http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...02031.html

ACC Football Leads the Nation in Irrelevance

By John Feinstein
Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Here we go again.

As in here we go with another fall of hearing the spinners from the Atlantic Coast Conference tell us how balanced the league is. Sure, the ACC is balanced -- apparently no one (again) is really any good.

Oh, sure, Virginia Tech played respectably in losing to Alabama. The Hokies may very well be the class of the league again and can play in the Orange Bowl against someone like Cincinnati or Rutgers in a game watched by dozens.

For all the preseason hype about all the returning quarterbacks and how this was going to be the year the ACC became important again -- although when exactly was the ACC important nationally outside of Tallahassee? -- it took exactly one week for the league to once again be exposed for what it truly is: a basketball league. Except for the fact that, outside of Chapel Hill, it hasn't been much of a basketball league since the now infamous football expansion of 2005.

Let's review Week One in a league that deserves a BCS bowl bid most years even less than the Big 10 deserved the two it got last year.

The overall record was 4-6. The four wins were as follows: North Carolina over division 1-AA Citadel (sorry, not using the silly new NCAA terminology); Boston College over Northeastern (also a division 1-AA school); Georgia Tech over yet another 1-AA, Jacksonville State; and Clemson, in the league's highlight game of the week, beating Middle Tennessee State. In short, the conference had one win over a division 1-A team.

It did not, however, go undefeated against 1-AA teams. The Duke apologists -- and they are legion these days -- will point out that Duke lost to the defending 1-AA champions, Richmond. All well and good except that when your program is allegedly on the rise and people are screaming that this is the year you are going to "rise," to 6-6 and go to a bowl (yeah, sure), you aren't supposed to lose to a team you beat a year ago. The good news for the Blue Devils is they get another crack at a 1-AA opponent when they play North Carolina Central in a couple weeks. Maybe next year they can find a way to schedule 12 teams from 1-AA and climb that 6-6 mountain once and for all.

Duke's loss was not as embarrassing as Virginia's. The Cavaliers turned the ball over seven times and lost to William and Mary, a team that was supposed to provide a decent warm-up before a home game against TCU on Saturday. Turns out Virginia provided William and Mary with a decent warm-up for the upcoming CAA season. After all, the CAA is now 2-0 against the ACC. Maybe its champion should get a BCS bid.

Four ACC teams (gasp!) actually opened against 1-A opponents. None of them actually won a game, but at least, by gosh, they gave it a shot. Wake Forest opened at home against Baylor, a team that might have a big year and win three games in the Big 12. Final score: Baylor 24, Wake 21. At least it was close. North Carolina State also kept it close although scoring a touchdown was an issue. The Wolfpack lost 7-3 to what looks like a mediocre South Carolina team.

Maryland went west and got crushed 52-13 at California, leaving Ralph Friedgen muttering about how young his team is. Whenever coaches bring that up -- as they always do after getting hammered -- the next question should be this: Why are they so young? You're in your ninth year, coach -- where are your juniors and seniors? The good news is the Terrapins have 1-AA James Madison coming to town this week. Oh wait, JMU is in the CAA, maybe that isn't such good news.

At least Virginia Tech stayed in the game against Alabama. At least it didn't get embarrassed against the Crimson Tide the way Clemson did last year. That's what the ACC has come to: celebrating a respectable loss by its highest-ranked team. All that talk about Tech perhaps making the BCS title game? You can forget it. Even if they run the table the rest of the season, who will the Hokies beat who matters? Another ACC team? Don't think so.

Of course there's always Miami and Florida State, who open on Labor Day night against one another. These are the schools the ACC brought in (Florida State in 1991, Miami in the ill-fated 2005 expansion) to really make itself into a football power. Two years ago Miami made the NCAA basketball tournament. Last year Florida State made it. So, at the very least, their basketball programs have improved under the ACC banner.

The experts are now claiming that FSU and Miami are both "close," to being good again. We'll see. One wonders how any ACC school would do right now in the SEC, the Big 12 or the Pac-10 -- which is supposed to be a little bit down this year. Don't tell Maryland that right now.

The BCS is now clearly divided into two divisions: The Big 12, the SEC and, occasionally, the Pac-10 will produce the true national title contenders. The ACC, the Big Ten and the Big East will produce a bunch of mediocre teams except when an Ohio State or a Penn State or -- someday -- a Michigan may bubble up near the top. The last two times Ohio State played in the championship game, things didn't go so well. They weren't much better for Penn State in the Rose Bowl last year. The ACC and the Big East simply shouldn't have automatic BCS bids based on their recent play. Their champions should play each other in the Meineke Car Care Bowl. The Mountain West is better than they are right now -- see Brigham Young, TCU, Utah for starters. Heck, the CAA may be better than they are right now.

Of course nothing like that will happen. The apologists will continue to talk about the balance in the ACC and in the Big East. The schools will continue to collect their millions from the BCS and go giddily along acting as if everything is just fine and dandy because any day now it will all turn around. Just wait, one of these years Duke will rise up and whip those Richmond Spiders.

In truth, the league presidents and commissioner John Swofford should be embarrassed by what they created with their shameless raid on the Big East (Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College) four years ago. They abandoned the league's tradition as a superb basketball conference to sell their soul in the name of football.

The result -- proving that karma does exist -- has been continued mediocrity in football and a serious drop in the league's basketball fortunes with the exception of one school. From 2000 to 2004 -- pre-football expansion -- the ACC had six Final Four appearances involving four different schools and won two national championships. Since 2005 no school other than North Carolina has reached the final eight.

Right now though, it's football season. There are a lot of games left to be played. Of course in the ACC, none of them will matter to anyone outside the ACC. But there's always a chance that the league can't get its record against the CAA up to .500 before all is said and done.

Now that's balance.

why is it necessary to bash the Big East while discussing the ACC's bad weekend? He praises the SEC and Big 12, but as I recall the last 2 times the Big East champ played schools from those leagues in BCS games, the Big East champ won.

Well, I dont understand the shot at the BE in this article. The BE has performed much better than the acc since expansion, and I cant recell the last time one of our teams lost to a 1aa. Ok, it was Rutgers way back in 2005, but still the Be has performed better than the acc and should not be included in this article of irrelevance.

(09-08-2009 08:36 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  In truth, the league presidents and commissioner John Swofford should be embarrassed by what they created with their shameless raid on the Big East (Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College) four years ago. They abandoned the league's tradition as a superb basketball conference to sell their soul in the name of football.

The result -- proving that karma does exist -- has been continued mediocrity in football and a serious drop in the league's basketball fortunes with the exception of one school. From 2000 to 2004 -- pre-football expansion -- the ACC had six Final Four appearances involving four different schools and won two national championships. Since 2005 no school other than North Carolina has reached the final eight.

Generally speaking, John Feinstein is one of the best sportswriters in the business. Several of his books, particularly "Season on the Brink", should be required reading for sports fans. However, there are many issues with the column that was posted here that are frankly very surprising and Colin Cowherd/talk radio stereotype-esque for a writer of his stature. At the top is this notion that there's some type of causation between the ACC not making as many Final Fours and its football expansion. If we've learned anything over the past few years, it's that schools need football revenue more and more in order to support basketball programs in the long-term (see Florida, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, etc.).

Yes, I don't see the relevance of bashing the BE within that article either, since they have nothing to do with the ACC's struggles. But, there's only one way to deal with such a prick-squirt: Don't even dignify his article with a response (unless you really feel in the mood).

(09-08-2009 09:32 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Yes, I don't see the relevance of bashing the BE within that article either, since they have nothing to do with the ACC's struggles. But, there's only one way to deal with such a prick-squirt: Don't even dignify his article with a response (unless you really feel in the mood).

The article doesn't bother me. The BE was expected to be dead the year of the raid and as we know- we did pretty damn good. I think Cincy losing to VT in the BCS earned us the merit of being included in ACC bashing. CIncy was our first BCS loss since expansion. Yea, I'm blaming the Bearcats but I'm more than ready to eat my words if they win the conference and kick BCS ass this year.
First time- you're happy to be there. Second time you go to win.

USF will have a chance to to measure the BE against the ACC when they play FSU and Miami this year. IF USF wins both games against the "class" of the ACC- I think we come out of the ACC/BE conversation.

Funny, how we're "too good" to be associated with the ACC. That's because some of our teams really worked hard. UofL, Rutger, WVU, USF- of course, Pitt showed up for that one game against WVU. (That's the game they didn't need to show up for.) OVer all, I don't care who says what. The past four years have been IMHO some very good years for BE FB. We entertained more than just BE fans- we were on the national stage.

We've had some great memories so far but we're just getting started. I think this is going to be another fun season. Even for Syracuse. The ACC should be more insulted for being connected below the conference they raided. In the second paragragh the writer said the Orange Bowl will be watched by "dozens." LOL. (He also mentions Cincy in tht paragraph so Cincy fans don't be mad at me. Syracuse FB is still working its way back up to your current level.)

Not to mention UCONN plays "undefeated" UNC this weekend. We got a chance to show some separation.

The perception this year is looking like last year so far...SEC/Big XII/USC and then everyone else.

(09-08-2009 10:24 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  The perception this year is looking like last year so far...SEC/Big XII/USC and then everyone else.

That's the perception. Let's see how reality plays out. I bet the prognosticators will be surprised...

(09-08-2009 10:24 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  The perception this year is looking like last year so far...SEC/Big XII/USC and then everyone else.

Well, the Big 12 lost two games to MWC teams (though they did collectively have impressive wins versus Illinois and Georgia).

we all know that the mwc should be given bcs status, for the present status quo they should give it to them and ad another bcs bowl game.
the cotton bowl and big apple bowl sound logical.

one other thing they shoulds do is add a++++++++1 scenario.
the non bcs winner of thier bcs game plays the preliminary bcs national champion for all the marbles in a +1 scenario.
utah deserved a shot to be the best in the land last year...........

for the present bowl scenario to get respect this should be implemented.....

(09-08-2009 10:20 AM)frogman Wrote:  

(09-08-2009 09:32 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  Yes, I don't see the relevance of bashing the BE within that article either, since they have nothing to do with the ACC's struggles. But, there's only one way to deal with such a prick-squirt: Don't even dignify his article with a response (unless you really feel in the mood).

The article doesn't bother me. The BE was expected to be dead the year of the raid and as we know- we did pretty damn good. I think Cincy losing to VT in the BCS earned us the merit of being included in ACC bashing. CIncy was our first BCS loss since expansion. Yea, I'm blaming the Bearcats but I'm more than ready to eat my words if they win the conference and kick BCS ass this year.
First time- you're happy to be there. Second time you go to win.

USF will have a chance to to measure the BE against the ACC when they play FSU and Miami this year. IF USF wins both games against the "class" of the ACC- I think we come out of the ACC/BE conversation.

Funny, how we're "too good" to be associated with the ACC. That's because some of our teams really worked hard. UofL, Rutger, WVU, USF- of course, Pitt showed up for that one game against WVU. (That's the game they didn't need to show up for.) OVer all, I don't care who says what. The past four years have been IMHO some very good years for BE FB. We entertained more than just BE fans- we were on the national stage.

We've had some great memories so far but we're just getting started. I think this is going to be another fun season. Even for Syracuse. The ACC should be more insulted for being connected below the conference they raided. In the second paragragh the writer said the Orange Bowl will be watched by "dozens." LOL. (He also mentions Cincy in tht paragraph so Cincy fans don't be mad at me. Syracuse FB is still working its way back up to your current level.)

Not to mention UCONN plays "undefeated" UNC this weekend. We got a chance to show some separation.

Whatever. That article is garbage and I don't have a clue why you would try to defend garbage.

There was absolutely no reason for Feinstein, no matter how respected he supposedly is, to take an unnecessary shot at the Big East. His article is about the ACC and he was doing a good job until he got to the end, ran out of original thoughts, and went back to the typical uninformed Big East bashing that the media always resort to when they are bereft of ideas to finish their rantings.

If the Big East starts losing to FCS schools, fine, bash us. But that is not happening to us. It is, of course, happening to the ACC. The Big East has won three of four BCS games since realignment and was on the way to tying up last year's game when Pike threw another interception because Kelly was too stubborn to insert Grutza and give him a chance to finish his career in a special way.

Back to the topic at hand, though, so I do not get unnecessarily sidetracked like Feinstein. The Big East has won the majority of our bowls since realignment, a plurality of our non-conference games against other BCS leagues, and the vast majority of our out-of-conference contests against non-autobid leagues. Every media hack spewing such foolishness needs to learn the actual facts.

You all talk about your BCS bowl record, which is all fair and fine. But quite conveniently, none of you have actually talked about winning BCS titles--a subject John Feinstein did talk about in his column.
I think his criticisms of BE football are fair. Why? At its best, the Big East has been one big tease in terms of providing a title contender.

First it was Louisville wowing the public, then it was West Virginia causing a buzz. Folks paid attention to USF for a lil' bit, and even Rutgers earned some national shine for all of about five minutes. All for naught, as no team was able to maximize any of their momentum into something special. At least the ACC has a championship game to 'crown' its best squad and give it some measure of national shine. No such platform for Pitt, UConn, and friends.

You can write off my words if you want, knowing I'm just a C-USA fan. Go ahead, get it out of your system: "Ha-ha, you're not BCS, C-USA sucks, jealous troll!" You can write off the opinions of John Feinstein too, an award-winning sports writer who couldn't possibly know what he's talking about compared to your own biased fanaticism. (It never amazes me how folks in the media only become 'uninformed' after they say something that runs counter to one's comfort zone.)

But know this: Until a Big East program plays for the crystal football, your conference won't get a lick of the respect you think it should get. Otherwise, college fans can mentally place the Big East BCS rep in the same category as the winner of the Humanitarian Bowl. The only real difference between the two is the paycheck one school gets at the end.

(09-11-2009 11:00 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote:  You all talk about your BCS bowl record, which is all fair and fine. But quite conveniently, none of you have actually talked about winning BCS titles--a subject John Feinstein did talk about in his column.
I think his criticisms of BE football are fair. Why? At its best, the Big East has been one big tease in terms of providing a title contender.

I don't think this is a big issue. The ACC hasn't had a title contender this decade either, and it hasn't hurt them. And the Big East's recent success in BCS bowls has certainly been a bright spot for us in bolstering our public profile.

But other things have hurt both conferences: the ACC has suffered because of its terrible BCS bowl record. The Big East has had 2 things going against it: A lousy bowl lineup which puts our teams in rinky-dink bowls against too many non-BCS opponents (and thus we don't get credit for that 12-4 bowl record we tout), but most important, a general perception that our conference is "small time", due to the lack of big-name football programs.

Neither of these problems are amenable to short-run fixes. Bowl contracts are negotiated every 4-5 years, which makes our failure to upgrade our current lineup in this year's round of re-ups hurtful, and it takes time for a program to build-up to "big time" status.

Heck, it took Bowden a good 10 years to get FSU to that level, and he did it probably as FAST as it possibly can be done.

Relatedely, we are 3-1 in our last 4 BCS games, but one thing that hurts us is that WVU is responsible for 2 of those wins. WVU is the one Big East program that *already* has a reasonably strong national reputation, so when they win a BCS bowl, it brings more glory to them, but does less for the reputation of the Big East than wins by programs like USF, Rutgers, Cincy, or Uconn would.

(09-11-2009 11:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2009 11:00 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote:  You all talk about your BCS bowl record, which is all fair and fine. But quite conveniently, none of you have actually talked about winning BCS titles--a subject John Feinstein did talk about in his column.
I think his criticisms of BE football are fair. Why? At its best, the Big East has been one big tease in terms of providing a title contender.

I don't think this is a big issue. The ACC hasn't had a title contender this decade either, and it hasn't hurt them. And the Big East's recent success in BCS bowls has certainly been a bright spot for us in bolstering our public profile.

But other things have hurt both conferences: the ACC has suffered because of its terrible BCS bowl record. The Big East has had 2 things going against it: A lousy bowl lineup which puts our teams in rinky-dink bowls against too many non-BCS opponents (and thus we don't get credit for that 12-4 bowl record we tout), but most important, a general perception that our conference is "small time", due to the lack of big-name football programs. It is undeniable, however, that their rapid flush down the Krapper is a part of why the BE still fails on the respect front.

Neither of these problems are amenable to short-run fixes. Bowl contracts are negotiated every 4-5 years, which makes our failure to upgrade our current lineup in this year's round of re-ups hurtful, and it takes time for a program to build-up to "big time" status.

Heck, it took Bowden a good 10 years to get FSU to that level, and he did it probably as FAST as it possibly can be done.

Relatedely, we are 3-1 in our last 4 BCS games, but one thing that hurts us is that WVU is responsible for 2 of those wins. WVU is the one Big East program that *already* has a reasonably strong national reputation, so when they win a BCS bowl, it brings more glory to them, but does less for the reputation of the Big East than wins by programs like USF, Rutgers, Cincy, or Uconn would.

Great post Quo

I would like to comment that, despite recent seasons, I believe UL is more or less 3/4 of the way there. They've been building their program since the late 1980's with Howard. They'd probably still be having top 5-10 caliber seasons if they hadn't made two lousy coaching hires in that time period (Cooper being the other). As it is, they have a 55K+ stadium, and will have no problem at all attracting a viable big-time name - elite up-and-comer at worst - so long as Jurich is willing to pull the trigger.

I'd like to think UC is headed in this direction, but it'll take a LOT more than recent success, plus a fairly significant stadium expansion. Land-locked that our campus is, this will be the big challenge.

Since RU and USF both have the stadium capacity, the sky is the limit for them. But, if I were a fan of either, I'd be concerned they each has plateued under its respective coach.

(09-11-2009 11:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2009 11:00 PM)BlazerUnit Wrote:  You all talk about your BCS bowl record, which is all fair and fine. But quite conveniently, none of you have actually talked about winning BCS titles--a subject John Feinstein did talk about in his column.
I think his criticisms of BE football are fair. Why? At its best, the Big East has been one big tease in terms of providing a title contender.

I don't think this is a big issue. The ACC hasn't had a title contender this decade either, and it hasn't hurt them. And the Big East's recent success in BCS bowls has certainly been a bright spot for us in bolstering our public profile.

But other things have hurt both conferences: the ACC has suffered because of its terrible BCS bowl record. The Big East has had 2 things going against it: A lousy bowl lineup which puts our teams in rinky-dink bowls against too many non-BCS opponents (and thus we don't get credit for that 12-4 bowl record we tout), but most important, a general perception that our conference is "small time", due to the lack of big-name football programs.

Exactly on the latter point. Put a mediocre FSU-Miami or a mediocre ND-PSU in the Big East, there would be absolutely no questioning the Big East's relevancy these past 5 years considering that the Big East has indeed had NC contenders in late November in a couple of those seasons and due to big BCS wins.

However, even with a mediocre FSU-Miami, the ACC's relevancy has been questioned because they have had only one team in the Top 10 in late November the last five years (VT in 2005) and only one BCS win.

Which only goes to show how screwed up the system is when having mediocre "name" programs is more important than having winning teams. But it's the nature of college football.

Cheers,
Neil

(09-12-2009 03:31 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  I would like to comment that, despite recent seasons, I believe UL is more or less 3/4 of the way there. They've been building their program since the late 1980's with Howard. They'd probably still be having top 5-10 caliber seasons if they hadn't made two lousy coaching hires in that time period (Cooper being the other). As it is, they have a 55K+ stadium, and will have no problem at all attracting a viable big-time name - elite up-and-comer at worst - so long as Jurich is willing to pull the trigger.

I'm a bit less optimistic about UL. A couple years ago, they were right on the verge of joining WVU as having established themselves as a new big-time program, but with petrino gone (his leaving was itself evidence that they hadn't achieved that status) they have slipped back since then, and i don't see them returning to that 2003-2006 level of success soon, meaning that they won't be joining WVU in that penthouse.

Maybe your Cincy team can. They appear to have the best shot right now.

Unfortunately, no one else, my Bulls included, seems poised to make that step up.

(09-12-2009 04:54 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Which only goes to show how screwed up the system is when having mediocre "name" programs is more important than having winning teams. But it's the nature of college football.

It surely is. No sport, not even MLB, is as tradition-saturated as CFB. So Notre Dame can go 15 years without winning a BCS bowl or having a national title contender, and they are still a penthouse program, and Alabama can do the same and yet still attract a top-level coach like Saban, while WVU wins 2 BCS bowls in 4 years, and yet aren't considered in the same league, in terms of national prestige and can't attract a top coach to replace rich-rod.

That's how it is and it's not likely to change.

Feinstein is just a bitter dookie that is having a hard time facing the reality that coach K has been removed from the top of the ACC and replaced by 'ol Roy.
There has been a lot of whining in Durham over the last several years because their mojo is gone and won't be coming back anytime soon. Needless to say there are a lot of smiles 8 miles down the road (15-501).

(09-12-2009 08:02 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-12-2009 04:54 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Which only goes to show how screwed up the system is when having mediocre "name" programs is more important than having winning teams. But it's the nature of college football.

It surely is. No sport, not even MLB, is as tradition-saturated as CFB. So Notre Dame can go 15 years without winning a BCS bowl or having a national title contender, and they are still a penthouse program, and Alabama can do the same and yet still attract a top-level coach like Saban, while WVU wins 2 BCS bowls in 4 years, and yet aren't considered in the same league, in terms of national prestige and can't attract a top coach to replace rich-rod.

That's how it is and it's not likely to change.

I agree with you up to a point. UF,FSU and UM were NOT considered "elite" programs until the last 20 years. So there is hope for others to breakthrough. WV's image has been enhanced by its recent success and could increase if it keeps making and winning BCS games