CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on July 25, 2019, 02:01:14 AM
-
2003 Big East Roster:
Miami, WV, Pitt, VA Tech, BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Temple
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Big East Roster:
WV, Pitt, BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, Temple, UConn
then...
2005 Big East Roster:
WV, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Louisville, South Florida, Cincinnati
It still had the bowl tie-in, sending its champ to the Fiesta/Sugar/Orange.
This was before WV went to the XII. Was the 2004 and/or 2005 Big East champion a legit, "P5" champ?
-
Since the term P5 was created after the 2010-2014 realignments that resulted in the creation of the CFP and the 6 committee bowls, and since that realignment ultimately resulted in the Big East football conference being picked apart until all that was left was a G5 football conference, then it obviously was not a P5 conference.
The key question is the Big East considered a P5 conference today? The answer is no. So the foundation was never there to become a P5 conference. You can't be the 6th conference in a 5 conference category. You are not an Olympic athlete if you almost make the Olympic team. The Big East may have been considered for P5 membership but sorry they just didn't make the final cut.
-
WV, Pitt, Syracuse and even Rutgers were far and away better than just about anything in the G5. Louisville and Cincinnati were up-and-comers. Temple and USF were without a doubt G5 quality (at best).
So I'd say they'd be the redheaded stepchild of the P5-type conferences, as they didn't have any real "powerhouses", but still a major step up from the rest of the G5.
And while this doesn't make sense from a pure football standpoint, their prowess in basketball raised the standing of the conference significantly. It shouldn't necessarily help them in football, but in my mind, it does. They were considered a legit athletic conference, that was just much stronger in basketball than football.
Kinda like Indiana or Kansas or Duke aren't exactly P5-level football programs, but their basketball programs are strong enough that they're never in danger of getting tossed from their conferences due to lack of football prowess.
-
Yes, although technically a "BCS" Conference, and not a "P5" as already noted.
The best season was the one where the Big East and SWC simultaneously existed.
-
This is for my game, as "mid-major" teams will get a downgrade, so you don't have a Boise State team slaughtering a lower-scoring LSU-type team over half the time.
Since it's based on the actual statistics, I need to reel in the Other 5-type teams with big offenses.
-
This creates an interesting slant, though. The votes say the Big East was not in the in-crowd in terms of conference strength. Thank you for all of the voting, I really appreciate the participation.
But now I have a new question - are those programs who were P5-type before the Big East was poached and went on to become P5 again in time (WV, Pitt, BC, and Syracuse) considered less-than during those seasons? Yes, those programs suddenly found themselves in a weaker conference, but did that make those individual programs themselves fall in terms of hierarchy?
It feels wrong to deem 2005 West Virginia a mid-major like Boise or pre-PAC Utah. WV had a "P5" roster and won the Sugar Bowl that year. So can the programs be in the in-crowd despite being in a less-than conference for a few seasons?
-
I would say those programs you named retain their status.
-
Kinda like Indiana or Kansas or Duke aren't exactly P5-level football programs, but their basketball programs are strong enough that they're never in danger of getting tossed from their conferences due to lack of football prowess.
One of those is not like the other two.
It's been a long time since IU was strong in hoops.
-
I would say those programs you named retain their status.
i'd say they retain their status, but i'm not sure that status was that great to begin with.
big east was barely a bcs level conf with miami and vt. and outside of wvu, those other aren't much more than the boise/utah/tcu's of the 00's. good enough to put a good team together and win a good bowl, but not consistently.
-
Miami before Smellenburger and VT before Beamer?
-
miami didn't join be until well after snellenberger. and i didn't mean to discredit miami, they were a force well before, during, and maybe after the bigeast.
vt, on the other hand, wasn't. does no one else remember the outcry from the 99 title game, and how vt was some lowly team from a weak conference? but they had vick and were undefeated.
the bigeast just always seemed like by far the weakest of the bcs6.
-
I like it when UW gets to beat up on Miami.
-
Kinda like Indiana or Kansas or Duke aren't exactly P5-level football programs, but their basketball programs are strong enough that they're never in danger of getting tossed from their conferences due to lack of football prowess.
At one point when it seemed that the B12 might crumble it actually did appear that Kansas might find themselves without a major conference home.
Their BB program is obviously one of the true Blue Bloods but they just don't bring a lot to the table in terms of what conferences are looking for today. Ie, there aren't many eyeballs in Kansas.
-
I think there are plenty of eyeballs in Kansas, but they are all over the place. You've got KSU pulling some of them. You've got Missouri pulling some of them. I'm guessing UNL and OU pull their share too.
Realignment wasn't about hoops at all - except for the Big East - which is now a hoops conference, period.
-
miami didn't join be until well after snellenberger. and i didn't mean to discredit miami, they were a force well before, during, and maybe after the bigeast.
vt, on the other hand, wasn't. does no one else remember the outcry from the 99 title game, and how vt was some lowly team from a weak conference? but they had vick and were undefeated.
the bigeast just always seemed like by far the weakest of the bcs6.
They didn't just seem like it, they were. Even when Miami was a powerhouse, it was Maimi and not much else.
I've always thought this was a major reason for Ohio State's win in the 2003 Fiesta Bowl over Miami. Miami simply hadn't been prepared to play against a team that could hit back. That year's Miami team actually played both Florida and Florida State but the Gators and Seminoles had five losses each:
- Florida lost to Miami, a 10-3 Michigan team, a 9-5 FSU team, an 8-5 LSU team, and a 7-6 Ole Miss team. They did hand UGA their only loss, but this was still a five-loss team including three losses to teams that lost at least five games themselves.
- Florida State lost to Miami, a 13-1 UGA team, an 11-3 NCST team, a 10-3 Notre Dame team, and a 7-6 Louisville team. Their best win was either Florida (8-5 SEC) or Maryland (11-3 ACC) so they were no powerhouse either.
Each team's prior opponents ranked by record (ties broken by me at whim):
- 10-4 VaTech for Miami, 10-3 PAC Champion WSU for Ohio State
- 9-4 WVU for Miami, 10-3 Michigan for Ohio State
- 9-4 Pitt for Miami, 9-4 PSU for Ohio State
- 9-4 BC for Miami, 9-5 TxTech for Ohio State
- 9-5 FSU for Miami, 8-5 Minnesota for Ohio State
- 8-5 Florida for Miami, 8-6 Wisconsin for Ohio State
- 8-5 Tennessee for Miami, 7-6 Purdue for Ohio State
- 6-6 UCONN for Miami, 7-7 Cincinnati for Ohio State
- 4-8 Syracuse for Miami, 6-7 SJSU for Ohio State
- 4-8 Temple for Miami, 5-7 Illinois for Ohio State
- 1-11 Rutgers for Miami, 3-9 Northwestern for Ohio State
- DIAA Florida A&M for Miami, 3-9 Indiana for Ohio State
- 3-9 Kent for Ohio State (Miami had one less game)
Miami's schedule that year is just odd. They played UF, FSU, and TN out of conference but all three had five losses that year so that sounded a lot better than it actually was. They also played OOC games against weaklings UCONN and FA&M. Then they played their BigEast schedule. In theory that should have been a very strong schedule and even in reality it wasn't terrible but with UF, FSU, and UT all having a down year at the same time there really wasn't any high-end competition. Conversely, Ohio State had beaten a fellow P5 Champion (WSU) and two more P5 teams that finished at least 9-4 (M, PSU). Also, unlike VaTech (lost to a 4-8 Syracuse), FSU (lost to a 7-6 Louisville), and Florida (lost to a 7-6 Ole Miss) neither Michigan (14-0 tOSU, 11-2 IA, 10-3 ND) nor Penn State (14-0 tOSU, 11-2 IA, 10-3 M, 9-4 Auburn) had a "bad" loss.
-
I think there are plenty of eyeballs in Kansas, but they are all over the place. You've got KSU pulling some of them. You've got Missouri pulling some of them. I'm guessing UNL and OU pull their share too.
Realignment wasn't about hoops at all - except for the Big East - which is now a hoops conference, period.
You have a point about KSU, Missou, UNL, and OU pulling viewers from Kansas but that just makes a bad situation worse as far as total number of eyeballs is concerned. According to the US Census, Kansas had a population of just over 2.9 Million as of about a year ago. That ranks 35th among the 50 states behind every B1G state except for Nebraska (37th with 1.9M).
Of the B1G states, only Iowa (31st with 3.2M) and the aforementioned Nebraska are even close to Kansas. Maryland, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (19th, 20th, and 22nd with 6.0M, 5.8M, and 5.6M respectively) each have about double Kansas' population while the rest of the B1G states are all at least twice as populous with PA, IL, and OH each about 4x as populous.
B1G states by population (national rank, State, 7/1/18 US Census est):
- #5 PA, 12.8M
- #6 IL, 12.7M (two schools)
- #7 OH, 11.7M
- #10 MI, 10.0M (two schools)
- #11 NJ, 8.9M
- #17 IN, 6.7M (two schools)
- #19 MD, 6.0M
- #20 WI, 5.8M
- #22 MN, 5.6M
- #31 IA, 3.2M
- #37 NE, 1.9M
Even if none of Kansas' eyeballs were lost to other schools, there still wouldn't be very many.
-
Oh, for sure. That's the point I was trying to make. KU does nothing for football viewership.
-
KU needs Texas
-
One of those is not like the other two.
It's been a long time since IU was strong in hoops.
True, but it's a lot like Notre Dame. They don't have to prove it on the field/court until their name/jersey value drops enough that it hurts them in recruiting.
IU BB still recruits like a powerhouse, even if they haven't gone to the Final Four for almost 20 years.
-
I wish I had time to look up some statistics but the BE OOC winning percentage overall and against other BCS conferences was always very close to that of the other BCS conferences. The winning percentage for all the BCS conferences usually fell somewhere between .470 and .550. Some years the BE was last, some years it was middle of the pack.
But the point being there was a clear delineation between those 6 and the other conferences. If the BE had a .470 winning percentage against other BCS conferences then then next closest conference would come in somewhere around .333 or something like that. From 1993-2003 (before the first split) the BE was 13-5 against the SEC in that period. The Mountain West or AAC have never performed at that level.
The BE may have been the weakest BCS conference (although I think the ACC was in the running for that too) but it still performed at a level in line with the other BCS conferences.
The other thing I’ve always said in response to it being the “weakest” conference was somebody had to be. There isn’t a 5 way tie for first now and there wasn’t a 6 way tie for first then. If you line up the 10 fastest runners in the world and race them somebody is going to come in last. It doesn’t change the fact they are still one of the 10 fastest people on the planet.
-
In my mind, the ACC was the weakest overall, until they poached.
-
At one point when it seemed that the B12 might crumble it actually did appear that Kansas might find themselves without a major conference home.
Their BB program is obviously one of the true Blue Bloods but they just don't bring a lot to the table in terms of what conferences are looking for today. Ie, there aren't many eyeballs in Kansas.
Agreed. And I think it's still possible. The B12 is IMHO the conference that's going to get decimated in the next realignment. ACC/SEC/B1G are too strong, and PAC is geographically isolated.
I think that ISU, OkSU, TCU/Baylor/TTech, and probably KSU are all toast when the conference blows up. None of them are flagship schools in their own state, and most of those states are not populous enough to matter. Sure, TCU/Baylor/TTech would bring Texas, but I'm not sure that the BTN could force its way into all of Texas with just one of those schools.
If the SEC ends up with Texas/Oklahoma, though, I could see the B1G jumping on Kansas. Kansas would be an acceptable cultural fit to go along with Nebraska as Midwestern farm states, and although their football sucks, their basketball is good. They're an AAU member as well.
If the B1G were to gain Texas/Oklahoma, I don't see a cultural or geographical fit where either the ACC or SEC would want Kansas. It's too northern, too Midwestern, for either conference.
-
Definitely a conundrum. I could see the B1G making a run at Virginia and Missouri in the next round of chaos. The SEC takes Texas and OU, and poaches VT or NC State from the ACC to make up for Missouri.
-
In response to @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and @847badgerfan (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5) , I could potentially see the B1G deciding to go after OU and Texas but I don't think that either Mizzou or Kansas would be on our radar.
Mizzou practically begged the B1G for an invite before joining the SEC and we didn't make the offer. I have thought, ever since then, that the long-term plan for the B1G was to add something like UVA* and UNC. I think that Texas/OU would trump that, but otherwise, I think we are waiting for the right time to get UVA*/UNC.
One reason is population. This one is simple. NC and VA are ranked 9th and 12th respectively with 10.4M and 8.5M people.
The second reason is population growth. None of the B1G states are growing very fast. Census estimated growth from 2000 to 2018 for B1G states:
- 5.8% MN
- 5.6% NE
- 4.7% MD
- 3.6% IA
- 3.2% IN
- 2.2% WI
- 1.3% OH
- 1.3% NJ
- 1.1% MI
- 0.8% PA
- -0.7% IL
North Carolina (8.9%) and Virginia (6.5%) are both growing faster than any B1G states.
The third reason, and I think the reason we wanted UMD is proximity to DC. Years ago most research money came from the private sector. I'm sure that a lot of Michigan's hefty endowment is a legacy of being the closest major research institution to the HQ's of the Big Three US Automakers in Detroit. In our modern era most of the research money comes from the Government rather than the private sector so having schools close to Washington is advantageous.
The fourth reason is that while Texas is a great school, Oklahoma isn't. UVA* and UNC are both great schools.
*UVA: I think that you could replace "UVA*" with "VaTech" throughout this post. I think that the B1G would prefer UVA mostly because Charlottesville is about 150 mi closer to DC (116mi by car vs 269).
-
Definitely a conundrum. I could see the B1G making a run at Virginia and Missouri in the next round of chaos. The SEC takes Texas and OU, and poaches VT or NC State from the ACC to make up for Missouri.
I think it's hard. I see the next step going to 16. And the problem is that there's not enough schools to go around without poaching.
But these conferences are IMHO too strong right now to see it being easy to poach. I think Virginia and Missouri are quite comfortable with their conferences. I think we partly got Maryland because at the time there was a lot more concern that the ACC would be in trouble, but now that they have 14 members and significant media rights, I don't think anyone is looking to jump ship.
So my initial thought is that there won't be any poaching. The only potential poaching I could see is if the B1G can make a compelling offer to Notre Dame to join in all sports, since they're not a true football member of the ACC. Which is IMHO only halfway poaching. But I also think that if the dominoes start to fall this way, the ACC will put a HARD press on Notre Dame to become a full-fledged member and add football.
If there's no poaching, and Texas/OU go to the SEC, I see Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC. I see the B1G taking Kansas because they're the only team in the B12 that I think fits.
That means each conference needs one more school. WVU would fit into either conference from an athletic standpoint, but I think the academics may not fit either.
-
I have thought, ever since then, that the long-term plan for the B1G was to add something like UVA* and UNC. I think that Texas/OU would trump that, but otherwise, I think we are waiting for the right time to get UVA*/UNC.
My argument is that I don't know that we could entice UVA/UNC to leave the ACC, given its strength. In 2012/2013, when it was looking like the ACC was threatened, sure. They're both founding members, and I can't see UNC wanting to leave a conference they share with Duke unless the writing was on the wall that the conference was in dire straits.
I could see us having a better chance getting non-flagship schools like VaTech or NCSU, but I think the B1G probably only wants to add flagship schools at this point.
-
In my mind, the ACC was the weakest overall, until they poached.
I wish I had time to look up some statistics but the BE OOC winning percentage overall and against other BCS conferences was always very close to that of the other BCS conferences. The winning percentage for all the BCS conferences usually fell somewhere between .470 and .550. Some years the BE was last, some years it was middle of the pack.
But the point being there was a clear delineation between those 6 and the other conferences. If the BE had a .470 winning percentage against other BCS conferences then then next closest conference would come in somewhere around .333 or something like that. From 1993-2003 (before the first split) the BE was 13-5 against the SEC in that period. The Mountain West or AAC have never performed at that level.
The BE may have been the weakest BCS conference (although I think the ACC was in the running for that too) but it still performed at a level in line with the other BCS conferences.
The other thing I’ve always said in response to it being the “weakest” conference was somebody had to be. There isn’t a 5 way tie for first now and there wasn’t a 6 way tie for first then. If you line up the 10 fastest runners in the world and race them somebody is going to come in last. It doesn’t change the fact they are still one of the 10 fastest people on the planet.
i could see an argument for acc, but they were a step above bigeast, imo.
bigeast miami, acc has fsu, which were basically a wash. slight edge to miami/bigeast at time.
but clemson/gt/unc/ncst/uva/duke, are/were better than bc/vt/cuse/etc.
bigeast also had a strong presence of non-football members. i know most/all conf have some, but they had big names that just gave credence that the bigeast wasn't that into football as the rest of the big boys.
also, just because there is a line differentiating one conf from others doesn't mean they belong in the next step up. if i'm not mistaken, the aac, which has a lot of former bigeast members, is better record wise than the other g5 teams by a considerable margin. but i don't think many people would consider putting them on par with the p5 confs.
maybe i am being a little too harsh here. i don't think they were a g5 conf, or whatever the equivalent is/was. maybe somewhere in between.
-
i could see an argument for acc, but they were a step above bigeast, imo.
bigeast miami, acc has fsu, which were basically a wash. slight edge to miami/bigeast at time.
but clemson/gt/unc/ncst/uva/duke, are/were better than bc/vt/cuse/etc.
bigeast also had a strong presence of non-football members. i know most/all conf have some, but they had big names that just gave credence that the bigeast wasn't that into football as the rest of the big boys.
also, just because there is a line differentiating one conf from others doesn't mean they belong in the next step up. if i'm not mistaken, the aac, which has a lot of former bigeast members, is better record wise than the other g5 teams by a considerable margin. but i don't think many people would consider putting them on par with the p5 confs.
maybe i am being a little too harsh here. i don't think they were a g5 conf, or whatever the equivalent is/was. maybe somewhere in between.
What’s your objective measure for stating those ACC schools you listed were better than the BE schools you listed? VT was actually head and shoulders above any of the ACC teams you listed during its time in the BE. Syracuse and BC were performing as good if not better than the schools you listed (throwing Duke in there is a complete joke). During the time they were in the BE VT, Syracuse, and BC were a combined 17-14 against ACC schools.
-
Definitely a conundrum. I could see the B1G making a run at Virginia and Missouri in the next round of chaos. The SEC takes Texas and OU, and poaches VT or NC State from the ACC to make up for Missouri.
I think the SEC would prefer this, and initiate it if it could, lol. I know for sure Texas and VT are better than Mizzou academically and all 3 (w/ OU) are leaps and bounds better in football.
-
But back on topic - I personally consider the Big East programs that remained after being poached by the ACC and found new homes in the XII or ACC 8 years later to be P5-level programs. I can't view Pitt or WV or BC or Syracuse as mid-majors or Other5 programs, even in that compromised, weaker Big East.
I think most of you agree with that. Now, what about Louisville? They hopped into the poached Big East, had a 12-1 season, and eventually found themselves in the ACC. UL obviously made the jump from Other5 to Power5, but when did that occur? Was it when they joined the poached Big East (2005), played against Pitt, WV, BC, and SU every year, or were they still Other5 until they joined the ACC in 2014?
(UL spent a year in the American after the Big East died and before joining the ACC)
-
I think Louisville was mid major at the time. I don't put them in the same class as Pitt, BC, VaTech, etc.
-
Temple sure had a wild ride. They were an inaugural Big East FB member, with BCS status. Then they got kicked out of the Big East for sucking, and replaced with FCS UConn. Then after kicking azz in the Mac for a few years they were promoted back to the Big East to replace Rutgers or WV or some such, then like a year or two later they had the BCS/P5 rug pulled out from under them once again when the FB Conference got ejected from the Big East, and became the American.
-
But back on topic - I personally consider the Big East programs that remained after being poached by the ACC and found new homes in the XII or ACC 8 years later to be P5-level programs. I can't view Pitt or WV or BC or Syracuse as mid-majors or Other5 programs, even in that compromised, weaker Big East.
I think most of you agree with that. Now, what about Louisville? They hopped into the poached Big East, had a 12-1 season, and eventually found themselves in the ACC. UL obviously made the jump from Other5 to Power5, but when did that occur? Was it when they joined the poached Big East (2005), played against Pitt, WV, BC, and SU every year, or were they still Other5 until they joined the ACC in 2014?
(UL spent a year in the American after the Big East died and before joining the ACC)
I thought UL earned its stripes as a P5 (or P6) team in 2006 when they went 12-1 and won what was actually a pretty tough BE that season. UL, WVU, and Rutgers all finished in the top 12 in the country. USF was 9-4, Cincinnati was 8-5. The 2006 season is also another indicator that the BE was playing at a level commiserate with the rest of the BCS conferences. Anyone know the BE OOC record against other BCS conferences was that season? 13-6. Without looking it up that was probably the best among the BCS conferences that season. Does that mean it was the best? Of course not, but it was playing at a level that it showed those teams belonged in that grouping.
The last two seasons the AAC has went 7-13 and 8-15 against other P5 schools (this includes games against ND and BYU). The AAC is the best of the G5 conferences but it has never had a year where it had a winning record in those type of OOC games. Now, could the AAC build to that if it were granted the privileges of a power conference? Idk, maybe. But right now it isn’t performing at the level the BE was during the time it was a conference.
-
Funny you mention BYU....they're a mid-major by all the things we've discussed.....but seem like maybe more than that. The Lavell Edwards tenure, the NC, the brand name....but I have no problem chalking them up as an Other5-type of program.
This Louisville thing is going to bother me. I need to figure it out.
-
I think Louisville was mid major at the time. I don't put them in the same class as Pitt, BC, VaTech, etc.
I'm leaning towards this, with UL 'becoming' P5 when they joined the ACC.
-
Temple sure had a wild ride. They were an inaugural Big East FB member, with BCS status. Then they got kicked out of the Big East for sucking, and replaced with FCS UConn. Then after kicking azz in the Mac for a few years they were promoted back to the Big East to replace Rutgers or WV or some such, then like a year or two later they had the BCS/P5 rug pulled out from under them once again when the FB Conference got ejected from the Big East, and became the American.
Luckily, their best season in the past 47 years was in 1979, so for a customer of my game who is a Temple fanatic (I'm sure there'll be dozens), they can have that year's team.
-
Really though, with all the realignment that has transpired since the Big East got going, and there has been a lot, the only net change with regards to P5 status is that Louisville, Utah and TCU have been promoted, while Temple has been demoted. Aside from the Owls, all of the original Big East FB members are currently in P5 Conferences. The ones that didn't make the cut were all added down the stretch, starting with UConn, then Cincy, USF, etc.
-
Temple was in the Big East for football originally because there were basically no alternatives. They had no fanbase, no primary stadium (they used to split games between Franklin Field and Veteran's Stadium), and of course they weren't good. A lot of people thought they should just drop the program by the time they were kicked out and joined the MAC for football..... More recently, of course, they've had some good teams, they have some fan support, and even hosted GameDay for the Notre Dame game they had a few years ago.... They've been trying to get their own stadium, but apparently that effort has stalled.
-
So do you guys think it's weird to consider the Big East veterans as P5 and Louisville non-P5 during the years they were together in the Big East in retrospect? I know it's uber-inconsistent, but the arguments are sound.
-
Yes. Quite weird.
-
la ville doesn't' belong
-
I dunno. I think it’s kinda weird to consider Louisville a non power conference school in a season they won what was considered a power conference and finished in the top 10. To me, I’d put UL as a P5 starting in 2005.
When are TCU and Utah getting P5 distinction in your game?
-
I dunno. I think it’s kinda weird to consider Louisville a non power conference school in a season they won what was considered a power conference and finished in the top 10. To me, I’d put UL as a P5 starting in 2005.
When are TCU and Utah getting P5 distinction in your game?
They're more cut-and-dry, as they didn't join a poached conference.
TCU joined the XII in 2012, so that's when they are considered P5 in my game. So even when they were good before that, it was in a weak conference, and get deducted the penalty.
Utah joined the PAC in 2011, so that's when they became a P5 program. Same deal.
The penalty for being a mid-major in my game is downgrading the defense 2 levels (so a very good run defense, which would be -4 yds is now -2). Also, on offense, their first TD and FG don't count. If they never attempt a FG, then that doesn't come into play. But they're motivated to score, so that their next score will go up on the scoreboard.
So basically its around a 1-yard per attempt penalty vs the run and 1.5 vs the pass (plus 1.5% less likely to get an INT). And up to a 10-point penalty on offense.
-
So I'm actually just now editing the 2010 cards, which is the year TCU went undefeated and finished #2 behind Auburn.
TCU was 4th in scoring offense and had the #1 scoring defense in the country. But its SOS was 81st. With their strong offense and great defense, it'd be possible they'd wreck everyone else from that season, based solely on the stats.
That's not realistic. That TCU team could beat anyone from the top 10 that year, but shouldn't/wouldn't dominate everyone..
#1 Auburn faced the 9th-hardest schedule, and #3 Oregon's SOS was 2nd. No matter how good TCU actually was, their schedule just wasn't on the same plane as the P5 types.
-
They're more cut-and-dry, as they didn't join a poached conference.
TCU joined the XII in 2012, so that's when they are considered P5 in my game. So even when they were good before that, it was in a weak conference, and get deducted the penalty.
Utah joined the PAC in 2011, so that's when they became a P5 program. Same deal.
The penalty for being a mid-major in my game is downgrading the defense 2 levels (so a very good run defense, which would be -4 yds is now -2). Also, on offense, their first TD and FG don't count. If they never attempt a FG, then that doesn't come into play. But they're motivated to score, so that their next score will go up on the scoreboard.
So basically its around a 1-yard per attempt penalty vs the run and 1.5 vs the pass (plus 1.5% less likely to get an INT). And up to a 10-point penalty on offense.
TCU actually did join a poached conference but I get your overall point. I would personally put UL in as power conference team starting in 2005 but I get the other side of the argument.
-
Yes. Quite weird.
Indeed.
But at the same time, considering West Virginia as "less than" for a 7-year stretch seems weird, too.
-
TCU actually did join a poached conference but I get your overall point. I would personally put UL in as power conference team starting in 2005 but I get the other side of the argument.
Well poached....but the Big East was beheaded. Nebraska and CU had gone 10 years since their last major bowl when they left the XII.
So if UL makes the grade starting in 2005, then so too does South Florida, Cincinnati, and UConn?
-
Well poached....but the Big East was beheaded. Nebraska and CU had gone 10 years since their last major bowl when they left the XII.
So if UL makes the grade starting in 2005, then so too does South Florida, Cincinnati, and UConn?
Yeah, for me they would. I wouldn’t overthink it. If they were technically in a power conference I would make them power teams. Otherwise, you have this weird thing happening where teams like UL in 2006, Cincy in 2008 and ‘09, and UConn in 2010 aren’t considered P5 teams but played and won and competed in a conference with other teams you are designating as P5. Again, I’ll point out that the BE wasn’t getting slaughtered against P5 OOC competition. They were competing at a level commiserate with what the other P5 leagues were doing.
You mentioned before TCU being dominant but doing it against a SOS of 81. You know what Louisville’s was in 2006 when they went 12-1?
14th. By your standard they had 7 wins over P5 teams that season. Can you find others examples besides these BE teams from 2005-2011 where G5 teams were posting that many wins over P5 teams?
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other?date=2006-12-25
-
I'm with you, but look at the poll results.
This is something I want to mesh with potential customers, not simply what I think is best. The problem is that most of us seem to also consider those Big East teams that weren't poached as P5-level individually.
-
What’s your objective measure for stating those ACC schools you listed were better than the BE schools you listed? VT was actually head and shoulders above any of the ACC teams you listed during its time in the BE. Syracuse and BC were performing as good if not better than the schools you listed (throwing Duke in there is a complete joke). During the time they were in the BE VT, Syracuse, and BC were a combined 17-14 against ACC schools.
not much objective measuring going on. mostly subjective opinions. the most objective measure would probably be the histories of the programs, but that still has some subjectivity.
fwiw, duke shouldn't have been listed. and those acc schools, minus duke, were 42-36-1 vs bigeast, and that includes clemson's abysmal 1-6, but i included them because they were/are a traditionally good fb school.
EDIT: just for info, i looked up those acc schools vs those be schools while they were be schools, and the acc schools were 24-17, again including clemson's abysmal 0-4 record. vt is the only team keeping this close, btw, having 10 of those 17 wins to only 6 losses (all to uva, interestingly).
(i could have miscounted, but this should be close)
-
not much objective measuring going on. mostly subjective opinions. the most objective measure would probably be the histories of the programs, but that still has some subjectivity.
fwiw, duke shouldn't have been listed. and those acc schools, minus duke, were 42-36-1 vs bigeast, and that includes clemson's abysmal 1-6, but i included them because they were/are a traditionally good fb school.
EDIT: just for info, i looked up those acc schools vs those be schools while they were be schools, and the acc schools were 24-17, again including clemson's abysmal 0-4 record. vt is the only team keeping this close, btw, having 10 of those 17 wins to only 6 losses (all to uva, interestingly).
(i could have miscounted, but this should be close)
42-36-1. I think it’s pretty safe to say those schools had much better records against the likes of the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. And that was really my point. I’m not arguing the BE was better than the ACC or vice versa. I don’t care if anyone thinks the BE was the 6th best conference in those days. It probably was. My point was the BE OOC performance was always much closer to the P5 conferences than the G5 conferences. Some years it was 4th or 5th and some years like 2006 it was leading the way. I can never remember the Mountain West or AAC or any other G5 conference posting a 13-6 mark against P5 conferences.
I know the old saying “perception is reality” but honestly sometimes it isn’t.
-
Kris, you have made good points. I think I voted that the post-realignment BE was not a major conference, but you have converted me to the other PoV.
-
I agree about the very fine points
Louisville may have a better record than Nebraska since 2000, but so does Toledo and Northern Illinois
I just can't get behind South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Toledo and Northern Illinois
-
I agree about the very fine points
Louisville may have a better record than Nebraska since 2000, but so does Toledo and Northern Illinois
I just can't get behind South Florida, Cincinnati, UConn, Toledo and Northern Illinois
I'm more comfortable having the remaining Big East teams + Louisville and these teams you listed being "in" rather than leaving them all out. It's only for a set number of years anyway.
Thanks for the help, fellas.
-
I really enjoyed watching Cincinnati make the most of it, winning 4 Big East Titles in 5 years.
They have only mustered 1 AAC Title since, and it was Tommy Tuberville, who otherwise had a pretty rough go of it in the Queen City.
-
42-36-1. I think it’s pretty safe to say those schools had much better records against the likes of the MAC, CUSA, Sun Belt, etc. And that was really my point. I’m not arguing the BE was better than the ACC or vice versa. I don’t care if anyone thinks the BE was the 6th best conference in those days. It probably was. My point was the BE OOC performance was always much closer to the P5 conferences than the G5 conferences. Some years it was 4th or 5th and some years like 2006 it was leading the way. I can never remember the Mountain West or AAC or any other G5 conference posting a 13-6 mark against P5 conferences.
I know the old saying “perception is reality” but honestly sometimes it isn’t.
they were better than the "other 5" or whatever. but, imo, they were a clear step down from the p5 too. somewhere in the middle. i don't have thebobs site to look again, and maybe i'm mis-remembering, but we've had numerous "best conf" discussions ever since i've been a part of this board, and i think it always had the bigeast lingering in between the p5 and g5. p5 generally have a .45-.5 record vs each other, and a >.75 record vs everyone else. while g5 usually have a .3-.35 vs p5 and .55-.6 vs everyone else. i might be mistaken, but it always seemed like the bigeast was just behind the p5 and above the g5.
maybe i'm being too harsh. i just don't remember being impressed with the bigeast much more than i am the aac right now (which is a pretty good conf, btw) or the mwc a few years back with tcu and utah. bigeast always just seemed like a collection of good, not great teams, with no major players sans miami. all the other p5/bcs confs seemed to have multiple big hitters or at least historical big hitters. looking back, maybe acc wasn't much ahead of them though.
-
they were better than the "other 5" or whatever. but, imo, they were a clear step down from the p5 too. somewhere in the middle. i don't have thebobs site to look again, and maybe i'm mis-remembering, but we've had numerous "best conf" discussions ever since i've been a part of this board, and i think it always had the bigeast lingering in between the p5 and g5. p5 generally have a .45-.5 record vs each other, and a >.75 record vs everyone else. while g5 usually have a .3-.35 vs p5 and .55-.6 vs everyone else. i might be mistaken, but it always seemed like the bigeast was just behind the p5 and above the g5.
maybe i'm being too harsh. i just don't remember being impressed with the bigeast much more than i am the aac right now (which is a pretty good conf, btw) or the mwc a few years back with tcu and utah. bigeast always just seemed like a collection of good, not great teams, with no major players sans miami. all the other p5/bcs confs seemed to have multiple big hitters or at least historical big hitters. looking back, maybe acc wasn't much ahead of them though.
I’ll have to carve out time to research it but, yeah, your perception is wrong on that. The BE OOC numbers were always much more in line with the other power conferences than the G5’s. The problem, which you alluded to, was the names of the schools.
-
they were better than the "other 5" or whatever. but, imo, they were a clear step down from the p5 too. somewhere in the middle. i don't have thebobs site to look again, and maybe i'm mis-remembering, but we've had numerous "best conf" discussions ever since i've been a part of this board, and i think it always had the bigeast lingering in between the p5 and g5. p5 generally have a .45-.5 record vs each other, and a >.75 record vs everyone else. while g5 usually have a .3-.35 vs p5 and .55-.6 vs everyone else. i might be mistaken, but it always seemed like the bigeast was just behind the p5 and above the g5.
maybe i'm being too harsh. i just don't remember being impressed with the bigeast much more than i am the aac right now (which is a pretty good conf, btw) or the mwc a few years back with tcu and utah. bigeast always just seemed like a collection of good, not great teams, with no major players sans miami. all the other p5/bcs confs seemed to have multiple big hitters or at least historical big hitters. looking back, maybe acc wasn't much ahead of them though.
Big East OOC records from 2005-2011.
vs. G5/FCS- 146-20 (.879)
vs. P5- 63-75 (.456). This includes games against Notre Dame as well.
I didn’t look at the BE in 2004 (before UL, USF, and Cincy joined, BC’s last season) or 2012 (after WVU left and Temple came back for one season) just because they were weird, one off seasons for the league. But once the league gained some stability for those 7 seasons after the departures it performed at a P5 level even if the schools doing it weren’t historically thought of as P5 schools.
I promise if you if you compare these numbers to other leagues during this time you will find they have much more in common with the P5’s than the G5’s and I don’t think they would be a “clear step” down from them. If memory serves the ACC would come in around .470 or .480 while the closest G5 (Mountain West?) would be somewhere around .31-.330. I added these numbers manually because I couldn’t find bobs website. So if they aren’t 100% accurate it’s just error on my part but it would just change a couple games at most either way.
-
Think the BE for much of the 00s was better than the ACC. The arguable marquee team at the time, WVU, if you look at their record back in RR days just obliterated teams in non-con and won their major bowl games (the teams that gave WVU trouble were always in conference). The other good teams also took their fair share of scalps in non-con as well. UL was very good for stretches, Pitt and Cincy fielded good teams, RU stepped it up a bit, USF was once ranked in the top 5.
side topic: maybe leaving was eventually inevitable w/ conf realignment kicked up to 11 at the time but I still think Miami leaving for the ACC really more than anything dropped the hammer on their football program and they haven't recovered (won't?).
In the I-95 corridor as a BE team from DC to Boston they were (while not universally loved) every bit as popular as ND was/is there. Now they are just an also-ran in the southeast's basketball division. A L to FSU or say another top 10 non-con never mattered because they could still win the conference w/ a 10-2, 11-1 record and go to a major bowl, stay relevant/ranked high and easily obtain talent. With the conference being small and admittedly not the strongest, they could also easily regroup after sanctions/down years as well. Today a loss to Clemson or FSU even though they play in other division pretty much sinks them even if they are good. The major media markets don't pay attention anymore because they are avg and they aren't travelling up to the NE 4-5 times a year anymore.
They ruled the conference. Playing Miami was a huge event and the national media always covered it. These days WVU gets Oklahoma and Texas. VT, SU, BC, Pitt get #1 Clemson or FSU on their schedule. However (even if Miami wasn't ranked top 5) I think all of those fanbases will say the atmosphere and hype for the likes of Clemson and Oklahoma were not anything like the Miami game. And sure yes Miami is on the sched but its miami, not MIAMI.
-
What is really interesting about the BE is that from a performance perspective the league probably did better after the initial split in 2003.
Rutgers, WVU, and Pitt were all better programs after the split than before and not just because the league supposedly got easier. There was no historically awful team like Temple to bring the numbers down. Miami was really good at the start and end of their run in the BE but pretty meh in between those years. USF, UConn, Cincinnati and UL all came in and performed well above their historical reputations.
The perception of the league is probably better during the 90s but record wise it was probably the post split years that were the best.
-
those wvu teams with pat white were fun to watch. hard to believe it's been that long ago.
-
I loved when they smacked UGA in the Sugar Bowl.