(11-07-2010 11:09 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-06-2010 11:21 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  By the way Neil if UCF isn't getting an invite, or things are shaky, who is the replacement? You can PM if you want. This is interesting!

My basic point wasn't that UCF wouldn't get an invite, but just that if USF objected to them, other football schools would support them. The Bulls wouldn't be out on an island by themselves in this scenario.

Cheers,
Neil

I figured as much and that makes sense. I know that if another Ohio school came into the picture and Cincinnatik objected schools would side with us. :)

(11-07-2010 11:03 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 09:51 AM)snowycuse Wrote:  We are talking about adding Villanova in the NY/NJ/PA recruiting area along with Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Connecticut and I am supposed to feel bad for USF having to deal with UCF in a state with so many recruits the entire nation recruits it and still some are left over? Sorry USF but that does not pass the smell test.

good pt.

Only 72 miles separate Nova and Rutgers (closer distance than USF to UCF)...and if Nova became a BCS Football member, Nova would be the closest BCS school to Rutgers.

Add in the fact that PA and NJ combined produced 120 Div I-A Football recruits in 2009 (most went to non-bcs schools), while the state of FLA produced 346...which 230 of them signing with OUT-OF-STATE teams.

RU would most likely feel a recruiting impact if Nova jumped to a BCS Football Conf...much more so than USF would feel if UCF joined a BCS Conf.

There are two flaws in this argument, as I see it.

The first is precisely what you mention above about OOS schools recruiting Florida hard. Some BE schools are in that mix, but the majority of them are SEC and probably ACC teams as well. So elevating UCF could be perceived as cutting into those BE teams chances of getting some of the better recruits.

Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

Obviously UCF is in the hunt even with the above taken into consideration. But USF has a right to be concerned about these issues and how it relates to their potential future.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-07-2010 11:38 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:03 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 09:51 AM)snowycuse Wrote:  We are talking about adding Villanova in the NY/NJ/PA recruiting area along with Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers, Connecticut and I am supposed to feel bad for USF having to deal with UCF in a state with so many recruits the entire nation recruits it and still some are left over? Sorry USF but that does not pass the smell test.

good pt.

Only 72 miles separate Nova and Rutgers (closer distance than USF to UCF)...and if Nova became a BCS Football member, Nova would be the closest BCS school to Rutgers.

Add in the fact that PA and NJ combined produced 120 Div I-A Football recruits in 2009 (most went to non-bcs schools), while the state of FLA produced 346...which 230 of them signing with OUT-OF-STATE teams.

RU would most likely feel a recruiting impact if Nova jumped to a BCS Football Conf...much more so than USF would feel if UCF joined a BCS Conf.

There are two flaws in this argument, as I see it.

The first is precisely what you mention above about OOS schools recruiting Florida hard. Some BE schools are in that mix, but the majority of them are SEC and probably ACC teams as well. So elevating UCF could be perceived as cutting into those BE teams chances of getting some of the better recruits.

Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

Obviously UCF is in the hunt even with the above taken into consideration. But USF has a right to be concerned about these issues and how it relates to their potential future.

Cheers,
Neil

Actually, some Big East Asst Coaches that recruit in FLA (easy to figure out) think just the opposite...that if the Big East added a 2nd FLA Team...and that most Big East teams would play at least ONE game in FLA per year...it would only help their recruiting in FLA.

Also, there is no such thing as a "sure thing"...as to think that any new addition to the Big East, regardless what state they are located in, would "always win".

Heck...it was just a few years ago that UL and/or WVU was set to "dominate" the Big East...but things did not go their way.

Some also said the same about Rutgers...especially after their 11-2 season in 2006...but it looks right now that RU will have its 3rd losing season in conf play out of their last 4.

Success is obviously not dictated by how many (or how little) the number of BCS teams you have in your state...as teams win and teams lose with a lot of in-state competition or with lil to none.

Remember that Rutgers was against UCF in 03, what has really changed there? Cincy and Louisville would likely support USF because they played a bit part in USF being in the big east in the first place and the 3 schools will always be tied as the 3 c-usa teams added that year. Doesnt seem like it would be too hard for USF to get at least half of the football schools to vote against UCF. I could even see West Virginia jumping on board as well.

It wouldnt really upset me if UCF got in the big east. I just think there are better options out there. Houston has a lot more potential imo. We are talking about a school that has never been ranked, has a losing record since being in FBS, and has never won a bowl game. They have had no real success in any other sport. The only thing they have is really arrogant fans, yet people seem to think they are a slam dunk for bcs football.

Id actually enjoy if the minutes came out of the big east meetings and it showed usf convincing the rest of the schools to not consider ucf ending with them being dismissed from consideration. Just because of how funny the reaction from ucf fans would be.

(11-07-2010 11:47 AM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  I just think there are better options out there. Houston has a lot more potential imo. .... The only thing they (UCF) have is really arrogant fans, yet people seem to think they are a slam dunk for bcs football.

Average Football Attendance 2007-2010:

UCF: 40,218
Houston: 24,995

I find it amazing how some usf fans find all of this potential in a school like Houston...can be just as blind to a school just 85 miles to their East.

KL, just...drop it. Leave it alone. You're not going to win here.

(11-07-2010 11:38 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

That's just as much of an argument against "elevating" more schools from Texas, given that Texas already has 4 AQ conference schools.

I don't think much of that argument, really. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, etc. get most of their top recruits from California even though California itself has 4 schools in the Pac-10. Oklahoma gets most of its best players from Texas even though they are competing with 4 Texas Big 12 teams for the same talent. There is more than enough football talent in any of these huge Sun Belt states, the key is just having an attractive program to sell to recruits.

(11-07-2010 11:06 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  LOL. Here we go again.

People get it through your skulls, IF UCF is NOT invited into the Big East it will NOT just be because USF said so, but because OTHERS also felt the same way.

Unless the Big East Constitution was amended......last I saw, it takes 12 out of 16 votes to be "yes votes" in order to get admitted as a new member. 75 percent of the membership has to say yes........is that still correct?

I found the 2001 Big East Constitution in Google..........and that information was in article 3.03.

(11-07-2010 11:47 AM)BullsBEAST Wrote:  It wouldnt really upset me if UCF got in the big east. I just think there are better options out there. Houston has a lot more potential imo. We are talking about a school that has never been ranked, has a losing record...

I'm pretty sure UCF is ranked now at least in one of the polls. That losing record issue is also taken care of this year. So your not winning Bowl game issue will probably be addressed in a month or so as well. So your main arguments are adressed.

(11-07-2010 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:38 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

That's just as much of an argument against "elevating" more schools from Texas, given that Texas already has 4 AQ conference schools.

I don't think much of that argument, really. Washington, Oregon, Arizona, etc. get most of their top recruits from California even though California itself has 4 schools in the Pac-10. Oklahoma gets most of its best players from Texas even though they are competing with 4 Texas Big 12 teams for the same talent. There is more than enough football talent in any of these huge Sun Belt states, the key is just having an attractive program to sell to recruits.

great pt.

This issue does a great job of showing how people can argue over the time of day. To me, TCU is just far and away the best first option, and the Big East is foolish (and even worse, incompetent) to have not gotten the horny toads in on expansion LAST year, much less this year. TCU even brings really good non-revenue sports. Second is UCF, and that is an easy choice too. They have a huge TV market and an even larger (relatively) alumni base that will literally compel a great fan base over time, AND they play pretty good football. It's an obvious choice.

Past that you have guesswork. Houston, Memphis, Temple, ECU, Villanova, etc. - they ALL have major warts.

I know many if not most disagree with all of that in some way though.

(11-07-2010 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:38 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

That's just as much of an argument against "elevating" more schools from Texas, given that Texas already has 4 AQ conference schools.

Notice I didn't say AQ programs. I said consistently winning programs. TCU has proven over the past decade to be the second best winningest program in the state of Texas.

Which makes TCU a given. However, the same cannot be said of Houston.

So, what are the chances that a Houston could surpass over time a Texas Tech or a Baylor if in an AQ conference? Which is what would have to happen before it can threaten TCU for third (really second now, but I give the historical edge to A&M as second).

Now, for UCF to get ahead the first program they have to pass in the state of Florida is current member USF before they can even get to Florida, FSU and Miami. Is it any wonder USF might consider them a potential threat?

Quote:Washington, Oregon, Arizona, etc. get most of their top recruits from California even though California itself has 4 schools in the Pac-10. Oklahoma gets most of its best players from Texas even though they are competing with 4 Texas Big 12 teams for the same talent. There is more than enough football talent in any of these huge Sun Belt states, the key is just having an attractive program to sell to recruits.

Exactly, and the above dovetails into my first point which you conveniently cut out. Other schools are dipping into those three states and will continue to do so. The major difference between the states of Florida and the state of Texas is that no BE team is currently mining prospects significantly out of the state of Texas while some are in Florida.

Which again points to perhaps the BE as a whole now (not simply USF) is better off adding a Houston over adding a UCF, although I believe at this point in time UCF is perceived as being ahead of UH in the pecking order for most. Just not sure the Knights have enough support to get an invite should USF object to them.

Cheers,
Neil

All potential candidates have warts....none of us are "perfect" candidates.

(11-07-2010 12:23 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:38 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

That's just as much of an argument against "elevating" more schools from Texas, given that Texas already has 4 AQ conference schools.

Notice I didn't say AQ programs. I said consistently winning programs. TCU has proven over the past decade to be the second best winningest program in the state of Texas.

Which makes TCU a given. However, the same cannot be said of Houston.

So, what are the chances that a Houston could surpass over time a Texas Tech or a Baylor if in an AQ conference? Which is what would have to happen before it can threaten TCU for third (really second now, but I give the historical edge to A&M as second).

Now, for UCF to get ahead the first program they have to pass in the state of Florida is current member USF before they can even get to Florida, FSU and Miami. Is it any wonder USF might consider them a potential threat?

Quote:Washington, Oregon, Arizona, etc. get most of their top recruits from California even though California itself has 4 schools in the Pac-10. Oklahoma gets most of its best players from Texas even though they are competing with 4 Texas Big 12 teams for the same talent. There is more than enough football talent in any of these huge Sun Belt states, the key is just having an attractive program to sell to recruits.

Exactly, and the above dovetails into my first point which you conveniently cut out. Other schools are dipping into those three states and will continue to do so. The major difference between the states of Florida and the state of Texas is that no BE team is currently mining prospects significantly out of the state of Texas while some are in Florida.

Which again points to perhaps the BE as a whole now (not simply USF) is better off adding a Houston over adding a UCF, although I believe at this point in time UCF is perceived as being ahead of UH in the pecking order for most. Just not sure the Knights have enough support to get an invite should USF object to them.

Cheers,
Neil

People have to remember that before the season Huston QB was one of the top people listed for the Heisman but he and his back up were both injured

so huston is now using their 3rd string QB thay why they are not playing as good.

(11-07-2010 12:27 PM)Cromie Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 12:23 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:57 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 11:38 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Second while Florida, California and Texas are all great states in terms of recruiting have any of them ever produced enough talent to keep 5 top level programs winning consistently?

That's just as much of an argument against "elevating" more schools from Texas, given that Texas already has 4 AQ conference schools.

Notice I didn't say AQ programs. I said consistently winning programs. TCU has proven over the past decade to be the second best winningest program in the state of Texas.

Which makes TCU a given. However, the same cannot be said of Houston.

So, what are the chances that a Houston could surpass over time a Texas Tech or a Baylor if in an AQ conference? Which is what would have to happen before it can threaten TCU for third (really second now, but I give the historical edge to A&M as second).

Now, for UCF to get ahead the first program they have to pass in the state of Florida is current member USF before they can even get to Florida, FSU and Miami. Is it any wonder USF might consider them a potential threat?

Quote:Washington, Oregon, Arizona, etc. get most of their top recruits from California even though California itself has 4 schools in the Pac-10. Oklahoma gets most of its best players from Texas even though they are competing with 4 Texas Big 12 teams for the same talent. There is more than enough football talent in any of these huge Sun Belt states, the key is just having an attractive program to sell to recruits.

Exactly, and the above dovetails into my first point which you conveniently cut out. Other schools are dipping into those three states and will continue to do so. The major difference between the states of Florida and the state of Texas is that no BE team is currently mining prospects significantly out of the state of Texas while some are in Florida.

Which again points to perhaps the BE as a whole now (not simply USF) is better off adding a Houston over adding a UCF, although I believe at this point in time UCF is perceived as being ahead of UH in the pecking order for most. Just not sure the Knights have enough support to get an invite should USF object to them.

Cheers,
Neil

People have to remember that before the season Huston QB was one of the top people listed for the Heisman but he and his back up were both injured

so huston is now using their 3rd string QB thay why they are not playing as good.

No doubt UH's Senior QB Keenum is/was a great QB (is petitioning for a 6th year of eligibility) as both UH and UCF are now playing with True Freshmen QB's...(both doing pretty well, considering how they are true freshmen...as both are ranked in the Top 35 in Passing Efficiency: Godfrey at #21 and Piland at #34).

2010 College Football QB Ratings
http://espn.go.com/college-football/stat...0/group/80

If i would have to guess UCF gets its over Huston based of facilities and how big the school is.

Houston's freshmen didn't have the entire offseason to take snaps he's thrown into the fire.

(11-07-2010 12:35 PM)Cromie Wrote:  If i would have to guess UCF gets its over Houston based of facilities and how big the school is.

Probably so. And their academics are better as well. Doesn't mean they are the better fit in terms of football or potential in terms of basketball.

Personally, I flip/flop on them continuously. Some days I like UCF better than the Cougars, some days I prefer Houston over the Knights. That's how close I think it truly is between the two. Of course, I don't get a vote, just an opinion.

Cheers,
Neil

(11-07-2010 02:41 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 12:35 PM)Cromie Wrote:  If i would have to guess UCF gets its over Houston based of facilities and how big the school is.

Probably so. And their academics are better as well. Doesn't mean they are the better fit in terms of football or potential in terms of basketball.

Personally, I flip/flop on them continuously. Some days I like UCF better than the Cougars, some days I prefer Houston over the Knights. That's how close I think it truly is between the two. Of course, I don't get a vote, just an opinion.

Cheers,
Neil

I remember when everyone claimed that Cincinnati wouldn't get in because our academics were horrible. We ended having the best academics of the schools invited on the football side and in the upper tier of the Big East. Sometimes the numbers are better privately then publicly.

(11-07-2010 02:43 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 02:41 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(11-07-2010 12:35 PM)Cromie Wrote:  If i would have to guess UCF gets its over Houston based of facilities and how big the school is.

Probably so. And their academics are better as well. Doesn't mean they are the better fit in terms of football or potential in terms of basketball.

Personally, I flip/flop on them continuously. Some days I like UCF better than the Cougars, some days I prefer Houston over the Knights. That's how close I think it truly is between the two. Of course, I don't get a vote, just an opinion.

Cheers,
Neil

I remember when everyone claimed that Cincinnati wouldn't get in because our academics were horrible. We ended having the best academics of the schools invited on the football side and in the upper tier of the Big East. Sometimes the numbers are better privately then publicly.

Ouch!! I was one of those posters, particularly on the academics for athletes. But you schooled me on that one.

Cheers,
Neil