than the ACC.

SAGARIN and WARRENNOLAN.COM are about the biggest jokes in college football. I cant stand when people bring that load of up


Heres what ESPN AP and computer polls thinks of ranking the conferences


Overall Conference AP Rank Computers Rank
1 SEC 1 2
2 Big 12 2 1
3 Pac-12 3 4
4 Big Ten 4 3
5 MWC 5 7
6 ACC 6 5
7 C-USA 7 8
8 Big East 8 6
9 Sun Belt 9 10
10 MAC 10 9
11 WAC 11 11

So according to ESPN the Big Least is just one step ahead of the Sun Belt. as of 2011 anyhow.

(08-20-2012 08:53 PM)TOGC Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 08:35 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Maybe Im the only one, but I think the Pac 12 is a better league then the Big 12. Oregon, USC, and Stanford represent 3 top 10 programs in that league, Big 12 just has usually one per year.

If conferences only had three teams, you might have a point. A conference is judged by all teams, not just a few.

The Big East lost West Virginia, Pitt, and Syracuse.

But it added Boise State, Houston, and SDSU.

Overall, it got better in football.

You have got to be kidding yourself. Louisville, South Florida, UCONN, Cincy, and Rutgers are not football powerhouses. SDSU just lost to our 3rd best team. Boise State and Houston are good, yes, but are they really better then Florida State, VPI, Clemson or GT?

Heck even Duke and North Carolina would handle Memphis and Central Florida on the field. The Big East is going to have to battle to be better then the MWC on the field. They arent even close to being a top 5 conference.

The on-field product has almost always been better in the Big East, with the exceptions of 2004 and perhaps 2010, but the ACC has continually had the better perception among the media and tee-shirt fans. Don't forget that teams representing the Big East at gametime have gone 7-7 in BCS bowls while teams representing the ACC at gametime have gone 2-13 in BCS bowls.

What hurt the Big East was the motley mix of football and non-football schools, as well as the fact that schools in the Northeast don't know how to get along with each other, which is why a real conference was never formed in the region. Penn State, Pitt, and Syracuse should have been the bedrock of a real league in the late '70s, or mid '80s at latest, but egos stopped it.

If those three had come together, BC, Rutgers, Temple, and West Virginia would have followed along and done anything they wanted. UMass and UConn would have hopped on the bandwagon sooner as well, along with possibly Maryland, which had some issues with the ACC in that era. BC, Syracuse, and Pitt joined the Big East for hoops, but the league rejected Penn State.

After the Big East rejected Penn State in 1982, the school got a new president, who started working to get them into the Big Ten instead. That is what screwed football in the Northeast. Realizing their mistake, they cobbled together a league with Miami and company, but in hindsight it was doomed from the start. The structure is why teams keep jumping, not on-field play.

One more thing. ESPN is no longer a neutral sportscasting network. It is a corporate business pushing an agenda to make itself the most money. ESPN is trying to devalue the Big East right now in order to cheapen the next TV contract. The AD at BC admitted that ESPN advised the ACC to take Syracuse and Pitt last year. ESPN has a whole lot of money invested in the ACC.

The Big East could get a better television contract than the ACC, but that will be a commentary on the failure of the ACC leadership not a testimony to the Big East being a better football conference. To suggest a conference that is only a slight improvement over C-USA circa 2004 is better than the ACC is laughable. The Big East has been considered the free loader of the AQ conferences for some time now, even before departures.

The Big Easy is nowhere near as powerful as the ACC. To think otherwise is laughable. When a conference starts taking market teams instead of real teams it is just positioning itself short term for some media package. Same goes for CUSA.

(08-21-2012 02:38 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  The Big East could get a better television contract than the ACC, but that will be a commentary on the failure of the ACC leadership not a testimony to the Big East being a better football conference. To suggest a conference that is only a slight improvement over C-USA circa 2004 is better than the ACC is laughable. The Big East has been considered the free loader of the AQ conferences for some time now, even before departures.

The Big East is stronger than the ACC and has been for years. The casual fan might mistakenly think the ACC is stronger because they only look at the ranked teams, not the whole conference from top to bottom. The ACC might have three ranked teams to two for the Big East, but the ACC has a lot bigger drop off after that than the Big East.

Plus, the ACC is living off the reputation of some teams that haven't produced in years, like Miami. Boise State has had 10+ wins for eleven of the last thirteen seasons. Cincinnati has won 10+ games four out of the last five seasons.

The Big East is the fifth best football conference and it isn't even close. The ACC can make a case for sixth, after that it's the MWC and CUSA, then the MAC and Sun Belt.

You can throw the term "perception" around all day but the on-the-field results clearly show that the Big East is better than the ACC.

TOGC, have you met our friend tigerscane? I think the two of you would get along.

I've got better grammar and punctuation than he does. Nobody can even understand most of what he posts.


And another major difference, I'm not here to bash the Sun Belt like he was. I'm here to stick up for my conference. I thought the Sun Belt held it's own during the expansion raids. CUSA could've attempted to gut the best programs from the Sun Belt but didn't so you got away relatively unscathed. With some investment in facilities and some good hires, the Sun Belt could catch up with CUSA and possibly pass them.

(08-21-2012 07:44 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 02:38 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  The Big East could get a better television contract than the ACC, but that will be a commentary on the failure of the ACC leadership not a testimony to the Big East being a better football conference. To suggest a conference that is only a slight improvement over C-USA circa 2004 is better than the ACC is laughable. The Big East has been considered the free loader of the AQ conferences for some time now, even before departures.

The Big East is stronger than the ACC and has been for years. The casual fan might mistakenly think the ACC is stronger because they only look at the ranked teams, not the whole conference from top to bottom. The ACC might have three ranked teams to two for the Big East, but the ACC has a lot bigger drop off after that than the Big East.

Plus, the ACC is living off the reputation of some teams that haven't produced in years, like Miami. Boise State has had 10+ wins for eleven of the last thirteen seasons. Cincinnati has won 10+ games four out of the last five seasons.

The Big East is the fifth best football conference and it isn't even close. The ACC can make a case for sixth, after that it's the MWC and CUSA, then the MAC and Sun Belt.

You can throw the term "perception" around all day but the on-the-field results clearly show that the Big East is better than the ACC.

Here's the stats for head-to-head games between Big East and ACc
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/tvc/bigeast/acc.shtml

Since 2000 Big East is 42-52 vs ACC, not to mention Miami went 6-0 against ACC when they were still in Big East from 00~04. West Virginia is 9-10 against ACC since 2000. Big East went 7-9 vs ACC since 2010. So Big East is the 5th best football conference and ACC does not even come close?

R.I.P., WAC.

The transitional 2004 and 2005 campaigns badly skew the Big East vs. ACC numbers. So does an inexcusably horrendous 1997. With the exception of those three years, plus 1993 and 2006 when the Big East held four-game edges over the ACC, neither league has more than a two-game margin in any season. The Big East leads the ACC 24-23 since the fall of 2006. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim either conference is vastly superior to the other.

(08-21-2012 09:55 AM)Lolly Popp Wrote:  The transitional 2004 and 2005 campaigns badly skew the Big East vs. ACC numbers. So does an inexcusably horrendous 1997. With the exception of those three years, plus 1993 and 2006 when the Big East held four-game edges over the ACC, neither league has more than a two-game margin in any season. The Big East leads the ACC 24-23 since the fall of 2006. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim either conference is vastly superior to the other.

+ 1

I agree with what you said. however I would still give the edge to ACC for the following "media perception" reasons: better ranked recruits overall (but we all know recruits ranking can be subjective sometimes), greater traditions or better well-established programs (USF started its football program in 1997 and UConn jumped to Big East in 2004 from FCS), and more ACC teams have been ranked top 25 than Big East in recent years. As for now I don't believe Big East new additions can fully fill in the shoes left by Pitt, West Virginia, and Syracuse until they prove me wrong.

(08-21-2012 07:44 AM)TOGC Wrote:  

(08-21-2012 02:38 AM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  The Big East could get a better television contract than the ACC, but that will be a commentary on the failure of the ACC leadership not a testimony to the Big East being a better football conference. To suggest a conference that is only a slight improvement over C-USA circa 2004 is better than the ACC is laughable. The Big East has been considered the free loader of the AQ conferences for some time now, even before departures.

The Big East is stronger than the ACC and has been for years. The casual fan might mistakenly think the ACC is stronger because they only look at the ranked teams, not the whole conference from top to bottom. The ACC might have three ranked teams to two for the Big East, but the ACC has a lot bigger drop off after that than the Big East.

Plus, the ACC is living off the reputation of some teams that haven't produced in years, like Miami. Boise State has had 10+ wins for eleven of the last thirteen seasons. Cincinnati has won 10+ games four out of the last five seasons.

The Big East is the fifth best football conference and it isn't even close. The ACC can make a case for sixth, after that it's the MWC and CUSA, then the MAC and Sun Belt.

You can throw the term "perception" around all day but the on-the-field results clearly show that the Big East is better than the ACC.

U really think the MAC is better than the SBC after we have winning records against then the last 3 seasons, Also having higher Attendance averages than them?