I ask this question as person who is not the biggest FSU fan, but as a fan of college football slowly becoming a fan of ACC football (still have some of that old Big East in me). I read that Jeff Long said that in last week poll the committee had TCU, FSU, Baylor and OSU as "razor" close in the rankings like 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. How? Its not like FSU was playing a Marshall type of schedule. An elite undefeated P5 team should not be behind teams with a lost. We have a team that has done nothing but win! We might not like the way they have won all their games, but it takes a very skilled team to be down "X" amount of points, then comeback as FSU did several times and win! Once or twice might be luck but to do it several times against team that are giving you their full effort is remarkable. The defending champ is getting everyone's 'A' game. I do not see any other teams ranked in the top 7 that could do it. I think both Bama and Oregon are good teams, but they each lost one game. I enjoy SEC football, but lets be real, Bama is not the Bama that everyone think they are, just average defense and offense. As for Oregon, that's a very good team that is comparable to FSU.

So it begs the question, Is it because FSU is an "ACC" team? This shows a big underlining problem for the ACC. The scary thing about this is if FSU had lost, they would have been out of the playoffs. I believe FSU should have been ranked #1 going into this last week and even if they lost to GT (by small margin) they probably should still have been in the top 4. So to say they played a soft schedule because they are in the ACC is BS. The only weak opponents on FSU schedule were The Citadel, Wake Forest and maybe Cuse, but even Cuse didn't roll over. I'm sorry any football team that has a score of 61-58 is not a great team. Please do not show me stats of TCU or Baylor because they are tainted due to playing weak opponents.

I know in the big scheme of things it only matters that you are 1 of the 4 teams, but it does show a lack of respect to the defending champs and the ACC. I do hope FSU repeats!

(12-08-2014 11:03 PM)Mr. Derfman Wrote:  I ask this question as person who is not the biggest FSU fan, but as a fan of college football slowly becoming a fan of ACC football (still have some of that old Big East in me). I read that Jeff Long said that in last week poll the committee had TCU, FSU, Baylor and OSU as "razor" close in the rankings like 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. How? Its not like FSU was playing a Marshall type of schedule. An elite undefeated P5 team should not be behind teams with a lost. We have a team that has done nothing but win! We might not like the way they have won all their games, but it takes a very skilled team to be down "X" amount of points, then comeback as FSU did several times and win! Once or twice might be luck but to do it several times against team that are giving you their full effort is remarkable. The defending champ is getting everyone's 'A' game. I do not see any other teams ranked in the top 7 that could do it. I think both Bama and Oregon are good teams, but they each lost one game. I enjoy SEC football, but lets be real, Bama is not the Bama that everyone think they are, just average defense and offense. As for Oregon, that's a very good team that is comparable to FSU.

So it begs the question, Is it because FSU is an "ACC" team? This shows a big underlining problem for the ACC. The scary thing about this is if FSU had lost, they would have been out of the playoffs. I believe FSU should have been ranked #1 going into this last week and even if they lost to GT (by small margin) they probably should still have been in the top 4. So to say they played a soft schedule because they are in the ACC is BS. The only weak opponents on FSU schedule were The Citadel, Wake Forest and maybe Cuse, but even Cuse didn't roll over. I'm sorry any football team that has a score of 61-58 is not a great team. Please do not show me stats of TCU or Baylor because they are tainted due to playing weak opponents.

I know in the big scheme of things it only matters that you are 1 of the 4 teams, but it does show a lack of respect to the defending champs and the ACC. I do hope FSU repeats!

I agree

I still don't think it has anything to do with the ACC. If FSU were blowing people out like last year they'd be number one and everyone knows it. Every week the committee commented on how they struggled...and they did...moreso than the other top teams.

That said. By virtue of being undefeated, they never should have dropped below #2.

The micro issue is FSU didn't blow anybody out.


The macro issue is the ACC has a horrible rep. Not nearly close to being deserved, but it does have a horrible rep.


Weak fan bases, admin support, and a long history of not caring about football have taken a huge toll.


Biggest issue of all is the conference is too top heavy and the nation knows it.

(12-08-2014 11:26 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I still don't think it has anything to do with the ACC. If FSU were blowing people out like last year they'd be number one and everyone knows it. Every week the committee commented on how they struggled...and they did...moreso than the other top teams.

That said. By virtue of being undefeated, they never should have dropped below #2.

There is a perception problem somewhere. Winning ugly should not matter. I am certain we would not hold Bama to this threshold. Matter fact, it was in reverse for Bama, they kept them around in the rankings even after a lost.

I would think that coming back several times from large deficits would prove they belong in the top two. I don't care for FSU, but they deserve to be in the top two.

(12-09-2014 12:04 AM)nole Wrote:  The micro issue is FSU didn't blow anybody out.


The macro issue is the ACC has a horrible rep. Not nearly close to being deserved, but it does have a horrible rep.


Weak fan bases, admin support, and a long history of not caring about football have taken a huge toll.


Biggest issue of all is the conference is too top heavy and the nation knows it.

True, but things are improving. We need an "on" decade, though. The last decade was really bad.

It is just the dumb "eyeball test". FSU didn't blow out people.

Hell, it is very difficult to go undefeated in college football.

How many teams have gone undefeated in the regular season in the recent past?

FSU has done it two years straight. They are the undefeated champs.

They should be ranked #1. The rest is just BS.

One might argue that FSU played better competition in their own conference than the other teams in the top 6.
If Wisconsin or Missouri were that good they would have put up a better fight in their championship games, Arizona too! I dare say that Ga. Tech could have beaten 'em all (with the exception of Alabama).

(12-08-2014 11:03 PM)Mr. Derfman Wrote:  I ask this question as person who is not the biggest FSU fan, but as a fan of college football slowly becoming a fan of ACC football (still have some of that old Big East in me). I read that Jeff Long said that in last week poll the committee had TCU, FSU, Baylor and OSU as "razor" close in the rankings like 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. How? Its not like FSU was playing a Marshall type of schedule. An elite undefeated P5 team should not be behind teams with a lost. We have a team that has done nothing but win! We might not like the way they have won all their games, but it takes a very skilled team to be down "X" amount of points, then comeback as FSU did several times and win! Once or twice might be luck but to do it several times against team that are giving you their full effort is remarkable. The defending champ is getting everyone's 'A' game. I do not see any other teams ranked in the top 7 that could do it. I think both Bama and Oregon are good teams, but they each lost one game. I enjoy SEC football, but lets be real, Bama is not the Bama that everyone think they are, just average defense and offense. As for Oregon, that's a very good team that is comparable to FSU.

So it begs the question, Is it because FSU is an "ACC" team? This shows a big underlining problem for the ACC. The scary thing about this is if FSU had lost, they would have been out of the playoffs. I believe FSU should have been ranked #1 going into this last week and even if they lost to GT (by small margin) they probably should still have been in the top 4. So to say they played a soft schedule because they are in the ACC is BS. The only weak opponents on FSU schedule were The Citadel, Wake Forest and maybe Cuse, but even Cuse didn't roll over. I'm sorry any football team that has a score of 61-58 is not a great team. Please do not show me stats of TCU or Baylor because they are tainted due to playing weak opponents.

I know in the big scheme of things it only matters that you are 1 of the 4 teams, but it does show a lack of respect to the defending champs and the ACC. I do hope FSU repeats!

If a ranking means that one believes that the highest ranked team is the "best" by some subjective standard, then I see no reason why a team with a loss can not be considered to be better than one without a loss. What you are suggesting isn't a ranking at all. It's just "standings" that include teams from all conferences instead of one. In that case, an undefeated FSU is objectively one game ahead of Alabama in the standings.

If you had a vote in the AP poll, it would not be inconsistent for you to believe that Alabama is better than FSU but rank them lower. That is because you aren't just comparing one team to the other - you are comparing both of them to all other teams. You can logically believe that team A is better than team B, team B is better than team C, and team C is better than team A.

If, instead of football teams, you were ranking sprinters, you could not logically do the same thing, because with sprinters you have a measurable standard to compare them. In football, you don't. Some team's strengths just match up better with one opponent than they do another. Same with their weaknesses. Essentially, by ranking a team #1, you are not saying they are better than any other team, you are saying they are better than more other teams than any other team is.

By using rankings to invite just four teams to a mini-tournament like the ESPN Invitational, you may well be excluding a team that is quite capable of winning it. Conferences may have agreed to this - and why wouldn't they, given how much they were paid to agree to it - but we can't make more of it than is there. It is a flawed process, and we know it.

(12-08-2014 11:03 PM)Mr. Derfman Wrote:  I ask this question as person who is not the biggest FSU fan, but as a fan of college football slowly becoming a fan of ACC football (still have some of that old Big East in me). I read that Jeff Long said that in last week poll the committee had TCU, FSU, Baylor and OSU as "razor" close in the rankings like 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d. How? Its not like FSU was playing a Marshall type of schedule. An elite undefeated P5 team should not be behind teams with a lost. We have a team that has done nothing but win! We might not like the way they have won all their games, but it takes a very skilled team to be down "X" amount of points, then comeback as FSU did several times and win! Once or twice might be luck but to do it several times against team that are giving you their full effort is remarkable. The defending champ is getting everyone's 'A' game. I do not see any other teams ranked in the top 7 that could do it. I think both Bama and Oregon are good teams, but they each lost one game. I enjoy SEC football, but lets be real, Bama is not the Bama that everyone think they are, just average defense and offense. As for Oregon, that's a very good team that is comparable to FSU.

So it begs the question, Is it because FSU is an "ACC" team? This shows a big underlining problem for the ACC. The scary thing about this is if FSU had lost, they would have been out of the playoffs. I believe FSU should have been ranked #1 going into this last week and even if they lost to GT (by small margin) they probably should still have been in the top 4. So to say they played a soft schedule because they are in the ACC is BS. The only weak opponents on FSU schedule were The Citadel, Wake Forest and maybe Cuse, but even Cuse didn't roll over. I'm sorry any football team that has a score of 61-58 is not a great team. Please do not show me stats of TCU or Baylor because they are tainted due to playing weak opponents.

I know in the big scheme of things it only matters that you are 1 of the 4 teams, but it does show a lack of respect to the defending champs and the ACC. I do hope FSU repeats!

If a ranking means that one believes that the highest ranked team is the "best" by some subjective standard, then I see no reason why a team with a loss can not be considered to be better than one without a loss. What you are suggesting isn't a ranking at all. It's just "standings" that include teams from all conferences instead of one. In that case, an undefeated FSU is objectively one game ahead of Alabama in the standings.

If you had a vote in the AP poll, it would not be inconsistent for you to believe that Alabama is better than FSU but rank them lower. That is because you aren't just comparing one team to the other - you are comparing both of them to all other teams. You can logically believe that team A is better than team B, team B is better than team C, and team C is better than team A.

If, instead of football teams, you were ranking sprinters, you could not logically do the same thing, because with sprinters you have a measurable standard to compare them. You aren't saying who is "best", you are saying who is "fastest". In football, you don't have a measurable standard. Some team's strengths just match up better with one opponent than they do another. Same with their weaknesses. Essentially, by ranking a team #1, you are not saying they are better than any other team, you are saying they are better than more other teams than any other team is.

By using rankings to invite just four teams to a mini-tournament like the ESPN Invitational, you may well be excluding a team that is quite capable of winning it. Conferences may have agreed to this - and why wouldn't they, given how much they were paid to agree to it - but we can't make more of it than is there. It is a flawed process, and we know it.

Relevant: ESPN Roundtable on how the ACC can improve it's perception in football:
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/78...perception

(12-09-2014 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Relevant: ESPN Roundtable on how the ACC can improve it's perception in football:
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/78...perception

I found it interesting that this article was framed as a question of perception. When was the last time you heard someone say that the SEC is perceived as being better than the Sunbelt in football? Probably never. Because nobody questions that they are better. It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of reality.

While not as extreme, the reality is that SEC football is also better than ACC football, and has been for as long as the ACC has existed. It's not just perception. For most of that time, it was just as true that ACC football wasn't as good as Big Ten football, either. Or Southwest Conference. Or Big 8. Or PAC (insert # here). But nobody can say that we aren't gaining on all of those except the SEC.

Here's a newsflash. Nobody else is gaining on the SEC either. The difference is that nobody else plays the SEC as often as the ACC does. Maybe we would be better served in the future by scheduling more games against the B1G and the Big 12 and fewer against the SEC. I would be OK if the SEC were acclaimed as #1 of the P5 conferences if only we could say we are in a four way tie for #2. Then we'll have all the respect we need.

who cares, bring on Oregon!

Y'all are crazy if you don't think the Winston matter that has been in the media for 16 months doesn't have a negative affect on how some perceive FSU. This long run of negative publicity has not been good for FSU's image. Winston's guilt or innocence is not the issue, it's the constant negative whispering that goes on and is in the minds of the voters, committee, etc.

Plus, this year's FSU team is not nearly as good as the 2013 version - period. Last year's team had a better defense. Last year's team beat the living hell out of folks. In comparison to that team, the 2014 looks weaker and it is weaker. The 2013 version was one of the best college teams of all time.

Both these factors are in play before you get to any issue related to the conference.

(12-09-2014 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Relevant: ESPN Roundtable on how the ACC can improve it's perception in football:
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/78...perception

From the link: The ACC needs more good teams to get better, and more bad teams to get good.

This is essentially what I said fairly recently on the board. Outside of their own fanbase, no one expects Wake and Syracuse to win the league anytime soon and no one expects BC to be a Top 10 team every year, but nearly everyone can try to step up their performance a relative notch or two. That would help the league a ton.

(12-09-2014 03:27 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Relevant: ESPN Roundtable on how the ACC can improve it's perception in football:
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/78...perception

I found it interesting that this article was framed as a question of perception. When was the last time you heard someone say that the SEC is perceived as being better than the Sunbelt in football? Probably never. Because nobody questions that they are better. It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of reality.

While not as extreme, the reality is that SEC football is also better than ACC football, and has been for as long as the ACC has existed. It's not just perception. For most of that time, it was just as true that ACC football wasn't as good as Big Ten football, either. Or Southwest Conference. Or Big 8. Or PAC (insert # here). But nobody can say that we aren't gaining on all of those except the SEC.

Here's a newsflash. Nobody else is gaining on the SEC either. The difference is that nobody else plays the SEC as often as the ACC does. Maybe we would be better served in the future by scheduling more games against the B1G and the Big 12 and fewer against the SEC. I would be OK if the SEC were acclaimed as #1 of the P5 conferences if only we could say we are in a four way tie for #2. Then we'll have all the respect we need.

When the Southern Conference split in 1933, the football differential was not as great as some think because Duke was a top 10 power in the 30's to 1962. MD was a national power in the 50's. UNC a national power in the late 40's.

1. The ACC de-emphasized football in 1962 with the 800 SAT rule. That's when things changed radically. The ACC lost it's Orange Bowl tie and the ACC essentially dropped down a level for two decades until MD and Clemson revived their programs in the late 70's, early 80's, but by then two decades had gone by, and you don't make up two decades on the SEC at that point.

The 1962 de-emphasis is the main culprit because when football was deemphasized, basketball was then emphasized. The ACC was not formed for basketball, but by the mid-1960's that was all the ACC was about.

2. When FSU is added thirty years later they are so dominate over previous national championship caliber Clemson and GT teams that the ACC looks like FSU and the 8 dwarfs. That's the second culprit.

3. The third culprit is that FSU and Miami went into the tank in the mid 2000's and stayed down a decade, while Clemson was dealing with a 15 year slump, causing programs like VT, BC, WF, and GT to be the ACC standard bearers - often pitting them in bowls where they were outmatched.

4. The fourth culprit is that UNC nor NC State have produced a championship caliber football team in 30 years.

These four things underpin the current image of the ACC.

(12-09-2014 01:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Relevant: ESPN Roundtable on how the ACC can improve it's perception in football:
http://espn.go.com/blog/acc/post/_/id/78...perception

That;s complete and total BS. They have no idea what they are talking about. The experts on this board have told us the only thing that has to happen is FSU and Clemson need to win.



Oh wait.....

"3. The third culprit is that FSU and Miami went into the tank in the mid 2000's and stayed down a decade, while Clemson was dealing with a 15 year slump, causing programs like VT, BC, WF, and GT to be the ACC standard bearers - often pitting them in bowls where they were outmatched. "



Lumberpack4,

Nice post, but this one is something I take issue with. FSU has won the ACC title in 15 of 23 years.


If FSU was 'down' that isn't the 'culprit'....the 'culprit' is that FSU can't be down for a single year and hope somebody else can carry the load outside of Clemson.

You might be saying as much, but I just wanted to clarify.


FSU's down years it never went below .500 and was still winning bowl games. The REAL issue for the ACC is, it demands FSU carry the load EVERY year. THis is not realistic and honestly, the ACC has been lucky FSU has been up as much as it has been....especially given how much more $$$$ it's SEC peers have than FSU.

(12-09-2014 08:40 PM)nole Wrote:  "3. The third culprit is that FSU and Miami went into the tank in the mid 2000's and stayed down a decade, while Clemson was dealing with a 15 year slump, causing programs like VT, BC, WF, and GT to be the ACC standard bearers - often pitting them in bowls where they were outmatched. "



Lumberpack4,

Nice post, but this one is something I take issue with. FSU has won the ACC title in 15 of 23 years.


If FSU was 'down' that isn't the 'culprit'....the 'culprit' is that FSU can't be down for a single year and hope somebody else can carry the load outside of Clemson.

You might be saying as much, but I just wanted to clarify.


FSU's down years it never went below .500 and was still winning bowl games. The REAL issue for the ACC is, it demands FSU carry the load EVERY year. THis is not realistic and honestly, the ACC has been lucky FSU has been up as much as it has been....especially given how much more $$$$ it's SEC peers have than FSU.

For FSU, a down year is 9-3. Sorry, but you are held to a higher standard, although Ohio State and the B10 has developed into a similar situation, if OSU is perceived as down, the B10 is perceived as down, same with Texas and the B12.

The SEC is lucky in that it has multiple schools that can play the big dog role - Bama of course, Auburn, LSU, and Florida.

The P12 has had three over past decade or so - Oregon, USC, and Stanford.

The timing of your dive into the tank was bad, very bad. It hurt the TV contract, it hurt public perception because it vaulted VT, GT, WF, and BC into bowl games one notch above where they should have been.

Yes, that's a lot of responsibility on FSU - more responsibility that you should have had to shoulder, but when Miami was asked to join the ACC in order to split that load, they flopped on their face and until Clemson got it's act back together, you didn't have a lot of help outside a slowly spiraling down VT.

Smaller culprits can be pointed out - GT finding new and unique ways to lose to Georgia over the years no matter how large the GT lead. Clemson inexplicably failing to show up for at least one major game every year for almost decade. UNC, NC State, and UVa not putting a decent product on the football field for the better part of a decade.

There's plenty of blame to go around, but I think you have to admit, some in the media hate Winston, and think he is a thug and a rapist. He strikes me more as goof ball than a thug, but that's just me.

For this year the main culprit is hatred toward Winston.

Next year you will be knocked on your OOC schedule.

ACC coaches and media need to work together and over-rate our teams and under rate SEC teams to start the season as those rankings influence the committee.