I got a small placard in yesterday's mail from Pitt trumpeting its 2013 schedule as well as providing a thumbnail sketch of the histories of the respective league schools so I thought I would share what I learned. Also, for whatever reason, they substituted Louisville for Maryland a year early - which is fine by me.

-----------------------------------------
ACC ATLANTIC
-----------------------------------------

Boston College Eagles

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...10
College Football Hall of Famers...9
Professional Football Hall of Famers...2
First Round NFL Draft Picks...19


Clemson Tigers

National Championships...1
Consensus All-Americans...20
College Football Hall of Famers...6
Professional Football Hall of Famers...0
First Round NFL Draft Picks...22


Florida State Seminoles

National Championships...2
Consensus All-Americans...34
College Football Hall of Famers...7
Professional Football Hall of Famers...2
First Round NFL Draft Picks...36


Louisville Cardinals

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...1
College Football Hall of Famers...0
Professional Football Hall of Famers...1
First Round NFL Draft Picks...8


North Carolina State Wolfpack

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...7
College Football Hall of Famers...6
Professional Football Hall of Famers...0
First Round NFL Draft Picks...15


Syracuse Orange

National Championships...1
Consensus All-Americans...19
College Football Hall of Famers...18
Professional Football Hall of Famers...7
First Round NFL Draft Picks...19


Wake Forest Demon Deacons

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...3
College Football Hall of Famers...0
Professional Football Hall of Famers...1
First Round NFL Draft Picks...3

-----------------------------------------
ACC COASTAL
-----------------------------------------

Duke Blue Devils

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...3
College Football Hall of Famers...12
Professional Football Hall of Famers...3
First Round NFL Draft Picks...6


Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

National Championships...4
Consensus All-Americans...21
College Football Hall of Famers...15
Professional Football Hall of Famers...2
First Round NFL Draft Picks...11


Miami Hurricanes

National Championships...5
Consensus All-Americans...35
College Football Hall of Famers...8
Professional Football Hall of Famers...5
First Round NFL Draft Picks...60


North Carolina Tar Heels

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...7
College Football Hall of Famers...7
Professional Football Hall of Famers...2
First Round NFL Draft Picks...20


Pitt Panthers

National Championships...9
Consensus All-Americans...49
College Football Hall of Famers...23
Professional Football Hall of Famers...8
First Round NFL Draft Picks...24


Virginia Cavaliers

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...12
College Football Hall of Famers...7
Professional Football Hall of Famers...3
First Round NFL Draft Picks...16


Virginia Tech Hokies

National Championships...0
Consensus All-Americans...8
College Football Hall of Famers...6
Professional Football Hall of Famers...1
First Round NFL Draft Picks...8


Just thought I'd provide some context for everyone. For fans of the incoming teams, this is a good look at what you are getting yourselves into and for fans of existing teams, this is a good look at what is coming your way as well.

Have to say Pitt's numbers are a bit misleading (obviously very good historically). Be interesting to see figures for, say, the last 25 years. It's somewhat arbitrary but I think it combines recent success with a bit of relevant longevity without including data from eras before most were born.

Except for a lack of national championships, my Eagles stack up pretty well.

(07-21-2013 07:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Have to say Pitt's numbers are a bit misleading (obviously very good historically). Be interesting to see figures for, say, the last 25 years. It's somewhat arbitrary but I think it combines recent success with a bit of relevant longevity without including data from eras before most were born.

Depends when you were born I guess.

For Pitt, a starting point of 1987 picks puts a lot of weight on the 90s, which is one of the worst decades in the program's history, and cuts off what is perhaps the most productive decade in its history over the previous 10 years.

In any case, Pitt since 1987 has these numbers...
National Championships since 87, 0
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 5
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 7
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 7
First Round Draft Picks since 87, 10

You'd need to provide the same cuttoff for everyone else.

I'll do that for a couple, but I'm not going through all of them...

Boston College...
National Championships since 87, 0
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 5
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 1
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 0
First Round Draft picks since 87, 13

Clemson...
National Championships since 87, 0
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 11
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 3
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 0
First Round Draft picks since 87, 11

Georgia Tech...
National Championships since 87, 1
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 5
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 6
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 1
First Round Draft picks since 87, 5

NC State...
National Championships since 87, 0
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 2
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 5
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 0
First Round Draft Picks since 87, 9

Syracuse...
National Championships since 87, 0
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 5
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 6
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 5*
First Round Draft Picks since 87, 10
*Al Davis went in under two colleges

Virginia Tech...
National Championships since 87, 0
Consensus All-Americans since 87, 6
College Football Hall of Fame inductees since 87, 4
Professional Hall enshrinees since 87, 1
First Round Draft Picks since 87, 7

(07-21-2013 07:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Have to say Pitt's numbers are a bit misleading (obviously very good historically). Be interesting to see figures for, say, the last 25 years. It's somewhat arbitrary but I think it combines recent success with a bit of relevant longevity without including data from eras before most were born.

Pitt's numbers aren't misleading at all. If anything establishing some sort of arbitrary "relevant longevity" mark would be misleading.

Can you adequately discuss the New York Yankees' history without discussing the achievements of guys like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Micky Mantle and Reggie Jackson? I don't think so.

Can you discuss North Carolina's basketball history without mentioning guys like Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, James Worthy, Phil Ford, etc.? They too miss that arbitrary 25 year window.

What about Notre Dame? Can we discuss their program in accurate detail without acknowledging a period that extends beyond the 25 year window? If so, they are basically comparable to Colorado.

So, if that doesn't apply to everyone else, then why is Pitt being singled out?

Pitt's history is what it is...just like everyone else.

(07-21-2013 09:53 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(07-21-2013 07:55 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Have to say Pitt's numbers are a bit misleading (obviously very good historically). Be interesting to see figures for, say, the last 25 years. It's somewhat arbitrary but I think it combines recent success with a bit of relevant longevity without including data from eras before most were born.

Pitt's numbers aren't misleading at all. If anything establishing some sort of arbitrary "relevant longevity" mark would be misleading.

Can you adequately discuss the New York Yankees' history without discussing the achievements of guys like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, Micky Mantle and Reggie Jackson? I don't think so.

Can you discuss North Carolina's basketball history without mentioning guys like Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins, James Worthy, Phil Ford, etc.? They too miss that arbitrary 25 year window.

What about Notre Dame? Can we discuss their program in accurate detail without acknowledging a period that extends beyond the 25 year window? If so, they are basically comparable to Colorado.

So, if that doesn't apply to everyone else, then why is Pitt being singled out?

Pitt's history is what it is...just like everyone else.

Very True. The Title of the thread is "ACC Football Tradition." Its talking about the tradition of the Acc schools in fb. That tradition goes beyond 25 years.

I think you have to look at 2 time periods.
1) All-time - that's relevant because it speaks to tradition
2) current players' lifetime (only about 17 years, not 25) - relevant for recruiting

(07-22-2013 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think you have to look at 2 time periods.
1) All-time - that's relevant because it speaks to tradition
2) current players' lifetime (only about 17 years, not 25) - relevant for recruiting

I'd cut 17 down to about 10. My first legit sports memories happened when I was about 7, and 17-10=7.

OT - Editorial
Unfortunately Syracuse has been awful for much the last 10 years, but the Marrone years brought new life into the program. In about 4-5 years the recruits won't have any real memories of the GROB years and our recruiting should really, really pick up.

...and to think that all of that could have been avoided if only you had been just a little more successful in convincing Mr. Vick to flip back to Syracuse after he flopped to VT.

(07-22-2013 07:47 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-22-2013 07:10 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I think you have to look at 2 time periods.
1) All-time - that's relevant because it speaks to tradition
2) current players' lifetime (only about 17 years, not 25) - relevant for recruiting

I'd cut 17 down to about 10. My first legit sports memories happened when I was about 7, and 17-10=7.

OT - Editorial
Unfortunately Syracuse has been awful for much the last 10 years, but the Marrone years brought new life into the program. In about 4-5 years the recruits won't have any real memories of the GROB years and our recruiting should really, really pick up.

...and to think that all of that could have been avoided if only you had been just a little more successful in convincing Mr. Vick to flip back to Syracuse after he flopped to VT.

If you are talking about what kids know about college football, I'd actually cut it down to about 5...maybe even 3-4.

It's up to coaching staffs to get recruits into their practice shrines and educate them about a school's tradition.

Pitt's championships are inflated. A lot of those are awarded championships from polls that nobody really pays attention to historically.

4 or 5 is more accurate and 1 of them came after 1937.

Not saying all awarded titles are meaningless, but the ones on the field mean a lot more. Alabama and others inflate theirs as well. Thankfully college football now does it right.

I will argue that the "BCS" is not a true championship either. Nothing short of a playoff will yield a "true" champion. And not this joke of a 4-team playoff either.

4 team playoff is a lot better than being awarded a title based off of being picked from one of 12 different polls.

(07-22-2013 12:36 PM)Ragu Wrote:  4 team playoff is a lot better than being awarded a title based off of being picked from one of 12 different polls.

Just like the BCS.

I agree with Curtis. A 4-team playoff is a step in the right direction but it doesn't go nearly far enough.

I think a strong case can be made that college football has never crowned a legitimate national champion and won't until we have a full blown 8-team or preferably 16-team playoff.

As for Pitt, their claim comes straight from a 1973 Sports Illustrated article in which the leading college football historians of the day went back and studied all of the national champions in the pre AP poll years (1936 and beyond) and collectively and retroactively decided on a singular national champion going all the way back to 1900. So don't be upset with Pitt, be upset with SI and/or the historians SI used for their story.

I don't think one person has the knowledge to go back that far. They are dealing with teams they probably never even saw play in person. Present day is a huge difference from the previous times. For one, at least there is a title game played on the field instead of an award from media. For another, the depth is an extreme difference from now and the old time college football.

16 teams is way too much too. Heck even with 8, that is probably going to have a team or 2 that is undeserving.

My old rule with all sports though is this. If you weren't following the team and never saw the title year with your own 2 eyes, don't brag about it. Not saying this in regards too Pitt people either. Just saying it is extremely weak for any fan to brag about a title that happened before their parents were even born.

(07-22-2013 01:18 PM)Ragu Wrote:  I don't think one person has the knowledge to go back that far. They are dealing with teams they probably never even saw play in person. Present day is a huge difference from the previous times. For one, at least there is a title game played on the field instead of an award from media. For another, the depth is an extreme difference from now and the old time college football.

16 teams is way too much too. Heck even with 8, that is probably going to have a team or 2 that is undeserving.

My old rule with all sports though is this. If you weren't following the team and never saw the title year with your own 2 eyes, don't brag about it. Not saying this in regards too Pitt people either. Just saying it is extremely weak for any fan to brag about a title that happened before their parents were even born.

Are you under the mis-conception that the BCS actually matches up the 2 best teams? Same with this 4 team event.

Most of the time the BCS does get the 2 best teams . With 4 that number will go up even more. It is very rare that even 4 teams deserve a shot at the title in college football. Most of the time it is one team complaining in the current system.

16 would be absolutely ridiculous. No way in hell do that many teams deserve it. Would devalue the entire regular season.

(07-22-2013 01:33 PM)Ragu Wrote:  Most of the time the BCS does get the 2 best teams . With 4 that number will go up even more. It is very rare that even 4 teams deserve a shot at the title in college football. Most of the time it is one team complaining in the current system.

16 would be absolutely ridiculous. No way in hell do that many teams deserve it. Would devalue the entire regular season.

The just match up 2 teams from those meaningless polls. That, BTW are heavily biased.

Not really. Even with some formulas being off, it is still a lot more unbiased and meaningful than in the old days. In those days people didn't see a lot of the teams they were voting on and there was a heavy bias towards a handful of teams too. Now at least there are computer formulas involved instead of a bunch of unknowledgable media with many biases.

Find me a BCS year where more than the top 4 should have been in a playoff for a chance at the title? It is way more common to have 1 or at most 2 complaining than to have 14 with a legit complaint.

Any team that does not win their conference does not belong in the title game. LSU vs Alabama for one, and there were others.