The new big east is underrated especially in the mountain west area. Every BCS article in those papers uses the phrase, watered-down Big East and says that the only good team is Pittsburgh. They seem to think that their best chance at a better piece of the pie is to say they are better than the Big East, but the Big East is still better. The Big East is made up of
Pittsburgh (which is taking over Pennsylvania football and is a top 25 team)
West Virginia (which has one of college football's best coaches and is improving every year)
Louisville (which has potential, is improving and has a great coach)
South Florida (which has great potential and will be better every year)
Syracuse (which made it to a BCS bowl several years ago and is talented)
Cincinnati (which will be better next year and actually won at W. Virginia)
Connecticut (which was 9-3 this year, is improving every year and beat Wake Forest 51-17)
and Rutgers (who is exceeding expectations this year and will be better next year)

Even with TCU, or Boise St., the Big East is still better and has a better market. The Big East is better than the Mountain West, Conference USA, WAC, or MAC. Instead of saying that it deserves the Big East's BCS bid, the Mountain West should like ask for something in combined with the Big East, like 2 BCS bids for all of the conference not in the Big 5.
8-)

New Big East FB underrated?Tell that to Notre Dame!!! ;D ;D

Thanks GatorGuy, we need more folks with your fine and intelligent opinions about BE football. Just hope no-one mistook your extremely well-informed and very insightful posts for satire.

Mike T,Satire?You mean,like in a joke? ;D ;D ;D

Newsflash....Rutgers just got smoked by UNH and UCONN just barely got by the worst team in the ACC. The Big Least is in more trouble than you think, especially when the team who is being kicked out of the conference has the 2nd or 3rd best strength of schedule. Truth is USF, Lous., and Cincy will not be of enough help to you to save this conference. Many years down the line folks will talk about how Mike Tranghese ruined the Big East. Just wait until the Catholic schools file out in 4 or 5 years for basketball.

Rutgers beats Michigan State and loses to New Hampshire.
Notre Dame loses to BYU and then beats Michigan.
Temple did play some tough opponents in Virginia and Maryland.
It is really still very early in the season.
Fresno State, Troy, Boise State, and Southern Miss, so far, are making statements about the BCS.

Yes Rutgers dserves the BE more than Temple.They have a real fan base and they spend and try to improve.Temple's fan base does not exist and itsspending of funds to improve is non-existent.Alone this past season Rutgetrs spent over 20 million improving its facilities.Rutger's problem is ts hc a young big mouth tyrant who cannot coach,but he he beat the owls.

I am not trying to make a case for Temple over anyone in the Big Least, we suck on so many levels and I'm well aware of that (we've still beat Rutgers 5 out of the last 7 years though). It just doesn't make any sense for the Big Least to get rid of Temple on an academic, logistical, or economic level AT THIS POINT IN TIME. Having only 8 fb playing member is ass-backwards for scheduling when you could have 9 and make it an even 8 conference games. Having Temple, who is situated in the dead middle of the new Big Least will cut down on travel and more importantly to Mikey T...TRAVEL COSTS-or MONEY. If he was so concerned about money, he wouldn't be doing this, at least not now. So where does MT's motives really lie then??? Just look at it this way; next year the 8 Big Least schools, instead of playing Temple will have to play out of conference games against teams from bigger, and much better conferences (In Rutger's case this mean the University of New Hampshire).

You say that Rutgers has made a commitment to it's facilities? Last time I checked the Owls play in an NFL stadium, they also have a football specific practice facility with new practice turf (bought with over $400,000 in donations by alumni such as myself), and they also have a potetential All American Linebacker plus the QB voted by the fans at BigEast.org to be the most exciting player in the Conference this year. They have made all of these advancements in their facilities in a matter of 6 years even though they are located in a very limited area as far as real estate goes.

The problem with Temple football lies in the current President of the University who heavily disagrees with the school's former president when it comes to 1A Football. The school's current President believes in supporting the arts and that no money's can be gained from big time Athletics.

Please don't tell me that Rutgers has a more loyal fan base than Temple. Football is about winning, when you don't win, you don't draw people or money. This program is out of the Big Least because it just doesn't win. In my opinion; continued losing over a long period of time is a great reason to dismiss a team from a conference, but don't tell me that Rutgers has any more of a right to be there than TU. Temple had a very successful program for a long, long time, they also filled various playing venues to capacity or near capacity on a weekly basis for half a century. Whether it was JFK, the Vet, or Franklin Field, they drew and more than Rutgers ever wished they could. The best thing for Temple at this point is to drop to 1-AA so they can play LaSalle and Villanova and hopefully stay competitive.

There is currently a task force at the University looking at the options for the Football program. Just think that the greediness of a few people (Mikey T) who fashion themselves leaders, educators, and do-gooders may end a tradition that spans over a century because of money. There is absolutely no way when you look at the evidence that you can argue Rutgers over Temple, it's both or none and that's the problem I have with the Big Least.
GO MIAMI, VA TECH, AND BC!!!!!

BTW: I've been to a few Rutgers games and they have no fan base. Having nothing to do on a Saturday afternoon in Central Jersey is their fan base. The Owls may have these obstacles to compete with on a Saturday afternoon:

Villanova Football
(Why would you trave from the Main Line to see Temple when VU plays in your backyard?)
Philadelphia Flyers
Philadelhia Phantoms
Philadelphia Phillies
Philadelphia 76ers
Minor League Baseball
Public League + Catholic League HS Football Games

Rutgers has:
No excuse to not have 50,000 people come see them play every Saturday.

OwlFan, do you think there are any Big East fans that have any remorse for booting a school with fans calling the conference the Big Least.

If the Big East is at the level you are stating, where does that leave bottom dweller Temple. 1AA comes to mind!

"The best thing for Temple at this point is to drop to 1-AA so they can play LaSalle and Villanova and hopefully stay competitive."

That's a quote from my earlier post.

OwlAlum,
I don't live a tremendous distance from Temple and have seen them play Penn State and Georgia (quiet a few years back) on the road. I have also visited the Temple campus. An interesting situation there.
I do think the BE Commissioner, M.T., and conference forces could have handled the the Temple situation in a more constructive way. Remember, the decision to "boot" Temple was near fully developed prior to the ACC raid on the BE conference. Basically, the BE needed to have included Temple for "all sports". Ironically, basketball has been a Temple strength. It should not have mattered Villanova was already in BE bb. So what, ever check out the distance between NC-Duke-NCSU-or even include Wake Forest for that matter? The BE was slow to include some others for bb (such as VA Tech). The BE politics that worked against inclusiveness had something to do with their vulnerability for a raid from a somewhat "peer conference" at the time. I will not rehash Miami and the State of Virginia political pressure here.

Why is Temple just now having a task force as to where their football team should go? That needed to be done at least two years ago. Temple's public relations outfit and administrative decision-making has looked horrible. Maybe Temple did not have much of a chance of getting into C-USA, but bb Coach Chaney's public comments about not wanting to leave the Atlantic 10 at a time when C-USA was considering them, was not good PR.
Which is better? Playing "all sports" in C-USA, or being football independent, but maintaining Atlantic 10 bb? Temple is no Notre Dame, not even a Navy, when it will come to surviving as a 1-A football independent.

Temple failed at lobbying for their interests and making the timely strategic moves to assure or further cultivate their conference ties. This is the responsibility of their President, AD, Board Members, etc.

Regarding Rutgers, they have had winning problems in football too. But they had a real advantage over Temple other than being the State University of New Jersey. Among other things, Rutgers has been an "all sports" BE member.

In summary, the BE could have worked with Temple better to improve their situation. Some will say the BE gave them all kinds of chances. But partial BE membership, and some conference pettiness, contributed to Temple's difficult situation. On the other hand, Temple needed to have displayed more convincingly they were making the effort. The Lincoln Field is nice, but Temple needed to have moved in the direction that their fans would be showing up there in respectable numbers. A crowd that would look more appropriate in a big high school stadium, looks odd in the VET or something equivalent.

Back towards the topic...

I saw a couple minor alarms last Saturday:

Pittsburgh hosts Nebraska, NEBRASKA, and only draws 40,133 at Heinz.

Syracuse has their home opener against soon-to-be Big East member Cincinnati, 32,893.

It's kind of a stunner when West Virginia wakes up with the largest stadium in their BCS conference, has expectations of top 10, et cetera... and it may be nitpicky to mention that they're 3-4K short of a sellout at Mountaineer twice this year, and it is West Virginia, but you'd think a lot of hype would go at least a little bit forward, no?

BTW, Temple averaged 24K per game last year, which represents their bump for year 1 of the Linc; they're looking at 17-18K per game this year to date. For all of Rutgers' recent history, they generally haven't had that problem. Of course, I could argue that the "support" rendered by the Temple administration represents a sublimated desire to end football.

Pounder, suggest you do some research on WVU attendance at both home games were sell outs.

Recent renovations at the stadium has reduced the capacity to 60,000 while adding luxury suites to generate revenue. The MD game had 60 thousand plus.
With the capacity listed at 60 thousand, looks like you are using some of that famous fuzzy math to make a point.

This is the type of mis information that irriates a lot of Big East fans.

Big East fans know very well that Miami moving to the ACC hurt the conference, however, all of this other mis leading information is un acceptable and is non factual.

If there is one thing that WVU has in its favor, support of its football program is second to none.

Same holds true for that states other major football program in Marshall.

What you choose to label as off-topic, may be seen by another as pertinent.

Temple is a member of the BE and is getting booted. It does relate directly as to whether or not the new Big East is underrrated. The move to remove them, surely is an attempt, deservingly or not, to strengthen the BE. It pertains to ATTENDANCE as you proceeded in elaborating on.