(12-06-2021 05:20 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  I think 89 Non conference games is not the right frame. Each team in the ACC already schedules an FCS, a g5 game, and a p5 team each year in non conference. Reducing to 6 games would really only result in 2 games per school that is not ND. That is 15×2 30 more games to fill.

Ask any fan of a Big East team how hard it was to fill 5 non-conference games? And that was back when conferences only played 8 conference games.

Keep in mind there are only roughly 61 total P5 OOC games from the other 4 conferences and ND not already accounted for. This assuming each P5 team wants to play 10 total P5 teams, the SEC remains at 8 conference games, long standing in state OOC rivalries remain intact, and ND continues to play 5 ACC teams, USC, Stanford, and Navy every year. Next we remove two of those, since ND is not scheduling extra ACC teams, leaving us with 59 P5 OOC games for the ACC to work with. With a six game ACC schedule, assuming the ACC wants the same 10 P5 games requirement, accounting for the 5 ND games and 4 locked in rivalry games with SEC teams, the ACC would need to claim 47 of those 59 OOC spots.

THIS.WILL.NOT.WORK! Trying to appease ND to this point, would break up a conference, just to add a team who doesn't want to be in a conference.

The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

The ACC is a great league for the midsize east coast and southern schools not in the SeC or Big 10. The ACC is probably imo the only power 5 conference where the coaches of the smaller more football limited schools have the more experienced and seasoned coaches lol and the bigger football school all seem to have unproductive coaches. Only Clemson is the only big ACC football school with a strong coaching staff. I say WF/UVA/Pitt and BC all have better coaches than what Miami had or what VT had or what FSU and GT have . Give Wake Forest and clawsson UNC or FSU roster and he is competing for national titles imo. NCSU is a head scratch I can’t figure out that school at all when it looks like the a ready to take control of the ACC they aways blow some stupid game and they can’t seem to beat WF . If NCSU can’t beat Wf they will never win the Atlantic unfortunately. Maybe NCSU should partition to have wake switch to the coastal in favor of Duke . I know that would be good for UofL/BC/SU/FSU to have Duke instead of WF. WF is NCSU kryptonite . They have the 3rd best head coach in the ACC and that only because UNC and Clemson guys have NC under there belts.

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

NCSU is the biggest head scratcher school in the ACC football and Basketball. When you look at the Wolfpack I can’t help but wonder why they aren’t strong like a Texas Am or Michigan State athletic program in FB and BB. They just can’t seem to beat Wake Forest and in basketball I just do t under why they can’t break through I feel like they should be able to have success like FSU and VT have had in Basketball. They should be a yearly NCAA tournament contender. Maybe it’s just bad coaching but I like Dorean and I can’t remember there BB coach but he is really good too. Yet somehow Gt BB was able to surpass the Wolfpack last year in BB. I think UNC and Duke will have some fall off too once they lose there BB coaches and FSU/Syracuse is few years away from there BB coach retirement . NCSU is primed to be the ACC leader In BB soon I believe they only have maybe UVA\Clemson\VT/UofL and GT to beat out once the older coaches retire in the acc for BB. They should be a top 3 ACC athletic school in BB/FB each year the Wolfpack can do it

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

I’ll add that even during the decade between 1963 and 1973, ACC teams were hosting major opponents from the SEC and elsewhere. It’s not like they started playing VMI and the Citadel again.

I’ll even take lowly Duke:

Maintained a home and home with GaTech
In 1963 Duke hosted #2 Navy
1965 - Pitt
1968 - Michigan
1969 - Pitt

Notre Dame came to Duke in ‘61 btw.

Carolina hosted Tennessee and Georgia regularly, with Florida sprinkled in. Name a non-power league that regularly hosts power teams? I’ll wait.

AAC might see more value in WVU than UC addition.

WVU paid its entrance fee to the XII a long time ago and is ripe for moving out.

There is also South Florida sitting around for another FL presence.

If you want to go snobby there is always UConn.

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

Duke did hire Steve Spurrier. Tied for 1st in ACC when he was there, just before FSU joined.

(12-10-2021 01:06 AM)PusherT Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

NCSU is the biggest head scratcher school in the ACC football and Basketball. When you look at the Wolfpack I can’t help but wonder why they aren’t strong like a Texas Am or Michigan State athletic program in FB and BB. They just can’t seem to beat Wake Forest and in basketball I just do t under why they can’t break through I feel like they should be able to have success like FSU and VT have had in Basketball. They should be a yearly NCAA tournament contender. Maybe it’s just bad coaching but I like Dorean and I can’t remember there BB coach but he is really good too. Yet somehow Gt BB was able to surpass the Wolfpack last year in BB. I think UNC and Duke will have some fall off too once they lose there BB coaches and FSU/Syracuse is few years away from there BB coach retirement . NCSU is primed to be the ACC leader In BB soon I believe they only have maybe UVA\Clemson\VT/UofL and GT to beat out once the older coaches retire in the acc for BB. They should be a top 3 ACC athletic school in BB/FB each year the Wolfpack can do it

NCSU seemed to be the only ACC school that could beat FSU in their glory days. But they could never be consistent for the whole season.

(12-08-2021 01:08 PM)Glenn360 Wrote:  ND will only join a conference if it becomes virtually impossible to play big time college football without being in a conference.

That is not going to happen, even if the ACC tried to force their hand, they can put their Olympic sports in the Big East and remain independent.

Or when they cease having success as an independent. If not for the hire of Brian Kelly, they might be there. They struggled after Lou Holtz retired and had a disastrous 5 years with Gerry Faust before Holtz.

(12-10-2021 08:10 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

I’ll add that even during the decade between 1963 and 1973, ACC teams were hosting major opponents from the SEC and elsewhere. It’s not like they started playing VMI and the Citadel again.

I’ll even take lowly Duke:

Maintained a home and home with GaTech
In 1963 Duke hosted #2 Navy
1965 - Pitt
1968 - Michigan
1969 - Pitt

Notre Dame came to Duke in ‘61 btw.

Carolina hosted Tennessee and Georgia regularly, with Florida sprinkled in. Name a non-power league that regularly hosts power teams? I’ll wait.

yes, but up until the 80s it was viewed as an embarrassment for a power to lose to an ACC school. In football, they were on par with the WAC.

Bullet, I've read that statement from you before and it's wrong.

It would have only been an embarrassment in the late 60's and the very early 70's. And the comparison to the WAC is wrong as well. The WAC was the merger of Skyline and Boarder Conference schools. Neither of those two conferences had produced much other than a Wyoming ranked 12 in 1950 and 16 in 1959 and Utah State ranked 10th in 1961. Post that merger/evolution, the WAC was equally crappy until Wyoming was again ranked in 1969. Then came the Arizona State run between 1970 and 1977 which culminated in their exit to the Pac 8.

As far as the ACC being embarrassing in the late 70's and 80's I can only point to the final rankings of a 7 - 8 school conference that played a full round robin unlike certain competitors that did not play a full round robin and had 40% more members:

Year and Final Rank

78 Clemson - 6, NC State - 18, MD - 20
79 UNC - 15
80 UNC - 10
81 Clemson - 1, UNC - 9
82 Clemson - 8, UNC - 18, MD - 20
83 Clemson - 11
84 MD - 12, UVa 20
85 MD - 18, GT 19
86 Clemson - 17
87 Clemson - 12
88 Clemson - 9
89 Clemson - 12, UVa - 18
90 GT - 2, Clemson - 9, UVa - 23
91 Clemson - 16, NC State - 24
92 FSU - 2, NC State - 17, UNC - 18, Wake Forest - 25

Sports writers who are too lazy to actually do any research can't understand that the ACC did not form out of the clear blue sky in 1953. But the ACC did not take the SoCon's records as the Pacific 6 did with the old PCAA in the early 1960's.

I guess this is part of the reason why lazy pundits never seem to understand why the ACC is ALWAYS with the B10, SEC, PAC, etc. The WAC was never on a par with the ACC.

(12-10-2021 08:54 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I guess this is part of the reason why lazy pundits never seem to understand why the ACC is ALWAYS with the B10, SEC, PAC, etc. The WAC was never on a par with the ACC.

Ehh, all I see is two conferences that weren't big-time enough to have major bowl tie-ins.

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

where did you get your preseason rankings from. I thought preseason rankings didn't begin until 1950.

(12-09-2021 02:14 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-06-2021 05:20 PM)LeeNobody Wrote:  I think 89 Non conference games is not the right frame. Each team in the ACC already schedules an FCS, a g5 game, and a p5 team each year in non conference. Reducing to 6 games would really only result in 2 games per school that is not ND. That is 15×2 30 more games to fill.

I expect that if the Alliance amounts to anything it is an attempt to step into the CBS game of the week time slot with an Alliance game of the week. Or have CBS broadcast 4 games saturday. This would work nicely with the Pac12 and B1G reducing to 8 games to open up one game a week to the Alliance whether those games are scheduled before the season or during the season like bracket buster week this could guarantee a quality matchup each week for CBS. These 30 games would serve as a nice inclusion into the Alliance programming, and would be weaved through the regular season not just beginning and end of the season. Some games would be Non conference ACC games, but these would be rivalries to maintain annuals. Think VT v UVA, NC rivalries, GT- FSU- Clemson.

Ask any fan of a Big East team how hard it was to fill 5 non-conference games? And that was back when conferences only played 8 conference games.

Keep in mind there are only roughly 61 total P5 OOC games from the other 4 conferences and ND not already accounted for. This assuming each P5 team wants to play 10 total P5 teams, the SEC remains at 8 conference games, long standing in state OOC rivalries remain intact, and ND continues to play 5 ACC teams, USC, Stanford, and Navy every year. Next we remove two of those, since ND is not scheduling extra ACC teams, leaving us with 59 P5 OOC games for the ACC to work with. With a six game ACC schedule, assuming the ACC wants the same 10 P5 games requirement, accounting for the 5 ND games and 4 locked in rivalry games with SEC teams, the ACC would need to claim 47 of those 59 OOC spots.

THIS.WILL.NOT.WORK! Trying to appease ND to this point, would break up a conference, just to add a team who doesn't want to be in a conference.

You neglected to comment on this portion of ny post that explains how the Alliance could move to clain morr OOC games. This is more relevant as what I described is exactly what the PAC12 commissioner described in his recent comments. If the Alliance is going to be bold this is exactly the kind of thinking that would work toward that. Filling available tv slots with quality matchups the SEC tier 2 games cant compete with. We shall see going into the future.

(12-10-2021 09:32 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  

(12-09-2021 05:41 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The gnashing of teeth about the ACC is really laughable. The reality is that for the exception of 1963- 1973 the ACC/SoCon without the SEC schools was perceived as so weak that the pollsters decide the ACC schools should be ranked as follows to start the year:

36 - Duke -2
37 - Duke - 10
38 - Duke -9, UNC 19
39 - Duke - 13, UNC 14
40 - Clemson - 12
41 - Duke - 3, Clemson - 13
42 - WWII
43 - Duke - 5
44 - UNC - 2, WF - 17
45 - Duke - 13,
46 - NC State - 20
47 - Duke 13, UNC - 19
48 - UNC - 2
49 - UNC - 6, Duke - 14
50 - MD - 15, Duke - 16, UNC - 20
51 - MD - 16
52 - MD - 2, Duke - 19
53 - MD - 9, Duke - 10
54 - MD - 3, Duke - 15
55 - MD - 5, Duke - 18
56 - MD - 6, Duke - 16
57 - Duke - 10
58 - UNC 10, Clemson - 18
59 - UNC 12, SC - 14, Clemson - 18
60 - Clemson - 9
61 - No School Intially Ranked
62 - Duke - 8
In 1962 Duke pushed through the 800 SAT Rule and ACC Football was downgraded for a decade. Duke stopped competing at the highest level and has never made the effort to compete at that level in the last 60 years.
70 - South Carolina - 18
The very next year SC leaves the ACC pissed off at Duke and UNC over the 800 SAT Rule and the harangue over Frank McGuire.
73 - NC State - 17, UNC -19
74 - NC State - 18, MD - 14
75 - NC State - 13, MD - 17
76 - MD - 12
77 - MD - 10
I took the ACC 15 years to recover from what Duke did in 1962.

Now the addition of Florida State was nice, but the practical effect was to retard the programs at UNC, NC State, UVa, GT, and Clemson.
That one loss to FSU cost UNC a chance to play for the national title once and perhaps twice. It cost NC State two ACC titles. It cost UVa, GT, and Clemson all a title. In the end their entrance has been somewhat of a wash because they did not enter a vacuum.

Perhaps e-Beth should do some more research before popping opining about a subject he knows so little about?

where did you get your preseason rankings from. I thought preseason rankings didn't begin until 1950.

First AP polls of the year, each year.

(12-10-2021 09:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 08:54 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I guess this is part of the reason why lazy pundits never seem to understand why the ACC is ALWAYS with the B10, SEC, PAC, etc. The WAC was never on a par with the ACC.

Ehh, all I see is two conferences that weren't big-time enough to have major bowl tie-ins.

Another show of ignorance. The SoCon/ACC had a tie in with the Orange Bowl in the late 1950's. Two things ended that - Clemson and Duke got tired of the Orange and picked the Sugar and Cotton bowls instead, and after Duke pushed through 800 SAT rule, the ACC ceased to be major bowl team worthy conference for a little over a decade.

I get that a lot of people can't wrap their heads around the fact that the Southern Conference was the de facto SEC and ACC between 1921 and 1933 and that the Southern Conference was the defacto ACC from 1933 to 1953, but damn how is it that so much history just vanishes? I guess that is an American sickness, history only going back about 20 years.

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/con...bowls.html

The ACC was a new name, but not a new group of people - sort of like Standard Oil of Ohio, becoming ESSO and then Exxon. Name change, deadwood ejected.

From 1939 to 1953 ACC schools appeared in 2 Rose Bowls, 3 Cotton Bowls, 4 Sugar Bowls, 6 Gator Bowls (Back then the equivalent of a NY6 bowl), 2 Dixie Bowls (Birmingham), 1 Delta Bowl (Now Liberty), and one Sun Bowl.

(12-10-2021 09:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 08:54 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I guess this is part of the reason why lazy pundits never seem to understand why the ACC is ALWAYS with the B10, SEC, PAC, etc. The WAC was never on a par with the ACC.

Ehh, all I see is two conferences that weren't big-time enough to have major bowl tie-ins.

Was that a requirement? Where can I read that being a requirement?

*Besides, ACC teams were going to major bowls—including, gasp, the Rose Bowl— before the founding of the conference AND the ACC had the original auto-bid to the Orange Bowl. Was the Big 7/8 not considered a power conference before their tie-in?

(12-11-2021 04:26 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 09:17 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(12-10-2021 08:54 PM)Statefan Wrote:  I guess this is part of the reason why lazy pundits never seem to understand why the ACC is ALWAYS with the B10, SEC, PAC, etc. The WAC was never on a par with the ACC.

Ehh, all I see is two conferences that weren't big-time enough to have major bowl tie-ins.

Was that a requirement? Where can I read that being a requirement?

*Besides, ACC teams were going to major bowls—including, gasp, the Rose Bowl— before the founding of the conference AND the ACC had the original auto-bid to the Orange Bowl? Was the Big 7/8 not considered a power conference before their tie-in?

This is all your ******* fault.

You didn't want to bring the records because the records so heavily favored Duke in all sports. Damn you.

Now we have to constantly explain our parentage to ill-bred infidels.

Then you threw in with Duke on the 800 SAT rule because you stupidly hired Jim Hickey to replace Tatum after he died.

Then you and Duke ran off South Carolina and ****** with Clemson every chance you got.