I attended BC during the switch to the Atlantic Coast Conference, and still struggle with my feelings about it. On the one hand, I think the ACC is an incredibly competitive conference (I won’t speak to any comparisons to other conferences in terms of quality; as this post and thread make clear, those comparisons are tough and contentious). To speak in cliche, any team can win a conference game on any given Saturday.

The downside is geographic. BC is the most far-flung of the ACC schools, and the acrimony surrounding the move from the Big East denied us our most natural geographic rival, Connecticut (the only other New England school that plays D-1 football). There’s a lot to be said for geographic rivalries. It’s sad.

I agree with you on the BE at least as it pertains to the ACC. The Big Ten and Big 8 have history that give it less to prove, on the whole. The Big East’s current configuration doesn’t really have that, though. Neither does the ACC (except Miami, which doesn’t have have a history with the ACC). So it’s not surprising that they would get the short end of the stick. Not saying it’s right, of course.

Of course, the central point is that, of the BCS conferences, the Big East is perenially singled out as the red-headed stepchild, with success stories viewed as flukes, while the perenial shortcomings of the other BCS conferences are repeatedly excused as merely being down years. At some point the opinion makers need to acknowledge that either the Big East is as good a conference as the ACC and perhaps the Big 10 (and certainly better than the Big 12 North) or that the ACC, Big 10, etc. are simply not the powerhouses that they used to be and other conferences need to be added to the BCS.

The problem with the MWC is that there’s a big drop-off after the first three teams or so. The Big Ten is a much more solid conference. It’s hard to believe that the Big 12 and ACC got so bad.

I don’t quite follow that you think beating the worst team in the ACC (Maryland) makes up for the second worst (NC State) beating one of your two best. Do you think Louisville could beat Clemson? Do you think Syracuse could beat Georgia Tech? Do you think South Florida will beat Miami?

I am amused that you are touting Colorado, Marshall, Baylor, Southern Mississippi, and Illinois as evidence of a strong out-of-conference schedule, but I guess they must seem that way from your perspective.

You state that the SEC is “clearly the best conferences in the country” as if that excuses losses to middle-of-the-pack Auburn and 11th best Kentucky. Do you think Kentucky has contributed to the SEC’s status? They did beat Auburn, which I guess by your logic puts them above West Virginia.