loboj Wrote:In answer to why the BE had more teams over .500 last year..it would be interesting to see who each team in each conference played.

If last year was anything like this year's BE scheduling than I think we may have our answer.

This year the BE plays 7 D1AA teams for easy wins and Buffalo 3 times. among the 8 bottom 25 teams they play.

MWC plays 6-8 bottom D1 teams and there is 1 D1AA game.

MWC-9 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

*=bottom 25 D1 teams
**= D1AA teams (anyone else think Liberty and Wofford are D2?)

New Mex St*
San Jose St*
@SMU*
Army*
Idaho*
@Utah St*
Utah St*
UL Monroe*
(8)

E Illinois**
(1)

BE-8 against bottom 25 D1 teams and D1AA teams:

UCF *
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Buffalo*
Ohio*
E Mich*
@Army*
(8)

W Carolina**
Liberty **
Florida Atl**
Youngstn St **
Villanova**
Florida A&M**
Wofford (D2?)**
(7)

Florida Atl is D 1A this year not 1AA.

<span style='color:blue'>
TexanMark, yes we know you guys were in a bit of a scheduling rut, but as I already posted at least 7 of those games were purposefully chosen instead of available alternate teams that would have actually made good games. Syracuse is the exception to your conference this year, certainly not the rule. Anyways, they have to play Notre Dame and ACC games are basically a given. And they are STILL playing Buffalo! Teams in the MWC frequently play schedules similar to that, such as BYU vs USC, Stanford, Boise State and Notre Dame last season. We'll see if SU can beat ND like we did in '04. Teams like Wyo and NM would be MUCH better for you guys, and also show how you can or cannot compare with us.

Cuseroc, the numbers are accurate, I got them from the BCS website that Maize posted. They were recorded Top 15 through 2003, and Top 25 starting in 2004. Syracuse was not ranked in the BCS in 2001. 3 losses will do that to a team. Also, Weiberg already confirmed that each team in a conference going into 2008 counts for that conference for each of the 4 years evaluated. The BCS decided that, not me. The same goes for Louisville, Boston College, UTEP, etc. That's how I did this example poll, by the new BCS system, and you guys didn't register on it. That's something that you need to fix yourselves internally. It helps that you still get your auto-bids for now, because that reflects directly on the polls (or Pitt wouldn't have been ranked AT ALL last year, but the BCS coaches needed to keep some form of credibility so they threw them into the 20's).
</span>

Quote:but as I already posted at least 7 of those games were purposefully chosen instead of available alternate teams that would have actually made good games.

No, that's not correct. You can't just say 'The Citadel vs. FSU on Sept. 10? FAMU vs. USF on Sept. 10? Let's make it USF vs. FSU!' That takes a home game away from either FSU or USF, not something you can do when trying to balance an athletic budget. The same situation goes for your other 'hypothetical scenerios.'

So no, USF did not 'purposefully choose' Florida A&M over a home game with Florida State. If they could have got the Noles to come to Tampa, believe me, they would have.

eldermars Wrote:<span style='color:blue'>
&nbsp; TexanMark, yes we know you guys were in a bit of a scheduling rut, but as I already posted at least 7 of those games were purposefully chosen instead of available alternate teams that would have actually made good games.&nbsp; Syracuse is the exception to your conference this year, certainly not the rule.&nbsp; Anyways, they have to play Notre Dame and ACC games are basically a given.&nbsp; And they are STILL playing Buffalo!&nbsp; Teams in the MWC frequently play schedules similar to that, such as BYU vs USC, Stanford, Boise State and Notre Dame last season.&nbsp; We'll see if SU can beat ND like we did in '04.&nbsp; Teams like Wyo and NM would be MUCH better for you guys, and also show how you can or cannot compare with us.

&nbsp; Cuseroc, the numbers are accurate, I got them from the BCS website that Maize posted.&nbsp; They were recorded Top 15 through 2003, and Top 25 starting in 2004.&nbsp; Syracuse was not ranked in the BCS in 2001.&nbsp; 3 losses will do that to a team.&nbsp; Also, Weiberg already confirmed that each team in a conference going into 2008 counts for that conference for each of the 4 years evaluated.&nbsp; The BCS decided that, not me.&nbsp; The same goes for Louisville, Boston College, UTEP, etc.&nbsp; That's how I did this example poll, by the new BCS system, and you guys didn't register on it.&nbsp; That's something that you need to fix yourselves internally.&nbsp; It helps that you still get your auto-bids for now, because that reflects directly on the polls (or Pitt wouldn't have been ranked AT ALL last year, but the BCS coaches needed to keep some form of credibility so they threw them into the 20's).
</span>

That thing about the bcs folks only ranking Pitt to keep credibility is only your opinion which is baseless.

Also Cuse was ranked #14 in the polls. Its too bad the bcs folks only ranked the top 15 or Cuse would have been in the top15- 20 that year.

You keep making statement that we get to keep our auto bid for now. We will always be apart of the bcs. You can count on that.
There is not anyone else thats good enough to change that.

Also its not a big deal to beat ND these days. Cuse trounced them good the last time we played in 2003. Pitt beat them at ND last year. So it doesnt mean much that BYU beat them at BYU.