College Football Week 5 Thread

[CU Tiger]

DOLA -
the 5 bowl streak
2000 Loss in the insight.com bowl
2001 Win in the Tangerine Bowl
2002 Win in the insight.com bowl
2003 Loss in the tire bowl
2004 Loss in the fiesta bowl

Do I need to expand?

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I dont consider 9 win seasons as a major accomplishment.

Are you serious?

Even in a 12-game season, 9 wins will get you into the BCS conversation.

[CU Tiger]

9 wins is a "good" season, not a major accomplishment.

you conference champ SHOULD have 9 wins every year....

[st.cronin]

Guys, its week 6. At least post in the right thread.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

DOLA -
the 5 bowl streak
2000 Loss in the insight.com bowl
2001 Win in the Tangerine Bowl
2002 Win in the insight.com bowl
2003 Loss in the tire bowl
2004 Loss in the fiesta bowl

Do I need to expand?

Considering you compared Pitt to Duke and Vanderbilt, I think you've already made your point. What were the bowl games that Vandy and Duke went to those years?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Im sorry I think you are missing my argument.
Yes Syracuse had individual seasons. I dont consider 9 win seasons as a major accomplishment. Yes sure they had talent. Most big programs have talent but wht did they have behind that talent?NC State would counter with Joe Horn, Phillip Rivers and Mario Williams and they are far from a power house.


So Pitt was in the top 60 5 staraight times. Again Bowl eligibility is a minimum acceptable standard. And you are picking and choosing stats of individual teeams to support your argument.

If you are willing to argue that the Big East has the depth of the SEC, PAC 10, or even the ACC I guess I can't do much debating with you as the numbers simply dont back it up.

I think the SEC and Pac 10 are clearly more top heavy. The ACC, the past two seasons, doesn't belong in the same conversation with the power conferences (SEC, B10, and Pac10, IMO). Down the road, Miami and/or FSU will reassert themselves as national powers again (something the Big East doesn't have and will likely never have)and I think, at this particular time, the ACC is really lacking in proven, quality quarterbacks (Matt Ryan, aside), but right now the two conferences are pretty comprable, with the difference being that the ACC has 12 teams that all have much better name recognition and the Big East has only 8 teams, with only four of them having much historical success/recognition (and two of them are Pitt and 'Cuse--our two worst teams).

The way I see it, both the ACC and the Big East have about a quarter of their teams that are terrible (ACC: NC State, UNC, Duke; BE: Pitt, Syracuse), no real top-notch powers, and the rest of the conference teams somewhere between the 10th and 60th best teams in the nation. The Big East's teams don't get a lot of respect, because half of them have won less than five bowl games in their existence, but right now teams like Cincy, WVU, USF, Louisville, and Rutgers are on par with what the best the ACC has to offer.

You (and many others) look at WVU losing to USF or Rutgers (last year) losing to Cincy and see it as the BE being weak up top, rather than considering that the conference is establishing some depth Whereas, in the ACC, if Maryland (last season) beats Clemson, or Virginia beats Georgia Tech, or Wake Forest wins the conference, it is because the conference has so many good teams and is so competitive. I don't have a problem with that perception, because teams like Rutgers, USF, and UConn each have very limitied or very poor histories (each school only has one bowl win in its entire existence!), but at some point folks will need to look at the actual OOC success (even if it isn't overwhelming, the BE has had pretty good OOC records the past two seasons) and bowl success, rather than the names on the jerseys, and consider the BE has some reasonable depth beyond the top teams and that it is on par with some of the other BCS conferences.

[ISiddiqui]

I kind of have a hard time taking anyone seriously who claims that "historically" Syracuse and Pitt were squads that you could take your B and C games to. As pointed out, it seems someone missed the 90s and early 00's.

[Blade6119]

Id rate the conferences thusly at this moment in time, and feel free to disagree:

Pac 10/SEC
Big 12
ACC/Big East
Big 10
Mountain West
Conference USA/MAC/WAC
Independents
Sun Belt

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think the SEC and Pac 10 are clearly more top heavy. The ACC, the past two seasons, doesn't belong in the same conversation with the power conferences (SEC, B10, and Pac10, IMO). Down the road, Miami and/or FSU will reassert themselves as national powers again (something the Big East doesn't have and will likely never have)and I think, at this particular time, the ACC is really lacking in proven, quality quarterbacks (Matt Ryan, aside), but right now the two conferences are pretty comprable, with the difference being that the ACC has 12 teams that all have much better name recognition and the Big East has only 8 teams, with only four of them having much historical success/recognition (and two of them are Pitt and 'Cuse--our two worst teams).

The way I see it, both the ACC and the Big East have about a quarter of their teams that are terrible (ACC: NC State, UNC, Duke; BE: Pitt, Syracuse), no real top-notch powers, and the rest of the conference teams somewhere between the 10th and 60th best teams in the nation. The Big East's teams don't get a lot of respect, because half of them have won less than five bowl games in their existence, but right now teams like Cincy, WVU, USF, Louisville, and Rutgers are on par with what the best the ACC has to offer.

You (and many others) look at WVU losing to USF or Rutgers (last year) losing to Cincy and see it as the BE being weak up top, rather than considering that the conference is establishing some depth Whereas, in the ACC, if Maryland (last season) beats Clemson, or Virginia beats Georgia Tech, or Wake Forest wins the conference, it is because the conference has so many good teams and is so competitive. I don't have a problem with that perception, because teams like Rutgers, USF, and UConn each have very limitied or very poor histories (each school only has one bowl win in its entire existence!), but at some point folks will need to look at the actual OOC success (even if it isn't overwhelming, the BE has had pretty good OOC records the past two seasons) and bowl success, rather than the names on the jerseys, and consider the BE has some reasonable depth beyond the top teams and that it is on par with some of the other BCS conferences.

I agree with most of what you said here.
And honestly the ACC is VERY DOWN the last 2 years, in fact I have cringed every time I have referenced them in these threads. I take most exception to the notion that "the top of the BE could play with the top of the SEc/PAC-10"
Frankly, no they can not. And neither could the top of the ACC the last couple years.

This year I think
SEC
PAC 10
Big 12
Big Ten (and this pains me, but until OSU and Wisconsin lose....)
ACC
Big East