Adding Louisville and a part time Notre Dame makes the conference stronger. However, in my humble opinion, the conference is not all that strong and needs stronger out of conference games to bring their schedule strengths up. But I have to admit that FSU has a strong out of conference schedule and their schedule strength should be considerably stronger than last year. I will also have to admit that the Gators contributed to the FSU easy schedule.
A strong FSU and a resurgent Miami program to go along with usually excellent Clemson will make the ACC a very good conference. UNC has potential to be a very good program as well as Pitt who has an excellent coachi in Paul Chryst who I think will have them doing very well by year 5. Ga. Tech is a solid program as well. I don't see anything changing the rank of the SEC as being the #1 Conference but I do think that the ACC could rival the Pac16 as the #2 conference. Big 12 is sinking right now.
That's a good analysis Terry. I am not sure Miami is resurgent but we will see. They had a good start and weak finish last year. I think Louisville will be a program to be dealt with in the ACC. You left out the Big 10?
I don't know where the B1G fits. They added 2 very mediocre football programs in Maryland and Rutgers, Ohio State will always be a top 10 football team and if Dantonio stays at Michigan State which all indications are that he will, Michigan State will probably be a consistent top 15 program, they still can't recruit with Ohio State and Michigan, they are more like Wisconsin do more with less. But the bottom half of the B1G is terrible.
Last season, the Pac12 was 4-0 vs the ACC. They were 3-0 vs bowl teams. All 4 wins were blowouts. BC had 2 blowout losses last year. They were not to Florida State and Clemson as you might suspect. They were to USC and Arizona. Before you try any of that 'they were a different team' nonsense. USC put the beat down on BC on week before BC fought Florida State tooth and nail before FSU pulled away for a 2 TD win. Clemson beat them by 10, 2 weeks later. Anyway, here's the hard numbers: * Oregon 59 Virginia 10 * Arizona 42 Boston College 19 *USC 35 Boston College 7 (Lane Kiffin was fired 2 weeks later) *UCLA 42 Virginia Tech 12
The ACC clearly has gained respectability with the national championship (although Corey believes that comparative scores show that a Pac12 team should have been in the NC game :wink: ). The SEC came back to the pack this year but still managed to put a team in the NC game. The Pac12 is respectable as is the Big10 (Can you say Rose Bowl?). The Big12 still is a good conference (e.g., OK over AL in bowl game). I agree with Terry that the ACC has the potential to rise to a higher status among the major conferences. Will it happen? Time will tell. One thing is certain. The 4-team playoff will create a whole new set of arguments over relative conference strengths.
We all know those pesky things like on field results can get in the way. One reason so many, that I know of, are glad the BCS is dead is this tactic of using a 'floating metric' that isn't based on anything tangible. On field results don't matter. Scheduling doesn't matter. It's all hype and hyperbole with one big game at the end of the season to justify it all. I can say Rose Bowl. Since 2001, I believe the Pac12 is 7-2 against the B1G in the Rose Bowl. There's no denying the incredible job that Michigan State did this year. That brings me to, why not Michigan State playing for the BCSCG?! That's something almost no one mentioned until after the fact. Aside from articles and op-ed pieces, what tangible evidence can you show me that the ACC was so great this year? Whatever metric has been supplied over the years, the P12 matched it or exceeded it only to be met with another excuse. You can tell me the ACC is great all you want, and you can dismiss on field results all you want but the bottom line is that BC was a very competitive team in the ACC who did quite well and gave the 2 best teams in that conference fits. They got the **** kicked out of them twice all year, and it was by Pac12 teams USC and Arizona. Virginia Tech was supposed to have some great defense and played with lots of heart. Yet another team that was supposed to be indicative of how tough the ACC is, and UCLA kicked the **** out of them. I'm not even touching the 59-10 drubbing of Virginia by Oregon because Oregon could have made the score anything they wanted to in that game. It's Virginia. It's like trying to claim moral victories because Cal hung tough with Ohio State and Northwestern. They're shitty and that's all that matters. These aren't just bowl results. These are games played at the start of the year, a third of the way through the year and at the end of the year. You guys can hold on tight to your marketing campaigns. The closer we get to an 8-team playoff, the less it will all matter.
Corey. Chill. Who said the ACC was great? No one. Who questioned the respectability of the Pac16? No one. Who even questioned the validity of the Pac16 wins over the ACC teams? No one. Who are you arguing with? Terry said that "...the ACC could rival the Pac16 as the #2 conference." The key word is "could" which implies a future possibility. In fact, he complimented the Pac16 by referring to them as the #2 conference. I said, "The ACC clearly has gained respectability with the national championship." That's a fact, regardless of what you think of the conference as a whole.
You can re-read the thread. It's pretty clear. Every single year we read this nonsense, especially about the ACC. Every year they start off with all this respect that they have to lose on the field. It must be a wonderful thing. Terry stated that with just these few changes in scheduling, the ACC could be rivaling the Pac12 as the #2 conference, when I could make a pretty damned strong claim using the previous metrics that the Pac12 was no worse than tied for the top conference this year. If you think that I'm the only one who reads those 'ACC is awesome' and greets it with a groan, you're mistaken. Rather than draw it all out, I just showed there's no evidence of that whatsoever. Not some random anecdotal claim from 10 years ago. Games that were played not even 4/5 months ago. I don't have to chill, it's just having a laugh and trying to make people think, for once, that maybe we give too much to these conferences. According to the script, we all knew Clemson was for real because they beat Georgia at home... who turned out to not be as good as billed. The SECfiles will claim 'oh but injuries, as if injuries don't impact every team across the board. You and I could make a hell of a claim for the Irish to be better using the would have, could have, should have standard of injuries and punishments. Anyway, there's now this grand assumption that Clemson is awesome. Then they get smoked by Florida State. Now, the grand assumption is that Florida State is awesome although their #1 handicap all year was that no one believed in the strength of their conference. Also according to the script, we know Auburn was great because they won the SEC this year. They had 2 miracle wins this year: Alabama and Georgia. They had 1 near miracle win over Washington State who is bottom of the middle of the Pac12. (sorry, Kes) They also had a meltdown win over Texas A&M that I'm fairly sure has Aggie fans stinging 3 months later. Now, you're a ridiculously bright guy Sid. Surely you can step back at that and say, 'well how do we know these guys are the best?!' They all just play each other and declare one of them champion at the end of the road. Even in your own response, although in jest, proves my point. I show clear evidence to support my claim that the ACC is nowhere near as good as the Pac12, and you hit me back with "ROSE BOWL!" That's fair. This isn't just about the Pac12. It's about this laughable notion that one or two conferences are just handed everything. Jesus, at least with the SEC they produce on field. The ACC cranks out a couple of nice wins here and there enabling them to live off of them for another decade. Who else gets that consideration? We take this 'means justify the ends' mindset to this process, and I could live with that a whole lot more, if it applied to anymore than 1 or 2 conferences. Never once was the Mountain West afforded that consideration. The Big East was never once afforded that consideration. This public damage to the brand has caused permanent, and in one case fatal, damage to the conferences. We're all too busy watching the money fly by to take notice. We shouldn't chill more, we should think more. That's my only assertion here.
Auburn was very close to beating FSU.... and I think MSU would have come just as close... and maybe could have pulled it off with that defense.
I don't know how good the ACC will get, but with FSU, Clemson, Louisville, a part time Notre Dame and an improving Miami they could be formidable. And their basketball is second to none.
meh...I stick by my post, the ACC looks to me to be on the rise, good out of conference scheduling and the top teams in the conference looking very good. If Corey wants to go all out to prove that the Pac16 is really the best conference and all that, fine.
Agreed. They are running one hell of a marketing campaign. Now, if they can just produce on field results to match that PR campaign, they'll be cookin' with gas.