billsportsmaps.com

November 26, 2008

NCAA Division I-A / Football Bowl Subdivision, the Big East: Team Profiles and Attendance Map (2007 figures).

ncaa_big-east_team-profiles_2007attendance-map_post_.gif


The Big East’s football conference began play in 1991.  I wrote a bit about the conference last November {see this}.


The Big East’s football conference combines a few schools with storied pasts:  PittsburghSyracuse,  and West Virginia,  with some schools that never really had football programs to brag about,  but are now improving:  CincinnatiConnecticutRutgers,  and South Florida.   Louisville is the other school in the conference,  and is sort of in both categories. 

Friday, the 101st edition of the Backyard Brawl will take place,  as the West Virginia Mountaineers visit the Pitt Panthers (who are #25 in the BCS)  {see this}.  Here is an article from USA Today on the 100th Backyard Brawl  {Click here}.

pitt-westvirginia_1908.gif

-

South Florida has seen their average attendance rise from 30,222 in 2006;  to 53,170 last season.  That rise of nearly 23,000 vaulted them from 76th highest to 38th highest.  The nascent USF football program has only been in existence since 1997.

south-florida-bulls_attendance-increase07.gif

Thanks to http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/database/index.h.   Thanks to the contributors to the Big East football pages on Wikipedia.   Thanks to AP Poll Archive  {Click here}.  

Thanks to http://gobearcats.cstv.com/.   Thanks to http://www.scarletknights.com/football/history/first-game.asp  (Click on it and check out the nice illustration of what the first college football game looked like, in 1869: Princeton vs. Rutgers.)    Thanks to Ask-ville  {Click here}.   Thanks to The Sports Fanattic Shop {Click here}.

Thanks to Helmet Hut  {Click here};   The Helmet Project  {Click here};   Chris Creamer’s Sports Logos Page  {Click here}.;   Logo Server  {Click here};   Logo Shak  {Click here}.

7 Comments »

  1. [...] Vote NCAA Division I-A / Football Bowl Subdivision, the Big East: Team Profiles … [...]

    Pingback by sports logos panthers | Digg hot tags — December 27, 2008 @ 7:19 am

  2. You have several errors in your profile of the University of Pittsburgh. Pitt’s first official season was 1890, not 1889, although there was an unofficial club team not recognized by the university at the time that played in one unofficial game. Also, Pitt did not lose the Rose Bowl during the 1936 season. Pitt finished #3 in the AP poll at the end of the regular season, which is when the final AP poll was released during those days, and the poll continued to be released prior to bowl season until 1968. Pitt beat Washington 21-0 in the 1937 Rose Bowl and was subsequently selected as national champions by several contemporaneous and nationally influential selectors including Boand and Houlgate. In 1937, Pitt finished 9-0-1 and finished #1 in the final AP poll at the end of the regular season. Pitt subsequently turned down a Rose Bowl invitation that year but was nonetheless selected as the national champions of 1937 by multiple selectors. In addition to 1936, 1937, and 1976, Pitt was also widely regarded as the national champions of 1910 (undefeated and unscored upon), 1915 (8-0), 1916 (8-0), and 1918 (4-1, a season cut short by the influenza epidemic but with a dominating 32-0 win over defending national champion and undefeated Georgia Tech and a controversial loss at the Cleveland Naval Reserve). The university itself claims nine titles based on a Sports Illustrated study from 1970, is listed as being named a national champion in 11 seasons according to the Official NCAA Records Book, is credited with 6 titles by College Football Data Warehouse, and is listed as a champion in five separate seasons according to nationalchamps.net, which you cite as a source.

    <strong> Answer:</strong> Here is the source I used when I said that Pitt lost on January 1, 1937 (which is still part of the 1936 season, by the way):

    http://www.nationalchamps.net/NCAA/database/pittsburgh_database.htm

    So it was my error, from a source that was erroneous.

    “which you cite as a source..” that doesn’t mean I use their decisions on national title holders.

    Here is my last word on national title claims… I am using this site for determining the NCAA football national champions, and there are some years when there are shared titles. [Note: this site comes up in the first page, in third rank, after a wikipedia page, and http://www.ncaa.org, when you Google: ‘ncaa football national champions’.

    In other words, I am using the most highly rated site that doesn’t sit on the fence about the subject of NCAA football national title holders:
    http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/champions_national.html

    Pittsburgh is listed as the national champion in 1916, 1918, 1937, and 1976. That is 4 Titles, like I originally listed.
    It’s not my fault you are so obsessed with a competition that refuses to have an equitable system of determining a national champion, like…hmmm…. like every other friggin’ league on the face of the planet.
    I will fix the errors in Pittsburgh’s write-up when I have time today.

    I spent a great deal of time on these college football team write-ups, and I did not consciously try to short shrift any team. Yeah, I guess I should have double-checked everything. But for all that time I spent, ADDING CONTENT TO POSTS, all I get is zero appreciation (literally- not one comment about them for a whole year) and sprawling, pushy diatribes like yours about all the titles the team in question deserves credit for. Because after pointing out my error about the January 1, 1937 Rose Bowl, and the fact that Pittsburgh students played a football game in 1889 that the Pitt athletic department does not consider to be official, your comment is only about how many national titles you think Pitt deserves to be recognized for. And saying otherwise is not an error (at least not until the BCS came into existence in 1998, and none of these recent seasons are in question here). These write-ups are not worth the efffort, and will be phased out for maps I make of 2009 college football conferences. Go argue about Pitt’s national titles with someone else.

    Comment by John — September 9, 2009 @ 2:26 am

  3. Yee, Haw! The Horn Frogs are coming to the BIG East!! Can’t believe how quickly it all fell into place.
    How about an updated Big East map circa 2012 with TCU and Villanova?

    Comment by Hank Falbo — November 30, 2010 @ 9:26 pm

  4. Response to comment #3: Well, I guess I gotta. But not next year. September 2012.

    Comment by admin — December 1, 2010 @ 8:13 am

  5. Come On
    Gracias

    Miato

    Comment by Miato — December 1, 2010 @ 1:54 pm

  6. Interesante, no va a continuar con este artнculo?

    Dolly

    Comment by Dolly — December 20, 2010 @ 2:48 pm

  7. Response to comment #6: Dolly, these type of maps have evolved into a template that takes well over 25 hours to make. I can only spare the time for 1 of these maps a year. I will be doing a Pac-10 map and chart next year, and a Big East map and chart in 2012.

    Comment by admin — December 20, 2010 @ 3:25 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress