»
Topic: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant
Replies: 86   Last Post: Dec 7, 2013 2:41 PM by: deleted
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 86  

Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:21 AM
 

 
Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant

ESPN's Brad Edwards said Wednesday that the ACC needs teams other than Florida St. and Clemson to be consistent winners in order for the national perception of the league to change. Photo by Joshua S. Kelly / US PRESSWIRE Full Story »



Legitimate.***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:27 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Uhhh but we have Duke now too


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:30 AM
 

Doesnt that do it? (sarcasm)

badge-donor-05yr.jpg

Actually......

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:35 AM
 

You put G.Tech, V.Tech, or Miami next to Duke's resume and they would be about 10th in the country. NCAA football is way too much about name recognition.

2019 orange level member

Re: Uhhh but we have Duke now too


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 12:47 PM
 

I would not dis Duke until we see how they fare against FSU? I did not think they would beat VaT or Miami.... but they did!


The ACC is trending up.

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:32 AM
 

FSU is the best team in the country. Clemson is hovering around the top 15 consistently. VT needs to fire their offensive coordinator(s) and recruit a QB and they'll be right back to the top. Miami has been trending upward since Golden got there and now they are done with the sanctions--they'll be "back" next. Louisville is one of the hottest teams in the country the last few years and has an elite coach.

We might not catch the SEC, but I think the ACC is well on it's way to getting back to where it was when the first expansion happened. With that status comes the national respect.


Agree with all of this outside of Louisville.


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:33 AM
 

I think once Bridgewater is gone they will go back to a mediocre team.


Re: Agree with all of this outside of Louisville.


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 7:37 PM
 

FSU and CU carry the entire 14 team ACC on their backs. Miami and VT could do much to help, have no faith in GT with CPJ. Maybe UNC gets respectable again, maybe. L'ville is an unknown playing a full year in the ACC. ND will play 5 ACC games going fwd, how does that affect the league? The rest of the teams are recruiting poorly, have suspect coaching and are generally weak.


Per Sagarin SOS, ACC has been historically weak past 3 years


Posted: Dec 6, 2013 12:30 PM
 

FSU looks legit, but for the last 3 years, Clemson and (this year, Duke) has clearly benefited from playing an historically weak schedule. The ACC (especially this season, the Atlantic) is a dumpster fire. Clemson only beat 3 ACC teams (BC, UMD, & GT) that even have winning records and those "winning" records are 7-5 thanks to 2 cupcake-wins each. Last year Clemson only beat one ACC team that had a winning record (Gone are the days of multiple 8, 9, 10-win ACC teams like the Matt Ryan led BC squads, etc.) I think Edwards is rightfully saying that you need several good teams and a few elite teams, and then it's OK to have the rest be mediocre or worse.

As of 2013 Sagarin started breaking out conferences by division so it's hard to compare to previous years when divisions were lumped together into one conference ranking but it looks like the ACC overall would have been ranked 5th or 6th this season.

ACC’s conference SOS Sagarin rankings: 2013: Atlantic #9 (ahead of only the AAC among major conferences) Coastal #7 as of 12/1/13.
2012: 7
2011: 7
2010: 4
2009: 4
2008: 3
2007: 5
2006: 5
2005: 4
2004: 2
2003: 1
2002: 1
2001: 4


Per Razz, wins and losses should be wholly based on


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 2:41 PM
 

star rankings, out to the second decimal. That is, a team with an average star rating of 3.23 should beat a team with an average of 3.22 stars, every time. I mean, obviously.

Nuff said.


lol...fsu is a game away from


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:33 AM
 

Playing for a NC.
Winning is all the relevancy you need.
Remember when an undefeated auburn team was left out? How did the mighty sec help them?


Replace Big10 for everyone of those arguments, then STFU***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:37 AM
 

Replace Big10 for everyone of those arguments, then STFU***


would agree with this...it's fair


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:40 AM
 

there are two good teams in the ACC and the rest are average.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

True - but not that much more. That is what is so very,

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:43 AM
 

very misleading about this headline. The ACC is only a team or two from being almost dead even with the SEC, in spite of what poll voters and brainwashed media types would have us believe. The SEC is very top heavy, much like the ACC, but the lower half of the upper tier (mid-pack) in the SEC is definitely better. Once you get into the lower half, both conferences are about even (see Vandy- Wake) in my opinion. If VT and Miami ever get back on track, the ACC is right there with the SEC.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Vandy and Wake are even????


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:45 AM
 

Vandy has won 17 games over the past two years....Wake has won 9 games and the coach just quit.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Head-to-head, Absolutely. Vandy won this year with a

[3]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:03 AM
 

last second FG. They are 3-3 over the last 7 years in head-to-head. It doesn't get any more even than that.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


obviously that means we aren't even with SC then.....***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:10 AM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

Of course - I don't see how anybody can claim that we are.


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:55 AM
 

I think we have closed the gap, or maybe even passed them talent wise, but that is irrelevant when talking about who is "best"; you gotta prove it on the field.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Vandy went 4-4 in SEC and beat Tennessee***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:16 AM
 




exactly - THAT is my point. If I understand corectly,

[3]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:51 AM
 

you are using Vandy's SEC record and beating Tenn as evidence that they are better than Wake; I am pointing out that head-to-head competition says otherwise, year-in, year-out, and again this year. It's a misconception, fueled by an endless stream of propaganda from the media.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: True - but not that much more. That is what is so very,


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:42 AM
 

You are so right! There is one thing we have going against us for the most part that the sec doesn't have is the academic expectations for our players. Notice the drop off in performance after Miami joined, and when conference expectations caught up with FSU after a while. They just now are regaining that elite status they enjoyed before joining the conference. The best academic teams have the least success in football. There are a few teams in the sec that are the best in the country, but they are very top heavy. Those top teams, though, are very good and get the notoriety, but the rest benefit because of it.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: True - but not that much more. That is what is so very,


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 12:52 PM
 

The best academic teams have the least success in football.

Duke and Clemson are the top 2 in the ACC in athletic academics and I think we are in the top 3 in the conference in football this year.


Re: True - but not that much more. That is what is so very,


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 3:14 PM
 

Yes, but that is top 3 in a conference that holds academics for their athletes in a more prominent regard than the secheat.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: True - but not that much more. That is what is so very,


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 4:10 PM
 

The ACC would essentially need all of there football schools to be good at once to catch up with where the SEC is now. Don't forget, Tenn, FL, and Arky are all down right now and at some point will likely cycle up.


Re: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant

[2]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:05 AM
 

So in other words, what he is saying, is that even though we have been toe to toe with FSU for the past ten years with this being the first year that FSU has beat Clemson at home in the past ten years. His opinion is that FSU is in a league by their self in the acc. For the sake of argument, lets say that Edwards has no biases toward Clemson. With Jameis being the biggest up grade at FSU. I'm saying Bull Chit. The last 10 years of Clemson/FSU is a whopping 5/5 record with FSU having to win the last two to even it up at 5/5. I agree that FSU is better than us right now, but not enough to cause someone to say they are in a league by them selves. They are a player or two better, but not a whole team.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Good argument. It's reflective of the 'Here and Now' society


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:20 AM
 

everybody has to deal with. I suppose losing every conference game last year doesn't have any impact on AU-burn's "elite" status. I need to reconsider my "Legitimate" comment above.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Good argument. It's reflective of the 'Here and Now' society

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:47 AM
 

AU gets the benefit of the sec media bias. They are in that conference, therefore they must be better than everybody else in their eyes.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

108 yards from irrelevancy just last week. Now... Mizz?***

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:51 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: 108 yards from irrelevancy just last week. Now... Mizz?***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 4:12 PM
 

more like 108 yards from OT with the #1 team in the country and winner of 3/4 last national championships.


Re: 108 yards from irrelevancy just last week. Now... Mizz?***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 4:18 PM
 

Well, couple that with 4th and 80 yards with seconds left against a Georgia team...and two backs in position to bat the ball down...and you have the luckiest Top 20 team in America

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Good argument. It's reflective of the 'Here and Now' society


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 8:15 PM
 

EXACTLY!!!

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:44 AM
 

Those guys say what they think things ought to be in their own minds, not necessarily what facts might show.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:05 PM
 

They are a player or two skill players on offense from having to fight to compete with the top half of the acc.


Two teams are enough to propel one into the National Title.


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:09 AM
 

I'd say that's enough.


Message was edited by: cutigersJD®



We should have beat SCAR then.***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:15 AM
 



2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: We should have beat SCAR then.***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:48 AM
 

Yes, we should have. We didn't though, and we just have to live with it for a while.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: We should have beat SCAR then.***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 8:27 PM
 

I'm convinced if not for the first four turn overs, we would have won that game. It may have been a close one, but I'm going with a close one we win. I think we win with just the first muffled ball on ground by Bryant being shoved almost into Humphries.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Fsu


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:19 AM
 

Are they not in a league of their own so to speak? Not just in the acc, but I'd say compared to anyone in the country when you consider what we've seen week to week on the field.


This year... YES.***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:21 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:22 AM
 

We are an average team at best, in a joke conference.


I am not a fan of the ACC or conferences in general, but...

[6]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:26 AM
 

I'm tired of the bias against our conference. They said the last few years that the ACC needed FSU to be back. The last I checked, they are #1. Now, these media pundits claim that we need FSU, Clemson and two or three additional teams to step it up to be relevant. The SEC for the last three years has been made up of Bama, LSU and the new member A&M. They have had some good teams like SC & UGA, but everyone else has been horrible except for Mizzou & Auburn this last year. The Big 10 is Ohio State and Michigan, period. The Big 12 has been Baylor, Oklahoma, OK State and no one else. The Pac-12 is Oregon and Stanford and the rest of the pack.

The point I'm making is that yes, it would be great if the other teams that we are contracted to play would step it up and not have a nearly four-way tie for 1st place in the Coastal with a 5-3 conference record. And, it would be good to have consistent wins against out of conference foes. But to say that conference relevancy is based on three or more teams to be premier throws out the Big 10, the Pac-12 and to some extent the Big 12 in this discussion too.

This all boils down to the SEC. Lets look at the mighty SEC over the last two years. Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Mississippi St have been HORRIBLE. Auburn and Mizzou were not good last year but turned things around this year. Florida was 7-1 in the conference last year and are now 3-5 this year. SC, UGA, Vandy, Mississippi are good teams but not elite. The last three years, we were told that the SEC was elite because Alabama was the dominant team. This year, we're being told the SEC is elite because there are multiple teams that can compete for a conference championship. Which is it? Is it both? If so, there are other conferences that have had one team dominate and other conferences that have had multiple champions represented from its members.

This is what is referred to as public perception through media bias. The SEC spin masters are excellent at what they do, but they obviously don't think that the average person has a memory beyond 9 months. Just wait until the BCS Committee begins next year. We haven't seen SEC spin like what is about to occur from their conference office and media relations. The other conference offices need to step it up if they want to compete in this media war.


Very well stated.+1.***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:29 AM
 



2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: I am not a fan of the ACC or conferences in general, but...


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:52 AM
 

TU!!! Very well said, and very accurate!

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Yeah, but winning the title the last few years has helped


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:02 PM
 

their image. Now it appears as if all you have to do is make it through "the gauntlet" of the SEC you're going to be handed the title. It doesn't matter if 80% of the conference is mediocre. Everybody knows that 80% of all conferences are mediocre. So the SEC spins it as "we're all bullies that beat up on each other and the biggest bully is coming to take your candy".


When there's a "Wheel of Destiny", something's wrong***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 8:30 PM
 




Re: I am not a fan of the ACC or conferences in general, but...


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 8:45 PM
 

You are absolutely correct. The biases begin with selective memory from one season to another. The mighty sec doesn't have a single undefeated team. Media spin is that they knock each other out with such a difficult schedule. But ain't that what happens to every conference in collegiate sports. They mainly play each other except for a couple of CUP CAKES. Media spin on that since the sec has the softest cup cakes they can get on their schedules. The sec has to schedule Out Of Conference cup cake b/c they beat each other up so badly. But only the sec beats up on each other. Really!!! With the acc and all other conference play each other, but they are all cup cakes.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Wrong! Look at SEC's record in bowls & vs noncon big boys.***


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 1:40 PM
 




Big East has a better bowl record and MWC nipping on their


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 2:17 PM
 

heels for the last 15 years.

Big East obviously rules the college football world!

This thread not even being counted, you say a lot of really silly stuff.


Re: Big East has a better bowl record and MWC nipping on their


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 2:25 PM
 

IDK. Saying that the ACC isn't good isn't really a far-fetched idea.

That may just be my general knowledge of the college football landscape talking.


I certainly wouldn't say top to bottom they're one of the


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 2:36 PM
 

best, but the exaggerations are silly. Lining up top teams is one thing, but trying to say sucky team x from A conference is automatically better than sucky team y from conference B, that's just speculation that can be twisted any number of ways. When folks try to make definitive statements about strength of schedules and whatnot, that stuff is just silly.


Re: I certainly wouldn't say top to bottom they're one of the


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 2:41 PM
 

Agree with that


And SEC needs more than Bama and Auburn to be relevant***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:49 AM
 



2019 student level member

Re: And SEC needs more than Bama and Auburn to be relevant***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:54 AM
 

Not in the eyes of the media. They have had a top 2 or 3 teams carry the rest of the conference for a long time, and the others ride the coat tails.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

They have 7 of the top 25.***

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 11:00 AM
 




That's what happens when you rise from wins over the likes

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 12:03 PM
 

of Miss St. and UF. The 'musical chairs' ranking in the SEC is a joke.

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Re: That's what happens when you rise from wins over the likes


Posted: Dec 6, 2013 9:24 AM
 

They don't understand that. There are many things they don't understand.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Re: And SEC needs more than Bama and Auburn to be relevant***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 8:51 PM
 

Media spin on that is, they are rivalry teams that play each other every year. And only one can win, but it takes nothing away from the other b/c they are rivalries, and the best one of those two don't always win. Puke puke puke on the way the media will spin that conference right up to being next to God!!!! And if we were in the sec, you would never hear it spun the same as Bama and AuBum....


Message was edited by: allorangeallthetime52®


2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

NO doubt the ACC closed some distance on the SEC this year


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 11:59 AM
 

Clemson beat a 100% healthy UGA team. USuC needed 6 turnovers to beat Clemson. FSU whitewashed UF. Vandy needed a last second, come from behind FG to beat lowly WF. UGA had to go to OT to beat GT. The SEC is CLEARLY down this year. When your West champ was 3-9 last year and your East champ couldnt beat anybody last year; you know the conference took a big step back from last year.


Re: NO doubt the ACC closed some distance on the SEC this year


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 8:54 PM
 

Shhhhhh, ESECPN would ban T-Net forever talking sports if they read that.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

ACC is historically weak. SEC had an injury-plagued down yr.


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 1:54 PM
 

The ACC hasn't closed the gap on the SEC in the sense that the ACC has become good. The gap narrowed this year largely because two of the SEC's perennial top teams (UGA & UF) had an absolutely freakish amount of critical injuries.

According to Sagarin, the ACC is historically weak this year (and for the last 3 years that we've had "10-win" seasons).

As of 2013 Sagarin started breaking out conferences by division so it's hard to compare to previous years when divisions were lumped together into one conference ranking but it looks like the ACC overall would have been ranked 5th or 6th this season.

ACC’s conference SOS Sagarin rankings:
2013: Atlantic #9 (ahead of only the AAC among major conferences) Coastal #7 as of 12/1/13.
2012: 7
2011: 7
2010: 4
2009: 4
2008: 3
2007: 5
2006: 5
2005: 4
2004: 2
2003: 1
2002: 1
2001: 4


Yeah, and Sagarin is the guy who won't expose his formula.


Posted: Dec 7, 2013 2:23 PM
 

He currently has Arizona state (10-2) at #3 in the country, Wisconsin at 9-3 is #10, Auburn is #11, and Washington at 8-4 is ahead of both Clemson and USuC. His oddness goes on and on and on. He makes no sense whatsoever.

You do realize the "data" you're attempting to show isn't exact, don't you? ...Wait, aren't you guy who wanted to fire Dabo following 2010 when you tried the same scientific approach to "stars"?


Re: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 12:02 PM
 

Article is spot on


Their nerves are all to helll because they don't have...


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 12:09 PM
 

two SEC teams playing for the MNC. It's really not media bias that causes the public's perception to be perverted it's media delusion.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Actually it's been Bama that has made the SEShe so relevant


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 12:41 PM
 

and sometimes LSU. Truth of the matter is, the fact that Bama has been the most dominant is the reason they have a contender every year. And also having the pundits / media and voters helping the whole league get extras votes hasn't hurt. That's why their 1 to 2 loss teams are always being heralded to the front of the line.


Doesn't seem to hurt the Big 12/Pac 12


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:04 PM
 

They are usually a 2 team league with a huge spread to the next level. Those never get the same types of slams that the ACC gets.


There didn't seem to be that much disparity between leagues


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:08 PM
 

...when you looked at the outcomes of the rivalries. GT played a great game against an injury plagued GA, Wake played a good game against Vanderbilt, Clemson had to commit 6 turnovers, 3 by one guy, in the fourth quarter to lose, and FSU won over Florida. League records don't shake out bad for ACC either. All the top teams in SEC have losses, so how is that considered dominant when they played noooooo dominant teams outside their conference for wins?


And this folks is why you should care about ACC OOC results


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:13 PM
 

Like it or not, we're all in the same bed together. You can say "I don't care about what other teams do" all you want. The fact of the matter is that we all share the same last name. What they do is a reflection on us.


Clemson beat LSU and Louisville beat Florida


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 3:59 PM
 

and it was swept under the rug. ESPN acted like it didn't happen to these "elite" SEC teams. Double standard.


I'm done with ESPN's definition of "relevant".


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:22 PM
 

We are poised to have a team in the national championship game, a potential BCS at large, and more bowl teams (11) than we have tie-ins. We did just fine this year as a conference.

What is so unbelievably tiresome from the media is this "all or nothing" garbage. Yes, the ACC went 5-3 against the SEC, but look at those games. GT/Georgia was a battle. Wake/Vandy was a very tight game on the road. Clemson had a -6 turnover margin on the road. We were completely competitive as a conference. We're no less "relevant" than any other conference. This story line is tired and I'm over it.

null


Re: I'm done with ESPN's definition of "relevant".


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:24 PM
 

More moral victories.


How so? I didn't say we won. ******


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:30 PM
 



null


Re: I'm done with ESPN's definition of "relevant".


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 3:14 PM
 

Yes, the ACC went 5-3 against the SEC, but look at those games. GT/Georgia was a battle. Wake/Vandy was a very tight game on the road. Clemson had a -6 turnover margin on the road.


It's a question of competitiveness. Do you not understand?


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 4:33 PM
 

I get it if you're just here to act like South Carolina's win makes you a big strong boy.

But if you're having a discussion, have a discussion. The difference between a conference being "relevant" and "sucking" isn't told by going 5-3 against the SEC. It's absurd. As if a Wake Forest field goal changes a conference from fair to terrible.

Do you not understand that?

null


Re: I'm done with ESPN's definition of "relevant".


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 5:21 PM
 

GT took UGA to double over time.

7 days prior it took a miracle for the SEC West champion to beat UGA.

If you look at what actually happened ON THE FIELD, the ACC was just as good as the SEC this year.


Re: I'm done with ESPN's definition of "relevant".


Posted: Dec 6, 2013 10:53 AM
 

Not really


How can the ACC improve when the SEC gets all the perks that

[1]
Posted: Dec 5, 2013 2:53 PM
 

help a league dominate? They get a far better TV package, much better bowls, and the worlds largest sports network (ESPN) as a PR agent. How can the rest of the world compete in recruiting and other factors when the SEC has an almost unethical advantage?


Re: How can the ACC improve when the SEC gets all the perks that


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 10:31 PM
 

It's certainly a major hidden recruiting tool for sec conference each time this conference is advertised or displayed as the world most powerful or the most relevant league in college football. No booster org. or college support org. can sell them info. to the recruiting nation or the high school football league without repercussions.


Clearly


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 3:40 PM
 

He'd like Clemson to remain where it is.... Consider the source eSECpn reporter

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

We do Chicken right...it's not just for frying anymore!


It bothers me and should bother you that Edwards and others


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 4:21 PM
 

like him want FSU and Miami to be elite but for Clemson to be just good but not in the mix.

Sorry Brad, I do not want 2nd status to anyone. We owned the league from 1977-1991. I ready to own or at least compete for the top spot. That is our goal.

GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

So says the Bama journalism grad who works for ESPN.


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 7:39 PM
 

First, consider the source.

If FSU wins the BCS title this year, then that would end the SEC stranglehold on the title. The fact that FSU is in the ACC, well that's gotta count for something.

As for Clemson, we have to work harder than ever to stay relevant in the BCS "big picture" beginning with beating FSU and SCAR in the same season and win the ACC title.

That would position us to be in the BCS title hunt conversation.

All this conference talk is annoying, IMO. If the ACC truly wasn't relevant, then we wouldn't have FSU in position for a possible BCS championship as opposed to, say, an undefeated Mountain West team (there aren't any, but Fresno State has only one loss) or an undefeated American Athletic Conference team (none, but Louisville is 10-1).

Except for the SEC, the other conferences vying for relevance is a cyclical thing with a handful of teams doing well enough to get into the title game...like Texas, Oregon, Southern Cal, Ohio State, and even Notre Dame have done.

To me, the conference talk is a stale argument...but I'll confess that all that really matters to me is Clemson winning.

Should FSU win the title, I'm not going to jump up and down and say "Yay, ACC!" 'cause I completely and absolutely confess that I hate the 'Noles.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

Rogers I agree with you


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 7:47 PM
 

But I do want to make one point, and not trying to cause a stir. You do have to remember that it took 2 more undefeated teams losing to put FSU in that position as well. If bama and Oregon won out it would have been tough to put FSU in the title game. The acc did them no favors for sure. I'm sure you can agree with that.


Re: Rogers I agree with you


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 7:58 PM
 

FSU is gonna beat the #### out of whoever they play whether it's OSU or a might SEC team.

Take your SOS rankings and shove them up your ass.


It's always a convoluted argument except for 'Bama...


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:01 PM
 

...because things usually go their way, regardless.

It's fair to say that they've essentially earned *some* "privileged" status because they routinely destroy everyone on their schedule. Last year, they lose to Texas A&M before going on to beating everyone else on their way to winning the SEC title. In hindsight, Notre Dame had no business being on the field with them after that 42-14 debacle.

It would have been interesting to see how Oregon would've fared....ah, but that Notre Dame allure, lol. So, we got what we got. That's why the 4 team playoff will finally bring some clarity to the national championship.

In the 2011 season, it seemed like there would be a compelling championship match-up after LSU beat 'Bama 9-6 in the regular season. The re-match turned into a 21-0 shutout of LSU by 'Bama. Give all the credit to 'Bama and their defense in shutting down LSU in the highly anticipated rematch.

Yet, Saban played a key role in getting 'Bama into that game by voting Oklahoma State down to number 4 on his BCS coaches ballot: LINK= http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/55279/saban-votes-oklahoma-state-no-4

So, I guess that the bottom line of what I'm saying is that "IFs" are a factor every year under the current system. "If" Auburn didn't beat 'Bama...(they did). "If" Oregon had not been beaten by Stanford and Arizona (they were).

I'll also say that I think FSU (with Winston as QB) would beat anyone who played them this year...and I expect they'll win out all the way to the BCS championship game. They are loaded on both sides of the ball - as much as I hate to admit that.

As good/deep as FSU is, the ACC argument is irrelevant.

I expect them to beat Duke - and then anyone put up against them in the BCS championship. Rah-Rah ACC, :)

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg

If they had put them in opposing divisions we'd have one***


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:09 PM
 




Re: Front Page Story: Edwards: ACC needs more than FSU and Clemson for league to be relevant


Posted: Dec 5, 2013 9:32 PM
 

Needs to tell that to the rest of the conferences also...
media bias at it's finest.
GO TIGERS!!!

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

Miami is getting there, they have had top 10


Posted: Dec 6, 2013 12:19 AM
 

classes the last few years. Also the ACC has 3 teams with 10+ wins. Clemson, FSU and Duke

military_donation.jpg

Notre Dame and Miami will be in the top 15 next year too.


Posted: Dec 6, 2013 5:57 AM
 

Why not put all 15 ACC teams into scheduling divisions and have the teams with the best DIVISIONAL records meet in the ACC-CG.

Atlantic (with cross divisional games in parenthesis):
CU (FSU)
VT (L-ville)
Miami (FSU)
GT (WF)
UVA (WF)
NCST (UNC)
BC (Syracuse)
Pitt (L-ville)
Duke (UNC)

Coastal (with cross divisional games in parenthesis):
FSU (Miami, CU)
Notre Dame
L-ville (Pitt, VT)
UNC (Duke, NCST)
Syracuse (BC)
WF (UVA, GT)
Navy FB only

The teams with the best DIVISIONAL records meet in the ACC-CG.


Replies: 86  
[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
4488 people have read this post