I'll open with an obscure statistical trivia question: Over the past four seasons of Big East play, which teams have had the biggest disparity between their record at home and their record on the road? I'll give you a clue: neither of the two largest disparities belongs to USF. We'll get to the answer in a sec.
You know that good teams win at home in college football. Consider the Big East since USF joined in 2005: Take away Syracuse's abysmal 2-12 home record, and the rest of the league is 65-33 at home, winning nearly two out of three games. But that dominance is spread out pretty evenly -- consider these home conference records: West Virginia 11-3, Louisville 10-4, Rutgers 10-4, Cincinnati 9-5, USF 9-5, Pittsburgh 8-6, Connecticut 8-6. Not a huge difference from the best in the league to second-worst ...
Road success is what seems to separate the league's elite from the rest. West Virginia, amazingly, is 11-3 on the road in the last four years. The Mountaineers have been above .500 on the road in conference every season -- compare those four winning seasons against the rest of the league, which has combined for five such seasons in the same span (Cincy the past two years, Pitt last year, Louisville in '06, Rutgers in '05).
Nobody else in the Big East has a winning record on the road since 2005 -- it drops clear to Cincinnati and Rutgers at 7-7, Pitt at 6-8, USF and Louisville at 5-9, Connecticut 3-11 and Syracuse way down at 1-13.
(And if you're wondering about overall league records since '05, USF is tied for fifth: West Virginia 22-6, Rutgers 17-11, Cincinnati 16-12, Louisville 15-13, Pittsburgh 14-14, USF 14-14, UConn 11-17, Syracuse 3-25.)
Back to our question: The biggest disparity between home and road records belongs to Louisville and Connecticut -- both have five more home wins than they have on the road, making them twice as likely to win at home than away. USF is close behind, with a 9-5 home record that flips to 5-9 on the road. The programs with the least difference are at both extremes -- West Virginia is identically dominant at home and on the road, and Syracuse tends to lose wherever it plays.
I'm figuring all this out as I try to decide how much it helps four Big East teams (Pitt, Rutgers, UConn and Syracuse) that have four games at home this season. Rutgers, for instance, went 2-2 at home against the same teams in 2007 and 2005; Syracuse went 0-4 in the same boat in '07 and '05. And those same four teams all went 1-2 on the road in 2007 and went a combined 2-10 on the road in 2005.
I'll have some links up in a bit ...
Times sportswriter Greg Auman, who covers USF, will post news and thoughts on the Bulletin and we invite your participation in the comments area.
This is a pretty good post on the big east. http://thematadorsports.com/blog/?p=239
Posted by: Jason | July 16, 2009 at 01:20 PM
That is funny Chalko...
But remember it is a Friday night (and no sports on tv)...
so I am thinking this is a solid case of drinking and blogging, which can be at times a very bad mix :)
Posted by: Bulliever | June 27, 2009 at 12:33 AM
Let's just argue that the reason the Big East is not ranked in the top 25 is because NO ONE wants to play any of us (but maybe the Cuse...)
The Big East is second with BCS conferences to play !-AA teams... #1 is the ACC.
Come on..please... Why won't the SEC, Big Ten, Pac 10 play us... ? I guess if we did, and have at least a.500 record against them... how can we be considered the Big Least?
Food for thought, USF has a better record playing an SEC team than does OSU...
Posted by: Bulliever | June 27, 2009 at 12:25 AM
James, I think you need an IQ test. USF was definitely the right school for you.
Posted by: Commish Chalko | June 26, 2009 at 11:47 PM
everyone runs the be down but i never here of fsu a couple years in the bcs game with a 7 and 4 record. the acc has been bad for a few years. why not run them down?
Posted by: james hicks | June 26, 2009 at 11:12 PM
Interesting info, Greg. Those histories aren't irrelevant, of course, but we're talking about next year. I'm guessing that those teams in the middle are also the most variable in terms of their home and away records.
Posted by: Ken | June 25, 2009 at 04:37 PM
The BE only had what... 2 teams in the top 25 at the end of last year? They certainly need to accomplish exactly what Greg said. I think the BE has to overcome the perception of being the weakest BCS conference also.
Posted by: Steve O'Neal | June 25, 2009 at 02:39 PM
What the Big East needs to stay relevant nationally is have a team or two hovering in the top 25 all season. As it stands, they won't likely have a team in the top 20 to open the year, and need the top teams to start strong -- if USF can win against Florida State, for instance, it's a huge boost for the league.
Posted by: G.A. | June 25, 2009 at 02:03 PM
This is what I have been saying for a while now...
and just said in an earlier post. The Big East is underrated. This is a very competitive conference and HOME GAMES are a big deal...
It is because we are such a small conference, that we get knocked around....
But, in order for USF to get to the next level we need to be able to play away from home. GO Bulls!
BTW, I am so glad that I can provide my fellow "BullFans" with so much free entertainment. :)
Posted by: Bulliever | June 25, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Nice info, Greg. Hopefully the Bulls will improve in road games and BE play in general. We have to learn to play well the entire season and improve considerably in conferece play. Can hardly wait for the season to start. Keeping my fingers crossed and hope that we have a successful season.
Posted by: Steve O'Neal | June 25, 2009 at 12:43 PM
I don't know that I need to do much beside enter a post here to do that most days ...
Posted by: G.A. | June 25, 2009 at 12:21 PM
GA, you will get Chalko, Bulliever and Stevo going on this one, LOL
Posted by: Bullfan | June 25, 2009 at 11:36 AM