Pitt could possibly turn it around, maybe Louisville or Syracuse as well. But, right now, Pitt, Louisville and Syracuse are horrid and lets assume it stays that way. That puts extra pressure on the other 4 or 5 Big East teams to play at a Top 25 level so the conference isn't dragged down. That's why we have to add a school like an ECU, to add depth to the football side. Having 8 teams leave little margin for error when multiple teams are struggling. That's what conferences like the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12. If the top teams are down the conference has another 8 to 10 teams that can pick up the slack. If a few of our teams are down we're down to half of those teams.

I agree. We need a 9th team.

It didn't hurt USC or Oklahoma during those years in which they were the only power in their respective conferences.

bitcruncher Wrote:It didn't hurt USC or Oklahoma during those years in which they were the only power in their respective conferences.

You're talking about a completely different era. And there's a reason why the Pac-10 (whatever their names were before), the Big 8 and the ACC expanded. The ACC showed you what USC and Oklahoma would have been up against if their conferences hadn't expanded. Imagine if the Big 8 hadn't expanded and Oklahoma struggled like they did a few years ago? That conference would be brutal. When you rely on one program to carry your conference every year you're in for a world of hurt when they struggle. If Cincinnati, Connecticut, South Florida and Rutgers hadn't stepped up the Big East would just be West Virginia. And we would be getting our @sses shredded by the media. Remember the crap we got back in 2003 and 2004 for only having two powers?

Yes, we need a ninth team, but the fact that SU, Pitt and UL are all stinking it up is not rationale for doing so. They'd be stinking it up, whether or not there was a ninth team in the BE.

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:Yes, we need a ninth team, but the fact that SU, Pitt and UL are all stinking it up is not rationale for doing so. They'd be stinking it up, whether or not there was a ninth team in the BE.

That's not my point though. My point is, if you add another quality 9th team (I'm not talking about Army or Navy I'm talking about a good 9th team), then it's easier to weather down years from your top programs. Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville just highlight how much trouble this conference is in by a numbers standpoint. If 3 teams struggled in the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12, big deal. But when 3 teams struggle in the Big East that's nearly half the conference and that is a problem. If we had someone who keeps up their football program like an East Carolina, then right now we're talking about insurance when multiple teams struggle. It also gives us a chance to have a couple of powers. When Ohio State and Michigan were down the Big Ten, because of sheer numbers, were able to weather it because of programs like Iowa and Purdue and Wisconsin. And the Big 12 as well. And now the Big 12 is reaping the benefit of those programs establishing themselves. Now, not only do they have Oklahoma and Texas but they also have Missouri and Kansas and that makes the conference a heck of a lot more solid and nationally respected. Imagine going into conference play with West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Cincinnati and East Carolina ranked? That is very possible, and that kind of stuff has a chance of happening every year because those programs keep up with themselves. And it allows programs like Louisville and Syracuse and Pitt to rebuild themselves under the radar. Sorry to be long winded. :)

Wow, Louisville a just spitting the bit right now (sorry about that bit! :) )

CatsClaw Wrote:

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:Yes, we need a ninth team, but the fact that SU, Pitt and UL are all stinking it up is not rationale for doing so. They'd be stinking it up, whether or not there was a ninth team in the BE.

That's not my point though. My point is, if you add another quality 9th team (I'm not talking about Army or Navy I'm talking about a good 9th team), then it's easier to weather down years from your top programs. Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville just highlight how much trouble this conference is in by a numbers standpoint. If 3 teams struggled in the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12, big deal. But when 3 teams struggle in the Big East that's nearly half the conference and that is a problem. If we had someone who keeps up their football program like an East Carolina, then right now we're talking about insurance when multiple teams struggle. It also gives us a chance to have a couple of powers. When Ohio State and Michigan were down the Big Ten, because of sheer numbers, were able to weather it because of programs like Iowa and Purdue and Wisconsin. And the Big 12 as well. And now the Big 12 is reaping the benefit of those programs establishing themselves. Now, not only do they have Oklahoma and Texas but they also have Missouri and Kansas and that makes the conference a heck of a lot more solid and nationally respected. Imagine going into conference play with West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Cincinnati and East Carolina ranked? That is very possible, and that kind of stuff has a chance of happening every year because those programs keep up with themselves. And it allows programs like Louisville and Syracuse and Pitt to rebuild themselves under the radar. Sorry to be long winded. :)

I think you make a solid point. When you have a large conference it's easier to hide the bad teams.

CatsClaw Wrote:

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:Yes, we need a ninth team, but the fact that SU, Pitt and UL are all stinking it up is not rationale for doing so. They'd be stinking it up, whether or not there was a ninth team in the BE.

That's not my point though. My point is, if you add another quality 9th team (I'm not talking about Army or Navy I'm talking about a good 9th team), then it's easier to weather down years from your top programs. Syracuse, Pitt and Louisville just highlight how much trouble this conference is in by a numbers standpoint. If 3 teams struggled in the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12, big deal. But when 3 teams struggle in the Big East that's nearly half the conference and that is a problem. If we had someone who keeps up their football program like an East Carolina, then right now we're talking about insurance when multiple teams struggle. It also gives us a chance to have a couple of powers. When Ohio State and Michigan were down the Big Ten, because of sheer numbers, were able to weather it because of programs like Iowa and Purdue and Wisconsin. And the Big 12 as well. And now the Big 12 is reaping the benefit of those programs establishing themselves. Now, not only do they have Oklahoma and Texas but they also have Missouri and Kansas and that makes the conference a heck of a lot more solid and nationally respected. Imagine going into conference play with West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Cincinnati and East Carolina ranked? That is very possible, and that kind of stuff has a chance of happening every year because those programs keep up with themselves. And it allows programs like Louisville and Syracuse and Pitt to rebuild themselves under the radar. Sorry to be long winded. :)

You are right on the money with this post. We do need a ninth. It would help the BE in many different ways.

CatsClaw Wrote:Wow, Louisville a just spitting the bit right now (sorry about that bit! :) )

I recognized the equestrian reference...

the worst thing is the team quit.. not that they got beat.

What if the ninth team ended up being as bad as 6-8 in a particular year?? Then you'd have the Mt. West, no?

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:What if the ninth team ended up being as bad as 6-8 in a particular year?? Then you'd have the Mt. West, no?

I guess I should present an example: Suppose we picked Memphis at #9 (which is BY FAR the most popular choice on this board). So, then we'd have: one team that got slapped around by a Big Ten bottom feeder, one team that lost to a MAC opponent, and TWO teams losing to SEC bottom-feeders. ALL QUITE DECISIVELY.

Again, I like to add a ninth FB member for scheduling, the rivalries, and bowl situation. But, let's not BS over the reasons for it.

For football, ECU would probably be the better choice. They have more rivalry with the established BEast powers. They are also familiar with our newer members from CUSA. I'd say that would be the more logical choice if it's just football only. If it's full membership, then Memphis brings more to the table.

And please don't bring up the Liberty Bowl...

CatsClaw Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:It didn't hurt USC or Oklahoma during those years in which they were the only power in their respective conferences.

You're talking about a completely different era. And there's a reason why the Pac-10 (whatever their names were before)

FYI, before the two Arizona schools joined in 1978, they were the Pac 8. Before 1967, they were the AAWU, the "athletic association of western universities".

I think you are right about OK and USC dominating in a different era: In the 1970s and before, college football was more provincial. There was little pressure on conferences to be "big time" in a national sense. Conferences were by-definition regional entities and as long as you generated interest in your region, well that was enough. This was before ESPN and national tv contracts and strict enforcement of Title IX and all that.

It was one of the things that made college football very fun back then. When an OK and Michigan played in a bowl game, it was probably the first time all year Big 8 and Big 10 schools played each other. It heightened the curiosity factor.

Nowadays, with all the pressure to be "national" and generate revenue from 5 billion sources to fund women's synchronized diving teams, we have all these cross-sectional, OOC games being played. Personally, i don't like it. But it might be inevitable, given that the financial pressures have forced so many more schools to seriously care about college football. Back then, only 4, arguably 5, conferences cared, and they comprised about 45 schools, and there footprints didn't overlap. Now everyone is trying to build a big-time program, and we have these gerrymandered conferences lapping all over each other.

Jose_Jalapeno_on_a_Stick Wrote:What if the ninth team ended up being as bad as 6-8 in a particular year?? Then you'd have the Mt. West, no?

Actually, I think you would be wrong. As much as I dislike the MWC, they are a very good football conference.

But regardless of what happened to UL, Syracuse and Pitt this weekend the BE needs a 9th football member period.

bitcruncher Wrote:And please don't bring up the Liberty Bowl...

So that drives you crazy too hunh?

CatsClaw Wrote:Pitt could possibly turn it around, maybe Louisville or Syracuse as well. But, right now, Pitt, Louisville and Syracuse are horrid and lets assume it stays that way. That puts extra pressure on the other 4 or 5 Big East teams to play at a Top 25 level so the conference isn't dragged down. That's why we have to add a school like an ECU, to add depth to the football side. Having 8 teams leave little margin for error when multiple teams are struggling. That's what conferences like the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12. If the top teams are down the conference has another 8 to 10 teams that can pick up the slack. If a few of our teams are down we're down to half of those teams.

-- The problem with the theory is that adding another football school means less money for the rest of us....we are already behind the other BCS leagues in terms of $$s per year. We don't need to widen the gap.

Our problem is some of the schools in the league seem to have made questionable coaching hires...and are paying the price. And that's not counting Bill Stewart being an unknown at this point.

Even with our poor weekend...I still see three solid top 25-30 schools emerging in our league before the season is over

Jackson

Jackson1011 Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:Pitt could possibly turn it around, maybe Louisville or Syracuse as well. But, right now, Pitt, Louisville and Syracuse are horrid and lets assume it stays that way. That puts extra pressure on the other 4 or 5 Big East teams to play at a Top 25 level so the conference isn't dragged down. That's why we have to add a school like an ECU, to add depth to the football side. Having 8 teams leave little margin for error when multiple teams are struggling. That's what conferences like the Big Ten or SEC or Big 12. If the top teams are down the conference has another 8 to 10 teams that can pick up the slack. If a few of our teams are down we're down to half of those teams.

-- The problem with the theory is that adding another football school means less money for the rest of us....we are already behind the other BCS leagues in terms of $$s per year. We don't need to widen the gap.

Our problem is some of the schools in the league seem to have made questionable coaching hires...and are paying the price. And that's not counting Bill Stewart being an unknown at this point.

Even with our poor weekend...I still see three solid top 25-30 schools emerging in our league before the season is over

Jackson

I will take a guess for the top 25 teams..

West Virginia, South Florida and Cincy.. What do I win?

ECU Pirate

I have been saying for a couple of years now ECU would be the best choice IF for football only. The basketball conference simply cannot get any bigger.

If ECU were willing to join for football only then I would be all for it. They bring a good program with an excellent fan base and a history of playing many current Big East teams anyway.