(12-06-2019 08:33 AM)stever20 Wrote: (12-06-2019 08:27 AM)cubucks Wrote: (12-06-2019 07:33 AM)stever20 Wrote: (12-06-2019 07:05 AM)ColumbusCard Wrote: (12-05-2019 11:56 PM)stever20 Wrote: And this year will be a 2nd. And then last year the ACC rep would have been 20th.
And the big thing is now this is 2 years in a row where ACC is 20 and either unranked or a mercy 25th rating.
This poor performance very similar to what happened in the early part of the 10's- which forced the ACC into a Jr. status contract quite frankly. There's a reason why they only get paid 27.5M a year while the other conferences get 40M.
The second in 10 years, with the last one being 8 years ago.
Last year the OB was a semifinal, so none of that actually matters except to you it seems.
Hardly the sign of a trend, is what Im saying.
Also the "poor performance" that got the ACC that first undervalued contract was based off of 14 years of failure in BCS games, not 2 out of 10 with those 2 poor years set 8 years apart.
As Esayem said, thanks for your concern though
Just keep on having years like these last 2 and just see what the Orange Bowl does..
And it's not the ******* ACC's decision.... It's the Orange Bowl. If they don't want to be forced to take your 2nd place trash, they aren't going to. I could easily see something where if ND is 10 spots ahead of the ACC runner up- the Orange bowl takes ND instead of the ACC trash.
I take it you despise the ACC conference, stever20?
I don't despise them, but I think they're overrated as hell.
And I think to act like the Orange would be ok with situations like this year- I just don't see it. And yes, even though the Orange hosted the playoff last year- the ACC's 2nd team would have bearing. These next 3-4 years are huge for the ACC- otherwise it's very possible to see the Orange putting in some paramiters for them.
Once again, that's looking at everything in a vacuum.
A conference with Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and multiple flagship schools is *always* going to be a power conference. We can debate whether that conference is as valuable as the Big Ten or SEC, but at least in terms of the overall power structure of college football, the ACC is definitely a member.
So, if we grant that the ACC is a power conference and always will be with its current composition, then we need to look at the bigger picture. The value of the ACC tie-in isn't just about the specific team that the ACC sends to that bowl. Instead, the value of the ACC tie-in is also about (1) a guaranteed CFP semifinal every 3 years and (2) not having to separately bid for that CFP semifinal and a position in the New Years Six in the way that the access bowls need to do so.
The Peach Bowl, Citrus Bowl and Outback Bowl would ALL trade places with the Orange Bowl in a heartbeat. As a result, the Orange Bowl can dictate all that it wants, but the ACC could say, "F**k off, we're taking our tie-in to the Peach Bowl because they're not demanding any stipulations." THAT IS REAL AND LEGITIMATE LEVERAGE FOR THE ACC.
Then the Orange Bowl would have to enter into a separate rat race to stay within the CFP system and, even if they succeed in that rat race, get stuck with a G5 team every 3 years. From an elite bowl perspective, that is WAAAAAY worse than bringing in a very wealthy and powerful flagship University of Virginia fan base with strong ties to the political power base in Washington, DC in an "off year". UVA is a "worst case scenario" that any bowl besides the Rose and Sugar would sign up for. Once again, all of the access bowls and any bowl outside of the CFP system would trade places with the ACC in a heartbeat.
Everyone thinking that the ACC should unilaterally give up its rights are making the mistake once again that this is about a "What have you done for me lately?" meritocratic standard. That's totally wrong. This is about preserving a place in the power system, which is something that the ACC (as a power conference) grants *to* the Orange Bowl as opposed to the other way around.
Finally, I respectfully ask that everyone please stop this whole argument because you're putting me in a position of defending the ACC and that just feels wrong.