I keep hearing people say that the MWC is on the Big East's level because Pitt beat Utah, and even the MWC commissioner is saying this. But if expansion had gone on a year earlier like it should have Louisville would have been the one facing Utah most likely, not Pitt. So who wins that game? My guess is that this game would have been similar to Louisville and Boise State.

Many of the UL, Cincy, & USF fans may recognize me from the old CUSA board. I am a TCU alum. Here's my take on the whole situation.

I do believe that the MWC is as good, probably a little better as a whole than the Big East. BUT, I believe Louisville would have beaten Utah last year. As good as Utah was, I think the Cards were the best non BCS team and could have given USC & Auburn some trouble.

As for the rest of the league, it is about even. Yes, last year was off because TCU & CSU were bad. But, as a whole over the last 7 years (since the BCS was created), the current MWC lineup is either on par or a little better than the current Big East lineup.

In all honesty, I think we both should have an autobid. I don't want to take your bid. Truth is, y'all aren't ever getting kicked out because that would shift the majority to the non BCS. Also, Tranghese (sp?) seems to have something on Kevin Weiberg and is using to all y'all advantage. Congratulations.


Go CARDS....I'll never forget the 4 year rivalry, maybe we can strike it up again down the road.

I disagree about the MWC being on par or better then the current Big East. West Virginia and Syracuse were a bit off last year as well, with West Virginia underachieving. And UConn and Cincinnati playing very well. In reality the Big East has 3 Top 25 caliber teams right now (Louisville, Pitt, West Virginia), a few schools that should receive Top 25 votes, and 3 up-and-coming programs (UConn, Cincinnati, South Florida you might be able to throw Rutgers in their as a 4th since they underachieved last year). It's hard to compare the MWC, who has been together the last 7 years, over the current Big East. The Big East is greatly underrated because Miami and Virginia Tech are gone. The current Big East doesn't have a Top 10 or 15 team, maybe not even a Top 20 team. That being said, the MWC has shown they deserve some kind of autobid, at least a partial autobid. I really believe C-USA will be much better then people realize, and could be on par with the MWC right out of the gate.

As far as how Utah and Louisville would have turned out last year, I'll pick Utah, and here's why.

Offense--maybe a wash, both clearly were very good.

Defense--Here's the difference. I think Utah has had a good defense the last 2 years. Didn't they shut out Southern Miss 2 years ago in the Liberty Bowl? And they held a pretty good Pittsburgh offense down last year in a BCS Bowl and scored a lopsided victory.

As far as Conferences go, I don't see the MWC being as good as the Big East last year or even as the best non-BCS Conference. After Utah, the quality dropped to mediocre and then bad. I believe only 3 MWC teams had regular season records of .500 or better.

What criterion is best for comparing the quality of Conferences?

My choice for a criterion is which Conference had the most very good teams. Using that criterion, I would select the MAC as last season's best non-BCS Conference. They had 4 very good teams--Miami, Bowling Green. Northern Illinois, and Toledo.

Agree Sante Fe, good post. Utah may have been the 3rd best team in the country last year, maybe the second. I don't think anyone could have beaten USC last year, but I thought Auburn was the 2nd best team in the country last year. But you could make a case that Utah was the second best team. Louisville did almost beat a good Miami team on the road so they have some credentials. That Utah team last year was just a special team. I think that team was the exception not the rule for the MWC.

Obviously I'm biased but I think Louisville would have won the game. Our defense was much better than it was given credit for last season. It was a top 25 caliber unit that recorded two shut-outs and was on the verge of several others going into the final minutes of those games when bench players were called on to gain expierence.

In the Liberty Bowl Louisville overcame a 4-0 turnover deficit to beat a highly regarded Boisie State squad. The defense did an outstanding job in that game.

Other than the second half collapse at Miami and DeAngelo going buck wild the D had an outstanding year.

L-yes Wrote:Obviously I'm biased but I think Louisville would have won the game. Our defense was much better than it was given credit for last season. It was a top 25 caliber unit that recorded two shut-outs and was on the verge of several others going into the final minutes of those games when bench players were called on to gain expierence.

In the Liberty Bowl Louisville overcame a 4-0 turnover deficit to beat a highly regarded Boisie State squad. The defense did an outstanding job in that game.

Other than the second half collapse at Miami and DeAngelo going buck wild the D had an outstanding year.

Your defense absolutely was awful...but your great offense...probably the best in the nation pulled you through......

It would have been one heck of a game! I think Utah was a destiny team last year, so I would give them the edge. It should have been a BCS bowl game.

Louisville is a top 10-15 for sure. West Virginia is making strides towards that and Pitt's future looks good. Its hard to compare the BE with the MWC the last 7 years because of the major changes. Obviously before Miami,VT and BC left the BE was by far the better conf. Now, I think the BE is better at the top for sure, but from top to bottom the MWC is about even. The BE has an inexperienced group with two recent !-A teams(USF and UConn)that will improve over time. A Rutgers team that is on the brink of something special, and a Syracuse team that has seen better days.

Quote:Your defense absolutely was awful...but your great offense...probably the best in the nation pulled you through......

If Louisville's defense was horrible what do you call Utah's? Louisville gave up 19.4 ppg, Utah gave up 19.5 ppg.

Quote:St. Patrick Eagle Posted on Jul 17 2005, 04:10 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louisville is a top 10-15 for sure. West Virginia is making strides towards that and Pitt's future looks good. Its hard to compare the BE with the MWC the last 7 years because of the major changes. Obviously before Miami,VT and BC left the BE was by far the better conf. Now, I think the BE is better at the top for sure, but from top to bottom the MWC is about even. The BE has an inexperienced group with two recent !-A teams(USF and UConn)that will improve over time. A Rutgers team that is on the brink of something special, and a Syracuse team that has seen better days. 

I won't compare the BE to the MWC, since I've had that conversation with UAB grad a while back. But I will compare OBE to NBE and with the exception of Miami at the top, NBE will be better top to bottom.

People tend to forget how terrible Pitt, Temple, and Rutgers were throughout the 90s and by the time Pitt got good in 2002, Syracuse had taken a big step back.

The BE never had Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, and Virginia Tech good at the same time. And that is where this league is heading with Louisville replacing Virginia Tech in the above equation.

Before this decade ends, both UConn and Cincinnati will be as good as Boston College, while USF and Rutgers will be far better than the Rutgers and Temple of OBE fame.

The only thing this league will lack is the marquee program like Miami - and programs like that don't grow on trees. The VTs and BCs of this world are much easier to replicate, but Hurricane success in football is hard to find.

Cheers,
Neil

Mountain West had 6 losing teams last year. BIGEAST had 2. Utah was a very special team, but there is a drastic fall-off below that level of excellence. The BIGEAST had a lot of tough teams. As a matter of fact, it had most of the teams that forced VT (the ACC champ) into a 4th place spot the preceding year.

Would Utah have beaten Louisville? I say yes. I think LOU would have given them a better game than Pitt because Pitt was one-dimensional last year. If Pitt was 3rd and 3, everyone knew they had to pass because they couldn't get 3 yards on the ground. They coudn't even get 2 if the other team thought they might run.

Louisville, on the other hand, had a much more balanced offense. Utah, however, was a great team last year. I think they might have given the Trojans all they could handle. I really would have liked to see a playoff last year.

Jim

okay, I wasn't going to comment on NBE vs. MWC, but since we now have three posters who think Louisville would have lost to Utah - all I can say is 'get real'!

Utah's defense held opponents to a total of 234 points last year, while Louisville's held them to 236 points. Now which team played the better offensive opponents?

Utah's highest ranked offensive opponents scoring wise -

Air Force #31
Texas A&M #43
Pitt #48
UNC #50
Wyoming #51

Overall rank - 73.6

Louisville's highest ranked offensive opponents scoring wise -

Boise State #2
Memphis #10
TCU #16
Miami #21
Cincinnati #41
Tulane #47
UNC #50

Overall rank - 52.25

The Cards had the much tougher schedule in terms of offensive opponents and yet their defense held them to a total of 236 points.

So with this information, who do you believe had the more impressive 'D'?

Cheers,
Neil

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Quote:Your defense absolutely was awful...but your great offense...probably the best in the nation pulled you through......

If Louisville's defense was horrible what do you call Utah's? Louisville gave up 19.4 ppg, Utah gave up 19.5 ppg.

Hmmm, the ypg comparisons are always interesting. Some teams couldnt move the ball on UL at all, and others scored tons.

There didnt seem to be as large a variance in consistency for Utah, so which unit was better?

That's hard to say. Talent-wise, I'd say they were even. UL's defense seemed at times to take advantage of the fact that UL had better athletes...often overwhelming less athletic teams like UNC and so forth. Utah ran some great schemes both ways.

I have a feeling Utah would have given UL's D fits and vice versa, leading to a high scoring game. Picking a winner in that sort of arrangement is very difficult, as it comes down to a mistake or two, be it blown coverage or turnovers. Utah was ranked higher, so they'd have been a slight favorite in a game that you wouldn't know for sure who was going to win until it was nearly over.

USFPDiddy Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Quote:Your defense absolutely was awful...but your great offense...probably the best in the nation pulled you through......

If Louisville's defense was horrible what do you call Utah's? Louisville gave up 19.4 ppg, Utah gave up 19.5 ppg.

Hmmm, the ypg comparisons are always interesting. Some teams couldnt move the ball on UL at all, and others scored tons.

There didnt seem to be as large a variance in consistency for Utah, so which unit was better?

That's hard to say. Talent-wise, I'd say they were even. UL's defense seemed at times to take advantage of the fact that UL had better athletes...often overwhelming less athletic teams like UNC and so forth. Utah ran some great schemes both ways.

I have a feeling Utah would have given UL's D fits and vice versa, leading to a high scoring game. Picking a winner in that sort of arrangement is very difficult, as it comes down to a mistake or two, be it blown coverage or turnovers. Utah was ranked higher, so they'd have been a slight favorite in a game that you wouldn't know for sure who was going to win until it was nearly over.

I agree, that's why I think it would be a Boise State/Louisville type game. The thing is, Utah was much better then Boise State. Then again, I don't think Louisville had their A game in that Boise State game due to the layoff most likely.

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

USFPDiddy Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Quote:Your defense absolutely was awful...but your great offense...probably the best in the nation pulled you through......

If Louisville's defense was horrible what do you call Utah's? Louisville gave up 19.4 ppg, Utah gave up 19.5 ppg.

Hmmm, the ypg comparisons are always interesting. Some teams couldnt move the ball on UL at all, and others scored tons.

There didnt seem to be as large a variance in consistency for Utah, so which unit was better?

That's hard to say. Talent-wise, I'd say they were even. UL's defense seemed at times to take advantage of the fact that UL had better athletes...often overwhelming less athletic teams like UNC and so forth. Utah ran some great schemes both ways.

I have a feeling Utah would have given UL's D fits and vice versa, leading to a high scoring game. Picking a winner in that sort of arrangement is very difficult, as it comes down to a mistake or two, be it blown coverage or turnovers. Utah was ranked higher, so they'd have been a slight favorite in a game that you wouldn't know for sure who was going to win until it was nearly over.

I agree, that's why I think it would be a Boise State/Louisville type game. The thing is, Utah was much better then Boise State. Then again, I don't think Louisville had their A game in that Boise State game due to the layoff most likely.

I keep coming back to the 4-0 turnover margin in the liberty bowl last year. That was the only reason the game was close. Look at the offensive numbers for the game. Louisville dominated.

L-yes Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

USFPDiddy Wrote:

Cat's_Claw Wrote:

Quote:Your defense absolutely was awful...but your great offense...probably the best in the nation pulled you through......

If Louisville's defense was horrible what do you call Utah's? Louisville gave up 19.4 ppg, Utah gave up 19.5 ppg.

Hmmm, the ypg comparisons are always interesting. Some teams couldnt move the ball on UL at all, and others scored tons.

There didnt seem to be as large a variance in consistency for Utah, so which unit was better?

That's hard to say. Talent-wise, I'd say they were even. UL's defense seemed at times to take advantage of the fact that UL had better athletes...often overwhelming less athletic teams like UNC and so forth. Utah ran some great schemes both ways.

I have a feeling Utah would have given UL's D fits and vice versa, leading to a high scoring game. Picking a winner in that sort of arrangement is very difficult, as it comes down to a mistake or two, be it blown coverage or turnovers. Utah was ranked higher, so they'd have been a slight favorite in a game that you wouldn't know for sure who was going to win until it was nearly over.

I agree, that's why I think it would be a Boise State/Louisville type game. The thing is, Utah was much better then Boise State. Then again, I don't think Louisville had their A game in that Boise State game due to the layoff most likely.

I keep coming back to the 4-0 turnover margin in the liberty bowl last year. That was the only reason the game was close. Look at the offensive numbers for the game. Louisville dominated.

Exactly, that's why Louisville was every bit as good as Utah.

All I have to say is...

Louisville >> Utah last year.

Period, end of story. The Utes were lucky the Cards choked against the Hurricanes, or else Louisville would have been playing in the BCS bowl. They were that good...and for the defense, I believe half the points they gave up last year came against three teams...Miami, Memphis, and Boise State...they still won two of those games, and should have won all three.

I feel dirty for showing Louisville any respect (and may have to turn in my blue face paint for it) but that was a damn good UL team last year.

UofL vs Utah is a great game....both teams can really score (the reason I know this is because I saw UofL put a 70 spot and an otherwise good UC defense)....I say UofL takes this game though.


as far as MWC vs BE.........it's pretty even now but I see Cincy and UCONN emerging in the next few years (coach Dantonio is starting to really recruit some kids, they just got one that was being recruited by MichSt., IL, G-Tech, and Missouri for example. In the past, we had no shot a kid like this) and USF isn't far behind either. I believe that BE will be really good in three to four years and in no danger of loosing BSC status.