Read Bleacher Fan’s argument that the Big East does deserve an automatic bid to a BCS bowl game, and Loyal Homer’s argument that the conference does not.
Does everyone remember their SAT analogies? Let’s try one. Orange is to fruit what lettuce is to… ? Yup, vegetables. Very good. Here’s another one. The Big East Conference is to football what Crystal Pepsi is to cola. Er, was.
Recent history has not been kind to Big East football. It all began in 2004 when the University of Miami and Virginia Tech decided to leave the confines of the Big East for greener pastures in the Atlanta Coast Conference. Once a proud conference boasting 16 teams (only eight participate in football) and consistent college football relevance, the migration of those two powerhouses, followed by solid Boston College in 2005, has ripped the conference’s football guts out. The Big East was forced to turn to football poor Conference USA to make up for the lost teams, bringing in Louisville, University of South Florida, and Cincinnati.
The mark of a great football team – and by extension a great conference – is how well they perform in pressure-filled road games. In each of the last four years, only one football program in the entire conference has a winning road record. One. That team is West Virginia with an impressive 11-3 road record (though it remains to be seen how well they’ll do without Pat White under center). In fact, only four schools (five seasons in total) have had just one winning season in the last four years. Unimpressive.
There are little talking points that media guide aficionados will use to claim the Big East has maintained its football relevance in 2009. Items like the fact that Pittsburgh is returning 15 starters. But, Cincinnati is returning only one starter on defense (and they are not returning their defensive coordinator, either). Syracuse has had 14 scholarship players defect since new coach Doug Marrone arrived, forcing many freshman and inexperienced players into high profile roles in the coming season. I could go on…
While the past four years have been tough, signs point to another struggle this year for Big East football.
Which brings us today’s question: Does the Big East still deserve an automatic conference BCS bowl bid?
Bleacher Fan will argue that the Big East is still one of the six best college football conferences and deserving of their automatic BCS bowl bid.
Loyal Homer will argue that the BCS has lost their legitimate right to an automatic conference BCS bowl bid.
Apologies to our friends in upstate New York and Big East country. But, this is worth debating only because of how the Big East has played in the last four years. Even you have to admit they’ve been awful.
Good luck to the debaters. I hope neither of you “pulls a Big East.”
Of course they do. I challenge you to watch any Big East game this year. The teams are always extremely competitive against each other and the games are always exciting. I happen to be a Rutgers alumna and bought season tickets because of their last four years’ performances. The Rutgers – Louisville rivalry is so intense that tickets are already onsale for $200 on stubhub – thats like 4x their face value. In my opinion, the Big East is extremely underrated and they definitely deserve an automatic BCS bid.
Interesting comment, Jay. Curious, though – all schools have a small group of very loyal, passionate fans. The BCS is supposed to be a consortium of that best of the best teams regardless of conference. Do you feel that the conference’s best team is on the same level as the other power conferences?
While last year was a definitely a set back, I think West Virginia in 2005, 2006 & 2007 were every bit as good as anyone in the country. And Louisville in 2006 was outstanding as well. Every conference has good and bad years. 2008 was a bad year – no doubt! But the Big East Champ from 2005-2007 was without question on par with other BCS league champs. 2009 is a transition year for WVU but I wouldn’t call them down and out – they’ll once again challenge for the league crown and would have to be considered the early favorite. Cinci returns a lot of offensive power from last season’s BE Championship team. And Pitt, UConn and Rutgers are all intriguing as we enter 2009. It is a wide open year and it should be a fun one to watch.
I agree on West Virginia and that the Big East will be a closely contested conference this season. I’m not sure they’ll be a competitive conference with the other BCS conference winners.
Do you think the lack of a dominant team, or the spread out nature of the conference also impacts how the Big East is thought on at a national level?
The big east isnt bad, every top conference has its ups and downs. They are going to turn it around. Check out this post on the big east, it’s pretty neat. http://thematadorsports.com/blog/?p=239
Hi Jason, you mention in your post on your site that the Big East is an even conference, but they are even to each other, not to the other competition in the Big East. What makes you convinced they can turn it around? Recruiting has not been solid, star players are leaving the conference, not emerging. What makes you think it will be a good year for them?
I’m curious why you think the Big East is any worse off than the ACC or Big 10? The Big East is 3-1 in BCS Bowls over the past four years. Meanwhile, the ACC is 1-3 and once mighty Big Ten is 2-5. Additionally, the Big East has finished with at least one team in the Top 10 in three of those four years and in 2006 finished with two. So it bafffles me why this question continues to surface concerning the Big East but critics turn a blind eye to the horrid football that has been played in the Big Ten and ACC over this same period of time.
Hi Sal, thanks for the comment.
It is a relevant topic for a variety of reasons, and I agree that the ACC is worth taking on in a similar fashion. But, arguing that the ACC is also bad does not make sense. One conference being bad does not legitimize another conference being bad.
The Big East is an eight team conference with no dominant team. The lack of a dominant team does not speak to the balance of talent in the conference, rather the “average” nature of the entire conference. The NEO-Big East has yet to develop a good reputation, making it open for legitimate criticism.
Looking just at the AP poll, the Big East has had a team finishing in the top 10 only five times in the last five years, with a total absence last year. That is not top-conference performance. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/rankingsindex?seasonYear=2008
Frankly, it’s responsible to shed light on topics like this. College football is the one sport in America that lacks complete fairness, and highlighting the areas ripe for dramatic improvement can only advance that cause. While the Big East being considered one of the elite six conferences in college football is a legitimate topic for this debate, they are certainly not the only example of unfairness in college football, and The Sports Debates plans to generate fair dialogue to tackle many of these issues, representing both sides of an argument fairly.
Thanks for the reply. You’ve contradicted yourself from your response to my earlier post. One one hand you’ve agreed with my assessment of WVU and then in this response you say the Big East has no dominant team. As for your research on AP Top 10 finishes, you’ve confirmed my earlier post. WVU finished in the Top 10 in 2005, 2006 & 2007 and Louisville in 2006. I’m not sure about Rutgers in 2006 but they were right around the Top 10 as well. No one will argue that last season wasn’t a down year – it most certainly was. But every conference has up and down years – even the great SEC and Big XII have had some stinkers in years past. However, I think it is completely relevant to discuss other struggling conferences when you discuss removing the BCS bid from the Big East. Virginia Tech has been alright over the past few years but otherwise the ACC has been average. Ohio State has appeared to be elite the past few years until they are exposed in BCS bowls. No one else in the Big Ten is really worthy of speaking of. The bottom line is none of these three leagues have been nearly as good as the SEC and BIG XII over the past few years – only an idiot would argue such a fact. But the Big East Champion has done more than hold its own in BCS bowls since the new Conference was aligned four years ago. With all that being said, I may agree with you if WVU struggles to regain its elite status or another team doesn’t emerge in the next two or three years. But for now you can’t simply dismiss the success of the Big East in BCS Bowls (and other bowls for that matter) because of one bad year. The Mnt West and WAC have a legit argument in my opinion. But that argument should not be to “replace” the Big East or ACC. Utah and Boise State have been very good in recent years but otherwise the two leagues have been OK at best. And please don’t bring up the Hawai’i debacle of two season ago – they were horrid. Like it or not, the Big East and ACC are both among the six best leagues in the nation. The Mtn West and WAC are closing the gap but they aren’t there yet. Again, thanks for the reply and I like the blog a lot.
I have not contradicted myself. It is fully legitimate to acknowledge that West Virginia has been the top program in the Big East on the specific years you have mentioned while also denying that they have dominated the Big East. They have not dominated the Big East. They have been the best program in the conference a few times. So have other schools, like, Louisville. No program is considered THE dominant program in the Big East because they all lack consistency year in and year out.
Dominant programs do not lose to East Carolina on the road. Dominant programs do no lose at home. Dominant programs win in big games. Those attributes of dominance apply to Virginia Tech of the ACC and Ohio State of the Big Ten. They do not apply, year in year out, to any team in the Big East.
I understand the desire to compare the Big East to other conferences. But, it is not a fair comparison. Each conference has issues, no doubt. But, they are issues unique to each conference situation. The Big East is a very undersized football league which traded three big time football programs for a hodge podge out of the football weak Conference USA. That is an issue unique to the Big East that opens them up to criticism, more legitimate criticism than any of the other BCS conferences. Just because the ACC also sucks does not give the Big East the right to suck. And a war over words over which conference sucks least is not productive for either!
If the Big East was smart, they would take their current teams and big time TV markets (New York, Tampa) and recruit more programs. As it stands now they have room to improve – the most of any Big East conference.
Thanks for the kind words about the website. Tell your friends! Any future topic suggestions?