(07-15-2017 11:33 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 09:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 08:36 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 01:48 PM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 01:10 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think this whole league bellyaches a lot. It seems like there's always a grievance of some sort.

Honestly, I don't mind it.

It makes forming petty grudges and rivalries really easy. It's one of the reasons I love beating Georgia Tech, cause Paul Johnson annoys me. He's also a really good coach.

I'll throw one out there, how was this not pass interference? Only at Clemson!

Quit your bitchin'
How can you rip the helmet off of a receiver's head and not be called for pass interference?


https://youtu.be/wtSeYc23JqI

The helmet got caught up in the fight for the ball? Contact is allowed after the ball arrives.

(07-14-2017 05:17 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  This is awesome. This is a vestige of the old ACC way of doing things in football...try to handicap the powers to boost the lesser programs. Scheduling, officiating, everything was always toward this goal (extra sanctions for Clemson, anyone?). I truly believe that prior to 2010, the ACC office wet dream was every team with a 4-4 conference record. I really think that is how they thought a healthy football conference would look. Whether that has to do with the fact that tobacco road schools have traditionally been the weaker sisters, I'll leave others to decide.

Basically 180 degrees opposite to how they've always treated basketball.

That philosophy helped lead the ACC to it's place as the consensus 5th (or worse) football conference over decades.

They get it now (presumably), that the conference is as strong as it's strongest teams, not it's weakest. Glad to see this nonsense go, even if it took too long.

I don't know about that bolded part. Has Carolina been disproportionately helped by scheduling? Sure looks like it. But I don't think the league and its members have gone out of their way to improve the perception of NC State or Wake Forest football. It's not Tobacco Road they want to promote.

For some reason that is hard for me to understand, the public's interest in UNC football has always been far greater than their on field performance would justify. They are a national brand in spite of persistent mediocrity. It seems to me the other schools in the league would like for UNC to step up its game on the gridiron, so that the attention they get produces a more favorable perception of the league as a whole.

Carolina has gotten some attractive kickoff games in recent years. Have they won any of them? Even when they were the better team (like against South Carolina recently) they couldn't step up. That doesn't help the ACC.

(07-14-2017 08:47 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 07:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:17 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  This is awesome. This is a vestige of the old ACC way of doing things in football...try to handicap the powers to boost the lesser programs. Scheduling, officiating, everything was always toward this goal (extra sanctions for Clemson, anyone?). I truly believe that prior to 2010, the ACC office wet dream was every team with a 4-4 conference record. I really think that is how they thought a healthy football conference would look. Whether that has to do with the fact that tobacco road schools have traditionally been the weaker sisters, I'll leave others to decide.

Basically 180 degrees opposite to how they've always treated basketball.

That philosophy helped lead the ACC to it's place as the consensus 5th (or worse) football conference over decades.

They get it now (presumably), that the conference is as strong as it's strongest teams, not it's weakest. Glad to see this nonsense go, even if it took too long.

Lou, you are wrong on a number of points.

1. Clemson got extra time in the late 80's because they did not appeal their 2 years to the proper committee. Clemson got 2 years because they were caught red handed giving out CASH money at a time when the ACC was trying not the be the SEC.

2. The ACC demphasized football because of Duke in 1962 and the lack of football success that ensued is a result of that action. Not actions taken in the 70's, 80's or 90's. From the time the SEC left the SoCon, Duke had been to all four major bowls, the ACC had a tie to the Orange Bowl, MD had a national championship, Clemson had gone to three of the four, and even UNC had gone to three major bowls. For the conference 15 major bowls in 30 years until 1962.

Duke and Maryland walked away from national prominence in football.

Their decision - period. The 800 rule handicapped Clemson and SC on the football field - but the 800 rule was as much about keeping black players out of the ACC as demphazing football because after the 800 rule you did not need them on the football field for conference play.

3. After that, the ACC became a basketball conference and ACC tournament tickets were the coin of the realm. That's not something to disadvantage anyone - just the facts. Football did not reach its current import until the mid-90's. At what point in the distant past was the ACC to divine that football would become more lucrative than basketball and how was the conference to make that move if key members found it not in their best interest.

I can assure you that folks at WF and NC State are tired of new comers inability to distinguish between some **** that UNC and Duke pulls and the other two schools on Tobacco Road. Moreover, whenever UNC and Duke do anything, they first bring UVa in tow - so find another descriptor for your pejorative.

4. In the past, football success came with cheating, cash payoffs, bad player behavior and a host of things that a real academic institution does not want. Ironically, Florida had just this mentality for most of the 60's and early 70's, before finally pulling the trigger on SEC style cheating.

Maryland and UNC knew this first hand because of Jim Tatum from Oklahoma. That's why Tatum was not replaced with a big time coach when he left MD, and died on the way to UNC. UVa, Duke, UNC, VT, MD, and others in the SoCon saw it first hand at William and Mary in 1952 - this is what led the State of Virginia, to lean on VT (then running the SoCon) to do something about football. Even Duke with its vast endowment from the Duke family knew that football was a time bomb for them as they wanted to push themselves as close to the Ivy League as possible (not the sports league mind you).

In basketball you have only 3-6 numb nuts to cover for, pay off, and pass through school. You can hide 3-6 morons. You can't hide 30-50.

5. Has the conference done many favors for UNC, Duke, and UVa over the years? Yes. Did they favor UNC and Duke basketball? Yes. Did they make the Atlantic Division more difficult than the Coastal and more importantly did they put the best recruiting ground in the Coastal? Yes. Guess what - none of that affects FSU football.

6. When FSU football went into the crapper at the end of Bowdens tenure that was on YOU.

7. When NC State gutted its sports programs in the early 90's that was on THEM. Yes UNC egged it on, but NC State folk wielded the knives.

8. When VT football went into the crapper at the end of Beamers tenure that was on THEM.

9. When Clemson decided they would rather have civil war than get past Danny Ford - that was on them.

10. Whoever is at the top of the ACC in football or basketball will be favored. Sad but true. It's not a problem for YOU in football.

When you exaggerate what has happened or misunderstand how something came to be, you undercut your ability to point to something that is "unfair" now and say fix it.

Clemson received extra probation from the conference, above and beyond what the NCAA imposed.

http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/W...year-10615

Clemson appealed the extra sanction on 2 separate occasions. The procedure was mishandled by the conference, as admitted by the commisioner.

Edit: What I originally wrote was incorrect. When I referred back to this article, I corrected my post.

Bob James, former MD Athletic Director, was in charge of the conference then. Do you think the former MD AD had any reason to help Clemson given that Clemson was Bobby Ross and MD's rival in the ACC at the time? My response to the original comment is based on the old Chestnut that "Tobacco Road" and John Swofford screwed Clemson, at a time when the league was still run by Maryland.

Get it right. Maryland along with Duke ran the ACC for the first 25 to 30 years after kicking out VT and West Va to form the ACC from the SoCon. UNC's inflated control along with Duke and UVa did not develop until after Gene Corrigan retired and NC State had gutted its atheltic programs.

Carolina deserves all the **** they deserve, but facts matter - If the Commission wanted Clemson forgiven of the extra year, he could have done so, and for Clemson to claim that they were too ignorant to know what the appeal process was means either someone is lying, or Clemson folks are stupid.

Clemson folks are not stupid no matter how long they draw out their digpthongs and pretend to be dumb. That's an act. Works pretty well too, especially on Yankees and Californians.

You should read the contemporaneous Washington Post story on the mess that Charlie Pell started at Clemson, and then took on the road to Florida.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...ea5defa18b

Maryland had recovered from the 800 SAT rule by 1976, Clemson is who stood between them and major bowls in the 1980's. Clemson's shenanigans were SECish and hamfisted and it had continued under not one but two coaching regimes. Ford is partially crucified with the cross meant for Charlie Pell - but it's not Tobacco Road hammering the nails.

(07-15-2017 02:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 08:47 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 07:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:17 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  This is awesome. This is a vestige of the old ACC way of doing things in football...try to handicap the powers to boost the lesser programs. Scheduling, officiating, everything was always toward this goal (extra sanctions for Clemson, anyone?). I truly believe that prior to 2010, the ACC office wet dream was every team with a 4-4 conference record. I really think that is how they thought a healthy football conference would look. Whether that has to do with the fact that tobacco road schools have traditionally been the weaker sisters, I'll leave others to decide.

Basically 180 degrees opposite to how they've always treated basketball.

That philosophy helped lead the ACC to it's place as the consensus 5th (or worse) football conference over decades.

They get it now (presumably), that the conference is as strong as it's strongest teams, not it's weakest. Glad to see this nonsense go, even if it took too long.

Lou, you are wrong on a number of points.

1. Clemson got extra time in the late 80's because they did not appeal their 2 years to the proper committee. Clemson got 2 years because they were caught red handed giving out CASH money at a time when the ACC was trying not the be the SEC.

2. The ACC demphasized football because of Duke in 1962 and the lack of football success that ensued is a result of that action. Not actions taken in the 70's, 80's or 90's. From the time the SEC left the SoCon, Duke had been to all four major bowls, the ACC had a tie to the Orange Bowl, MD had a national championship, Clemson had gone to three of the four, and even UNC had gone to three major bowls. For the conference 15 major bowls in 30 years until 1962.

Duke and Maryland walked away from national prominence in football.

Their decision - period. The 800 rule handicapped Clemson and SC on the football field - but the 800 rule was as much about keeping black players out of the ACC as demphazing football because after the 800 rule you did not need them on the football field for conference play.

3. After that, the ACC became a basketball conference and ACC tournament tickets were the coin of the realm. That's not something to disadvantage anyone - just the facts. Football did not reach its current import until the mid-90's. At what point in the distant past was the ACC to divine that football would become more lucrative than basketball and how was the conference to make that move if key members found it not in their best interest.

I can assure you that folks at WF and NC State are tired of new comers inability to distinguish between some **** that UNC and Duke pulls and the other two schools on Tobacco Road. Moreover, whenever UNC and Duke do anything, they first bring UVa in tow - so find another descriptor for your pejorative.

4. In the past, football success came with cheating, cash payoffs, bad player behavior and a host of things that a real academic institution does not want. Ironically, Florida had just this mentality for most of the 60's and early 70's, before finally pulling the trigger on SEC style cheating.

Maryland and UNC knew this first hand because of Jim Tatum from Oklahoma. That's why Tatum was not replaced with a big time coach when he left MD, and died on the way to UNC. UVa, Duke, UNC, VT, MD, and others in the SoCon saw it first hand at William and Mary in 1952 - this is what led the State of Virginia, to lean on VT (then running the SoCon) to do something about football. Even Duke with its vast endowment from the Duke family knew that football was a time bomb for them as they wanted to push themselves as close to the Ivy League as possible (not the sports league mind you).

In basketball you have only 3-6 numb nuts to cover for, pay off, and pass through school. You can hide 3-6 morons. You can't hide 30-50.

5. Has the conference done many favors for UNC, Duke, and UVa over the years? Yes. Did they favor UNC and Duke basketball? Yes. Did they make the Atlantic Division more difficult than the Coastal and more importantly did they put the best recruiting ground in the Coastal? Yes. Guess what - none of that affects FSU football.

6. When FSU football went into the crapper at the end of Bowdens tenure that was on YOU.

7. When NC State gutted its sports programs in the early 90's that was on THEM. Yes UNC egged it on, but NC State folk wielded the knives.

8. When VT football went into the crapper at the end of Beamers tenure that was on THEM.

9. When Clemson decided they would rather have civil war than get past Danny Ford - that was on them.

10. Whoever is at the top of the ACC in football or basketball will be favored. Sad but true. It's not a problem for YOU in football.

When you exaggerate what has happened or misunderstand how something came to be, you undercut your ability to point to something that is "unfair" now and say fix it.

Clemson received extra probation from the conference, above and beyond what the NCAA imposed.

http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/W...year-10615

Clemson appealed the extra sanction on 2 separate occasions. The procedure was mishandled by the conference, as admitted by the commisioner.

Edit: What I originally wrote was incorrect. When I referred back to this article, I corrected my post.

Bob James, former MD Athletic Director, was in charge of the conference then. Do you think the former MD AD had any reason to help Clemson given that Clemson was Bobby Ross and MD's rival in the ACC at the time? My response to the original comment is based on the old Chestnut that "Tobacco Road" and John Swofford screwed Clemson, at a time when the league was still run by Maryland.

Get it right. Maryland along with Duke ran the ACC for the first 25 to 30 years after kicking out VT and West Va to form the ACC from the SoCon. UNC's inflated control along with Duke and UVa did not develop until after Gene Corrigan retired and NC State had gutted its atheltic programs.

Carolina deserves all the **** they deserve, but facts matter - If the Commission wanted Clemson forgiven of the extra year, he could have done so, and for Clemson to claim that they were too ignorant to know what the appeal process was means either someone is lying, or Clemson folks are stupid.

Clemson folks are not stupid no matter how long they draw out their digpthongs and pretend to be dumb. That's an act. Works pretty well too, especially on Yankees and Californians.

You should read the contemporaneous Washington Post story on the mess that Charlie Pell started at Clemson, and then took on the road to Florida.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...ea5defa18b

Maryland had recovered from the 800 SAT rule by 1976, Clemson is who stood between them and major bowls in the 1980's. Clemson's shenanigans were SECish and hamfisted and it had continued under not one but two coaching regimes. Ford is partially crucified with the cross meant for Charlie Pell - but it's not Tobacco Road hammering the nails.

Don't confuse Clemson fans with the truth, besides it doesn't align well with their martyrdom.

(07-15-2017 03:03 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-15-2017 02:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 08:47 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 07:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:17 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  This is awesome. This is a vestige of the old ACC way of doing things in football...try to handicap the powers to boost the lesser programs. Scheduling, officiating, everything was always toward this goal (extra sanctions for Clemson, anyone?). I truly believe that prior to 2010, the ACC office wet dream was every team with a 4-4 conference record. I really think that is how they thought a healthy football conference would look. Whether that has to do with the fact that tobacco road schools have traditionally been the weaker sisters, I'll leave others to decide.

Basically 180 degrees opposite to how they've always treated basketball.

That philosophy helped lead the ACC to it's place as the consensus 5th (or worse) football conference over decades.

They get it now (presumably), that the conference is as strong as it's strongest teams, not it's weakest. Glad to see this nonsense go, even if it took too long.

Lou, you are wrong on a number of points.

1. Clemson got extra time in the late 80's because they did not appeal their 2 years to the proper committee. Clemson got 2 years because they were caught red handed giving out CASH money at a time when the ACC was trying not the be the SEC.

2. The ACC demphasized football because of Duke in 1962 and the lack of football success that ensued is a result of that action. Not actions taken in the 70's, 80's or 90's. From the time the SEC left the SoCon, Duke had been to all four major bowls, the ACC had a tie to the Orange Bowl, MD had a national championship, Clemson had gone to three of the four, and even UNC had gone to three major bowls. For the conference 15 major bowls in 30 years until 1962.

Duke and Maryland walked away from national prominence in football.

Their decision - period. The 800 rule handicapped Clemson and SC on the football field - but the 800 rule was as much about keeping black players out of the ACC as demphazing football because after the 800 rule you did not need them on the football field for conference play.

3. After that, the ACC became a basketball conference and ACC tournament tickets were the coin of the realm. That's not something to disadvantage anyone - just the facts. Football did not reach its current import until the mid-90's. At what point in the distant past was the ACC to divine that football would become more lucrative than basketball and how was the conference to make that move if key members found it not in their best interest.

I can assure you that folks at WF and NC State are tired of new comers inability to distinguish between some **** that UNC and Duke pulls and the other two schools on Tobacco Road. Moreover, whenever UNC and Duke do anything, they first bring UVa in tow - so find another descriptor for your pejorative.

4. In the past, football success came with cheating, cash payoffs, bad player behavior and a host of things that a real academic institution does not want. Ironically, Florida had just this mentality for most of the 60's and early 70's, before finally pulling the trigger on SEC style cheating.

Maryland and UNC knew this first hand because of Jim Tatum from Oklahoma. That's why Tatum was not replaced with a big time coach when he left MD, and died on the way to UNC. UVa, Duke, UNC, VT, MD, and others in the SoCon saw it first hand at William and Mary in 1952 - this is what led the State of Virginia, to lean on VT (then running the SoCon) to do something about football. Even Duke with its vast endowment from the Duke family knew that football was a time bomb for them as they wanted to push themselves as close to the Ivy League as possible (not the sports league mind you).

In basketball you have only 3-6 numb nuts to cover for, pay off, and pass through school. You can hide 3-6 morons. You can't hide 30-50.

5. Has the conference done many favors for UNC, Duke, and UVa over the years? Yes. Did they favor UNC and Duke basketball? Yes. Did they make the Atlantic Division more difficult than the Coastal and more importantly did they put the best recruiting ground in the Coastal? Yes. Guess what - none of that affects FSU football.

6. When FSU football went into the crapper at the end of Bowdens tenure that was on YOU.

7. When NC State gutted its sports programs in the early 90's that was on THEM. Yes UNC egged it on, but NC State folk wielded the knives.

8. When VT football went into the crapper at the end of Beamers tenure that was on THEM.

9. When Clemson decided they would rather have civil war than get past Danny Ford - that was on them.

10. Whoever is at the top of the ACC in football or basketball will be favored. Sad but true. It's not a problem for YOU in football.

When you exaggerate what has happened or misunderstand how something came to be, you undercut your ability to point to something that is "unfair" now and say fix it.

Clemson received extra probation from the conference, above and beyond what the NCAA imposed.

http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/W...year-10615

Clemson appealed the extra sanction on 2 separate occasions. The procedure was mishandled by the conference, as admitted by the commisioner.

Edit: What I originally wrote was incorrect. When I referred back to this article, I corrected my post.

Bob James, former MD Athletic Director, was in charge of the conference then. Do you think the former MD AD had any reason to help Clemson given that Clemson was Bobby Ross and MD's rival in the ACC at the time? My response to the original comment is based on the old Chestnut that "Tobacco Road" and John Swofford screwed Clemson, at a time when the league was still run by Maryland.

Get it right. Maryland along with Duke ran the ACC for the first 25 to 30 years after kicking out VT and West Va to form the ACC from the SoCon. UNC's inflated control along with Duke and UVa did not develop until after Gene Corrigan retired and NC State had gutted its atheltic programs.

Carolina deserves all the **** they deserve, but facts matter - If the Commission wanted Clemson forgiven of the extra year, he could have done so, and for Clemson to claim that they were too ignorant to know what the appeal process was means either someone is lying, or Clemson folks are stupid.

Clemson folks are not stupid no matter how long they draw out their digpthongs and pretend to be dumb. That's an act. Works pretty well too, especially on Yankees and Californians.

You should read the contemporaneous Washington Post story on the mess that Charlie Pell started at Clemson, and then took on the road to Florida.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/s...ea5defa18b

Maryland had recovered from the 800 SAT rule by 1976, Clemson is who stood between them and major bowls in the 1980's. Clemson's shenanigans were SECish and hamfisted and it had continued under not one but two coaching regimes. Ford is partially crucified with the cross meant for Charlie Pell - but it's not Tobacco Road hammering the nails.

Don't confuse Clemson fans with the truth, besides it doesn't align well with their martyrdom.

Whatever. Read the link I provided where the former commisioner is quoted as saying the conference bungled the procedure for apppeals on 2 separate occasions.

Clearly GT got the short end of the deal but I am not convinced of a conspiracy. In 2004 & 2005 the ACC added 3 schools and switched to divisional play. In 2011 we added 2 more schools. These events place major strains on scheduling. SC and other SEC teams have made similar complaints about their schedule. If I paid any attention the B1G schools I would probably hear similar complaints from them.

That being said, It should not have taken this long to work the kinks out.

(07-17-2017 09:29 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Clearly GT got the short end of the deal but I am not convinced of a conspiracy. In 2004 & 2005 the ACC added 3 schools and switched to divisional play. In 2011 we added 2 more schools. These events place major strains on scheduling. SC and other SEC teams have made similar complaints about their schedule. If I paid any attention the B1G schools I would probably hear similar complaints from them.

That being said, It should not have taken this long to work the kinks out.

Once is a fluke. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a trend. What do you call it when it happens over and over?

(07-14-2017 07:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 05:17 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  This is awesome. This is a vestige of the old ACC way of doing things in football...try to handicap the powers to boost the lesser programs. Scheduling, officiating, everything was always toward this goal (extra sanctions for Clemson, anyone?). I truly believe that prior to 2010, the ACC office wet dream was every team with a 4-4 conference record. I really think that is how they thought a healthy football conference would look. Whether that has to do with the fact that tobacco road schools have traditionally been the weaker sisters, I'll leave others to decide.

Basically 180 degrees opposite to how they've always treated basketball.

That philosophy helped lead the ACC to it's place as the consensus 5th (or worse) football conference over decades.

They get it now (presumably), that the conference is as strong as it's strongest teams, not it's weakest. Glad to see this nonsense go, even if it took too long.

Lou, you are wrong on a number of points.

1. Clemson got extra time in the late 80's because they did not appeal their 2 years to the proper committee. Clemson got 2 years because they were caught red handed giving out CASH money at a time when the ACC was trying not the be the SEC.

2. The ACC demphasized football because of Duke in 1962 and the lack of football success that ensued is a result of that action. Not actions taken in the 70's, 80's or 90's. From the time the SEC left the SoCon, Duke had been to all four major bowls, the ACC had a tie to the Orange Bowl, MD had a national championship, Clemson had gone to three of the four, and even UNC had gone to three major bowls. For the conference 15 major bowls in 30 years until 1962.

Duke and Maryland walked away from national prominence in football.

Their decision - period. The 800 rule handicapped Clemson and SC on the football field - but the 800 rule was as much about keeping black players out of the ACC as demphazing football because after the 800 rule you did not need them on the football field for conference play.

3. After that, the ACC became a basketball conference and ACC tournament tickets were the coin of the realm. That's not something to disadvantage anyone - just the facts. Football did not reach its current import until the mid-90's. At what point in the distant past was the ACC to divine that football would become more lucrative than basketball and how was the conference to make that move if key members found it not in their best interest.

I can assure you that folks at WF and NC State are tired of new comers inability to distinguish between some **** that UNC and Duke pulls and the other two schools on Tobacco Road. Moreover, whenever UNC and Duke do anything, they first bring UVa in tow - so find another descriptor for your pejorative.

4. In the past, football success came with cheating, cash payoffs, bad player behavior and a host of things that a real academic institution does not want. Ironically, Florida had just this mentality for most of the 60's and early 70's, before finally pulling the trigger on SEC style cheating.

Maryland and UNC knew this first hand because of Jim Tatum from Oklahoma. That's why Tatum was not replaced with a big time coach when he left MD, and died on the way to UNC. UVa, Duke, UNC, VT, MD, and others in the SoCon saw it first hand at William and Mary in 1952 - this is what led the State of Virginia, to lean on VT (then running the SoCon) to do something about football. Even Duke with its vast endowment from the Duke family knew that football was a time bomb for them as they wanted to push themselves as close to the Ivy League as possible (not the sports league mind you).

In basketball you have only 3-6 numb nuts to cover for, pay off, and pass through school. You can hide 3-6 morons. You can't hide 30-50.

5. Has the conference done many favors for UNC, Duke, and UVa over the years? Yes. Did they favor UNC and Duke basketball? Yes. Did they make the Atlantic Division more difficult than the Coastal and more importantly did they put the best recruiting ground in the Coastal? Yes. Guess what - none of that affects FSU football.

6. When FSU football went into the crapper at the end of Bowdens tenure that was on YOU.

7. When NC State gutted its sports programs in the early 90's that was on THEM. Yes UNC egged it on, but NC State folk wielded the knives.

8. When VT football went into the crapper at the end of Beamers tenure that was on THEM.

9. When Clemson decided they would rather have civil war than get past Danny Ford - that was on them.

10. Whoever is at the top of the ACC in football or basketball will be favored. Sad but true. It's not a problem for YOU in football.

When you exaggerate what has happened or misunderstand how something came to be, you undercut your ability to point to something that is "unfair" now and say fix it.

I'm not blaming everything that has happened bad for ACC football on the ACC offices. But I stand by my point that up until about 3-4 years ago, scheduling and officiating was absolutely skewed toward elevating the also-rans at the expense of the powers.

Just watching it was explicit. But there are also statistics to back it up. I can't look it up now, but someone analyzed offensive holding calls over a ten year period, and FSU had had the least amount of holding calls against it's DL, despite having the best DL by far over that time.

In other words, linemen for schools like Wake and UVA were getting "held" way more than the all americans and future NFL players for FSU.

It's just a mental state that says "That's FSU, they don't need the help."

The scheduling being discussed here is the exact same thing, and I'm glad it's being fixed too.

The ACC isn't to blame for every failing of a football program, but it's in the soup. The conference can't make schools make the right personnel decisions, etc. But at the same time the conference shouldn't be an additional OBSTACLE, through officiating or scheduling, that a program has to overcome.

As mentioned, I'm pretty sure everyone is on the same page NOW. But I have no doubt that in the 2000s when 3 loss BC, Wake, MD teams were winning the ACC, the league thought that was a GOOD thing. And it most assuredly was not.

(07-17-2017 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 09:29 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Clearly GT got the short end of the deal but I am not convinced of a conspiracy. In 2004 & 2005 the ACC added 3 schools and switched to divisional play. In 2011 we added 2 more schools. These events place major strains on scheduling. SC and other SEC teams have made similar complaints about their schedule. If I paid any attention the B1G schools I would probably hear similar complaints from them.

That being said, It should not have taken this long to work the kinks out.

Once is a fluke. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a trend. What do you call it when it happens over and over?

Hilarious

(07-17-2017 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 09:29 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Clearly GT got the short end of the deal but I am not convinced of a conspiracy. In 2004 & 2005 the ACC added 3 schools and switched to divisional play. In 2011 we added 2 more schools. These events place major strains on scheduling. SC and other SEC teams have made similar complaints about their schedule. If I paid any attention the B1G schools I would probably hear similar complaints from them.

That being said, It should not have taken this long to work the kinks out.

Once is a fluke. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a trend. What do you call it when it happens over and over?

I don't believe the people that make the schedules are clever enough to single out GT. Look at any ACC schedule for proof of their lack of cleverness. If they were that clever, why waste the effort on a team that for the most part has been a middle of the division team? Why waste that effort on a division that hasn't really challenged the other division?

I don't hear anyone at GT complaining that GT had 10 conference games after an open date during that same period. GT went 6-4 in those games. Slightly better than their 5-3 average during that same period. Maybe that open date isn't the big advantage it is claimed to be??

There is another thread saying we should give priority additional rivalry games. I'm sure that won't cause any schedule anomalies though.

(07-17-2017 06:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't believe the people that make the schedules are clever enough to single out GT. Look at any ACC schedule for proof of their lack of cleverness. If they were that clever, why waste the effort on a team that for the most part has been a middle of the division team? Why waste that effort on a division that hasn't really challenged the other division?

I don't hear anyone at GT complaining that GT had 10 conference games after an open date during that same period. GT went 6-4 in those games. Slightly better than their 5-3 average during that same period. Maybe that open date isn't the big advantage it is claimed to be??

There is another thread saying we should give priority additional rivalry games. I'm sure that won't cause any schedule anomalies though.

That Middle of division team has won 4 division titles which is 3 more than anyone other than VT. They haven't been middle of division they've been a divisional champion.

The Coastal has Challenged the Atlantic plenty since divisional play began. Not in the last 6 years but most of the rest of the time.

6-4 is not slightly better than 5-3. 6-4 is .600 winning percentage. 5-3 is .625. 5-3 is better than 6-4.

I don't believe having the week off before GT has lead to a big advantage.

(07-17-2017 06:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't hear anyone at GT complaining that GT had 10 conference games after an open date during that same period. GT went 6-4 in those games. Slightly better than their 5-3 average during that same period. Maybe that open date isn't the big advantage it is claimed to be??

You have to get a bye eventually. Paul Johnson has stated over and over his only preference is that the bye falls sometime in mid-season (preferrably close to week 7) to give everybody a break and a chance to get banged up people healthy.

But the ACC's process was essentially request when you want the bye. They then try to meet your request. The trouble is a lot of teams were obviously requesting a bye before Georgia Tech. UNC in particular. And there was no policy for the ACC to go "hey, let's not screw one team by having them play a bunch of people coming off byes...."

GT's mediocrity when having a bye is a product of them being exactly that ... very mediocre. During the Vad and Tevin days they had horrific defenses and only so-so QBs. They achieved exactly what they were.

GT's slightly better than .500 against teams with a bye is largely a byproduct of the teams getting the bye being typically even crappier than GT was at the time (UNC, Duke, etc).

Lets see what happens going forward!!!!

(07-18-2017 06:18 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(07-17-2017 06:33 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  I don't hear anyone at GT complaining that GT had 10 conference games after an open date during that same period. GT went 6-4 in those games. Slightly better than their 5-3 average during that same period. Maybe that open date isn't the big advantage it is claimed to be??

You have to get a bye eventually. Paul Johnson has stated over and over his only preference is that the bye falls sometime in mid-season (preferrably close to week 7) to give everybody a break and a chance to get banged up people healthy.

But the ACC's process was essentially request when you want the bye. They then try to meet your request. The trouble is a lot of teams were obviously requesting a bye before Georgia Tech. UNC in particular. And there was no policy for the ACC to go "hey, let's not screw one team by having them play a bunch of people coming off byes...."

GT's mediocrity when having a bye is a product of them being exactly that ... very mediocre. During the Vad and Tevin days they had horrific defenses and only so-so QBs. They achieved exactly what they were.

GT's slightly better than .500 against teams with a bye is largely a byproduct of the teams getting the bye being typically even crappier than GT was at the time (UNC, Duke, etc).

I wonder if the bye request was because nobody wants to play an option team while tired because that leads to injuries.

(07-20-2017 06:38 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  I wonder if the bye request was because nobody wants to play an option team while tired because that leads to injuries.

You sir have hit the "Nail on the Head"!!!!

That was and still is the MAIN reason why GT finds itself on A LOT of bye weeks....
FLossY Out...

(07-14-2017 01:10 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I think this whole league bellyaches a lot. It seems like there's always a grievance of some sort.