September 22, 2008

WVU fall = Win for Big East?

ESPN.com's Brian Bennett argues today that West Virginia's fall from grace represents a potential win for the Big East Conference.

Bennett's argument is that conferences (in general) are better off when there is not a single dominating team (or two) at the top. With WVU falling back to the pack, the Big East will be more competitive and offer up new opportunities within the conference.

Still, another Mountaineers championship might just reinforce the notion that the conference has one great program and a bunch of stiffs. Long term, the Big East would be better off if someone like South Florida, Connecticut or Cincinnati goes to the BCS this year. That team could then build off the exposure and experience to gain stature. (Assuming, of course, it plays well in the bowl game. I don't think Pittsburgh got much of a bump from losing 35-7 to Utah in the 2004 Fiesta Bowl).

Leagues are healthier when they have more giants. Look at the Big Ten, which was ridiculed as the Big Two in recent years because Ohio State and Michigan were so much better than everyone else. Or see the Pac-10 this year, which appears to be USC and a bunch of ugly ducklings.

Add in the fact that some of the Big East programs are young (South Florida, UConn) or haven't done much in decades (Cincinnati, Rutgers). For half the league teams, a BCS game would stand as the biggest moment in their football history.

Having West Virginia regroup and win the league won't hurt the Big East. But having someone else finish on top might help the conference much more.

While it's a fair argument to say that if WVU falls then another Big East team will win the conference (duh), I'm not as certain that conferences fair better when there is no one dominant team. Sure UConn would love to represent in a BCS bowl, but does that mean the Big East is *stronger*? I'm not sold.

For example, when the ACC was FSU and the nine ducklings in the 90s... any team that rose up and bit the big dog got instant street cred nationwide. Virginia knocked off FSU and ended up in the Top 25, despite a rather lackluster season otherwise. Ditto for NC State in the late 90s. But those events happened in the vacuum of the Noles owning the national stage. Those same wins in 2007 would not have meant anything, because of the diminished reputation of FSU and -- in turn -- the gradual fall of the ACC.

If you look at the SEC as being more top heavy with 5+ top twenty teams per year, then perhaps you can conclude that the lack of a single dominant team is the reason. However, you only have to go back to Auburn's undefeated season to see how quickly poll voters can mitigate a conference that lacks a single stud-horse.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think the fall of WVU (if that's what this season represents) is good for the Big East. I still believe the more beasts you have, the better off you are as a conference.

What say you??

Comments:

WVU fall = Win for Big East?
ESPN.com's Brian Bennett argues today that West Virginia's fall from grace represents a potential win for the Big East Conference. Bennett's argument is that conferences (in general) are better off when there is not a single dominating team (or two) at the top. With WVU falling back to the pack, the Big East will be more competitive and offer up new opportunities within the conference.
Still, another Mountaineers championship might just reinforce the notion that the conference has one great program and a bunch of stiffs. Long term, the Big East would be better off if someone like South Florida, Connecticut or Cincinnati goes to the BCS this year. That team could then build off the exposure and experience to gain stature. (Assuming, of course, it plays well in the bowl game. I don't think Pittsburgh got much of a bump from losing 35-7 to Utah in the 2004 Fiesta Bowl). Leagues are healthier when they have more giants. Look at the Big Ten, which was ridiculed as the Big Two in recent years because Ohio State and Michigan were so much better than everyone else. Or see the Pac-10 this year, which appears to be USC and a bunch of ugly ducklings. Add in the fact that some of the Big East programs are young (South Florida, UConn) or haven't done much in decades (Cincinnati, Rutgers). For half the league teams, a BCS game would stand as the biggest moment in their football history. Having West Virginia regroup and win the league won't hurt the Big East. But having someone else finish on top might help the conference much more.
While it's a fair argument to say that if WVU falls then another Big East team will win the conference (duh), I'm not as certain that conferences fair better when there is no one dominant team. Sure UConn would love to represent in a BCS bowl, but does that mean the Big East is *stronger*? I'm not sold. For example, when the ACC was FSU and the nine ducklings in the 90s... any team that rose up and bit the big dog got instant street cred nationwide. Virginia knocked off FSU and ended up in the Top 25, despite a rather lackluster season otherwise. Ditto for NC State in the late 90s. But those events happened in the vacuum of the Noles owning the national stage. Those same wins in 2007 would not have meant anything, because of the diminished reputation of FSU and -- in turn -- the gradual fall of the ACC. If you look at the SEC as being more top heavy with 5+ top twenty teams per year, then perhaps you can conclude that the lack of a single dominant team is the reason. However, you only have to go back to Auburn's undefeated season to see how quickly poll voters can mitigate a conference that lacks a single stud-horse. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't think the fall of WVU (if that's what this season represents) is good for the Big East. I still believe the more beasts you have, the better off you are as a conference. What say you??