(09-15-2015 01:01 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  IMO, the issue for the ACC is lack of quality depth in football. Comparable to nobody ever getting out of the first round of the NCAA tournament in basketball... keep getting all but 3 teams eliminated in the first round every year and all of a sudden nobody's talking about how many teams you got in, they're focusing on how few made it to the 2nd round.

Similar in football, only even more selective. Having lots of bowl-eligible teams is a definite improvement, but the ultimate goal has to be more than 3 or 4 teams in the top 25. If there are 5 "power" conferences then the ACC should occupy 1/5th of the top 25 spots!

Agree. We've got three pretty solid top 25 teams right now, and that's actually better than some years.

But after that? Fourth best team is arguably Louisville, and they're 0-2. We really don't have a solid route for getting other teams in there. If Louisville were 2-0, they'd probably be ranked pretty decently now, and you'd have a chance for that CU-UL loser to maybe hold on to a ranking. At this point, sad as it is to say, Louisville can't really help the conference much this year at this point, only spoil FSU and Clemson's chances.

Now, if Duke looks good and beats NW handily, that might be a fourth ranked team, and one that has a pretty good chance of hanging around given their cross division opponents.

I think it would hurt more than help the ACC if BC beats FSU, but if BC beat FSU and looked good, and Duke smoked Northwestern, you could conceivably see five ranked ACC teams next week depending on what happens elsewhere.

Like I said, I think keeping the three playoff contenders alive is much more important than BC getting into the upper echelons of the top 25.

# of teams in top 25 is nice.

But over say 5-10 years (which is likely the time frame it would take to change perceptions...maybe), it is about who makes the playoffs.


So, you can't see the ACC make the playoffs say 5 out of 10 times and expect the ACC to get a better rep. You likely need to be in the playoffs 7 or 9 times out of 10 time. And you can't ask just FSU and Clemson to be 100% of the teams getting to the playoffs those times...that isn't realistic.

Need more national title contenders than just 2 (and while I respect Clemson and they are doing awesome....they really aren't at that level yet either).

(09-15-2015 01:53 PM)nole Wrote:  # of teams in top 25 is nice.

But over say 5-10 years (which is likely the time frame it would take to change perceptions...maybe), it is about who makes the playoffs.


So, you can't see the ACC make the playoffs say 5 out of 10 times and expect the ACC to get a better rep. You likely need to be in the playoffs 7 or 9 times out of 10 time. And you can't ask just FSU and Clemson to be 100% of the teams getting to the playoffs those times...that isn't realistic.

Need more national title contenders than just 2 (and while I respect Clemson and they are doing awesome....they really aren't at that level yet either).

Those things are related. More Top 25 teams likely means more contenders. It also means a boost for the winner when those teams play each other - possibly pushing that team high enough to make the playoffs.

(09-15-2015 02:04 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-15-2015 01:53 PM)nole Wrote:  # of teams in top 25 is nice.

But over say 5-10 years (which is likely the time frame it would take to change perceptions...maybe), it is about who makes the playoffs.


So, you can't see the ACC make the playoffs say 5 out of 10 times and expect the ACC to get a better rep. You likely need to be in the playoffs 7 or 9 times out of 10 time. And you can't ask just FSU and Clemson to be 100% of the teams getting to the playoffs those times...that isn't realistic.

Need more national title contenders than just 2 (and while I respect Clemson and they are doing awesome....they really aren't at that level yet either).

Those things are related. More Top 25 teams likely means more contenders. It also means a boost for the winner when those teams play each other - possibly pushing that team high enough to make the playoffs.

Yes, it's absolutely essential to have a chance to get a 1-loss champion in. Right now, the ACC is perceived to be out with one loss, and that's because of the perceived lack of strength of the conference.

I think that's overstated...I think there are plenty of scenarios where an ACC team would have a strong enough resume with one loss, but it doesn't matter what I think.

Both are correct...the ACC needs a playoff team 7 out of 10 years, and I don't see that happening with say, one team ranked #10 and one team ranked #24. No conference is going to have an undefeated 70% of the time.

A one loss ACC champ, with say, one win over a ranked team and a loss to an unranked team, isn't getting in. And that's basically what the ACC profile has shaped up like most years.

An ACC team with three victories over ranked opponents, one loss to a ranked team, and a victory over a ranked opponent in the CCG is going to have a strong case.

You can try to supplement with strong OOC like the ACC always does, but that's not nearly as productive, because when you lose those, you get nothing. At least in-conference, when one team loses, another wins.

If Louisville had played Towson before Houston, and was 2-0, they still wouldn't be ranked. But going in to the Clemson game, you'd be guaranteed that at least if Louisville upset the apple cart, they'd be ranked. Even if they weren't playoff contender quality, they'd be excellent resume fodder for FSU, or GT in a CCG.

Duke has set up beautifully, with two gimmes and a winnable OOC game. If Duke gets that NW game, then they go into GT 3-0. If they spoil GT's playoff chances with a win, they'll probably at least be ranked around #15 at that point.

But if the exact same Duke team had scheduled say, Oregon and BYU, or UCLA and ND, and rolled into that GT game 1-2 let's say...a win over GT would be utter disaster for the hopes of the ACC getting a one loss champion in the playoffs.

Having a bunch of ranked teams in conference, and not having to reach for OOC resume builders, would be a HUGE plus for the ACC. It indemnifies you against disaster quite a bit to keep it in the family.

(09-14-2015 09:34 PM)nole Wrote:  Long...but pointless.

You are an emotional person.

.... Says the guy that insists that the ACC should implement the SEC's financial model. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

We need to incentivize Duke. Clearly, commitment is the problem. There are no other factors there.

I am beginning to wonder about Florida State's admission standards because many of you seem incapable of basic reason.

Bottom line: you chose to join the ACC in the first place because it was an easier path than the SEC. To then turn around and complain about that fact after you have benefited from it for decades is asinine.

I am not being emotional, I am just being less tolerant of the idiocy some of your people continually spew.

The others are afraid that Florida State will leave. I have no such fears because you have nowhere else to go. So many of you seem so determined to have everyone else kiss your ring and I'm not going to do it. I think many of you fail to understand how leverage works. You don't have nearly as much as you think you do.

So, no we are not going to change the financial structure to benefit you and no, we're not going to change the schedule to benefit you. Period.

(09-15-2015 10:22 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(09-14-2015 09:34 PM)nole Wrote:  Long...but pointless.

You are an emotional person.

.... Says the guy that insists that the ACC should implement the SEC's financial model. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

We need to incentivize Duke. Clearly, commitment is the problem. There are no other factors there.

I am beginning to wonder about Florida State's admission standards because many of you seem incapable of basic reason.

Bottom line: you chose to join the ACC in the first place because it was an easier path than the SEC. To then turn around and complain about that fact after you have benefited from it for decades is asinine.

I am not being emotional, I am just being less tolerant of the idiocy some of your people continually spew.

The others are afraid that Florida State will leave. I have no such fears because you have nowhere else to go. So many of you seem so determined to have everyone else kiss your ring and I'm not going to do it. I think many of you fail to understand how leverage works. You don't have nearly as much as you think you do.

So, no we are not going to change the financial structure to benefit you and no, we're not going to change the schedule to benefit you. Period.

I'm hardly one of the "kiss my ring" types...but to obstinately refuse to consider simple changes to benefit the performing football schools...whether that is FSU, Clemson, Duke or whoever, is idiotic. That's like the hand telling the heart, "Oh, you're feeling chest pains? Screw you, I'm not picking up the phone."

Has the ACC really been so successful as to just say "Continue what we're doing, it's working great."

I'm not talking about a deal that has popped up in the Big East or proposed in the Big 12 where Florida State or anyone else is simply cut an additional check by virtue of name. I don't think Miami deserves a bigger cut than Duke for the past couple years just because of the name on the jersey.

But an opportunity to recoup some of the investment when you show success would go a long way. The opportunity to pull an extra couple million for pulling a good bowl would help justify staff upgrades and facilities.

And I would have zero problem with a similar arrangement for basketball tournament money, even though FSU is culturally much more likely than other schools to experience a prolonged NCAA tournament drought. It's not as urgent, because the ACC doesn't have a basketball issue, but I would have no problem with it.

It makes zero sense for a back up center to insist that Tom Brady shouldn't be able to make an additional dime, because all are members of a team and equally contributing to the success of the team.

Again...I'm not talking about FSU getting $30M and NC State getting $10M. And I'm not talking about giving FSU all home games. I'm talking about maximizing the value of your conference, incentivizing success, and not setting schools up for failure.

There's things I don't like, such as Friday night games, but I recognize some things you just have to like it or lump it. There's no doubt that FSU playing on a Friday night, no matter how much I hate it, makes the ACC more valuable to ESPN, and is better for the conference.

But some things are just common sense when you're trying to catch up.

If we are going to complain about what ESPN and/or the ACC could/should do, let's discuss TV scheduling for a moment...

THU night: Clemson @ Louisville = GREAT for TV!
FRI night: FSU @ BC = GREAT for TV!
SAT noon/12:30 PM: Illinois @ UNC on ESPN2 (while Air Force @ Mich. St is on ABC and UConn @ Mizzou is on ESPN)... a whole lot of meh, but keep in mind that ESPN slotted most of those games. Oh, BTW, the ACC Network (Northwestern @ Duke) and ACC RSN (C Mich. @ 'Cuse) games are both on at 12:30 PM, too...
Here's my beef:
SAT 3:30 PM: GT @ ND on NBC; Nebraska @ Miami on ABC; VT @ Purdue on ESPNU
SAT Prime Time: nothing from the ACC, not even on ESPN3.com
The SAT noon and 3:30 PM games are going to cannibalize each other's tv ratings unnecessarily... why not show the ACC Network game in prime time? Is there some TV show on Saturday evening that the WB network (or whatever it's called now) doesn't want to preempt or something?

To get maximum tv ratings you need a game in prime time. Yes, THU and FRI will get good ratings, so will SAT 3:30 PM... but the league is completely missing out on SAT evening!

(Worse yet, having no ACC alternative tends to push all ACC football fans over to watch a game from a competing conference, thus boosting their ratings instead)
[/RANT]

(09-16-2015 10:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  If we are going to complain about what ESPN and/or the ACC could/should do, let's discuss TV scheduling for a moment...

THU night: Clemson @ Louisville = GREAT for TV!
FRI night: FSU @ BC = GREAT for TV!
SAT noon/12:30 PM: Illinois @ UNC on ESPN2 (while Air Force @ Mich. St is on ABC and UConn @ Mizzou is on ESPN)... a whole lot of meh, but keep in mind that ESPN slotted most of those games. Oh, BTW, the ACC Network (Northwestern @ Duke) and ACC RSN (C Mich. @ 'Cuse) games are both on at 12:30 PM, too...
Here's my beef:
SAT 3:30 PM: GT @ ND on NBC; Nebraska @ Miami on ABC; VT @ Purdue on ESPNU
SAT Prime Time: nothing from the ACC, not even on ESPN3.com
The SAT noon and 3:30 PM games are going to cannibalize each other's tv ratings unnecessarily... why not show the ACC Network game in prime time? Is there some TV show on Saturday evening that the WB network (or whatever it's called now) doesn't want to preempt or something?

To get maximum tv ratings you need a game in prime time. Yes, THU and FRI will get good ratings, so will SAT 3:30 PM... but the league is completely missing out on SAT evening!

(Worse yet, having no ACC alternative tends to push all ACC football fans over to watch a game from a competing conference, thus boosting their ratings instead)
[/RANT]

Mark, this is not an accident.

The ACC has intentionally been displaced by ESPN for their bigger investment, the SEC.

The ACC is in a BAD position with it's partner.

ESPN talking heads go after ACC football and any threatening entity to the SEC, they have done regular attack pieces, less than ideal placement, etc.

They are vested in the SEC.....the ACC sold it's soul to ESPN and has no where to do.

How many schools can compete for recruits at a national title level when they have this to deal with?

Makes you wonder if a network with ESPN is a smart move honestly.

That's why I asked why the Louisville v Clemson game isn't a prime time Saturday night game. Preseason this looked like a key ACC game, although now not so much with the Cards 0-2 but was set up this way in the preseason. Look at ESPN Saturday night, you have S Car @ Geo at 6 followed by Ole Miss @ Bama at 9:15. Why not have the top ACC game at 6 followed by the SEC game? FSU/BC would've worked good there to. The GT/ND game is at 3:30 on NBC.

"Why not have the top ACC game at 6 followed by the SEC game?"


In short....it is the whole point of the original post.


Regardless of the game or whether it would get huge ratings.....ESPN is going to relegate ACC a games to lower level spots and give our competitor prime time.

If we are relegated by our 'partner'.....is this good for the ACC?

IF you are school that is expected to make the playoffs for the ACC....how do you do this when top recruits would rather be on prime time?

There are no easy answers.....but these are questions the ACC tends to avoid.

"Just win" is really hard to do when you are looked at as the JV and top recruits would rather play varsity.

(09-16-2015 01:28 PM)nole Wrote:  "Why not have the top ACC game at 6 followed by the SEC game?"


In short....it is the whole point of the original post.


Regardless of the game or whether it would get huge ratings.....ESPN is going to relegate ACC a games to lower level spots and give our competitor prime time.

If we are relegated by our 'partner'.....is this good for the ACC?

IF you are school that is expected to make the playoffs for the ACC....how do you do this when top recruits would rather be on prime time?

There are no easy answers.....but these are questions the ACC tends to avoid.

"Just win" is really hard to do when you are looked at as the JV and top recruits would rather play varsity.

Well, not so fast... last year it wasn't like this.
2014 Prime Time TV Games, first 6 weeks:
Week 1: Florida St vs. Oklahoma St, ABC
Week 2: Va Tech @ Ohio St, ESPN; The Citadel @ FSU, FoxSS
Week 3: USC @ BC, ESPN
Week 4: Clemson @ FSU, ABC; Miami @ Nebraska, ESPN2
Week 5: Notre Dame @ Syracuse, ABC; Duke @ Miami, ESPN2
Week 6: Miami @ Ga Tech, ESPN2; Pitt @ UVA, FoxSS

First 6 weeks last year the ACC got top billing quite often, IMO.

My point was really why couldn't they have worked it out so there was a FoxSS game SAT night?

Oh yeah, last year there were also prime time SAT games on ESPNews and ESPNU.

http://accfootballrx.blogspot.com/2014_0...chive.html

Yes nole, I do see ESPN as a good partner.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...gs-update/


ESPN is a vehicle the ACC needs to learn to drive.

Name an example in sports or any other business where one part of a supposed partnership not only does little to promote the other partner which would in turn benefit themselves but takes every single opportunity to bash their partner to be detriment of the business agreement they are currently engaged in.

(09-16-2015 07:22 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Yes nole, I do see ESPN as a good partner.

http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releas...gs-update/


ESPN is a vehicle the ACC needs to learn to drive.

What am I supposed to get from that link?

(09-16-2015 08:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Name an example in sports or any other business where one part of a supposed partnership not only does little to promote the other partner which would in turn benefit themselves but takes every single opportunity to bash their partner to be detriment of the business agreement they are currently engaged in.

Wow....almost 24 hours and no examples?



I'm shocked.....shocked I say.


/sarcasm

There are some very vital details that are continuously overlooked. ESPN has put themselves in a bind. Years ago when SEC football was starting its ascent to the top of the college football mountain, ESPN decided to roll the dice and go all in. For the most part, that business decision has paid dividends for them. However, ESPN is in control of another "property" ....the ACC. It has been my opinion for a long time that the reason ESPN seems to devalue the ACC is to not piss off the SEC....their "perceived" cash cow. For many years everyone thought the SEC's main competition was the B1G. It's not and truthfully it never has been. In the purest definition, the SEC's main competition is and always will be the ACC. I understand with conference realignment there's a little more overlap with the conferences than in years past, but nothing exists like the overlap between the ACC and SEC. We're talking almost the entire southeastern United States is split between the two conferences.
ACC-SEC already have 4 primary rivalries between the conferences. That doesn't exist in any of the others. In addition, the TV markets heavily overlap, the recruiting areas overlap, etc. etc. SEC can always say "well we have the toughest conference and blah blah blah", but what happens if the ACC starts winning more of those games? What happens if the ACC starts having more than 5 or 6 teams in the top 25 every week? .....And this would be in the SEC's backyard. What happens if ESPN really starts hyping the ACC? The SEC would no longer be the big dog. They don't want that. They will do whatever it takes to stay at the top of the mountain. For now, ESPN is willing to help them as long as the cash keeps coming in.

(09-18-2015 10:02 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  There are some very vital details that are continuously overlooked. ESPN has put themselves in a bind. Years ago when SEC football was starting its ascent to the top of the college football mountain, ESPN decided to roll the dice and go all in. For the most part, that business decision has paid dividends for them. However, ESPN is in control of another "property" ....the ACC. It has been my opinion for a long time that the reason ESPN seems to devalue the ACC is to not piss off the SEC....their "perceived" cash cow. For many years everyone thought the SEC's main competition was the B1G. It's not and truthfully it never has been. In the purest definition, the SEC's main competition is and always will be the ACC. I understand with conference realignment there's a little more overlap with the conferences than in years past, but nothing exists like the overlap between the ACC and SEC. We're talking almost the entire southeastern United States is split between the two conferences.
ACC-SEC already have 4 primary rivalries between the conferences. That doesn't exist in any of the others. In addition, the TV markets heavily overlap, the recruiting areas overlap, etc. etc. SEC can always say "well we have the toughest conference and blah blah blah", but what happens if the ACC starts winning more of those games? What happens if the ACC starts having more than 5 or 6 teams in the top 25 every week? .....And this would be in the SEC's backyard. What happens if ESPN really starts hyping the ACC? The SEC would no longer be the big dog. They don't want that. They will do whatever it takes to stay at the top of the mountain. For now, ESPN is willing to help them as long as the cash keeps coming in.

I could not disagree more strongly. I don't think the SEC has any interest in having to keep the ACC down. While the ACC can be better than it has been, and the success of certain teams could somewhat affect SEC recruiting, the SEC has fundamental insurmountable advantages over the ACC that will always keep the ACC secondary to the SEC.

The SEC has a substantial advantage financially (even if you equalized media payouts), attendance and passion. That is untouchable by the ACC...the ACC will NEVER have half it's stadiums at over 80k. The ACC is never not going to have teams in the Northeast, or have a third of it's schools as smaller privates, and the ACC is never going to, as a conference, be able to admit the athletes admitted at most SEC schools.

A strong, stable, healthy ACC is always going to be secondary to the SEC. MAYBE there is some outlandish expansion scenario where the ACC adds Penn State, Notre Dame, Texas and Oklahoma, but short of that, the ACC can't threaten the SEC.

Alternatively, in your premise, if the SEC choked the ACC down to the point of instability, the potential of spinning off UNC, Duke, GT, FSU and Clemson into the Big 10, with it's BTN, an incredible footprint and massive SEC-like stadiums and alumni bases in the old Big 10...now you've got something that could very legitimately challenge the dominance of the SEC.

The SEC doesn't want to see anything bad happening to the ACC. The frustrating media situation is on the ACC and ESPN, and I think the greater part on the ACC.

Clemson got the win last night. Let's get out of this weekend with GT, FSU and Clemson in the playoff hunt, a good showing against the Big 10...then we'll see if the ACC gets better treatment. If GT and FSU lose, and the B1G kicks the ACC's butt...this conversation is irrelevant and it simply validates ESPN giving the ACC second class treatment.

I never said the SEC wanted to destroy the ACC. I just said the SEC doesn't want the ACC on par with itself simply because they are direct competitors. My whole conspiracy theory is the SEC is whispering in ESPN's ear behind the scenes. Just listen to the commentators, how ESPN markets the ACC, etc. How much pub did the ACC really get last year even though they beat the SEC on rivalry weekend? All you heard was "oh it only happened because those teams were down...blah blah blah."

As for your comment about the ACC never catching up to the SEC. I don't know about that especially from a TV perspective. Fans in seats...yeah..that's absolutely true. What would an ACC with an elite FSU, Clemson, GT, Miami, Va Tech, Louisville, UNC be and sprinkle in good seasons from someone in the Pitt, BC, Duke, UVA, NC State, Syr, Wake group. Remember when #3 Clemson played #5 FSU a couple of seasons ago? ESPN was all over that. The game was a dud but everyone knew about it. But what would it be like if the ACC had more higher profile games than just one or two a year? Now ESPN would have to go to the SEC and be like " I know we used to showcase your games on Saturday night but we're going to put the ACC on instead". That won't go over well.

(09-17-2015 08:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 08:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Name an example in sports or any other business where one part of a supposed partnership not only does little to promote the other partner which would in turn benefit themselves but takes every single opportunity to bash their partner to be detriment of the business agreement they are currently engaged in.

Wow....almost 24 hours and no examples?



I'm shocked.....shocked I say.


/sarcasm

Oh, you mean you were serious? I had assumed you were just venting.

The relationship between the ACC and ESPN is not a partnership. The ACC has a product to sell, and ESPN is its customer. ESPN is also a customer of the SEC, whose product they also bought. In both cases, ESPN was the successful bidder because they offered the best package of money and exposure in a free market transaction.

Having bought those products, among others, to use in their business, ESPN is obligated to its stakeholders, and Disney in particular, to market those products in the way that benefits their long and short term bottom line.

The nature of the relationship, though, isn't the only one of your premises that I'm not prepared to accept. I realize you are just exaggerating for effect when you say that ESPN "takes every single opportunity to bash their partner to be detriment of the business agreement they are currently engaged in". To be honest, I can't say that I have perceived ESPN's characterizations of ACC football to be egregiously negative. For the most part, I find them pretty accurate most of the time.

I admit that I am not searching for slights against the ACC that may or may not be real. I expect the on air "talent" to express their opinions, just as any media outlet does. I expect to agree with those opinions some of the time and to disagree at other times. But I never expect them to be intentional slights aimed at any conference or team. The ACC may have only one main customer for its media product, but ESPN (and Fox et al) have customers who are fans of the whole gamut of college sports.

Disney is not in the business of offending its customers. But they also realize they can't please everybody all the time. They may simply have made a business decision that you are among those people they aren't going to please.

(09-18-2015 01:28 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-17-2015 08:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-16-2015 08:48 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Name an example in sports or any other business where one part of a supposed partnership not only does little to promote the other partner which would in turn benefit themselves but takes every single opportunity to bash their partner to be detriment of the business agreement they are currently engaged in.

Wow....almost 24 hours and no examples?



I'm shocked.....shocked I say.


/sarcasm

Oh, you mean you were serious? I had assumed you were just venting.

The relationship between the ACC and ESPN is not a partnership. The ACC has a product to sell, and ESPN is its customer. ESPN is also a customer of the SEC, whose product they also bought. In both cases, ESPN was the successful bidder because they offered the best package of money and exposure in a free market transaction.

Having bought those products, among others, to use in their business, ESPN is obligated to its stakeholders, and Disney in particular, to market those products in the way that benefits their long and short term bottom line.

The nature of the relationship, though, isn't the only one of your premises that I'm not prepared to accept. I realize you are just exaggerating for effect when you say that ESPN "takes every single opportunity to bash their partner to be detriment of the business agreement they are currently engaged in". To be honest, I can't say that I have perceived ESPN's characterizations of ACC football to be egregiously negative. For the most part, I find them pretty accurate most of the time.

I admit that I am not searching for slights against the ACC that may or may not be real. I expect the on air "talent" to express their opinions, just as any media outlet does. I expect to agree with those opinions some of the time and to disagree at other times. But I never expect them to be intentional slights aimed at any conference or team. The ACC may have only one main customer for its media product, but ESPN (and Fox et al) have customers who are fans of the whole gamut of college sports.

Disney is not in the business of offending its customers. But they also realize they can't please everybody all the time. They may simply have made a business decision that you are among those people they aren't going to please.

Your analogy about ESPN buying the product is off the mark. If you had said that the ACC had a product to sell and ESPN pays to distribute the product for a profit then you would have been more correct. ESPN isn't the end consumer of our product. ESPN is more Walmart than Joe Smith.


So tell me....is Walmart doing a campaign where they list all the Nabisco products on a wheel and run segments talking about them in a negative manner like ESPN has done with the "ACC Wheel of Destiny"?

Does Target harp on the failure of New Coke years later like ESPN talking heads talk about "Clemsoning" despite the fact that we haven't lost to an unranked team since 2011?

Is Food Lion bashing Coke when Columbia pictures releases a bad movie like ESPN bashed the ACC last week when Maryland lost? One would think that as the company that controls the majority rights to both the ACC and Big 10 ESPN would know what conference a school belongs to, but obviously not.