(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

How's this:
Florida State, Miami, Clemson and maybe Va Tech and Louisville - expected to contend for playoffs and, failing that, for an at-large bid.

UNC, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and the rest at least some years - expected to win at least 50% of P5 OOC games and >50% of all bowls (since some of their bowls will be gimmees)

(05-05-2014 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

How's this:
Florida State, Miami, Clemson and maybe Va Tech and Louisville - expected to contend for playoffs and, failing that, for an at-large bid.

UNC, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and the rest at least some years - expected to win at least 50% of P5 OOC games and >50% of all bowls (since some of their bowls will be gimmees)

Definitely. We are almost there with FSU and Clemson. Clemson needs at least a run at the playoffs. Two schools, like USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame that start MOST years in the discussion and have a reasonable chance to make a run unless they are in some coaching-transition-related funk. If the Miami also gets back in that level, that's gravy.

But then they need schools that when some of the magic comes together (seniors, better than expected class, last seasons of a special coach about to get a better offer, all time program great player, etc) are able to make a temporary run. Schools like Stanford, UCLA, Washington, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Wisconsin, etc. Teams that are some too-smart-for-his-own-good analyst's pick for the national title.

The ACC just hasn't produced those on a regular basis. I'd say Virginia Tech has held down this level pretty well, but the conference could use 3-4 programs in this space.

A school with the resources of UNC should absolutely play in this space. Louisville will be here if they can transfer their performance to the ACC. GT should be in this space but isn't right now. Syracuse was in this space not terribly long ago, if they can recapture it. I think NC State has always aspired to this but not really gotten there.

There are programs that can fill this conference out football wise if they can pull it together.

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:31 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 02:33 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Clemson's a good football program, arguably the 2nd best in the conference (no worse than 3rd) and easily a top 25 program nationally. If you are going to say that Clemson isn't relevant than you're basically saying your own program is nothing and that if it was in a toilet bowl no one would bother flushing it.

"Clemson's a good football program" - Nobody said otherwise.

"arguably the 2nd best in the conference (no worse than 3rd)" - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that, barring a second coming of the 'Canes, Clemson is #2 (unless Frank Beamer 2.0 replaces Frank Beamer in a couple of years).

"...and easily a top 25 program nationally." - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that Clemson is about #17-18.

"If you are going to say that Clemson isn't relevant..." - I said "super relevant." And, unlike one of our Clemson fans, *nobody* is accusing Syracuse football of being able to carry a conference. Along with Pitt, WVU, and UL, we tried that in the '03/'05-'13 BIG EAST and it didn't work. The *only* ACC football team that can carry the conference is FSU. That's kind of A) why FSU is in the ACC (easy trip to a conference championship and big bowl game) and B) the ACC's problem. The ACC has a GREAT middle and a MUCH improved bottom, but we lack fire power up top. We don't have the Texas-OU dynamic, the USC-Oregon dynamic, the PSU-UM-OSU dynamic, or the LSU-Alabama-UF-UTk-UGA-Auburn dynamic. We have FSU, and we rise and fall with FSU.

Agree with your points...especially the last.


That is the problem with the ACC....it needs 3-5 teams that are realistically capable of winning a national title in football.

Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

Your range was 2-3......mine was 3-5......we have common ground at 3.



Fine.....3 puts the ACC on stable ground.


Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?


I don't think it is close.

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  ...3 puts the ACC on stable ground.

Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?

I don't think it is close.

Gee, win one national championship in 14 years and Seminole fans just talk a bunch of smack...

(05-05-2014 04:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  ...3 puts the ACC on stable ground.

Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?

I don't think it is close.

Gee, win one national championship in 14 years and Seminole fans just talk a bunch of smack...

I said the same thing before FSU's national title.


There are too few teams that are competitive at that level to sustain the conference.


FSU winning a national title doesn't change things for the ACC. It still doesn't have enough power houses. That isn't smack talk for FSU....that is reality talk about the state of the ACC and it is an issue.


ACC fans just seem to want to talk around that VERY REAL issue.

(05-05-2014 04:09 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  ...3 puts the ACC on stable ground.

Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?

I don't think it is close.

Gee, win one national championship in 14 years and Seminole fans just talk a bunch of smack...

Would that mean we've also won 2 in 15 years? Not sure what I'm referring to? Let me help u wit dat, chien.











And 3 in 21 years?

(05-05-2014 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

How's this:
Florida State, Miami, Clemson and maybe Va Tech and Louisville - expected to contend for playoffs and, failing that, for an at-large bid.

UNC, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and the rest at least some years - expected to win at least 50% of P5 OOC games and >50% of all bowls (since some of their bowls will be gimmees)

Definitely. We are almost there with FSU and Clemson. Clemson needs at least a run at the playoffs. Two schools, like USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame that start MOST years in the discussion and have a reasonable chance to make a run unless they are in some coaching-transition-related funk. If the Miami also gets back in that level, that's gravy.

But then they need schools that when some of the magic comes together (seniors, better than expected class, last seasons of a special coach about to get a better offer, all time program great player, etc) are able to make a temporary run. Schools like Stanford, UCLA, Washington, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Wisconsin, etc. Teams that are some too-smart-for-his-own-good analyst's pick for the national title.

The ACC just hasn't produced those on a regular basis. I'd say Virginia Tech has held down this level pretty well, but the conference could use 3-4 programs in this space.

A school with the resources of UNC should absolutely play in this space. Louisville will be here if they can transfer their performance to the ACC. GT should be in this space but isn't right now. Syracuse was in this space not terribly long ago, if they can recapture it. I think NC State has always aspired to this but not really gotten there.

There are programs that can fill this conference out football wise if they can pull it together.

Sounds marvelous. People have been saying this for YEARS. I'll believe it when I see it.

(05-05-2014 06:18 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:44 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

How's this:
Florida State, Miami, Clemson and maybe Va Tech and Louisville - expected to contend for playoffs and, failing that, for an at-large bid.

UNC, Ga Tech, Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College and the rest at least some years - expected to win at least 50% of P5 OOC games and >50% of all bowls (since some of their bowls will be gimmees)

Definitely. We are almost there with FSU and Clemson. Clemson needs at least a run at the playoffs. Two schools, like USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame that start MOST years in the discussion and have a reasonable chance to make a run unless they are in some coaching-transition-related funk. If the Miami also gets back in that level, that's gravy.

But then they need schools that when some of the magic comes together (seniors, better than expected class, last seasons of a special coach about to get a better offer, all time program great player, etc) are able to make a temporary run. Schools like Stanford, UCLA, Washington, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Wisconsin, etc. Teams that are some too-smart-for-his-own-good analyst's pick for the national title.

The ACC just hasn't produced those on a regular basis. I'd say Virginia Tech has held down this level pretty well, but the conference could use 3-4 programs in this space.

A school with the resources of UNC should absolutely play in this space. Louisville will be here if they can transfer their performance to the ACC. GT should be in this space but isn't right now. Syracuse was in this space not terribly long ago, if they can recapture it. I think NC State has always aspired to this but not really gotten there.

There are programs that can fill this conference out football wise if they can pull it together.

Sounds marvelous. People have been saying this for YEARS. I'll believe it when I see it.

Agree with both of you.


I think there are MANY schools in the ACC that have the potential to be big time that aren't now: UNC, UVA, Duke, Ga Tech for example.


But since FSU joined the conference we have waited for something to happen........they haven't.

All those schools have money, resources, awesome brand, even some history.......what they lack is an admin and a fan base that gives a damn about football. At least to the level needed to compete at the higher levels.

The ACC has schools with BILLION dollar endowments sitting on the sidelines while schools with little resources by comparison trying to carry the weight. And the way payouts are designed.....these rich schools that sit on the sidelines get bigger checks than the ones going out and earning it. Just a bad setup.

The ACC could be a great conference....but not until it stops being satisfied with itself and starts focusing on football like is needed to compete at the highest levels financially.


Start making changes. I fear the GOR just gave the ACC the excuse to slow down changes needed to put football, and thus revenue, at the level it needs to be.

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:31 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 02:33 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Clemson's a good football program, arguably the 2nd best in the conference (no worse than 3rd) and easily a top 25 program nationally. If you are going to say that Clemson isn't relevant than you're basically saying your own program is nothing and that if it was in a toilet bowl no one would bother flushing it.

"Clemson's a good football program" - Nobody said otherwise.

"arguably the 2nd best in the conference (no worse than 3rd)" - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that, barring a second coming of the 'Canes, Clemson is #2 (unless Frank Beamer 2.0 replaces Frank Beamer in a couple of years).

"...and easily a top 25 program nationally." - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that Clemson is about #17-18.

"If you are going to say that Clemson isn't relevant..." - I said "super relevant." And, unlike one of our Clemson fans, *nobody* is accusing Syracuse football of being able to carry a conference. Along with Pitt, WVU, and UL, we tried that in the '03/'05-'13 BIG EAST and it didn't work. The *only* ACC football team that can carry the conference is FSU. That's kind of A) why FSU is in the ACC (easy trip to a conference championship and big bowl game) and B) the ACC's problem. The ACC has a GREAT middle and a MUCH improved bottom, but we lack fire power up top. We don't have the Texas-OU dynamic, the USC-Oregon dynamic, the PSU-UM-OSU dynamic, or the LSU-Alabama-UF-UTk-UGA-Auburn dynamic. We have FSU, and we rise and fall with FSU.

Agree with your points...especially the last.


That is the problem with the ACC....it needs 3-5 teams that are realistically capable of winning a national title in football.

Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

Your range was 2-3......mine was 3-5......we have common ground at 3.



Fine.....3 puts the ACC on stable ground.


Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?


I don't think it is close.

What other conference has three perennial contenders?

The ACC is close to having two, which puts it at least on par with the B1G, PAC, and B12. Especially with USC, Michigan and Texas being down, there isn't much difference between the top brand "powers".

What the ACC really needs is the Stanford/Michigan State/Oklahoma State equivalent. That's the missing piece. There's absolutely no reason to believe those schools are going to be 10-12 win schools five years from now, but they are in a nice run, and by the time they are down, history shows another school will step into that role.

That's what the ACC has never really had, other than Virginia Tech maybe in recent years. There are several schools that could play that role, but they really haven't and they absolutely need to.

(05-06-2014 10:57 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:31 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Clemson's a good football program" - Nobody said otherwise.

"arguably the 2nd best in the conference (no worse than 3rd)" - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that, barring a second coming of the 'Canes, Clemson is #2 (unless Frank Beamer 2.0 replaces Frank Beamer in a couple of years).

"...and easily a top 25 program nationally." - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that Clemson is about #17-18.

"If you are going to say that Clemson isn't relevant..." - I said "super relevant." And, unlike one of our Clemson fans, *nobody* is accusing Syracuse football of being able to carry a conference. Along with Pitt, WVU, and UL, we tried that in the '03/'05-'13 BIG EAST and it didn't work. The *only* ACC football team that can carry the conference is FSU. That's kind of A) why FSU is in the ACC (easy trip to a conference championship and big bowl game) and B) the ACC's problem. The ACC has a GREAT middle and a MUCH improved bottom, but we lack fire power up top. We don't have the Texas-OU dynamic, the USC-Oregon dynamic, the PSU-UM-OSU dynamic, or the LSU-Alabama-UF-UTk-UGA-Auburn dynamic. We have FSU, and we rise and fall with FSU.

Agree with your points...especially the last.


That is the problem with the ACC....it needs 3-5 teams that are realistically capable of winning a national title in football.

Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

Your range was 2-3......mine was 3-5......we have common ground at 3.



Fine.....3 puts the ACC on stable ground.


Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?


I don't think it is close.

What other conference has three perennial contenders?

The ACC is close to having two, which puts it at least on par with the B1G, PAC, and B12. Especially with USC, Michigan and Texas being down, there isn't much difference between the top brand "powers".

What the ACC really needs is the Stanford/Michigan State/Oklahoma State equivalent. That's the missing piece. There's absolutely no reason to believe those schools are going to be 10-12 win schools five years from now, but they are in a nice run, and by the time they are down, history shows another school will step into that role.

That's what the ACC has never really had, other than Virginia Tech maybe in recent years. There are several schools that could play that role, but they really haven't and they absolutely need to.

It's more than being a contender. It's a second high-prestige program. Clemson is our #2, but I would rank them in the high teens in terms of prestige. To put it this way, compare the power and money of every other conference's #2 with Clemson. The B1G has 4 major football teams that are the backbones of athletic departments that gross over 100 million (Wisconsin, OSU, PSU, and Michigan). The SEC has a ton. The Big Twelve has Texas and OU. The PAC has USC, who may not be in the $100 million club but is still a super power, and Oregon who lacks history but has a name do to obscene amounts of recent backing from Nike.

The ACC has FSU, which is a solid top tier school, and then nothing until Clemson. I'll put the ACC middle against anyone but the SEC. However, perceived strength is driven by the prestige of the top teams and that is where we rise and fall solely with FSU in football.

Unless ND goes all in and/or the ACC grabs PSU, that won't change.

(05-06-2014 12:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:57 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:31 PM)nole Wrote:  Agree with your points...especially the last.


That is the problem with the ACC....it needs 3-5 teams that are realistically capable of winning a national title in football.


[/i]

Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

Your range was 2-3......mine was 3-5......we have common ground at 3.



Fine.....3 puts the ACC on stable ground.


Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?


I don't think it is close.

What other conference has three perennial contenders?

The ACC is close to having two, which puts it at least on par with the B1G, PAC, and B12. Especially with USC, Michigan and Texas being down, there isn't much difference between the top brand "powers".

What the ACC really needs is the Stanford/Michigan State/Oklahoma State equivalent. That's the missing piece. There's absolutely no reason to believe those schools are going to be 10-12 win schools five years from now, but they are in a nice run, and by the time they are down, history shows another school will step into that role.

That's what the ACC has never really had, other than Virginia Tech maybe in recent years. There are several schools that could play that role, but they really haven't and they absolutely need to.

It's more than being a contender. It's a second high-prestige program. Clemson is our #2, but I would rank them in the high teens in terms of prestige. To put it this way, compare the power and money of every other conference's #2 with Clemson. The B1G has 4 major football teams that are the backbones of athletic departments that gross over 100 million (Wisconsin, OSU, PSU, and Michigan). The SEC has a ton. The Big Twelve has Texas and OU. The PAC has USC, who may not be in the $100 million club but is still a super power, and Oregon who lacks history but has a name do to obscene amounts of recent backing from Nike.

The ACC has FSU, which is a solid top tier school, and then nothing until Clemson. I'll put the ACC middle against anyone but the SEC. However, perceived strength is driven by the prestige of the top teams and that is where we rise and fall solely with FSU in football.

Unless MD goes all in and/or the ACC grabs PSU, that won't change.

Maryland is coming back?

(05-06-2014 12:41 PM)domer1978 Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 12:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 10:57 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

Your range was 2-3......mine was 3-5......we have common ground at 3.



Fine.....3 puts the ACC on stable ground.


Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?


I don't think it is close.

What other conference has three perennial contenders?

The ACC is close to having two, which puts it at least on par with the B1G, PAC, and B12. Especially with USC, Michigan and Texas being down, there isn't much difference between the top brand "powers".

What the ACC really needs is the Stanford/Michigan State/Oklahoma State equivalent. That's the missing piece. There's absolutely no reason to believe those schools are going to be 10-12 win schools five years from now, but they are in a nice run, and by the time they are down, history shows another school will step into that role.

That's what the ACC has never really had, other than Virginia Tech maybe in recent years. There are several schools that could play that role, but they really haven't and they absolutely need to.

It's more than being a contender. It's a second high-prestige program. Clemson is our #2, but I would rank them in the high teens in terms of prestige. To put it this way, compare the power and money of every other conference's #2 with Clemson. The B1G has 4 major football teams that are the backbones of athletic departments that gross over 100 million (Wisconsin, OSU, PSU, and Michigan). The SEC has a ton. The Big Twelve has Texas and OU. The PAC has USC, who may not be in the $100 million club but is still a super power, and Oregon who lacks history but has a name do to obscene amounts of recent backing from Nike.

The ACC has FSU, which is a solid top tier school, and then nothing until Clemson. I'll put the ACC middle against anyone but the SEC. However, perceived strength is driven by the prestige of the top teams and that is where we rise and fall solely with FSU in football.

Unless MD goes all in and/or the ACC grabs PSU, that won't change.

Maryland is coming back?

*ND

Sorry, buttons are small on phones.

(05-06-2014 10:57 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 02:49 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 09:55 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:31 PM)nole Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 04:54 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  "Clemson's a good football program" - Nobody said otherwise.

"arguably the 2nd best in the conference (no worse than 3rd)" - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that, barring a second coming of the 'Canes, Clemson is #2 (unless Frank Beamer 2.0 replaces Frank Beamer in a couple of years).

"...and easily a top 25 program nationally." - Nobody said otherwise. I personally think that Clemson is about #17-18.

"If you are going to say that Clemson isn't relevant..." - I said "super relevant." And, unlike one of our Clemson fans, *nobody* is accusing Syracuse football of being able to carry a conference. Along with Pitt, WVU, and UL, we tried that in the '03/'05-'13 BIG EAST and it didn't work. The *only* ACC football team that can carry the conference is FSU. That's kind of A) why FSU is in the ACC (easy trip to a conference championship and big bowl game) and B) the ACC's problem. The ACC has a GREAT middle and a MUCH improved bottom, but we lack fire power up top. We don't have the Texas-OU dynamic, the USC-Oregon dynamic, the PSU-UM-OSU dynamic, or the LSU-Alabama-UF-UTk-UGA-Auburn dynamic. We have FSU, and we rise and fall with FSU.

Agree with your points...especially the last.


That is the problem with the ACC....it needs 3-5 teams that are realistically capable of winning a national title in football.

Please....I'm no ACC fan boy, far from it. But you can forget about the ACC having 5 teams capable of winning a national title in football. Only the SEC has that, and the ACC, nor any other conference, is going to be the SEC.

We do need 2-3 though, with other teams at least in the discussion. That's acheivable, and would be a big step forward to being on the same level or better than anyone besides the SEC.

But there's no reason to set some untouchable bar of 5 national title contenders, when no other conference sniffs that either. What, four PAC and B1G teams combined have won national championships in the last 30 years?

The ACC needs 2-3 teams capable of competing for the playoffs on a mostly year in, year out basis, and another couple capable of making an occasional run to consideration when everything lines up just right. That's as much or more than what any conference not the SEC has.

Your range was 2-3......mine was 3-5......we have common ground at 3.



Fine.....3 puts the ACC on stable ground.


Do you believe the ACC is close to having 3 contenders now?


I don't think it is close.

What other conference has three perennial contenders?

The ACC is close to having two, which puts it at least on par with the B1G, PAC, and B12. Especially with USC, Michigan and Texas being down, there isn't much difference between the top brand "powers".

What the ACC really needs is the Stanford/Michigan State/Oklahoma State equivalent. That's the missing piece. There's absolutely no reason to believe those schools are going to be 10-12 win schools five years from now, but they are in a nice run, and by the time they are down, history shows another school will step into that role.

That's what the ACC has never really had, other than Virginia Tech maybe in recent years. There are several schools that could play that role, but they really haven't and they absolutely need to.

Lou,
Respect your opinions, but it seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing here.

You basically already suggest depth is an issue....as I stated.

You basically take issue with the word 'contender' and prefer 'powers'.


If you want to split hairs go for it......I think we both know you see the point.

Hell, you yourself state in in another thread:

http://csnbbs.com/thread-687056-page-9.html

"I'm encouraged by the idea that the ACC is thinking this way. Unfortunately, the ACC has had so few teams of a national title caliber, I'm concerned that there is a limit to the usefulness.

If ACC football teams aren't better then they have been, it's a moot point anyway. I hope they are somehow extrapolating it to the idea of 12-1, 11-2 ACC teams, of which there just haven't been many. "



"Unfortunately, the ACC has had so few teams of a national title caliber"


Exactly......my point.

How many ACC schools have a shot to make the football playoffs over 10 years?

How many SEC? How many B1G? How many Pac 12, Big 12?


Most would say "who knows", but vegas would likely be able to make some projection and I think we both would agree the ACC would not stand up well.


Not sure what your true disagreement is here honestly.

Pitt Athletic Director Steve Pederson's most recent quote on 8 vs 9 games...

Pederson said that he thinks the status quo - two seven-team divisions and an eight-game conference schedule - will stay in place.

"Generally, I think the league has been in the mindset of playing eight games in two divisions, and that's really where I am right now: I like the divisions, I like the idea of playing eight games," Pederson said.

http://www.tigernet.com/story/football/R...ings-12702