Topic: Who is really to blame for ACC's demise in football?
Replies: 52   Last Post: May 21, 2012 4:44 PM by: CUZ28
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 52   Pages: 1  

Who is really to blame for ACC's demise in football?

Posted: May 21, 2012 9:45 AM

What if FSU had fired Bobby Bowden in 2006 or so like they should have, hired Nick Saban (or Jimbo Fisher even), and won two NCs in the last few years?

What if Miami had not hired Larry Coker, and hired Saban or Spurrier even in the early 2000s, and had won a NC or two the last few years?

What if Clemson had fired TB 4 years earlier, hired Spurrier, and had won a NC the last few years?

BC lost 2 great coaches in 3 years. Who's fault was that?

Butch Davis lost total contronl at UNC where there was much potential.

Did Swofford botch the new TV contract? We'll see when the other deals are done, and if he really did he should go.

Still, it just seems like there's much bellyaching from internet crazies looking for a scapegoat, when the real scapegoats and the ones responsible for the ACC's demise are right under our noses.

Would there be any issue of ACC schools moving to the Big 12 if the ACC football teams and coaches had won more?


Short term: the demise of FSU and UM and to an extent

Posted: May 21, 2012 9:50 AM


Long term: The ACC's decision to hitch its wagon to hoops back in the late 50s and the deemphasis of foootball at UNC Dook and Maryland.

Also: the decision to beat up on Clemson, the 1 true football school in the ACC in the early 80s.

Orange Googlers Unite

Save Tigernet--Boot the coots(you know who I mean).

Myth. I think they did hitch their wagon to academics

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:26 AM

though in the 50s and it worked out like that.

The extra year of probabtion may have hurt us in '84/'85 but we had one of the top ten programs in the country in '88, '89, '90, '91, and could have played with anyone. So I don't think that has anything to do with the ACC being weak in football then or now. FSU was great in the 90s as was UVA and GT at times.

Because in the 70's and 80's we could play huge OOC

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:41 AM

games against UGA (and even pre-ACC FSU) every year that sharpened our teeth and allowed us to get better--as well as playing Maryland and then UNC in their little power run in the 70's and 80's. That OOC game with a huge foe really helped Clemson to move its program forward.

Of course, but the extra year of probation didn't hurt our

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:48 AM

program. We were a better program in the late 80s than the early 80s.

Thread jack?

Message was edited by: josephg®


Posted: May 21, 2012 9:50 AM

Plain and simple. When bowl tie-in's go away, games that could be big go on Raycom at noon rather than Fox or NBC, and when basketball schools get their Tier 3 but the football schools don't get theirs--there is a serious fail in leadership.

Message was edited by: AThomas®

Gotta keep Swoffy Jr. employed***

Posted: May 21, 2012 9:54 AM

If FSU won a NC in 2008, Miami in 2009, and Clemson

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:28 AM

2010, wouldn't we have better bowl tie-ins?

I just don't buy it.

You have your opinions and I have mine--how about that?

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:37 AM

John "Bozo the Clown" is not the leader that Mike Slive is and never will be. If the ACC have had Slive we would be at the top of all conferences at the moment but then that's JMHO.

But you only debate that point with rhetoric***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:52 AM


Message was edited by: josephg®

Hey--I was respectful of your BS -- so stay classy***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:54 AM

What's a classy word for BS? I'll try to amend.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:55 AM

Rhetoric like FSU,UM and Clemson winning 3 NCs in a row?***

Posted: May 21, 2012 1:42 PM

They haven't come close...that's why the ACC is down.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 2:13 PM

No...US dominating the 80s and FSU dominating the 90s did

Posted: May 21, 2012 4:26 PM

NOTHING for the perceived strength of the ACC...In fact, it had an adverse effect...Does FSU and the eight dwarves ring a bell? Teams DON'T stay on top eating whitemeat...Not anymore...

Yea, you need at least two great teams. That's why I

Posted: May 21, 2012 4:42 PM

mentioned several schools.

The SEC only had two great teams last year.

Complete make believe...***

Posted: May 21, 2012 1:43 PM

That's right. That's why it's not complete make believe

Posted: May 21, 2012 4:11 PM

that the individual teams and coaches are to blame.

I think you've mostly got it right...

Posted: May 21, 2012 9:53 AM

However it happened, the downfall of FSU & Miami on the field severely degraded the perception of the entire ACC football product. When Miami came on, the thinking was they FSU & Miami would carry the torch for football in this conference. But that just hasn't happened.

The only consistent program has been VPI, honestly. Everybody else is up and down. We actually have a lot of schools that are good in football, but none that have broken through to great.

I'm not sure any of that matters...

Posted: May 21, 2012 9:55 AM

The ACC has been run with the mindset that TV and revenue will come to it. You go to the money.

Do you have any specifics as to what should have been

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:30 AM

done, 2004 to now?

Placing blame or pointing out error seldom solves problems.

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:08 AM

At this point it's really academic to point out the mismanagement and failure of achievement of the football programs of the ACC. You may throw VT in with the rest of us too.

It might be productive to try and understand why this happened so as not to repeat it. I agree that the Bowdens played a big part of the ACC's demise but the schools are the reason they and the other coaches were retained.

The schools are also the reason the conference management is allowed to continue. The ACC is nothing more than a collection of schools that make horrible decisions regarding football.

I wonder why that is?

LOL, Swofford had guns to their heads to he bring down

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:22 AM

football at the expense of basketball I guess.

We don't have to get snippy all the time.

Posted: May 21, 2012 11:19 AM

I said the schools make up the conference. That squarely puts the responsibility of the management on the school. I said nothing about Swofford.

Re: Who is really to blame for ACC's demise in football?

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:32 AM

Having some teams win more wouldn't help the ACC. The problem is that it has too many dead weight football programs that few people want to see on TV. That's what dragging down the TV contract.

All conferences have that.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:49 AM

Which group is worse over the last 5 years

Posted: May 21, 2012 1:34 PM


Ole Miss/Vandy/Kentucky?

Kansas/Iowa State/Colorado/Baylor?

Washington/Wash State/UCLA?


I don't know, but I would imagine it would be closer to a toss up than people think.

Agree. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:32 AM

Re: Agree. We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:38 AM

Point for the Pogo reference.


Posted: May 21, 2012 10:45 AM

So, Swofford is the reason FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC,

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:54 AM

and GT didn't win more the last 10 years?

Schools not named FSU, Clemson, and VT

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:41 AM

The truth is that UNC, Duke, Wake, Maryland, BC, and even UVa (to an extent) do not care about football the way we do. For all it's tradition, GT can't fill up Grant Fieldhouse every week.

It's fine if the ACC wants to be basketball first. The Big East decided to go basketball a few years ago. However, money is in the pigskin.

Why did UNC hire Butch Davis? I think what you say

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:50 AM

is true of Duke and maybe Wake to a lesser extent. Not the other three.

clemson would never hire sos

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:44 AM

past,present or future.


Posted: May 21, 2012 10:51 AM

No, we just hired his whipping boy.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:59 AM

Reverse experiences and Dabo would leave SOS in the

Posted: May 21, 2012 11:39 AM

dust. Would be no contest!!

What if BC, GT, Wake, Maryland, Miami, or UNC brought

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:57 AM

more than 2k to their bowl games. This whole thing is about money and the ACC doesn't have the interest in football to generate money. Fans don't travel and no one wants to watch the ACC play football.


Posted: May 21, 2012 11:22 AM

I agree with that.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 11:35 AM

Might do a little more research on GT and UNC at their

Posted: May 21, 2012 11:43 AM

recent bowl games.

UNC travels well. GT traveled well to Tampa in ACCCG.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 11:55 AM

Does it really matter whose "fought" it is

Posted: May 21, 2012 10:58 AM

or even why?

It seems the much more important thing is to make the right decisions NOW.

Football has NEVER been a priority under Swofford

Posted: May 21, 2012 11:41 AM

and plays 2nd fiddle at too many ACC schools.

Swofford played college football. Examples

Posted: May 21, 2012 12:52 PM

of him putting college basketball above football? Now, he has put academics as a priority when expanding but don't remember him adding any basketball or football schools with bad academics.

You have 4 basketball schools in the ACC, UNC, Duke, Wake, and UMD.

The others are either football schools or both.

John Swofford played football and was athletic director

Posted: May 21, 2012 1:00 PM

at one of the most basketball-centric universities in college sports. If you think that he hasn't adapted and furthered unc's primary focus on being a "basketball school", I'm not sure anyone could give you effective examples---even pointing out that the additions of Pitt and Syracuse most assuredly were not made to strengthen football in the ACC.

And I even question his making academics a; priority considering the NCAA's investigation and now a criminal investigation into academic fraud at unc with no penalty from the ACC---Swofford even accompanied unc's cadre to plead their case (after the NCAA had uncovered academic impropriety) in front of the NCAA Committee on Infractions. If his actions didn't undermine any false image of "academic priority", I don't what would.

Dean Smith/UNC winning "adapted and furthered" UNC's

Posted: May 21, 2012 1:07 PM

focus for basketball. What has Swofford done, specifically, to further that? Remember, be specific.

WVU would be in the ACC if not for low entrance requirements, and keep in mind that WVU is a great basketball and football school.

Has the ACC under Swofford ever had an add-on penalty for a school under NCAA sanctions? No.

Trying to jam a square peg into a round hole over and over doesn't mean you'll eventually get it in.

Swofford was the athletic director at unc for years during

Posted: May 21, 2012 1:40 PM

the Dean Smith era......what specifically did he do to strengthen their football program?? Remember, be specific.

I can ask the same question.

As athletic director, he was ultimately in charge of, as I said, one of the most basketball focused universities in college sports. I don't understand your difficulty in accepting his role in the sports hiearchy at unc.

And the answer to the add-on penalty is a sham. The ACC has certainly added penalties to both Clemson and Maryland just before Swoffords tenure, but as he said in an interview not long ago, its not Swofford who personally votes on that issue. The conference has a Committee on Infractions who decides those things. Additionally, with the possible exception of FlaSt, who in the ACC has had major sanctions levied against them during Swoffords tenure until unc this year.

LOL. This post is a sham.You make statements and

Posted: May 21, 2012 2:13 PM

don't back them up with anything, nothing at all.


Posted: May 21, 2012 3:00 PM

You got that straight bubba.***

Posted: May 21, 2012 4:09 PM


Posted: May 21, 2012 3:06 PM

Re: Who is really to blame for ACC's demise in football?

Posted: May 21, 2012 4:44 PM

John Swofford.

It has nothing to do with Clemson, Miami, FSU, etc's winning.

The conference isn't on the brink of destruction because schools are looking to leave in search of immediate wins, they're looking to go to a place where wins will be more difficult in the short term in hopes that the money provided by the move will yield wins down the road.

Despite the lackluster performances by the football schools, the ACC comes in third among conferences in football ratings and second in basketball ratings; those viewers are what television networks are ultimately paying for. However, our contract will almost assuredly be fifth place among the conferences even after giving up more rights than anyone else.

Swofford's inability to translate the eyeballs generated by ACC football into dollars is what has led us to this point.

Replies: 52   Pages: 1  


FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: Season tickets available: (2/4) Sect F-$1500 each / (2) Sect UE-$1500 each / (2/4) Sect O-$1450 each...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Board Archive ]
Start New Topic
1795 people have read this post