.....they might just shrivel up and die. As it is, they can't even come close to us in basketball. The three newcomers will add 1 elite program and two that can hold their own nationally. In football, we are steadily closing the gap to where there isn't much distance anymore. The three football programs we add would push us right past them without even blinking. We are going to have 4 top 15 programs next year. Adding Miami, BC and Syracuse would just be scary. Once we go to 12 teams, we should have an ACC-SEC challenge. We'd win 9 or 10 of the games every year.
lawrenceterp Wrote:.....they might just shrivel up and die. As it is, they can't even come close to us in basketball. The three newcomers will add 1 elite program and two that can hold their own nationally. In football, we are steadily closing the gap to where there isn't much distance anymore. The three football programs we add would push us right past them without even blinking. We are going to have 4 top 15 programs next year. Adding Miami, BC and Syracuse would just be scary. Once we go to 12 teams, we should have an ACC-SEC challenge. We'd win 9 or 10 of the games every year.
bwahaha!!! My young padowan, you have much to learn about my conference. :laugh: :D
While I have respect for the Terps, I still think that the ACC is inferior to the SEC. Even if the ACC expands with Miami, Syracuse, and BC, it will still be inferior to the SEC. The SEC has powerhouses that have been around for years in Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Arkansas, and LSU and we have up and coming teams as well. Miami, no doubt is a good acquisition, but SU and BC?? I have my doubts. If the ACC went after VT, maybe the ACC would get close to the SEC's level, but from what all I heard, the ACC is not interested in pursuing them.
lawrenceterp Wrote:.....they might just shrivel up and die. As it is, they can't even come close to us in basketball.
I have to laugh at this. Basketball? We had Kentucky, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi State. That's 4 legit top 20 teams. All the ACC has is Duke, Maryland and Wake. Everyone else is average at best.
Quote:I have to laugh at this. Basketball? We had Kentucky, Florida, Georgia and Mississippi State. That's 4 legit top 20 teams. All the ACC has is Duke, Maryland and Wake. Everyone else is average at best.
As much as some would hate to hear it, you have to include UNC into this. You can't withhold them because of 2 sucky years (although they did win the preseason NIT this year).
OK. We need someone to rank each of the twelve teams in each conference and then pit them against each other. Go head to head and see how things shaped out. Historical greatness, current greatness and future outlook should all be considered.
ALL TIME... the ACC is far better a basketball conference than the SEC. It's really not even close.
nate jonesacc Wrote:ALL TIME... the ACC is far better a basketball conference than the SEC. It's really not even close.
Oh dear... I just agreed with Nate...
:eek:
nate jonesacc Wrote:ALL TIME... the ACC is far better a basketball conference than the SEC. It's really not even close.
Alright I'll give you B-Ball. But football is not even close. Who do you have to match up with Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU or even Florida? Georgia Tech? Wake Forest? Maryland? Duke? North Carolina? Again I'll give you B-Ball but ACC football is decidedly weak.
Well... Duke was a powerhouse in football in the 1940s... FSU has always been a premier football team... GT has always been good... Clemson is usually good... but you are right... in football... the SEC definitely gets the nod.
Maryland has a pretty strong football history including a national championship. The fifteen years preceeding these last two were horrible, but it is not indicative of the long term success. FSU, Georgia Tech and Clemson have great histories. Adding Miami, BC and Cuse would add three more strong legacies. Miami has 5 titles or so (I can't remember the exact number). We'd also be a stronger conference in the present, and have a much brighter future. On history alone, the SEC would get the marginal edge.....I agree. But with the additions, the ACC is much stronger!
I think both conferences are in a bit of a decline as of late if you compare today with past glory. I am an ACC fan and have a huge bias, but I must say that as of NOW (which is what I care about), the SEC gets the nod.
Lets face it, the ACC is in decline in football. They need this expansion to save itself. There is not a football power in the ACC. You have Maryland with its dinky doo schedule and the decline at FSU. Then who is there? Virginia and shaky NC State?
As for basketball, North Carolina has fallen off the map. There is Duke which is not as powerful as years past. Then you have Maryland and Wake who I wouldn't call powerhouses.
I am disappointed in the ACC. I think they have let us down. In football, the ACC is one step from a joke. Luckily we have basketball where we fair better, but I hope the future is brighter.
I think most of the people on the "ACC" board are very biased and would find some reason to say that the ACC is the better no matter if our out of conference schedule was 0-20.
lawrenceterp Wrote:Maryland has a pretty strong football history including a national championship. The fifteen years preceeding these last two were horrible, but it is not indicative of the long term success.
Yeah? So! Ga Tech won a national championship just 13 years ago but now they suck. I could care less about 13 years ago. What embarrasses me is their play today. It's like watching pigs rolling in slop with a QB that thinks bounce and 2 yard passes are all the rage.
lawrenceterp Wrote:Maryland has a pretty strong football history including a national championship. The fifteen years preceeding these last two were horrible, but it is not indicative of the long term success. FSU, Georgia Tech and Clemson have great histories. Adding Miami, BC and Cuse would add three more strong legacies. Miami has 5 titles or so (I can't remember the exact number). We'd also be a stronger conference in the present, and have a much brighter future. On history alone, the SEC would get the marginal edge.....I agree. But with the additions, the ACC is much stronger!
Now you are learning, my young padowan.
I agree with you that fifteen years of bad football is not indicative of long term success. Look no further than K-State as for evidence to back that up, or UVa too, for that matter.
Miami is a strong legacy. Syracuse has had a great past (does the name Jim Brown ring a bell for anyone?), but I'm not so sure what the future holds in store for them. As for BC, the ACC should pass on them, because BC is lot like Rutgers (unlike Rutgers they do have some wins over ND and a few notable BCS teams, but still overall, they still look like Rutgers to me). There are three teams I would take a look at before going for BC:
1. Virginia Tech- great football, locks down DC market.
2. Pittsburgh-unites Syracuse geographically with the rest of the ACC, and brings a nice football tradition also (much better than BC, I might add!!
). The only problem with this choice is that the Panthers might be looking at Big Ten membership.
3. UConn-don't laugh. This program brings a lot more to the table than you think they do. Their men's basketball program is on the same level as Duke, UNC, or Maryland, and their women's basketball program is like UCLA in men's basketball. And they bring in a very decent football team in as well. Plus, they would bring in a piece of the NYC market, and they don't have pro sports to compete with. A lot of Syracuse posters on Syracuse's rivals site are very interested in bringing UConn over BC.
And I do agree with you that the ACC is stronger with the additions than without them.
metro6775 Wrote:lawrenceterp Wrote:Maryland has a pretty strong football history including a national championship. The fifteen years preceeding these last two were horrible, but it is not indicative of the long term success.
Yeah? So! Ga Tech won a national championship just 13 years ago but now they suck. I could care less about 13 years ago. What embarrasses me is their play today. It's like watching pigs rolling in slop with a QB that thinks bounce and 2 yard passes are all the rage.
Metro, there are a few reasons that GT football stinks to high heaven:
1. Recruiting for the 'Jackets has been very bad. I cannot say that enough. Even though UGa is grabbing a lot of in-state recruits, out-of-state programs still poach the state of Georgia for talent that the 'Jackets could have used themselves. Auburn has been notorious for doing this, and Tennessee used to be bad in this department as well, until we (UGa) shut them down. :devil: Mississippi State, Florida State, and Louisville got a lot of Georgia recruits.
GT could have used those guys. :frown:
2. GT does not market its football program very well at all.
GT's official name is the Georgia Institutute of Technology, is it not? It was not the Atlanta Institute of Technology the last time I checked!!
GT needs to market its program around the entire state. I'd dare say there are more Auburn fans in the state of Georgia than there are GT fans. :eek: GT needs to turn this around and pronto. I'd start about trying to get football games on radio stations in south Georgia and other places. I live in Dothan, which is the hub of the Wiregrass area. From where I live, I can get UGa, Alabama, Auburn, and FSU games on the radio. No GT, and I think that's rather odd, considering I get UGa games from a Donalsonville, Georgia radio station.
If GT starts improving in these areas, GT will turn into a powerhouse once again, IMO, and this is coming from a Dawg!! :eek: I'm not lying or trying to sabotage GT one bit here, because I would love to see "Clean, Old Fashioned Hate" turn back into the national classic it once was. :)
That was simply a great post.
DawgNBama Wrote:[QUOTE=metro6775,May 8 2003, 02:38
I'd start about trying to get football games on radio stations in south Georgia and other places. I live in Dothan, which is the hub of the Wiregrass area. From where I live, I can get UGa, Alabama, Auburn, and FSU games on the radio. No GT, and I think that's rather odd, considering I get UGa games from a Donalsonville, Georgia radio station. :confused:
That is no joke about the radio airplay. I took a trip up to the North Georgia mountains one fine, fall Saturday. I was late in getting home so I had to turn on the AM radio to find the Tech game. Well I was around the Commerce area which is about 65 or so miles northeast of Atlanta.
Lets see. I found about 5 stations playing the UGA game (& 2 more on FM). I even found one playin the FSU vs NC State game. But absolutely no radio station playing the Tech game. I think I even heard some other SEC game on there too.
metro6775 Wrote:There is Duke which is not as powerful as years past.
?? So... Duke wins the ACC... makes the Sweet 16... goes 26-7 and now they don't count for anything?
Duke is still a dynasty and is preseason #1 for next year... just because we had a reloading year doesn't mean we're dropping off the map.
Luol Deng.
nate jonesacc Wrote:metro6775 Wrote:There is Duke which is not as powerful as years past.
?? So... Duke wins the ACC... makes the Sweet 16... goes 26-7 and now they don't count for anything?
Duke is still a dynasty and is preseason #1 for next year... just because we had a reloading year doesn't mean we're dropping off the map.
Luol Deng.
This might surprise you Nate, but I agree completely. Duke's far from falling off as one of the top teams in the country. They did have a good year and will be one of the tops next year, the year, after, the year after, etc.
The perception might be flawed because of the emergence of UMD and Wake. Before Duke was sitting alone on top of the best basketball conference in the nation. Now they have to play an equally scary team (UMD) twice a year that shares 2 of the last 3 national championships. Duke might look like they are a lesser team until you realize that the rest of the good ACC teams are just getting better.
Duke is not going anywhere....but neither is UMD.
Michael Jones
I agree Kaiser... however...
Luol Deng is far better than Michael Jones and you will see why next year!
nate jonesacc Wrote:I agree Kaiser... however...
Luol Deng is far better than Michael Jones and you will see why next year!
Nowhere in my post did I say Michael Jones was better than Deng. Deng is an oustanding player that will be gone in 2 years tops. Because Duke had a rebuilding year, Deng will be introduced as a starter in his first year. He will then change the outlook of Duke basketball by introducing a resemblance of an inside game. I would be surprised if Duke with Reddick's outside shot and the new flash of Deng weren't the team to beat.
What I am saying is that Jones is a great player that will easily take the place of Nicholas and Dixon. He has the outside shot and alot like Deng, is extremely fast and drives to the rim. Couple that with Gilcrest, Medley, Smith and a couple new huge recruits, and you will see that MD will not stray too far from the top. I guarantee they will be a top team the year after.
Do I think Duke will finish ahead of MD this year....you heard it here....YES. The year after, I'm not so sure of.....you will see.
<!--EDIT|kaisersayzo|May 13 2003, 08:49 AM-->