As I stated earlier if you are going to make a list of teams that aren't carrying their weight BC isn't even close to the top. That spot is clearly held by NC State by a wide margin.

(03-17-2016 12:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think BC's football success came BECAUSE Clemson and Florida State were down. All that did was open the door for back-to-back Atlantic Division crowns. However, ignoring that for a moment, BC also had a great run of consecutive bowl wins from 2000 to 2007 which included wins over Arizona St, Georgia, Boise St and Michigan St. When they were good they were REAL good. Not National Champion good, but certainly Top 25 caliber.

9 straight years of 8 to 11 wins (across two conferences) is nothing to sneeze at.

(03-17-2016 12:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I don't think BC's football success came BECAUSE Clemson and Florida State were down. All that did was open the door for back-to-back Atlantic Division crowns. However, ignoring that for a moment, BC also had a great run of consecutive bowl wins from 2000 to 2007 which included wins over Arizona St, Georgia, Boise St and Michigan St. When they were good they were REAL good. Not National Champion good, but certainly Top 25 caliber.

Those came at a time Cuse was declining...it will be interesting to see if BC can rise at the same time Cuse is rising. Yes, I expect Cuse to get much better under Babers.

Boston College belongs in The Colonial Athletic Association.

(03-17-2016 03:37 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:   Boston College belongs in The Colonial Athletic Association.

The CAA already has a Boston school.

(03-17-2016 10:53 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-14-2016 03:44 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  So BC for Cincinnati? It would be an improvement athletically & not a bad switch academically either.

I second this motion!

Sorry Wilkie but I don't. I'd love to see UC a part of the conference but not to replace BC.

I have no issues with BC for they just need better people in administration. Maybe hire a AD who knows what going on etc. Till then it will always be an up hill battle.

Just to let my feelings known, I think there are a few schools that they need to talk with about getting serious about football. We all that's what drives the money and we have the pieces available to where we should be much better all around. Clemson, FSU, and to an extent Louisville aren't going to be able to carry the weight of the conference. I like the coaching hires this season and that's a start. I'm really hoping VT and Miami bounce back in a big way this year. Top 25 or bust in my mind.

All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

The ACC has bottom feeders......all conferences do.

What the ACC needs is more elite football programs. THAT is what it lacks and ails it.

(03-19-2016 04:50 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

The ACC has bottom feeders......all conferences do.

What the ACC needs is more elite football programs. THAT is what it lacks and ails it.

Exactly, we need like 5-6 consistent top 25 teams.

(03-19-2016 04:50 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

The ACC has bottom feeders......all conferences do.

What the ACC needs is more elite football programs. THAT is what it lacks and ails it.

Dear lord...bottomfeeders???

I am not sure why some of you just simply ignore data to form your conclusions. More specifically, why do some of you continue to refer to BC (at least for FB) as a bottom feeder when the W-L record clearly says otherwise.

What is it? Is it a Catholic thing?? I am at a loss.

For the record, BC has played 11 seasons in the ACC. Below is its cumulative W-L record (8 winning seasons out of 11) for that period of time, compared to other ACC teams. (For compassion purposes, I used the OBE data for SU, Pitt, and L'Vlle during this 11 year period.) Here are the results:

ACC CUMULATIVE W-L FOR 2005-2015

#1 Virginia Tech 103-44
#2 Clemson 103-46
#3 FSU 94-41
#4 Louisville 90-49
#5 Georgia Tech 84-60
#6 Miami 80-59
#7 Boston College 77-64
#8 Pitt 76-63
#9 NC State 68-70
#10 Wake Forest 61-75
#11 UNC 59-64
#12 UVA 56-78
#13 Duke 50-86
#14 Syracuse 49-85

So, somebody tell me again, just who have been the bottom feeders in the ACC?

(03-19-2016 04:50 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

The ACC has bottom feeders......all conferences do.

What the ACC needs is more elite football programs. THAT is what it lacks and ails it.

So another way of looking at this is, of all the bottom feeders in football, BC is arguably the best and they are ACC!

Sec worst = uk
Big12 worst= Kansas
B1G worst = Rutgers
Pac12 worst= Washington st

I think BC is better than all of them.

(03-19-2016 05:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 04:50 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

The ACC has bottom feeders......all conferences do.

What the ACC needs is more elite football programs. THAT is what it lacks and ails it.

Dear lord...bottomfeeders???

I am not sure why some of you just simply ignore data to form your conclusions. More specifically, why do some of you continue to refer to BC (at least for FB) as a bottom feeder when the W-L record clearly says otherwise.

What is it? Is it a Catholic thing?? I am at a loss.

For the record, BC has played 11 seasons in the ACC. Below is its cumulative W-L record (8 winning seasons out of 11) for that period of time, compared to other ACC teams. (For compassion purposes, I used the OBE data for SU, Pitt, and L'Vlle during this 11 year period.) Here are the results:

ACC CUMULATIVE W-L FOR 2005-2015

#1 Virginia Tech 103-44
#2 Clemson 103-46
#3 FSU 94-41
#4 Louisville 90-49
#5 Georgia Tech 84-60
#6 Miami 80-59
#7 Boston College 77-64
#8 Pitt 76-63
#9 NC State 68-70
#10 Wake Forest 61-75
#11 UNC 59-64
#12 UVA 56-78
#13 Duke 50-86
#14 Syracuse 49-85

So, somebody tell me again, just who have been the bottom feeders in the ACC?

I never stated BC was a bottom feeder or who I felt was.


I did state the ACC doesn't have enough elite teams.

(03-19-2016 05:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 04:50 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 03:16 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  All conferences have to have bottom feeders. Wins and Losses are a zero sum gain in conference. I agree that teams need to improve OOC, but ultimately, to support a few elite teams there must be a strong middle pack and a enough bottom feeders to prop up the middle and elites. You cannot have the winners without losers.

The ACC has bottom feeders......all conferences do.

What the ACC needs is more elite football programs. THAT is what it lacks and ails it.

Dear lord...bottomfeeders???

I am not sure why some of you just simply ignore data to form your conclusions. More specifically, why do some of you continue to refer to BC (at least for FB) as a bottom feeder when the W-L record clearly says otherwise.

What is it? Is it a Catholic thing?? I am at a loss.

For the record, BC has played 11 seasons in the ACC. Below is its cumulative W-L record (8 winning seasons out of 11) for that period of time, compared to other ACC teams. (For compassion purposes, I used the OBE data for SU, Pitt, and L'Vlle during this 11 year period.) Here are the results:

ACC CUMULATIVE W-L FOR 2005-2015

#1 Virginia Tech 103-44
#2 Clemson 103-46
#3 FSU 94-41
#4 Louisville 90-49
#5 Georgia Tech 84-60
#6 Miami 80-59
#7 Boston College 77-64
#8 Pitt 76-63
#9 NC State 68-70
#10 Wake Forest 61-75
#11 UNC 59-64
#12 UVA 56-78
#13 Duke 50-86
#14 Syracuse 49-85

So, somebody tell me again, just who have been the bottom feeders in the ACC?

Lighten up, Francis. My point was that the ACC isn't going to throw any team out, not who is/is not a bottom feeder.

BC just has to get its $hit together!

I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

I believe everybody is talking about your current downward trends!

(03-20-2016 06:46 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 02:10 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 01:06 PM)Ewglenn Wrote:  I like BC but there are quite a few schools not bringing much to this conference.

But what do you define as "not bringing much to this conference" - at least for FB? As far as BC is concerned, they are in the top half of the conference in terms of W-L's since they have been in the ACC.

I believe everybody is talking about your current downward trends!

BC just needs to win....they for the most part win in Football and has been decent in Basketball