Quote:tufinal4 Posted on Jul 27 2005, 05:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are truly delusional people, desparate wannabes who haven't played a down in the "vaunted" NBE, and already your schools shouldn't "stoop" to having your freakin #3 team (out of the likes of Cincy, Rutgers, Lou-uh-vull, Pitt, Syracuse, and best of all South Florida) play the first pick of CUSA. Are you guys trying to compensate for something. I guess it's great to be an American, where everyone can express their opinion, even you folks. Notre Dame's back must be killing them from having to single-handedly carry you through the bowl negotation process, wherever you wind up landing. You guys are like the limo driver, who opens the door for the rock star, hears the roar of approval, shuts your eyes, and imagines they're cheering for you. 

Well said.

Cheers,
Neil

I'm hearing a good bit of hyperbole from both BE and C-USA fans about the LB right now, but usffan's summary is accurate. Regarding you, tu, please see my response to your very similar post on the smack board.

tufinal4 Wrote:You are truly delusional people, desparate wannabes who haven't played a down in the "vaunted" NBE, and already your schools shouldn't "stoop" to having your freakin #3 team (out of the likes of Cincy, Rutgers, Lou-uh-vull, Pitt, Syracuse, and best of all South Florida) play the first pick of CUSA. Are you guys trying to compensate for something. I guess it's great to be an American, where everyone can express their opinion, even you folks. Notre Dame's back must be killing them from having to single-handedly carry you through the bowl negotation process, wherever you wind up landing. You guys are like the limo driver, who opens the door for the rock star, hears the roar of approval, shuts your eyes, and imagines they're cheering for you.

I presume this wasn't aimed at me, but if it was, let me just say that I wasn't arguing the relative merits of who should play against CUSA's #1 team. I was just arguing that TopCoog's assertion that the #4 choice from the Big East is still more attractive to the Liberty Bowl than the MWC #1 (and the blatant inflation of where the MWC #1 team has finished).

But, as to whether Notre Dame is "carrying" the Big East in bowl negotiations, I'd say you're overinflating that as well. I think Notre Dame, along with the excellent track record of West Virginia and the added attraction of Louisville is what is drawing bowl interest for the Big East.

Finally, to address the shot you took at USF, we're a member of this conference so I'm certainly entitled to defend her. Despite what others might think, I personally believe USF could reach a bowl game this year...

USFFan

O.G. Eagle Wrote:

MongoSlade Wrote:

Quote:I totally disagree.....

No surprise there

Quote:BE vs SEC is the least likely matchup for a number of reasons.

Waiting...

Quote:For one thing it is unlikely the LB will drop CUSA.

If it was "unlikely", then the LB rep (Graeter) wouldn't be making all these appearances, selling the merits of "Memphis in December".

Quote:When the smoke clears the BEST matchup they have avilable will be to continue the CUSA vs MWC #1. The MWC people certanily think that will happen.

Only as a fallback. They have the money to command a better matchup than C-USA #1 vs. MWC #1.

But nothing the#6 SEC or #3Big East will offer will be better that C-USA#1 vs MWC#......end of story......as long as they are getting 55,000 or better with that matchup....nothing will change....they will easily drop the MWC over the C-USA entry now that the Conference playoff chapionship winner doe not automatically go....great move by the Liberty Bowl........It's C-USA vs whomever...no doubt.....next .......

I dont know why you seem to be so sure that CUSA will continue to be apart of the Liberty Bowl. If the Liberty folks were so intent on having Cusa be apart of the Liberty, doesnt it stand to reason that they would already have a new agreement in place?

When the Gator was trying to get their new contracts signed, they were so sure that the acc was going to be apart of the Gator Bowl that they signed them up and then continued negotiating with the BE and the Big 12. So the way that I see it, Cusa is really in jeopardy of losing this bowl, or else Cusa would already have an agreement in place with this bowl that they have been a part of for 10 years.

tufinal4 Wrote:You are truly delusional people, desparate wannabes who haven't played a down in the "vaunted" NBE, and already your schools shouldn't "stoop" to having your freakin #3 team (out of the likes of Cincy, Rutgers, Lou-uh-vull, Pitt, Syracuse, and best of all South Florida) play the first pick of CUSA.  Are you guys trying to compensate for something.  I guess it's great to be an American, where everyone can express their opinion, even you folks.  Notre Dame's back must be killing them from having to single-handedly carry you through the bowl negotation process, wherever you wind up landing.  You guys are like the limo driver, who opens the door for the rock star, hears the roar of approval, shuts your eyes, and imagines they're cheering for you.

I'd say we're more like backing band members and USF plays the cowbell.

tufinal4 Wrote:You are truly delusional people, desparate wannabes who haven't played a down in the "vaunted" NBE, and already your schools shouldn't "stoop" to having your freakin #3 team (out of the likes of Cincy, Rutgers, Lou-uh-vull, Pitt, Syracuse, and best of all South Florida) play the first pick of CUSA.  Are you guys trying to compensate for something.  I guess it's great to be an American, where everyone can express their opinion, even you folks.  Notre Dame's back must be killing them from having to single-handedly carry you through the bowl negotation process, wherever you wind up landing.  You guys are like the limo driver, who opens the door for the rock star, hears the roar of approval, shuts your eyes, and imagines they're cheering for you.

Poor baby. The Liberty Bowl negotiations got ya stressed? :laugh:

Good thing C-USA doesn't need someone like Memphis to carry them on their back to keep their best bowl!

L-yes Wrote:

tufinal4 Wrote:You are truly delusional people, desparate wannabes who haven't played a down in the "vaunted" NBE, and already your schools shouldn't "stoop" to having your freakin #3 team (out of the likes of Cincy, Rutgers, Lou-uh-vull, Pitt, Syracuse, and best of all South Florida) play the first pick of CUSA.  Are you guys trying to compensate for something.  I guess it's great to be an American, where everyone can express their opinion, even you folks.  Notre Dame's back must be killing them from having to single-handedly carry you through the bowl negotation process, wherever you wind up landing.  You guys are like the limo driver, who opens the door for the rock star, hears the roar of approval, shuts your eyes, and imagines they're cheering for you.

I'd say we're more like backing band members and USF plays the cowbell.

I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell!

There's some talk about trying to use that skit on the scoreboard for games this year...

USFFan

First of all we need to realize that the Big East has taken a hit losing Miami, VT, & BC, but CUSA has taken as big or bigger a hit losing Louisville, TCU, USF, and Cincy. So that said, I think it is fine if the BE/ND sends the 2 or 3, or 3 or 4 depending on Notre Dame or the bowl pay outs. Honestly, Southern Miss has a good history, Memphis is getting better recently, there really are three or four of what is left of the CUSA that could put together teams that could beat a BE 3 or 4. CUSA is not as good as a league, but the best team in that league is sure to be a decent team that could hang with most BCS league teams that aren't conference champs.

We Louisville fans should know, I mean after all Boise State was from the WAC but they were pretty good, Memphis is pretty good, Southern Miss has a winning record against us, of course we haven't played them since the Clinton era (thanks to the messed up old CUSA :bang: scheduling). Whoever rose to the top of the CUSA back then was able to play with most any BCS leagues top 3 or 4, and even though CUSA is weaker than it was, and much weaker than the Big East the CUSA champ should make it a game. Besides, I think it would look bad if we played our 4 or 5 and then lost most of them to the CUSA champ. Let them play the 3 or 4 or better yet the 2 or 3 and watch their champs get beat every year.

To the Tulane fan;
Here is a newsflash for you USF is:
1-3 vs USM
2-2 vs Memphis
1-1 vs UAB
2-0 vs Houston
3-0 vs ECU
one win by USM and Memphis were when USF was 1AA, so i think the Bulls will stack well with any team comming out of CUSA.

If sending your #3 vs. your #4 is the NBE's hangup, then your commissioner is an idiot. Why on earth would he have the slightest concern over the freakin Meineke Bowl's reaction to sending them your #4 vs. your #3? The Meineke Bowl? Come on, where else would they turn at this point, the other conferences are all set. Plus, it's the freaking Meineke Bowl, you mean you'd actually take any risk at all of not landing the Liberty Bowl on New Year's Eve in order to not offend the Meineke Bowl, who no one other than the fans of the participants is remotely interested in.

If as you said all conferences are set, the the Liberty is in the same boat. The fact is that if the Charlotte Bowl raises its pay out as it has stated to match the Liberty then it could be more attractive to BE for the following reasons
1. Charlotte is closer to most BE teams than Memphis
2. Playing an ACC in the Charlotte Bowl would be more attractive to BE IF the Liberty was offering CUSA champ as an option.

tufinal4 Wrote:If sending your #3 vs. your #4 is the NBE's hangup, then your commissioner is an idiot. Why on earth would he have the slightest concern over the freakin Meineke Bowl's reaction to sending them your #4 vs. your #3? The Meineke Bowl? Come on, where else would they turn at this point, the other conferences are all set. Plus, it's the freaking Meineke Bowl, you mean you'd actually take any risk at all of not landing the Liberty Bowl on New Year's Eve in order to not offend the Meineke Bowl, who no one other than the fans of the participants is remotely interested in.

I think nationally, the interest between the meinekee Car Bowl and the liberty are about the same perception wise. It has nothing to do with the Liberty bowls longevity. The national perception is about the same. Until louisville played boise last year in the Liberty, i never payed much attention to that bowl. It only mattered to me then because Louisville was in it. As of 2006, the 2 bowls will be close in payout. Name recognition and perception is about the same.

usffan Wrote:

TopCoog Wrote:Murph, If what you say is true the BE will not be in the Liberty Bowl.
MWC #1 is almost always a top 15 team, hardly ever less that 20, BE #4 will not be a ranked team.

Really? Based on the final AP polls:

2004 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #4
2003 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #21
2002 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking unranked
2001 MWC Champ - BYU - Final Ranking #25
2000 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking #14
1999 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking unranked

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think twice in the 6 years of conference existence counts as "almost always" and I also don't think that 4 times in six years really qualifies as "hardly ever."

Now, as for whether the Big East # 4 will be ranked, it's not very likely (that would mean half of the conference were ranked, and it's exceedingly rare when half of any conference finishes the season ranked). Working in our favor is that Notre Dame would be lumped in, and it's NOT unlikely that 3 Big East teams PLUS Notre Dame will all be ranked. So, if the Liberty Bowl is given the fourth choice from among Big East teams and Notre Dame, meaning that they have a legitimate chance at Louisville, West Virginia or Notre Dame on an annual basis, I'd think that would be more attractive than a #20 ranked team (which is better than the MWC has provided in 5 of the 6 years the league's been in existence) that has to bring fans from Utah or Colorado.

USFFan

In 2002 CSU was ranked before the bowls.

Really, while Top Coog was exagerrating, you really shouldn't be talking about top 25 finishes. Based on recent experience, it is unlikely for the Big East will have even two teams ranked. Since 1998, the current Big east has a total of 7 AP top 25 finishes, an average of one a year (Pitt, Syracuse and L'ville 2; West Virginia 1). The current MWC has 8 (TCU 3, Utah 2, AF, CSU, BYU 1). It goes without saying that that it is much more likely that a MWC #1 will be higher ranked than a BE #3. I'm not saying it is the best choice for the Liberty, but the MWC-CUSA matchup has worked to provide some of the consistently best matchups in the bowl season, in terms of national rank (at least one team ranked going in every year and 2 teams ranked four of the six years (counting last year). But there are obviously other factors that go into who they will tie-in with.

tufinal4 Wrote:If sending your #3 vs. your #4 is the NBE's hangup, then your commissioner is an idiot. Why on earth would he have the slightest concern over the freakin Meineke Bowl's reaction to sending them your #4 vs. your #3? The Meineke Bowl? Come on, where else would they turn at this point, the other conferences are all set. Plus, it's the freaking Meineke Bowl, you mean you'd actually take any risk at all of not landing the Liberty Bowl on New Year's Eve in order to not offend the Meineke Bowl, who no one other than the fans of the participants is remotely interested in.

The Chairman of the Charlotte Bowl said he would consider looking elsewhere if he was given the BE #4.

St. Patrick Eagle Wrote:

tufinal4 Wrote:If sending your #3 vs. your #4 is the NBE's hangup, then your commissioner is an idiot.  Why on earth would he have the slightest concern over the freakin Meineke Bowl's reaction to sending them your #4 vs. your #3?  The Meineke Bowl?  Come on, where else would they turn at this point, the other conferences are all set.  Plus, it's the freaking Meineke Bowl, you mean you'd actually take any risk at all of not landing the Liberty Bowl on New Year's Eve in order to not offend the Meineke Bowl, who no one other than the fans of the participants is remotely interested in.

The Chairman of the Charlotte Bowl said he would consider looking elsewhere if he was given the BE #4.

That was several months ago. He has no place else to go now.

Killerfrog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:

usffan Wrote:

TopCoog Wrote:Murph, If what you say is true the BE will not be in the Liberty Bowl.
MWC #1 is almost always a top 15 team, hardly ever less that 20, BE #4 will not be a ranked team.

Really? Based on the final AP polls:

2004 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #4
2003 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #21
2002 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking unranked
2001 MWC Champ - BYU - Final Ranking #25
2000 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking #14
1999 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking unranked

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think twice in the 6 years of conference existence counts as "almost always" and I also don't think that 4 times in six years really qualifies as "hardly ever."

Now, as for whether the Big East # 4 will be ranked, it's not very likely (that would mean half of the conference were ranked, and it's exceedingly rare when half of any conference finishes the season ranked). Working in our favor is that Notre Dame would be lumped in, and it's NOT unlikely that 3 Big East teams PLUS Notre Dame will all be ranked. So, if the Liberty Bowl is given the fourth choice from among Big East teams and Notre Dame, meaning that they have a legitimate chance at Louisville, West Virginia or Notre Dame on an annual basis, I'd think that would be more attractive than a #20 ranked team (which is better than the MWC has provided in 5 of the 6 years the league's been in existence) that has to bring fans from Utah or Colorado.

USFFan

In 2002 CSU was ranked before the bowls.

Really, while Top Coog was exagerrating, you really shouldn't be talking about top 25 finishes. Based on recent experience, it is unlikely for the Big East will have even two teams ranked. Since 1998, the current Big east has a total of 7 AP top 25 finishes, an average of one a year (Pitt, Syracuse and L'ville 2; West Virginia 1). The current MWC has 8 (TCU 3, Utah 2, AF, CSU, BYU 1). It goes without saying that that it is much more likely that a MWC #1 will be higher ranked than a BE #3. I'm not saying it is the best choice for the Liberty, but the MWC-CUSA matchup has worked to provide some of the consistently best matchups in the bowl season, in terms of national rank (at least one team ranked going in every year and 2 teams ranked four of the six years (counting last year). But there are obviously other factors that go into who they will tie-in with.

What you MWC fans forget is all the remaining teams played annual games versus Miami, Virginia Tech and even Boston College. This added to our losses while the MWC teams feasted on weaklings to pad their records.

Bull fan, for a team that has never BEEN to a bowl, that's pretty big talk concerning a more desirable opponent. You guys really should just sit in the corner and be silent and grateful.

TexanMark Wrote:

Killerfrog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:

usffan Wrote:

TopCoog Wrote:Murph, If what you say is true the BE will not be in the Liberty Bowl.
MWC #1 is almost always a top 15 team, hardly ever less that 20, BE #4 will not be a ranked team.

Really? Based on the final AP polls:

2004 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #4
2003 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #21
2002 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking unranked
2001 MWC Champ - BYU - Final Ranking #25
2000 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking #14
1999 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking unranked

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think twice in the 6 years of conference existence counts as "almost always" and I also don't think that 4 times in six years really qualifies as "hardly ever."

Now, as for whether the Big East # 4 will be ranked, it's not very likely (that would mean half of the conference were ranked, and it's exceedingly rare when half of any conference finishes the season ranked). Working in our favor is that Notre Dame would be lumped in, and it's NOT unlikely that 3 Big East teams PLUS Notre Dame will all be ranked. So, if the Liberty Bowl is given the fourth choice from among Big East teams and Notre Dame, meaning that they have a legitimate chance at Louisville, West Virginia or Notre Dame on an annual basis, I'd think that would be more attractive than a #20 ranked team (which is better than the MWC has provided in 5 of the 6 years the league's been in existence) that has to bring fans from Utah or Colorado.

USFFan

In 2002 CSU was ranked before the bowls.

Really, while Top Coog was exagerrating, you really shouldn't be talking about top 25 finishes. Based on recent experience, it is unlikely for the Big East will have even two teams ranked. Since 1998, the current Big east has a total of 7 AP top 25 finishes, an average of one a year (Pitt, Syracuse and L'ville 2; West Virginia 1). The current MWC has 8 (TCU 3, Utah 2, AF, CSU, BYU 1). It goes without saying that that it is much more likely that a MWC #1 will be higher ranked than a BE #3. I'm not saying it is the best choice for the Liberty, but the MWC-CUSA matchup has worked to provide some of the consistently best matchups in the bowl season, in terms of national rank (at least one team ranked going in every year and 2 teams ranked four of the six years (counting last year). But there are obviously other factors that go into who they will tie-in with.

What you MWC fans forget is all the remaining teams played annual games versus Miami, Virginia Tech and even Boston College. This added to our losses while the MWC teams feasted on weaklings to pad their records.

That is true, but that will probably be off set by the decreased luster of the Big East in the minds of the voters. My guess is that, at least until the BE proves itself over a few years time, voters will probably apply nonBCS "rules" to the ranking of its teams- namely that if a team has more than 2 losses at the end of the year, it won't be ranked. While you won't have losses to those teams you mention, you also won't have wins against them either, wins that can really boost a team's image. Some OOC games might give an opportunity to impress and perhaps a 3 loss team could sneak in the top 25 with a bowl win. But if there is any parity at all in the new BE it is going to be tought to have more than 1 or 2 teams with 2 or less losses after the bowls.

Also keep in mind the trend to schedule light by the nonBE autobid conferences. There was an article yesterday in a Texas paper of how easy the Big XII non-conference schedule is becoming. Only 6 (out of 36) OOC games for the Big XII are considered games they even have a chance of losing. You will see more 4-4 in conference Big XII, SEC, ACC teams who are 7-4 overall, and those teams who used to be 6-5 or 5-6 when they scheduled tough OOC, will now be ranked (see Texas Tech). If there are 5 or 6 teams with 4 or less losses in each league (almost always ranked at the end of the year), there aren't many spaces left for any other teams. Get used to 1 to maybe 2 ranked teams in the final top 25.

Killerfrog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:

TexanMark Wrote:

Killerfrog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:

usffan Wrote:

TopCoog Wrote:Murph, If what you say is true the BE will not be in the Liberty Bowl.
MWC #1 is almost always a top 15 team, hardly ever less that 20, BE #4 will not be a ranked team.

Really? Based on the final AP polls:

2004 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #4
2003 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking #21
2002 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking unranked
2001 MWC Champ - BYU - Final Ranking #25
2000 MWC Champ - Colorado State - Final Ranking #14
1999 MWC Champ - Utah - Final Ranking unranked

Now, I don't know about you, but I don't think twice in the 6 years of conference existence counts as "almost always" and I also don't think that 4 times in six years really qualifies as "hardly ever."

Now, as for whether the Big East # 4 will be ranked, it's not very likely (that would mean half of the conference were ranked, and it's exceedingly rare when half of any conference finishes the season ranked). Working in our favor is that Notre Dame would be lumped in, and it's NOT unlikely that 3 Big East teams PLUS Notre Dame will all be ranked. So, if the Liberty Bowl is given the fourth choice from among Big East teams and Notre Dame, meaning that they have a legitimate chance at Louisville, West Virginia or Notre Dame on an annual basis, I'd think that would be more attractive than a #20 ranked team (which is better than the MWC has provided in 5 of the 6 years the league's been in existence) that has to bring fans from Utah or Colorado.

USFFan

In 2002 CSU was ranked before the bowls.

Really, while Top Coog was exagerrating, you really shouldn't be talking about top 25 finishes. Based on recent experience, it is unlikely for the Big East will have even two teams ranked. Since 1998, the current Big east has a total of 7 AP top 25 finishes, an average of one a year (Pitt, Syracuse and L'ville 2; West Virginia 1). The current MWC has 8 (TCU 3, Utah 2, AF, CSU, BYU 1). It goes without saying that that it is much more likely that a MWC #1 will be higher ranked than a BE #3. I'm not saying it is the best choice for the Liberty, but the MWC-CUSA matchup has worked to provide some of the consistently best matchups in the bowl season, in terms of national rank (at least one team ranked going in every year and 2 teams ranked four of the six years (counting last year). But there are obviously other factors that go into who they will tie-in with.

What you MWC fans forget is all the remaining teams played annual games versus Miami, Virginia Tech and even Boston College. This added to our losses while the MWC teams feasted on weaklings to pad their records.

That is true, but that will probably be off set by the decreased luster of the Big East in the minds of the voters. My guess is that, at least until the BE proves itself over a few years time, voters will probably apply nonBCS "rules" to the ranking of its teams- namely that if a team has more than 2 losses at the end of the year, it won't be ranked. While you won't have losses to those teams you mention, you also won't have wins against them either, wins that can really boost a team's image. Some OOC games might give an opportunity to impress and perhaps a 3 loss team could sneak in the top 25 with a bowl win. But if there is any parity at all in the new BE it is going to be tought to have more than 1 or 2 teams with 2 or less losses after the bowls.

Also keep in mind the trend to schedule light by the nonBE autobid conferences. There was an article yesterday in a Texas paper of how easy the Big XII non-conference schedule is becoming. Only 6 (out of 36) OOC games for the Big XII are considered games they even have a chance of losing. You will see more 4-4 in conference Big XII, SEC, ACC teams who are 7-4 overall, and those teams who used to be 6-5 or 5-6 when they scheduled tough OOC, will now be ranked (see Texas Tech). If there are 5 or 6 teams with 4 or less losses in each league (almost always ranked at the end of the year), there aren't many spaces left for any other teams. Get used to 1 to maybe 2 ranked teams in the final top 25.

First you missed my point--we had several good but unranked teams in the late 90s and this decade. They would've been ranked if they played a MWC schedule instead they had losses to Miami, VT and BC sometimes. Using ranking statistics between the league is apples and oranges.

The Big East teams for the most part (Cinci and USF and even UConn may have some issues still)are still able to get home n homes with the other BCS conferences. Don't worry the BE is quite capable of getting 2-3 teams ranked on a consistent basis.

TexanMark Wrote:First you missed my point--we had several good but unranked teams in the late 90s and this decade. They would've been ranked if they played a MWC schedule instead they had losses to Miami, VT and BC sometimes. Using ranking statistics between the league is apples and oranges.

The Big East teams for the most part (Cinci and USF and even UConn may have some issues still)are still able to get home n homes with the other BCS conferences. Don't worry the BE is quite capable of getting 2-3 teams ranked on a consistent basis.

I understand your point, I just don't think it is valid (although I do agree it is apples and oranges). True, not playing those teams would mean that teams in the past few years would potentially have fewer losses and possibly be ranked. But the flip side is that the wins you get won't mean as much either, because of the perceived decrease in the quality of the conference, so there will be a higher standard to be met to get ranked. You will see some of the non-BCS bias come into play in the rankings. And BTW, even with Miami, VT, BC in 2003 the average sagarin rank for the BE SOS was 55. The MW average was 57. So I don't know if your first contention that MW has played weaklings to pad their records is accurate, either.