There's been an on-going debate on this forum that goes like this:
Is the decline of ACC football over the past decade the fault of FSU, Miami and Clemson... or of the 2nd-tier football teams?

This year's NFL draft would suggest the answer is - BOTH. Here are the NFL draft numbers by conference & draft round:



note: yellow = the peak of a distribution component (it's multi-modal).

This shows that the top of the ACC peaks in round #1 - same as the SEC. Couple that with the fact that the #1 team in the NFL draft was FSU (followed by a bunch of SEC teams) and you get the idea that FSU has the talent, but it's been going to waste (possibly due to less than ideal coaching?)

However, look at the Second peak - see how much lower the ACC's 2nd peak is compared to the SEC, Big XII, and Pac-12 (ok, we are better than the Big Ten - but so is the MAC). This would suggest that the 2nd tier teams are also culpable - they aren't keeping up with the 2nd level Big XII and Pac-12 teams (and they need to keep up!).

What are your thoughts? (and please, try to discuss this WITHOUT any personal attacks! Hopefully this is all water under the bridge now anyway, and the ACC will start to win >50% vs. the other P5 conference teams)

[NFL Draft 2013 - analysis]

My own feeling is that a one year analysis of this may not be much of an indication either way.

I still think it is way more important for any conference's Top Tier teams to be in the hunt for a national title. And that top tier can actually rotate, it doesn't have to fall solely on FSU and Miami for example in the ACC. It didn't hurt the B12 that K-State was in the NC hunt last year or that Stanford was ahead of either USC or Oregon the year before.'

But more often than not it would help if two of FSU, Miami, Clemson, and VT were in the Top 10 and one at least in the NC hunt and some of GT, UNC, Pitt, SU, NCSt, and Louisville were in the Top 25.

Cheers,
Neil

FSU was still generating interest even while being down (by their standards) for much of the last 10 years. They carried the ACC for over a decade pretty much by themselves too.

Fan interest in the ACC largely depends on how well Miami and FSU are doing. Va Tech/Clemson doing well matters (and anyone else for that matter) but the public perception goes with the 2 Florida schools to carry the brand name. Others may not like it but that is how many outsiders look at it.

And I have gone on rants over and over on how the football product suffers because the leadership doesn't maximize the assets as well. They are really the only league from the SEC down to the Sun Belt with divisions that make no sense. And I don't see any forward thinking plans like the Big 10 is doing with having its best teams matchup more instead of a strict rotation for the random crossovers.

It's everyone's fault.

It's obviously the NCAA's fault for busting us before what could have been a title run. At least they wait until after the season to slap SEC teams on the wrist.

The divisions won't be fixed anytime soon. And so we just gotta hope Pitt, VT, and UNC pick up the slack.

It seems to me there are enough NFL round #1 players to compete... the problem becomes not enough round 3 & 4 guys, IMO.

That could be the difference in a team like NC State beating Tennessee in the Kickoff game or losing, of winning the Music City Bowl or losing.

But it could also be the difference in FSU beating Florida and getting a shot at the national title, or finishing 12-2 with an Orange Bowl win over NIU.

In other words, I think the top teams at least do a good job recruiting 4 & 5 star type guys, but we need more 3-star players across the league (and by extension, fewer 1 & 2 star starters). Inevitably someone has to lose conference games, but we really should do better OOC, and especially in bowls (last year being the one shining bright spot).

(05-07-2013 01:29 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  The divisions won't be fixed anytime soon. And so we just gotta hope Pitt, VT, and UNC pick up the slack.

And Miami.

(05-07-2013 01:29 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  The divisions won't be fixed anytime soon...

Maybe/probably not... but then there's this from David Teel's recent interview w/ John Swofford:

Quote:...about possible changes to the ACC’s football divisions, a popular topic among fans, many of whom prefer a more geographic split.

“I think there can always be tweaks,” Swofford said, “if and when our member schools want to do that. We’ve had a lot of discussion about that topic over the last couple of years, as you would expect with the new schools coming, and at each point ultimately the schools end up at that same place, and that is maintaining the divisions as they currently exist with Louisville filling the (Atlantic Division) slot that Maryland had.”

So it sounds like they have discussed this and are willing to discuss it some more, but so far have not been able to reach agreement on anything other than the status quo... still, I'm encouraged by the fact that they have discussed this "a lot... over the last couple of years"

Like I said in the other thread, FSU/Clemson both made it publicly clear that they want changes in divisions. UNC/UVA want it the way it is and they win out as is the norm. There are been articles out saying UVA doesnt want any changes and articles out saying FSU/Clemson do. We know who wins those battles.

(05-07-2013 03:02 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Like I said in the other thread, FSU/Clemson both made it publicly clear that they want changes in divisions. UNC/UVA want it the way it is and they win out as is the norm. There are been articles out saying UVA doesnt want any changes and articles out saying FSU/Clemson do. We know who wins those battles.

Now that UNC & UVA have signed a GoR, I guess it's majority rule now, huh?
Nobody has to treat anybody special anymore...

(05-07-2013 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 03:02 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Like I said in the other thread, FSU/Clemson both made it publicly clear that they want changes in divisions. UNC/UVA want it the way it is and they win out as is the norm. There are been articles out saying UVA doesnt want any changes and articles out saying FSU/Clemson do. We know who wins those battles.

Now that UNC & UVA have signed a GoR, I guess it's majority rule now, huh?
Nobody has to treat anybody special anymore...

I wonder what the administrators at GT think about divisions?

Cheers,
Neil

(05-07-2013 03:47 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 03:25 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 03:02 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Like I said in the other thread, FSU/Clemson both made it publicly clear that they want changes in divisions. UNC/UVA want it the way it is and they win out as is the norm. There are been articles out saying UVA doesnt want any changes and articles out saying FSU/Clemson do. We know who wins those battles.

Now that UNC & UVA have signed a GoR, I guess it's majority rule now, huh?
Nobody has to treat anybody special anymore...

I wonder what the administrators at GT think about divisions?

Cheers,
Neil

Probably not as upset as FSU/Clemson because they didn't get stuck with both BC and Cuse.

All teams need to improve. If the top dogs are the only competitors, they will be percieved as playing weak teams. If the bottom teams play above average but the top dogs are not at the elite level, you end up with a very deep good conference, but no standout teams.

ACC teams need to win OOC and beat each other up in conference, but we still need 2-3 teams in the NC hunt late into the season with several very good teams pushing them.

(05-07-2013 05:28 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All teams need to improve. If the top dogs are the only competitors, they will be percieved as playing weak teams. If the bottom teams play above average but the top dogs are not at the elite level, you end up with a very deep good conference, but no standout teams.

ACC teams need to win OOC and beat each other up in conference, but we still need 2-3 teams in the NC hunt late into the season with several very good teams pushing them.

I'm surprised at how little we fans have learned (as a group). 38.46% still think all we need to make things right is a legitimate Nat'l Champ. contender or two. I agree w/ HtownOrange - we MUST have both or it's all for naught

(05-07-2013 05:28 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All teams need to improve. If the top dogs are the only competitors, they will be percieved as playing weak teams. If the bottom teams play above average but the top dogs are not at the elite level, you end up with a very deep good conference, but no standout teams.

ACC teams need to win OOC and beat each other up in conference, but we still need 2-3 teams in the NC hunt late into the season with several very good teams pushing them.

Yes. Thank you.

I think Miami will have a very good year this year, contrary to the "way too early" prediction that has been circulating. We've got a pretty easy schedule, and I foresee at least 9 wins... This is the start of the Al Golden era, about time we have an EXCELLENT season.

VS Florida Atlantic - Win, home opener and local game but crappy opponent. 1-0
VS (#?) Florida - Tossup. Florida will be good but UM will be motivated. Possibly a pulled out win, but not sure. 1-1
VS Savannah State - Win. It's SSU. That team. 2-1
@ South Florida - Win. USF is bad, I expect a repeat of last year's domination. 3-1
VS Georgia Tech - Win. Miami pulled off a great game in Atlanta last year, a home win is likely. 4-1
@ North Carolina - Loss. UNC always gives us fits and they'll be good next year. 4-2
VS Wake Forest - Win. That'll be a fun game. 5-2
@ Florida State - Loss. FSU will be too good again, maybe an upset, but I'm not holding my breath. 5-3
VS Virginia Tech - Win. Another home matchup with VT? No complaints here. 6-3
@ Duke - Win. Challenge, but a win. 7-3
VS Virginia - Win. Senior day, motivation, long time between games. 8-3
@ Pittsburgh - Win. Pitt will play unbelievably well but I think we win this one. 9-3

^ That is my "rough" estimate of how I see the season going before it's even started. We'll see for sure how UM does against FAU and UF. Beat those two (FAU handily and UF by any margin) and I think 9 to 10 wins is a good possibility. Having a great year this next year will pave the way back to national prominence for Miami.

(05-07-2013 07:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 05:28 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All teams need to improve. If the top dogs are the only competitors, they will be percieved as playing weak teams. If the bottom teams play above average but the top dogs are not at the elite level, you end up with a very deep good conference, but no standout teams.

ACC teams need to win OOC and beat each other up in conference, but we still need 2-3 teams in the NC hunt late into the season with several very good teams pushing them.

Yes. Thank you.

I think Miami will have a very good year this year, contrary to the "way too early" prediction that has been circulating. We've got a pretty easy schedule, and I foresee at least 9 wins... This is the start of the Al Golden era, about time we have an EXCELLENT season.

VS Florida Atlantic - Win, home opener and local game but crappy opponent. 1-0
VS (#?) Florida - Tossup. Florida will be good but UM will be motivated. Possibly a pulled out win, but not sure. 1-1
VS Savannah State - Win. It's SSU. That team. 2-1
@ South Florida - Win. USF is bad, I expect a repeat of last year's domination. 3-1
VS Georgia Tech - Win. Miami pulled off a great game in Atlanta last year, a home win is likely. 4-1
@ North Carolina - Loss. UNC always gives us fits and they'll be good next year. 4-2
VS Wake Forest - Win. That'll be a fun game. 5-2
@ Florida State - Loss. FSU will be too good again, maybe an upset, but I'm not holding my breath. 5-3
VS Virginia Tech - Win. Another home matchup with VT? No complaints here. 6-3
@ Duke - Win. Challenge, but a win. 7-3
VS Virginia - Win. Senior day, motivation, long time between games. 8-3
@ Pittsburgh - Win. Pitt will play unbelievably well but I think we win this one. 9-3

^ That is my "rough" estimate of how I see the season going before it's even started. We'll see for sure how UM does against FAU and UF. Beat those two (FAU handily and UF by any margin) and I think 9 to 10 wins is a good possibility. Having a great year this next year will pave the way back to national prominence for Miami.

PLAUSIBLE. However, I would MUCH rather you beat Florida and lose to Va Tech. JMO.

(05-07-2013 07:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 05:28 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All teams need to improve. If the top dogs are the only competitors, they will be percieved as playing weak teams. If the bottom teams play above average but the top dogs are not at the elite level, you end up with a very deep good conference, but no standout teams.

ACC teams need to win OOC and beat each other up in conference, but we still need 2-3 teams in the NC hunt late into the season with several very good teams pushing them.

I'm surprised at how little we fans have learned (as a group). 38.46% still think all we need to make things right is a legitimate Nat'l Champ. contender or two. I agree w/ HtownOrange - we MUST have both or it's all for naught

Wow! The stronger we are OOC, the stronger the top teams look when challenging for the NC. I can't claim I liked all of Syracuse's conference mates but when they played OOC, but I wanted them to win every game. I want every ACC team to win all of their respective OOC games, it makes us all stronger and the top team truly would deserve to play for the NC.

(05-07-2013 07:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm surprised at how little we fans have learned (as a group). 38.46% still think all we need to make things right is a legitimate Nat'l Champ. contender or two. I agree w/ HtownOrange - we MUST have both or it's all for naught

I disagree. The perception of the conference is that of the week to week top 10 schools. They're the only ones that get any discussion on the College football shows. When the conference went years without having any teams challenge for the national championship, it hurt the image of the league. Despite the fact that we've had no shortage of 11-25 ranked teams. A full competitive league from top to bottom would be great but the image of the league rests with the top 10 schools and really the top 5 schools.

(05-08-2013 07:19 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(05-07-2013 07:34 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I'm surprised at how little we fans have learned (as a group). 38.46% still think all we need to make things right is a legitimate Nat'l Champ. contender or two. I agree w/ HtownOrange - we MUST have both or it's all for naught

I disagree. The perception of the conference is that of the week to week top 10 schools. They're the only ones that get any discussion on the College football shows. When the conference went years without having any teams challenge for the national championship, it hurt the image of the league. Despite the fact that we've had no shortage of 11-25 ranked teams. A full competitive league from top to bottom would be great but the image of the league rests with the top 10 schools and really the top 5 schools.

Strength of schedule is strongly affected by how weak your weakest teams are...