From 1990 to 1999, the then 9 ACC teams won 75% of their games against the Big XII and 64% against the Pac-12 (they were only 48% vs Big Ten and 45% against SEC).

Those same teams (not including BC, Va Tech and Miami) in 2000 to 2009 were down to 48% against the Big XII, 60% against the Pac-12, 42% against the Big Ten, and 43% against the SEC.

It was a bad decade...

(05-23-2014 11:20 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  This highlights a couple things. One being that, as a whole, the ACC's ability to land P5 programs for OOC and SOS purposes is not and has not been a problem. The other, and more important, is that most ACC programs are scheduling above their head.

Could be because when most of these schedules were done, FSU, Miami, and Clemson were hardly world-beaters and the teams may have wanted for either SOS or attendance or both that some of these match-ups brought?

Cheers,
Neil

Definitely not the former. Crap schools worried about SOS? For what? There's no SOS component to making a bowl with a 6-6 record. I tend to find that attendance rises when programs win. So scheduling a team to come in and slaughter you might help with attendance that one day but it's not a long-term strategy for success.

(05-24-2014 04:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Definitely not the former. Crap schools worried about SOS? For what? There's no SOS component to making a bowl with a 6-6 record. I tend to find that attendance rises when programs win. So scheduling a team to come in and slaughter you might help with attendance that one day but it's not a long-term strategy for success.

Marge, what you consider long-term success in football at FSU and what the ptb at Duke consider long-term success in football are two entirely different things. Not every ACC school is in the ACC to win the national championship in football or sets it's overall program to compete that way in football. You do. Clemson does. Miami and VT do, but no one else. UNC tried and will be lucky to escape probation in multiple sports. State tries but has not been able to combine a top defense with a top offense despite having said parts 5-6 times over the past 30 year. Sort of like UNC who had some great defensive teams over the last 30 years but never has a great QB.

The reality is that only 4 ACC schools are attempting to compete on a year in, year out top 15 or so level which is what you must do to compete for a national title. The B10 only has 5 attempting - Penn State, Michigan, MSU, Wisconsin, and Nebraska. The P12 only has 3 - Oregon, USC, and Stanford. The B12 only has Texas, OU, OSU, and Baylor attempting to compete at that level. The SEC has the most with Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, TAMU, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, SC, and we will see if Mizzou keeps up the effort.

What the ACC needs is for the Miami program to recover and for the VT program to rediscover an offense. Then the epic failures of NC State, UVa, and UNC in football will not matter.

I haven't said the crap schools should be competing for national titles, so I'm not sure why you've even brought that up. There's a reason I call them the crap schools.

What I've said is crap schools scheduling beatdowns harms both themselves and the conference.

And the failure of schools you mentioned ABSOLUTELY matters. To say it doesn't is mind-bottling.

(05-24-2014 05:48 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I haven't said the crap schools should be competing for national titles, so I'm not sure why you've even brought that up. There's a reason I call them the crap schools.

What I've said is crap schools scheduling beatdowns harms both themselves and the conference.

And the failure of schools you mentioned ABSOLUTELY matters. To say it doesn't is mind-bottling.

Would that be Coke or Pepsi?

Marge, you misunderstand Duke. They did not care. They deemphasized football in 1962 and it remains "deemphasized" when compared to other ACC schools, despite their recent investments.

What matters for FSU is for FSU to win it's games, to not to lose to NC State and WF teams with inferior talent. I don't think that's going to be a problem with Jimbo.

When the last ACC stinkers scheduled knowing beatdowns, it did not matter to them or the conference, but other than Syracuse agreeing to play LSU, I've not seen anyone in the middle or bottom of the ACC schedule a beatdown in the last three years.

I don't misunderstand anything. I don't care if Duke or NC State or whomever isn't good at football and doesn't expect to win much either. That doesn't mean they just throw games away and schedule auto-losses. It's a problem that ANY school would do that, not just Cuse. And other crap programs have done it in VERY recent years as well. If a school doesn't want to try and win in football then why are you sponsoring the sport?

I would hope the ACC is encouraging schools to avoid that stupid practice behind closed doors, but I have a hard time seeing Swofford giving two sh*ts about it.

(05-24-2014 04:29 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Definitely not the former. Crap schools worried about SOS? For what? There's no SOS component to making a bowl with a 6-6 record. I tend to find that attendance rises when programs win. So scheduling a team to come in and slaughter you might help with attendance that one day but it's not a long-term strategy for success.

Wasn't you're point that these "ACC crap teams", which from a former Big East fan's perspective pretty much means the entire conference from 2009 until last year, over-scheduled? So basically was the majority of the conference schedule all that attractive in terms of either SOS or potential fans in the seats?

And while I agree nothing solves attendance problems more than winning, it's winning against decent opponents that matters the most. Fans don't see beating a lot of "sisters of the poor" as "winning".

Cheers,
Neil

Scheduling an Oregon State instead of an Oregon, Ole Miss instead of Bama/LSU or a Cal instead of a USC is hardly scheduling "sisters of the poor". Spare me.

(05-24-2014 10:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Scheduling an Oregon State instead of an Oregon, Ole Miss instead of Bama/LSU or a Cal instead of a USC is hardly scheduling "sisters of the poor". Spare me.

Exactly. I have seen Lou make this point over and over.


If you are Syrcause.....don't schedule LSU. But give Vandy a shot....or Purdue or Kansas.


Schedule a WINNABLE game against a power 5 is intelligent if you aren't a power football school.


Scheduling Bama, LSU type games with some of the EXTREMELY weak football investments we see at many ACC schools is just stupid.


If you want to schedule those games.....triple your football investments first.

(05-25-2014 05:58 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 10:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Scheduling an Oregon State instead of an Oregon, Ole Miss instead of Bama/LSU or a Cal instead of a USC is hardly scheduling "sisters of the poor". Spare me.

Exactly. I have seen Lou make this point over and over.


If you are Syrcause.....don't schedule LSU. But give Vandy a shot....or Purdue or Kansas.


Schedule a WINNABLE game against a power 5 is intelligent if you aren't a power football school.


Scheduling Bama, LSU type games with some of the EXTREMELY weak football investments we see at many ACC schools is just stupid.


If you want to schedule those games.....triple your football investments first.

Syracuse always schedules up in non conference since there fans love raking leaves in the fall. Lsu as the main game in 2015 or 17 is fine as we should at least be somewhat competitive at home in 2015.

(05-25-2014 06:25 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(05-25-2014 05:58 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-24-2014 10:14 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Scheduling an Oregon State instead of an Oregon, Ole Miss instead of Bama/LSU or a Cal instead of a USC is hardly scheduling "sisters of the poor". Spare me.

Exactly. I have seen Lou make this point over and over.


If you are Syrcause.....don't schedule LSU. But give Vandy a shot....or Purdue or Kansas.


Schedule a WINNABLE game against a power 5 is intelligent if you aren't a power football school.


Scheduling Bama, LSU type games with some of the EXTREMELY weak football investments we see at many ACC schools is just stupid.


If you want to schedule those games.....triple your football investments first.

Syracuse always schedules up in non conference since there fans love raking leaves in the fall. Lsu as the main game in 2015 or 17 is fine as we should at least be somewhat competitive at home in 2015.

The very fact you said this makes you a delusional SU fan in the eyes of the fans from so-called power football programs in the ACC.

I'll never forget Lou, who is not only the FSU poster I respect the most, but one of the best posters regardless of school affiliation, come to our board and tell us that scheduling both ND and Maryland was idiotic since both would be probable losses.

If one starts from that premise, then basically it's one P5 opponent and three sisters of the poor, since Maryland isn't truly any better than Vandy, Northwestern, etc.

I think we should all make a deal here and agree to worry more about who your own team is scheduling instead of who other teams are scheduling. If I were to take Lou's stance, the first series I would end would be GT/Georgia. Has any one series hurt the ACC's perception in football more so than the Yellow Jackets pathetic 1-12 record against the Bulldogs?

Luckily, I'm a football fan foremost and actually love that this series is still played. If SU or Pitt could play PSU or WVU annually, I liked to see that as well.

Cheers,
Neil

OOC rivalries are off-limits. So if Cuse wants to schedule a better program than them, schedule PSU or some other mid-atlantic/northeastern team that Cuse has played historically. That's acceptable to me. Scheduling LSU to beat you into oblivion is not.

And when schools routinely lose their OOC competition against non-rivalry foes, it affects the entire conference. So I think folks are well within their rights to "worry" about these stupid decisions by the not-quite-top programs.

(05-26-2014 12:50 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  OOC rivalries are off-limits. So if Cuse wants to schedule a better program than them, schedule PSU or some other mid-atlantic/northeastern team that Cuse has played historically. That's acceptable to me. Scheduling LSU to beat you into oblivion is not.

So, it's okay to schedule PSU who we have had a hard time beating in the past (2-21 since the 1970s), but it's not okay to schedule LSU, who we beat in a bowl game back in 1989 when they were co-champions of the SEC?



Anyway, it's all moot. They are called out-of-conference for a reason. Worry and/or whine to your heart's content. I'll enjoy the games myself.

Cheers,
Neil

Yes, assuming you consider that to be a rivalry. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you are instead requesting I don't count PSU because Cuse is too poor of a program than I won't.

(05-26-2014 04:10 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yes, assuming you consider that to be a rivalry. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you are instead requesting I don't count PSU because Cuse is too poor of a program than I won't.

Pi$$ and moan all you want. I hope we cycle through several SEC teams not named Ole Miss, Vandy, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Miss. St over the next two decades.

Bring on LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Mizzou,and Arkansas.

I consider them all interesting games. And not that Georgia, Florida, Vandy, and South Carolina wouldn't be interesting as well. It's just that we already play in three of those states and playing Vandy is like playing BC, Duke, or Wake.

Cheers,
Neil

whatever delusional fans who post here can worry about there own team. We have scheduled ooc games the same way for years and worked fine in the 90's and from 2010 thru now. If we can't play LSU you can't play florida or nebraska with your recent results. 3-1 should be the worst teams do record wise OOC but teams can schedule who/however they see fit as far as I'm concerned. Our out of conference schedule was too much in grob days, but since then its been fine.

Things are *REALLY* slow this time of year.
(see thread)

(05-26-2014 05:10 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 04:10 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Yes, assuming you consider that to be a rivalry. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you are instead requesting I don't count PSU because Cuse is too poor of a program than I won't.

Pi$$ and moan all you want.