The Small Schools vs. Big Schools BCS Debate

[Megatron]

How would TCU deserve it over Boise? Boise has been the better team throughout the decade, and TCU has had an up few years, but Boise has many more signature and better wins then TCU.

Add that into the fact that they beat TCU in the BCS Bowl last year does mean a little in a title race.

And Boise's beaten two ranked teams, along with another bowl team in Wyoming. TCU beat the same OSU team, by less, a constantly poor Baylor team, a decent SMU team, and Tennessee Tech. No way in hell do they deserve it more then Boise, especially when Utah and AFA are the only two threats on their schedule left.

 

[Big Sexy]

Dude, you obviously don't know anything about college football because Utah and TCU both play in the MWAC NOW. Yes, there is a Mountain West conference right now and Utah and TCU both play in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_West_Conference

Do your research before posting.

You are an idiot. The Mountain West Conference is abbreviated MWC. By adding the A, I came to the conclusion that you were for some reason combining the WAC and MWC conferences as one. It still doesn't change the fact that you are 100% wrong either way. Like I said, number of ranked teams is not all that important. It is all about depth and the ACC is far superior to the current MWC no matter how you cut it. Do not question my sports knowledge homie. My left nut knows more then your entire brain.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

You are an idiot. The Mountain West Conference is abbreviated MWC. By adding the A, I came to the conclusion that you were for some reason combining the WAC and MWC conferences as one. It still doesn't change the fact that you are 100% wrong either way. Like I said, number of ranked teams is not all that important. It is all about depth and the ACC is far superior to the current MWC no matter how you cut it. Do not question my knowledge homie. My left nut knows more then your entire brain.

Mountain West Athletic Conference.

Do you even comprehend how acronyms work. That would be MWAC. I've clearly just illustrated to you that you failed using your own logic. ACC: ONE ranked team. MWAC: 2 ranked teams.

It's simple math.

BTW the WAC isn't joining the "MWC" only three teams are.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

TCU has been consistantly good, this is all off memory BTW, where Boise has been plying bullshit teams left and right and beating a few good teams along the way, look no farther than just some talent form each school. LT vs. who? Ian Johnson? Consistantly being good is what I'm looking at. Besides the blue turf is fucking ******ed and should be banned.

 

[Megatron]

Ryan Clady went to Boise and is a top 5 lineman in the NFL. But this isn't about who produces better pros. It's about who wins where they are: At college. Boise hasn't lost a home game since like 01. Blue turf or not, that's damn impressive. And they've won on the big stage, vs OU, TCU, Oregon, OSU, Va Tech, as well. Boise just doesn't lose, and if TCU were to get it over them it'd be an atrocity, since their schedules are about equal and Boise's proven they can do it on the big stage.

 

[Big Sexy]

Mountain West Athletic Conference.

Do you even comprehend how acronyms work. That would be MWAC.

THERE IS NO ATHLETIC IN THE CONFERENCE NAME. EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK IT IS ALWAYS ABBREVIATED AS MWC YOU STUPID FUCK.

Here is the official site if you don't believe me.

http://www.themwc.com/

I've clearly just illustrated to you that you failed using your own logic. ACC: ONE ranked team. MWAC: 2 ranked teams.

It's simple math.

Do you know how to read? When did I say that was my logic? In fact I've said the complete opposite numerous times. Number of ranked teams does not make a conference better. The depth of the conference is what matters.

BTW the WAC isn't joining the "MWC" only three teams are.

Unlike you I have a fully functioning brain. I know that only three teams are joining the MWC. Hence why I was even more confused at the fact that you abbreviated the conference with an A making it read like it was a combination of the conferences.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Couldn't come close? They were damn close with Chase, and Gabbert is a better QB. Thing is, even though teams haven't taken the title they are still contenders and someone tests OU and Texas every year, something Boise doesn't have at all. They schedule a few big games, but they have forever to prep for those games and put everything they have into them because they have a shit team for their next game. If Mizzou was in a shit conference I'm positive they would be champions year in and year out. That's the problem with the smaller schools. The schedules are shit, sure they have a few nice wins, but they are few and far between. TCU has proven that they can hang with the big boys for a long time now and if any smaller school plays for the BCS title, I think they deserve it the most.

Boise can't help that they HAVE to play 8 other teams. They have been winning as Megatron illustrated. Matter of fact, TCU and Boise are 1-1 against each other during that time.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

THERE IS NO ATHLETIC IN THE CONFERENCE NAME. EVERYWHERE YOU LOOK IT IS ALWAYS ABBREVIATED AS MWC YOU STUPID FUCK.

Here is the official site if you don't believe me.

http://www.themwc.com/


Do you know how to read? When did I say that was my logic? In fact I've said the complete opposite numerous times. Number of ranked teams does not make a conference better. The depth of the conference is what matters.



Unlike you I have a fully functioning brain. I know that only three teams are joining the MWC. Hence why I was even more confused at the fact that you abbreviated the conference with an A making it read like it was a combination of the conferences.

Yes, unlike me, with two bachelors degrees, two masters degrees and working on a Ph.D. Yep, I'm an idiot.

It's an athletic conference. People call it the Em WAC, that's why I refer to it as such. You're nitpicking over an abbreviation.

Clearly, you knew what I was talking about. If I were combining the conferences, I would have said four ranked teams as Nevada and Boise are ranked as well.

I said two. TCU and Utah.

The ACC has been a complete joke in bowl games. Last year the ACC went 3-4 in bowls. The Mountain West? 4-1.

I can't believe that you're saying that a nebulous concept like "depth" makes them better when I'm clearly illustrating that the numbers are against you.

You're calling me stupid while, in the same breath, ignoring statistics and evidence that prove you're wrong. The Mountain West conference, statistically, was better than the ACC, and ALL of college football, in post season play last year.

End of story. The numbers don't lie, dude. I'm sure a fan whose "left nut knows more about sports than I ever will" wouldn't argue stats and numbers when it comes to sports, would he?

Last season, better record, this season, more ranked teams. Sorry, presently the Mountain West is a better conference than the ACC.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

By the way, you go and argue depth, I'll stick to what matters, rankings. We will see if the ACC's depth or Boise's ranking gets the better bowl.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Boise can't help that they HAVE to play 8 other teams. They have been winning as Megatron illustrated. Matter of fact, TCU and Boise are 1-1 against each other during that time.

So because they can't help it we crown them? Fuck that shit. A team with a win over Va Tech and Oregon State as the National Champs just because they couldn't help that their other opponents sucked so badly. I don't think that's how it should work. Their Stength of schedule is past shit yet they are heralded as the best team in the country by alot of America. No thanks.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

I'm not saying we crown them. I am saying we should give them a shot. College Football is the ONLY sport where only a select few can win the title. You don't find that absurd?

 

[Big Sexy]

Yes, unlike me, with two bachelors degrees, two masters degrees and working on a Ph.D. Yep, I'm an idiot.

I'm glad we can agree.

It's an athletic conference. People call it the Em WAC, that's why I refer to it as such. You're nitpicking over an abbreviation.

No one calls it the MWAC except you. It's not nitpicking when you are as confusing as you are with what you're trying to debate.

Clearly, you knew what I was talking about. If I were combining the conferences, I would have said four ranked teams as Nevada and Boise are ranked as well.

I said two. TCU and Utah.

It's impossible to know what you are talking about when you keep changing things up. First we were talking about the present conference, then the future, then what could have been if Utah and BYU didn't decide to leave next year. You are all over the place and the screwed up abbreviation didn't help.

The ACC has been a complete joke in bowl games. Last year the ACC went 3-4 in bowls. The Mountain West? 4-1.

Air Force beat a Conference USA team, Wyoming beat a WAC team, and TCU lost to a WAC team. BYU and Utah played the only power conference teams and only BYU played a ranked power conference team. The ACC got more teams to bowl games and played better competition. UNC played a ranked Big East team in Pitt, Boston College played a ranked USC team, Miami played a ranked Big Ten team in Wisconsin, Va Tech beat an SEC team in Tennessee, Florida State beat a ranked Big East team in West Virginia, Georgia Tech played a ranked Big Ten team in Iowa, and Clemson beat an SEC team in Kentucky.

All 7 ACC teams in bowl games played power conference teams and 5 of them played ranked teams. Only 2 of the 5 MWC teams played power conference teams and only one of those teams was ranked. The MWC played just two ranked teams total. Stats can be deceiving.

I can't believe that you're saying that a nebulous concept like "depth" makes them better when I'm clearly illustrating that the numbers are against you.

You gave me one stat that doesn't really prove anything as I just illustrated and you are giving me this "more ranked teams equals better conference" bullshit.

You're calling me stupid while, in the same breath, ignoring statistics and evidence that prove you're wrong. The Mountain West conference, statistically, was better than the ACC, and ALL of college football, in post season play last year.

Once again it is a stat based solely on the competition level that the conferences faced. All the MWC did was prove they were the best of the non power conferences.

End of story. The numbers don't lie, dude. I'm sure a fan whose "left nut knows more about sports than I ever will" wouldn't argue stats and numbers when it comes to sports, would he?

In this case the numbers do lie. The Kansas City Chiefs currently have a better record then the Colts but that does not make them the better team. The "stats" you have provided don't prove that the MWC is better then the ACC.

Last season, better record, this season, more ranked teams. Sorry, presently the Mountain West is a better conference than the ACC.

You do realize the season is only 4 weeks in. And once again more ranked teams does not equal better conference.

By the way, you go and argue depth, I'll stick to what matters, rankings. We will see if the ACC's depth or Boise's ranking gets the better bowl.

I'm sure Boise will get a great bowl, however, it doesn't change the fact that the ACC as a whole conference shits on both the MWC and the WAC.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I'm not saying we crown them. I am saying we should give them a shot. College Football is the ONLY sport where only a select few can win the title. You don't find that absurd?

I'm not going to rant about the system, but with what we have in place I see more deserving teams with that criteria. The criteria to play for the Title is great team, great wins, tough schedule. Basically. If you don't have all three then why do you get a pass to play for the biggest game of the year? If a Boise got to play for the title this year with the schedule they have, then what's to keep every single other team in college from scheduling cupcakes and trying to get out of the tougher conferences in favor of easier schedules?

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Actually, the numbers I provided you DO illustrate that they are a better conference. They won enough game to get to a bowl (6) and they actually won their bowl games.

But, using your logic, your stats are deceiving as well. The ACC is an AQ school so they automatically get a shot at a BCS game. They also have more bowl tie-ins. The MWC doesn't, so they have to earn those bids. When it matters the MWC and WAC have produced wins.

The ACC has choked like nobodies business. You're treating the ACC like they are the SEC a bunch of GREAT teams that beat each other up.

Sorry, they aren't. The ACC is the laughing stock of the AQ conferences because of how mediocre all of their teams are. Even Danny Kannell was ripping on his former conference because their teams are always hyped up and fall flat on their asses.

Unlike the ACC TCU, Boise, and Utah actually win when it matters. That's the sign of a good conference. Not something as stupid as depth.

Sports is about winning. Teams don't get a merit badge for having fucking depth. The WAC and the MWC win when it matters and win on the big stage. The ACC does not.

Discounting the times an ACC team wasn't represented in the Orange Bowl, they have won two fucking times since 1996. That's a complete joke. Oh, and one of those times, an ACC school HAD to win because it was Miami vs. Florida St.

 

[Megatron]

I'm not going to rant about the system, but with what we have in place I see more deserving teams with that criteria. The criteria to play for the Title is great team, great wins, tough schedule. Basically. If you don't have all three then why do you get a pass to play for the biggest game of the year? If a Boise got to play for the title this year with the schedule they have, then what's to keep every single other team in college from scheduling cupcakes and trying to get out of the tougher conferences in favor of easier schedules?

Most teams DO schedule weak OOC games. Rarely do they get more then 1 game against a power conference team. Oregon had 2 scab teams and Tennessee, whos an average SEC team at best, as their OOC.

Boise has a great team. And the VT and OSU games were great wins. Tough schedule isn't really there, but it is a lot stronger then years past. They should still get a tough test against Nevada & Fresno State late in the year. If they go undefeated, and there is only 1 other undefeated team from a power conference besides them, they better get in. Until someone knocks them off, you have to give them a shot. They may go into the postseason having won 38 of their last 39 games. You can't just say no to that, no matter who they play.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

I'm not going to rant about the system, but with what we have in place I see more deserving teams with that criteria. The criteria to play for the Title is great team, great wins, tough schedule. Basically. If you don't have all three then why do you get a pass to play for the biggest game of the year? If a Boise got to play for the title this year with the schedule they have, then what's to keep every single other team in college from scheduling cupcakes and trying to get out of the tougher conferences in favor of easier schedules?

Well, the flip side of that is that Boise has had to go undefeated and win on the big stage for SEVERAL years before even getting this shot and they aren't even gonna get the shot again if either 'Bama or Ohio St. don't lose.

So, it's not like they haven't done work to get here. They played within the system that we currently have and beat AQ schools at home, in bowls, and on the road. It's not like Boise just came out of nowhere and is gonna get a shot at the title.

They at least deserve a shot to, either, get hammered, play a close game, or win the national title. If Boise gets there and falls on their asses, the talk about non-AQ schools getting a shot at the title will die down. If they win, it will illustrate that the current system needs a lot of work.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

The ACC is mediocre this year. Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Florida State are all overrated. Miami is the best team and even I don't see them getting no more than 9 wins this year. I'll put the top of the WAC or MWC against the top of the ACC and bet that the ACC will lose a majority of the time.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

The ACC is mediocre this year. Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Florida State are all overrated. Miami is the best team and even I don't see them getting no more than 9 wins this year. I'll put the top of the WAC or MWC against the top of the ACC and bet that the ACC will lose a majority of the time.

Seriously, I don't understand how this is rocket science.

Big Sexy, you have to be an ACC nuthugger to not realize this. I'm not even a MWC or WAC fan, but I recognize when one conference is better than another.

Virginia Tech couldn't even beat James Madison and got beat by a WAC team.

When Miami had to play someone good, they got the shit beat out of them.

Florida St. made Oklahoma look like they could win the national title.

Fuck, when NC State is the best team in your conference for football, you should probably rethink saying the ACC is better than a conference that's already beat them.

 

[Big Sexy]

Actually, the numbers I provided you DO illustrate that they are a better conference. They won enough game to get to a bowl (6) and they actually won their bowl games.

They won their bowl games against shit competition. Teams like Wyoming and Air Force would have struggled to get to 6 wins in the ACC. I guarantee Wyoming wouldn't have gotten in and Air Force would have had a hard time. I mean Minnesota was an average Big ten team and they beat Air Force in non conference play last year.

But, using your logic, your stats are deceiving as well. The ACC is an AQ school so they automatically get a shot at a BCS game. They also have more bowl tie-ins. The MWC doesn't, so they have to earn those bids. When it matters the MWC and WAC have produced wins.

None of this changes the fact that the ACC had more teams that were bowl eligible and played far tougher competition in the bowl games last year.

The ACC has choked like nobodies business. You're treating the ACC like they are the SEC a bunch of GREAT teams that beat each other up.

I said the ACC is currently the 4th best conference. How is that treating them like the SEC? I mean the bottom 4 teams in the the MWC were just horrendous last year and Wyoming and Air Force had zero wins against the power conferences.

Sorry, they aren't. The ACC is the laughing stock of the AQ conferences because of how mediocre all of their teams are. Even Danny Kannell was ripping on his former conference because their teams are always hyped up and fall flat on their asses.

The Big East is the laughing stock. The ACC is a solid conference with a lot of talented teams. You ask any college football expert and they will tell you that as a whole the ACC is superior to the MWC. Three teams does not a conference make.

Unlike the ACC TCU, Boise, and Utah actually win when it matters. That's the sign of a good conference. Not something as stupid as depth.

Utah went 0-3 against teams that were ranked at the end of the season last year. Try again.

Sports is about winning. Teams don't get a merit badge for having fucking depth. The WAC and the MWC win when it matters and win on the big stage. The ACC does not.

The WAC and MWC play inferior competition on the big stage and that is an indisputable fact. The ACC teams play much tougher schedules and much tougher opponents in bowl games. Your stats have many flaws.

Discounting the times an ACC team wasn't represented in the Orange Bowl, they have won two fucking times since 1996. That's a complete joke. Oh, and one of those times, an ACC school HAD to win because it was Miami vs. Florida St.

The current ACC alignment has only been around since 2005. You are really failing to grasp the competition difference between the two conferences. If you put any MWC team in the ACC conference I guarantee their win total goes down by at least 2.

Let's also not forget that basically every year the MWC has the same three teams at the top. Utah, TCU, and BYU. The ACC has more parity and more talented teams that make for much tougher competition year in and year out. A bottom team in the ACC can turn around and be a top team after just a couple seasons. Duke is really the only ACC team that is consistently at the bottom of the conference. That is all part of the depth factor, which is much more relevant then your skewed bowl record stats.

You like numbers and rankings so much I guarantee if you add up the number of bowl eligible teams and ranked teams from both the ACC and MWC over the last 5-10 years then it will show the ACC is definitely superior.

 

[Big Sexy]

The ACC is mediocre this year. Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech, and Florida State are all overrated. Miami is the best team and even I don't see them getting no more than 9 wins this year. I'll put the top of the WAC or MWC against the top of the ACC and bet that the ACC will lose a majority of the time.

Seriously, I don't understand how this is rocket science.

Big Sexy, you have to be an ACC nuthugger to not realize this. I'm not even a MWC or WAC fan, but I recognize when one conference is better than another.

Virginia Tech couldn't even beat James Madison and got beat by a WAC team.

When Miami had to play someone good, they got the shit beat out of them.

Florida St. made Oklahoma look like they could win the national title.

Fuck, when NC State is the best team in your conference for football, you should probably rethink saying the ACC is better than a conference that's already beat them.

My bad, I forgot that when talking about which conference is better you only count the top couple teams and everyone else is irrelevant . Give me Miami, Florida State, Va Tech, and NC State over TCU, BYU, and Utah any day. You want to talk about head to head match ups and big games, Florida State absolutely crushed BYU 34-10 just a couple weeks ago.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

No shit the ACC sent more teams to bowls. the ACC has 12 teams. The MWC and the WAC have 9 teams. They sent 5 and 4 respectively. You really don't grasp the concept of statistics. What about empirical evidence is so hard for you to grasp.

What's the point of saying that MWC or WAC team's win totals would drop if they joined the ACC? That's completely non-sequitur. ACC teams would drop in win totals if they joined the SEC or Big 10, what's your point?

The argument is which conference is presently better. The MWC and the WAC each have two ranked teams. The ACC and Big East combined have 1. Who gives a shit about depth ? The numbers illustrate that the ACC is a weaker conference.

The Big East is a complete joke and I've already said that. No argument there, however, the ACC is the laughingstock, not the Big East. This is because EVERYONE knows the Big East sucks, but the ACC brags about how great their conference is every year and how they'll be playing for a national title and then they crap out some joke of a team for their AQ BCS bowl that gets smoked by a vastly superior opponent.

Miami is the most over-rated program in college football this decade behind Florida St. Yet, every year we here about how "The U" is back and "Florida St's QB is on a Heisman watch list."

Only Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech have represented the Coastal Division since it's inception in '05. 2 teams out of 6? Not much parity there. Hell, out of Miami and Florida St., they have a combined ONE appearance in the ACC championship game.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

By the way, the ACC is 2-10 in BCS games and has the least amount of different representatives of any of the major conferences. So much for your parity argument. The only "conference" with a worse record than the ACC in BCS games is "independent."

The MWC and the WAC have a better BCS record than the ACC.

 

[ThePeoplesChampion]

No fucking way is the Mountain West better then either the ACC or Big 12. They may be better then the Big East but that's about it. The ACC and Big 12 both have better teams at the top in comparison to the MWC and are also much deeper. The ACC is rolling with Miami, Va Tech, Florida State, NC State, North Carolina, Georgia Tech. The Big 12 has Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas, Kansas State, and a few others that are at least solid. The Big 12 is definitely down this year but still better then the MWC and the ACC is far better then the MWC.

This year it goes Big 10, SEC, Pac 10, ACC, Big 12, and then the MWC and Big East battling for the next spot.

The ACC above the BIG 12!!!!!! This isnt College Basketball man....its Football...oh wow Miami is ranked 17th...and they still overrated...Big 12 has 2 top 10 teams...Kansas beat Georgia Tech (wasnt Georgia Tech suppose to be good?)...and just the week before Kansas lost too a D2 school ha...this isnt 1991...Miami and Florida St(thanks to the Big 12's Sooners) are afterthoughts in National title talks....i understand arguing MWC vs. ACC cause its actually close but BIG 12 vs. ACC....haha...god no...what next are you gonna say Notre Dame is back? lol...thats another thing how can Notre Dame schedule some pancakes like Western Michigan, Tulsa, Army and if they went Undefeated (hahaha) they get a shot? Again give the little guy a shot....didnt Butler almost beat Duke in Basketball?

 

[Big Sexy]

What's the point of saying that MWC or WAC team's win totals would drop if they joined the ACC? That's completely non-sequitur. ACC teams would drop in win totals if they joined the SEC or Big 10, what's your point?

Exactly because the SEC and Big Ten are both better conferences then the ACC. That point is 100% relevant to the conversation at hand. You put a MWC team in the ACC and they fall in wins. You put an ACC team in the MWC and their win total rises.

No shit the ACC sent more teams to bowls. the ACC has 12 teams. The MWC and the WAC have 9 teams. They sent 5 and 4 respectively. You really don't grasp the concept of statistics. What about empirical evidence is so hard for you to grasp.

Obviously they have more teams but even the percentage of teams they send to bowls compared to the MWC is better basically every year. I grasp the concept of statistics just fine. You just happen to be showing very flawed statistics.

The argument is which conference is presently better. The MWC and the WAC each have two ranked teams. The ACC and Big East combined have 1. Who gives a shit about depth ? The numbers illustrate that the ACC is a weaker conference.

1. The ACC currently has two teams in the top 25.

2. This is week fucking four of the season. The polls now are going to change dramatically throughout the year. At the end of last year the ACC had 4 teams ranked to the MWC's 3 so if you want to play that game the ACC still wins. You are a complete idiot if you believe more ranked teams automatically means a better conference. The MWC AT THE MOST is a three team conference every year. The ACC is much deeper and is better overall. You're blind if you can't see that.

Only Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech have represented the Coastal Division since it's inception in '05. 2 teams out of 6? Not much parity there. Hell, out of Miami and Florida St., they have a combined ONE appearance in the ACC championship game.

Lol I like how you look at one division to say the WHOLE conference doesn't have parity. The Atlantic division has had 4 different teams represented in the last 5 years and the ACC conference in its entirety has had 4 different winners in 5 years. That is a lot of parity.

Honestly your logic could not be anymore flawed in this debate. This isn't which conference has the best team or top two teams. This is which whole conference is better and the ACC is most definitely better then the MWC. Every valid point I make you do nothing but avoid and you proceed to repeat the same bull shit argument over and over again.

 

[Big Sexy]

The ACC above the BIG 12!!!!!! This isnt College Basketball man....its Football...oh wow Miami is ranked 17th...and they still overrated...Big 12 has 2 top 10 teams...Kansas beat Georgia Tech (wasnt Georgia Tech suppose to be good?)...and just the week before Kansas lost too a D2 school ha...this isnt 1991...Miami and Florida St(thanks to the Big 12's Sooners) are afterthoughts in National title talks....i understand arguing MWC vs. ACC cause its actually close but BIG 12 vs. ACC....haha...god no...what next are you gonna say Notre Dame is back? lol...thats another thing how can Notre Dame schedule some pancakes like Western Michigan, Tulsa, Army and if they went Undefeated (hahaha) they get a shot? Again give the little guy a shot....didnt Butler almost beat Duke in Basketball?

The Big 12 is usually the better conference but this year the ACC is slightly better. Outside of Oklahoma and Nebraska the Big 12 doesn't have much. There is absolutely no depth throughout the conference. The ACC top to bottom is solid. Outside of the top teams the Big 12 schools play one of the weakest non conference schedules ever. With the ACC Florida State has an extremely tough non conference schedule, Miami played at Ohio State and at Pitt, Wake Forest has games against SEC and Pac 10 teams, Va Tech opened the season against a top 5 team. Big 12 teams just raid the bottom feeders of conferences like the WAC and MWC.