Troubling...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=1948624

Also did anyone else notice that USF was bowl-ineligible throughout its C-USA tenure (i.e. the last two seasons) and that Cincinnati is well, Cincinnati...

Wait, so the BIG EAST can vouch for their BCS standing using the aggregate five-year accomplishments of two former members, the relative merits of one season by another future member, and all the while tout Cincinnati and South Florida?

The BE is going to have to hope that Louisville can step it up against non-BE members or the BE is going to get kicked out for having a bunch of mid major programs.

Pitt is in the BCS for the same reason that Auburn, USC, Va Tech, Oklahoma, and Michigan due to winning a BCS conference championship.

If you guys and the ABC/ESPN sports do not like it, I suggest you find another sport.

Please change this thread to why do you guys keep whining?

Note the word "then" at the end of the subject line, read the article attached to the link provided, and then wonder why Louisville wasn't substituted as the BIG EAST's 2004 BCS representative...

The Big East is truly the NFC (minus Philly) of college FB this year. Rules are rules, however. If, say, the Rams or Panthers should somehow win the NFC playoffs, they'd be allowed to play in the Super Bowl. So should Pitt (I still can't get used to Pittsburgh) be allowed into the BCS.

Granted, upon further review, the linked article seems somewhat meaningless and redundant, as the BCS selection criteria will change after the 2005 season and the "BIG EAST rule" referred to therein might lapse in the process...

That being said, if Louisville's 2004 BCS ranking (as a member of C-USA) is going to be aggregated into the four-year average of BIG EAST, why aren't the 2001-2003 BCS rankings of former member Miami going to be vacated by the BIG EAST and aggregated into the four-year average of the ACC?

Also, note that ESPN compiled and published this pro-BIG EAST propaganda piece that looks like it was ghostwritten by an SID...

Also, is it just me or does it appear as though the BIG EAST just made Louisville their b-i-t-c-h...LOUISVILLE!

The article is correct when it suggests that politics are making a mess of the whole thing.

However, when it suggests that 8-3 makes Pitt a mid-major among bowl aspirants, I refer you to 8-3 Purdue going to the Rose Bowl in 2001 & 8-3 Stanford going to the Rose Bowl in 2000. Mid-majors also?

Yes.

Arguably these were merely isolated "down" years of the Pac-10, Big Ten, and ACC, respectively. The problem is that the BIG EAST of 2005 is still a relatively unproven commodity in terms of annual track record. Let's look at the BIG EAST teams that theoretically would have been eligible for an at-large berth to the BCS and/or played in a "BCS" bowl in the last twenty-five years...

Louisville: 1990(?) and 2004
Pittsburgh: 1979-1983
Syracuse: 1987, 1992
West Virginia: 1982, 1988, 1993



(well in the last twenty years). Louisville probably would have been "Top 12" in 1990 as it was this year.

I should have been a little bit more careful with my wording, as I should have said "BIG EAST teams that theoretically would have been eligible for an at-large berth to the BCS and/or played in a 'BCS' bowl AS AN AT-LARGE SELECTION in the last twenty-five years..."

Louisville: 1990* and 2004
Pittsburgh: 1979-1983
Syracuse: 1987, 1992
West Virginia: 1982, 1988, 1993

Obviously if you were to factor in Notre Dame (1980, 1987-1995, 1998, 2000, 2002) things would look a lot different...

The big east football conference and the big east conference are only connect in name.

Notre Dame is happy to be in a very good big east conference.

No way, OTOH, will they ever be a part of the pathetic big east football conference.


Lash, quit pretending that "this is just the way things are" as if nothing can be done about.

The people demand that the mid major BE not be in the BCS anymore, and they *will* have their way.

How about more "isolated down years" by other 3-loss BCS conference champions in recent years:

2001 -LSU (9-3)
2002 - Florida State (9-4)
2003 - Kansas State (11-3)

Why not agree on a play-off system in which no one gets an automatic bid? You seem to be arguing that a 3-loss team is okay as long as it represents "an isolated down year" for the conference. Either 3-loss conference champions are okay or they're not.

You also seem to be under the mistaken notion that this system is designed to get the best or most deserving teams into the top bowls. It's not. It's designed to bring together the schools that will generate the most interest & therefore the most revenue.

Thanks, but I already mentioned Florida State 2002. LSU 2001 and Kansas State 2003 won conference championship games over teams that were 10-1 and 12-0, respectively...all I will say is that I have never been a big fan of the conference championship games and that all for all intents and purposes, these were "isolated" occurrences. Pittsburgh finished 8-3, loses any semblance of a legitimate tie-breaker to 6-5 Syracuse, and didn't beat a one-loss or undefeated team to make its way into the BCS (wait, how many losses did Furman have?)...

Yeah but who did Pitt even play in the top 10?! Let alone beat.

IE K State beat #1 Oklahoma in the BXII champ game to get in.

Pitt backed in after beat just enough mid major teams in the BE.