Let me start by acknowledging that I doubt either of us could prove ourselves quantitatively. There are too many ways to look at the numbers. But I will give some rebuttals to your reply as I feel there some points have a flip side and some are spurious to the discussion.
There's nothing quantitative that suggests the Big East is not at the level of its BCS peers. And Cincy does deserve credit for their string of good seasons. On the other hand, someone has to win Big East wheather you have removed 3 of the strongest programs or not. But if we can agree that there are certain aspects that all BCS conferences should have in common I think it becomes clear that the Big East still doesn't fit in at all.
1) I don't see how you toss out the current system if you don't have quantitative numbers. The BCS actually has a formula that reranks the conferences over a 4 year period. Mandel explained it a couple of times in years past (sorry, couldn't locate the columns via teh Google and I am not poring through that man's archives to find it
). And the Big East is clearing that measure (if no, we wouldn't be having this discussion). Agree or disagree with the measure (I wouldn't argue with the point of view that it is likely stacked to help current BCS conferences) it is the only objective measure out there.
2) Maybe VTech/BC/Miami were the top 3 when they left the Big East, but that just highlights the fallicy of relying on 6 years ago. Since then both Cincy and WVU have built programs that are on par with Miami over the last 5 years and well beyond BC. You can't point to what was true 6 years ago and make it true today.
3) What these "common aspects" you refer to? Are these quantitative criteria different then the unspecified ones you say do not prove that "...the Big East is not at the level of its BCS peers"? If you think there are criteria, what are they?
WVU and Cincy were certainly close to getting into the NC game. But this possability was often described as a "BCS-crisis". Most college football analysts seemed to suggest that TCU would have been in the NC game instead of Cincy had Texas lost. Shouldn't a conference champion from a real BCS conference that also goes undefeated be more universally regarded as a legitimate NC contender?
See dpdoll. Cincy would have been playing Alabama had Texas lost. And WVU would have been a no-contest title contender had they not lost to Pitt in '07. In '07 they were a prohibitive fave to appear and there was no "crisis". The real "crisis" that garnered all the attention that season came after the WVU loss and was about A) whether OSU was worthy of a title shot after an unimpressive B10 season or B) whether a 2 loss team (LSU) should be included. As for your final Q of the above paragraph, I think that speaks to the quality of the defense played by TCU plus the fact that they played and beat some legit teams versus it being some slam on Cincy.
It is a problem for college football that America was more interested in the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsetia Bowl than the Orange Bowl. But the on-field talent was just more compelling.
This has nothing to do with the AQ worthiness of the Big East.
While the ACC has been lacking a power-house claiber team for several years, the conference currently has a very strong middle that makes up for it. No one is going to win the ACC and go undefeated without being among the best in college football. I'm just not so sure we can say the same about Cincy and the Big East. The Big East Champion is judged on the basis of 7 games. For every other conference (except the Big Ten) it's 9 games. No BCS bowl wanted an automatic tie-in with Big East champion.
This is the purely opinion thing I referenced right away. Also, your note about size creates a slight apples to oranges issue. How big is the "middle" of each conference? Rutgers and USF are not pushovers...UConn is also a decent team. With Cincy, Pitt, WVU at the top this would seem to create a decent middle in the Big East too.
ESPN pushed a "Boise State vs. Ohio State" controversey for BCS inclusion last year. I think it would have been better if the debate had been between Boise State and Cincy. This year Cincy clearly deserves to be playing against Florida. But in a typical year the Big East champion is no different than any other BCS-buster.
And yet since your "big 3" left for the ACC the Big East is 3-2 in BCS games (including WVU wins over strong Georgia and Oklahoma teams, a respectable loss by Cincy last season, and that stinker of a game by Pitt that I referred to in my first response). The ACC (which you seem to infer is the closest BCS conference to the Big East) is 1-4 over the same period.
IMO, it also speaks volumes of what the Big East thinks of itself that they would give a second chance to a player who was kicked-off a Big Ten team for being involved in a sexual assult. It wasn't that long ago that these guys would only be brought back by D1-AA or D-2 programs.
This last one is asinine.
Cincy, not the Big East gave Daniels a 2nd chance. By this logic it must speak volumes about the Big Ten that MSU/Dantonio let Winston back on the team the very day he was released from jail for assaulting that hockey player and seriously injuring him. In fact, the Big Ten must be a non-AQ league now that Winston got in trouble again. I'm not excusing Daniels and I didn't like it when Cincy picked him up. But that has nothing to do with the Big East as a whole or their AQ status.
