Kizarvexis

That's a great line! I almost spit my coke on the screen! ;D Kizarvexis

The football main page at BigEast.org has the following lineup. 2006 STANDINGS  BIG EAST Overall  W L Pct.  W L Pct. #Louisville  6 1 .857 11 1 .917 West Virginia  5 2 .714 10 2 .833 Rutgers   5 2 .714 10 2 .833 USF 4 3 .571 8 4 .667 Cincinnati 4 3 .571 7 5 .583 Pittsburgh    2 5 .286 6 6 .500 Syracuse  1 6 .143 4 8 .333 Connecticut   1 6 .143 4 8 .333 # - Big East champion The weekly newsletter released on Dec 4th has the following lineup. 2006 STANDINGS BIG EAST Overall W L Pct. W L Pct. #Louisville 6 1 .857 11 1 .917 West Virginia 5 2 .714 10 2 .833 Rutgers 5 2 .714 10 2 .833 USF 4 3 .571 8 4 .667 Cincinnati 4 3 .571 7 5 .583 Pittsburgh 2 5 .286 6 6 .500 Connecticut 1 6 .143 4 8 .333 Syracuse 1 6 .143 4 8 .333 # - Big East champion The Big East can't even agree on the website who should be where. But it seems that both have USF over Cincy, which I still think is the wrong way to do conference rankings. Kizarvexis

66% Bulls, 34% Pirates

Navy is behind us in the AP, but in front in the coaches poll. BC is #23 and if USF is to be ranked, someone (or more than one) of the Top 25 has to lose. Starting with Auburn, I think all or almost all of the games need to go this way for USF to have a chance at being ranked. With the first and most important item, being USF destroys ECU. BTW, I hate both UF and OSU, so couldn't decide who to hate more. Kizarvexis

For those who want the Bulls to be ranked if the Bulls beat ECU, then I think that is the way we should root for the bowls. The ones not listed, probably won't matter. Kizarvexis

The actual attendance average was 24,776. The announced average attendance was 30,222. USF really needs to market the team more to the Tampa area as an event to attend on Saturdays. Kizarvexis

What would make any fan spend money to go to the Orange, Gator, Cotton or Fiesta Bowls when their team could be going to the Rose or Sugar Bowls? If you went to one of the earlier games, you might not be able to afford to go to a later game. Fans going to an early bowl would not stay the week (or a few days), but would just show for the game to save money. This would hurt the bowl game for money. I don't think a bowl/playoff would work. You need to have one or the other. And a knock against a playoff is the same thing about travelling to multiple playoff games during the busiest travel time of the year. That said, I think a playoff system (however unlikely it is to come about) needs 32 teams to get a wide spectrum of teams into the mix. And it only adds one week over a 16 team playoff. Then you could invite all 11 conference champs and 21 at large teams. This would mean the BCS conferences could get 3-4 teams into the playoff making them happy while still having room for independents and non-bcs teams. Kizarvexis BTW, the D-III playoff is a 32 team field.

Then why is UConn listed over 'Cuse in the standings? They both have the same conference and overall records, but 'Cuse beat UConn. Kizarvexis Good question, which I do not have the answer to.  But notice that WVU and RU have the exact same records and WVU is listed first because they won head to head.  USF has a better overall than UC and is listed first.  Also, look at the official standings from last year.  If there was a mistake, they would have changed in within a year's time.  USF and RU have the same conf record.  RU is listed first because they have the better overall, 7-5 to 6-6, even though USF beat RU last year.  If your theory was correct, USF should be listed ahead of RU in last years official standings. Just goes to show that the BE is inconsistent with how teams are ranked as there is no policy published on how to rank teams after determining the BCS team. Personally, I'd go with using the tie-breaker for the BCS for the whole standings. Kizarvexis

The link you provided does not include the result from the WVU-Rut game nor the result of the Lou-UConn game. The BE standings ET provided at the top of this thread are the same as the one posted on BigEast.org. BUT, those standings are inconsistent as it puts WVU over Rut, but not 'Cuse over UConn. And why not Cincy over USF as it is the BE standings. USF and Cincy are 4-3 in the BE, but Cincy beat USF, so should be listed above them in the BE standings. Kizarvexis

Then why is UConn listed over 'Cuse in the standings? They both have the same conference and overall records, but 'Cuse beat UConn. Kizarvexis

But that order is inconsistent. WVU and Rutgers have the same records. WVU is listed over Rutgers as if the head-to-head component was used. USF and Cincy have the same conference record, but USF lost to Cincy. Are they considering OOC games over hth wins? That's crazy as what happens 'in conference' should be the priority. UConn is listed over 'Cuse even though they both have the same records. UConn lost to 'Cuse, so why is UConn promoted and Rutgers isn't? I think whoever updated the BE site didn't even think to apply any type of tie-breaker, except that WVU just beat Rutgers, so that was factored in without thinking about it. I had to go and look up the winner of the UConn-'Cuse game, because I sure didn't remember who won that matchup. Kizarvexis

Ah, you want to discuss whether a playoff could be implemented. That is a different discussion than what type of playoff would be preferable. I agree that the money issues over bowls would preclude a switch to a playoff system. Anything over 4 games would probably be too much to co-exist with a bowl system. A lot of interests like the bowl money, especially the non-BCS conferences. Even in a 32 team playoff scenario, the non-BCS conferences would be lucky to get one other team in the playoffs besides their conference champ. As it stands now, they can get lots of teams to bowls. Your point on the local money is very spot on. I think it might be possible for the BCS conferences and the big money BCS sponsors to agree on a playoff system, but the local bowl systems would never go for it. Hosting a playoff game as a bowl would be anti-climatic as another game down the line is more important. Unless something seismic happens in college football, and some BCS team being left out of the MNC isn't it, the bowls will go on and a playoff will probably only be talked about. Kizarvexis

I think USF is in 4th place.  I believe the tie breaker is the overall record, then goes to team vs team record. The only tie-breaker procedure I could find on the BigEast.org website dealing with football was the BCS game tie-breaker procedure. For two teams, the tie-breaker is the winner of the head-to-head matchup. If you apply that all the way down, then USF would be 5th because Cincy beat USF. http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/bige/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/tiebreak Kizarvexis

I think that's too many games for football.  The top 8, or at the most 16, would be best in my opinion. The top 16 should be the least amount allowed in a I-A playoff system. As it is now, I-AA has a 16 team playoff, D-II has a 24 team playoff and D-III has a 32 team playoff. Kizarvexis

I agree. You would get the champ of each I-A conference and have 21 at large bids to dole out among the BCS conferences, independents and non-BCS teams. The only problem is a 32 team playoff would not co-exist with the bowls. And before anyone says that 32 teams are too many, Div III has a 32 team playoff right now. Kizarvexis

Your standings are incorrect. Head-to-head is the first tie-breaker. This should be the correct standings. 2006 STANDINGS  BIG EAST Overall  W L Pct.  W L Pct. Louisville  6 1 .857 11 1 .917 West Virginia  5 2 .714 10 2 .833 Rutgers   5 2 .714 10 2 .833 Cincinnati 4 3 .571 7 5 .583 USF   4 3 .571 8 4 .667 Pittsburgh    2 5 .286 6 6 .500 Syracuse 1 6 .143 4 8 .333 Connecticut   1 6 .143 4 8 .333 Cincy beat USF and Syracuse beat UConn. Kizarvexis

I voted So. Miss to get the flip (we're 1-3 vs So. Miss). We're 3-0 vs ECU and haven't played Rice. Kizarvexis

USF is tied for 29th in the AP poll with Penn St. USF's highest AP ranking in I-A was #29 at the end of 2002 after all the bowls. Kizarvexis

I would prefer So. Miss, so as to get the flip on them. Kizarvexis

USF is 3-1 vs UConn. The other scores are correct. Kizarvexis

I was against an annual USF/UCF game, but have come around to the otherside now. Kizarvexis

USF shouldn't ever schedule I-AA games. I mean schools like Arkansas, WVU, Wisconsin, Texas, Rutgers, Georgia Tech, Virginia Tech, Boston College, California, Wake Forest, Nebraska and Penn St would NEVER, EVER play a I-AA team because it would hurt their chances to make the Top #25 of the BCS poll. Look at Georgia and Florida. They would NEVER, EVER play directional I-AA schools like Western Carolina or Western Kentucky. FAMU could NEVER, EVER expect to play a team like the Hurricanes of Miami. And Wofford. NO WAY lowly I-AA Wofford could ever expect to play a SEC team like South Carolina. USF is in the BCS now and should NEVER, EVER play I-AA teams. : Kizarvexis

Finances dictate that I can not attend either bowl. :'( Work dictates that I can not watch the Texas Bowl. :-/ I would love to see the Bulls in B'ham, because then I could watch the game. Kizarvexis

The PapaJohns.com (B'ham) Bowl is a day game. The Texas Bowl is a night game. Kizarvexis

The Herd of Thunder has only been performing at football games since 1999. So only 8 years of history. http://usfweb2.usf.edu/History/1band.html There is a picture the HOT spelling out USA at a C-USA game. Kizarvexis