Nicholas V. Carparelli, Jr the Senior Associate Commissioner (Football & Marketing) took a shot at Pitt when he said:
But just how good is the "New" Big East compared to the "old" Big East in Week 1?
"New Big East":
Temple beat Villanova 41-10
Memphis lost to Tennessee-Martin (an FCS school) 17-20
SMU lost to Baylor 24-59
Houston lost to Texas State (a new FBS school) 13-30
the great and powerful Boise St lost to Michigan State 13-17
SDSU lost to Washington 12-21
Navy lost to Notre Dame 10-50
UCF beat Akron 56-14
Record against FCS: 1-1
"Old Big East"
WVU won against Marshall 69-34
Pitt lost to YSU 31-17
Cuse lost to Northwestern 41-42
Record against FCS: 0-1
BUT look at those lopsided scores for the "new" big east. 10-50? 13-30 against a school new to football? 24-59? TWO losses to FCS schools? The only schools to win for the "new" big east were Temple--a school that was kicked out for not being competitive in the big east--and UCF. Even the mighty Boise St fell. Now you're going to say, of course, that it was against Michigan St. but the point is that they lost. They've been held up as the savior of the big east..and they lost.
Yes, it's week one, and it won't set the tempo for the season but well, when the commissioner takes a potshot, you have to examine his statements as the facts present themselves. I don't know about you, and I don't expect people at Big East Coast Bias to look at things objectively, but a team losing by one or 14 points compared to 35, or even 40, is the better side of the coin that day.
So, who's the better--old or new? You decide.