Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ARyan
I can agree with you, I guess I am just not sold on the Big East, and on Rutgers and USF. As I said, does anyone remember Maryland in 2001, Tulane in 1998, Utah in 2004?
I think we both agree that the parity in College Football has grown to the point where no game is a guaranteed win for any top 50 vs. top 50 team. I enjoy that.
|
The difference is that Utah and Tulane are always going to be limited because of location and in Tulane case size of the school. Maryland has no excuse though they are a better program than Vandy or either of the Mississippi schools. The fact is Rutgers should be good. They are a rich state school sitting in the middle of a gold mine worth of talent. The coach they brought in has done a great job and looks like he is staying. USF is a relatively new school who has done nothing but improve. Plus they too are located in a area where the talent level is great. Add in the fact they play in a pro stadium and have a good coach...why wouldn't they be good? West Virginia is a good program with a good coach. Louisville may have lost its most important asset when Petrino left but have a high national profile and have done a great job of both keeping homegrown talent and getting kids from all over the country. Syracuse needs to make a change on the top but they could easily go back to being a good program . UConn only has been around in Division 1 for a few years but is already pretty good. Pitt has Wandstad, enough said.
10-17-2007, 11:10 PM
Threaded Mode