Is the "New" Big East better than the "Old" Big East?

So in the comments we talk about Pitt losing to an FCS team, and how bad they are. Even

Nicholas V. Carparelli, Jr the Senior Associate Commissioner (Football & Marketing) took a shot at Pitt when he said:

The #BigEast will be a better football conference on the field next year than it has ever been!

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 FCS 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

Record: 1-6
Record against FCS: 1-2

"Old Big East"
WVU won against Marshall 69-34
Pitt lost to YSU 31-17
Cuse lost to Northwestern 41-42

Record: 1-2
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? The only school to win for the "new" big east was Temple--a school that was kicked out for not being competitive in the big east.

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.

So, who's the better--old or new? You decide