(12-03-2018 12:38 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 12:25 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 12:08 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 12:04 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 11:49 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Perception is everything in college football. The fact is you have a conference that has five (the most in the P5) private schools who do NOT travel well and to make things even worse, you have other schools like the University of North Carolina, the University of Virginia and the Georgia Institute of Technology as well as the University of Pittsburgh which will not amount to much unless it’s basketball season and you have a conference lagging behind the Big XII and Pac-12 perception wise. For all the ills of those two conferences, I’m still BULLISH on those two and BEARISH on the ACC.

Meh.

FSU was down this year, but I'm bullish on them returning to form sooner rather than later.

As long as FSU and Clemson do what they've always had to do and carry the conference the ACC is fine. It's no different than the Big XII with OU and Texas or the Pac 12 with USC.

I used to be salty at the rest of the ACC posters when they placed the blame for the ACC being in the situation it's currently in solely at the feet of FSU & Clemson but the past few years I've seen it to be true and have accepted the reality. Nobody other than those two schools has the ability nor the incentive to step up and be a player in football.

The ACC has Clemson and Florida State (very questionable at this point but still) but you think you’re better from top to bottom with the Pac-12 and Big XII. Cool story, bro.

Top to bottom it's close between the ACC & PAC. The Big XII has less of a bottom because of four less teams.

But out of the three there's only one conference that's been in every single playoff, and only one that won a championship.

Cool story but still, Clemson is legit. The rest of the ACC is not. Other than that the Pac-12 and Big XII are better from top to bottom.

Nobody that matters cares about top to bottom in an era where championships matter. Congrats......your 5th place team is better than ours. We are in the playoff and you aren't.

(12-02-2018 06:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The ACC has a grand and rich tradition of screwing over teams in the postseason. I only hope Paul Johnson is completely unfiltered when asked about the bowl given that he is retiring. His players already are highly unfiltered on Twitter right now.

TL;DR: **** the ACC, **** the Belk Bowl in particular

Perhaps GT's decision makers should express more of an opinion the next time bowl negotiations are going on.

Even better......GT fans should do what Clemson did years ago and make their traveling fanbase evident.

It's easy to blame the ACC, but the bowl selection process gives the bowls the power. Give the bowls a reason to pick GT.

(12-03-2018 01:41 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Perhaps GT's decision makers should express more of an opinion the next time bowl negotiations are going on.

Even better......GT fans should do what Clemson did years ago and make their traveling fanbase evident.

It's easy to blame the ACC, but the bowl selection process gives the bowls the power. Give the bowls a reason to pick GT.

By what metric would UVA be a better choice? They had a lower attendance this year. They lost 3 of their last 4. They've been to the Belk Bowl before. Their coach isn't retiring. They don't have nearly as much history against the opponent.

Even if you're picking based purely on ticket sales and with total disregard for merit ... it STILL doesn't make sense.

(12-03-2018 01:44 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 01:41 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Perhaps GT's decision makers should express more of an opinion the next time bowl negotiations are going on.

Even better......GT fans should do what Clemson did years ago and make their traveling fanbase evident.

It's easy to blame the ACC, but the bowl selection process gives the bowls the power. Give the bowls a reason to pick GT.

By what metric would UVA be a better choice? They had a lower attendance this year. They lost 3 of their last 4. They've been to the Belk Bowl before. Their coach isn't retiring. They don't have nearly as much history against the opponent.

Even if you're picking based purely on ticket sales and with total disregard for merit ... it STILL doesn't make sense.

Uva also didn't get a home game where a good 45% was wearing orange either.

You yourself commented on the lack of fan support because of the flailing PJ regime.


But that doesn't matter. The GT fans that do go to Detroit this year need to make their presence felt.

(12-03-2018 02:13 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 01:44 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 01:41 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Perhaps GT's decision makers should express more of an opinion the next time bowl negotiations are going on.

Even better......GT fans should do what Clemson did years ago and make their traveling fanbase evident.

It's easy to blame the ACC, but the bowl selection process gives the bowls the power. Give the bowls a reason to pick GT.

By what metric would UVA be a better choice? They had a lower attendance this year. They lost 3 of their last 4. They've been to the Belk Bowl before. Their coach isn't retiring. They don't have nearly as much history against the opponent.

Even if you're picking based purely on ticket sales and with total disregard for merit ... it STILL doesn't make sense.

Uva also didn't get a home game where a good 45% was wearing orange either.

You yourself commented on the lack of fan support because of the flailing PJ regime.


But that doesn't matter. The GT fans that do go to Detroit this year need to make their presence felt.

UVA also didn't have to count their Ohio attendance against their home attendance.

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

The fact of the matter is the Belk Bowl chose the team they felt was going to sell the most tickets to their game . It's on GT to give them a reason to think different next time. Maybe show up in appreciable numbers in your road games outside Clemson. The Belk Bowl is in the business of making money, not screwing the nerds. Y'all earned the reputation you have, either embrace it or change it.

in some ways it looked like ACC wanted to discredit AAC by matching them up with 6-6 schools
P5 conf usually try to matchup 6-6 schools, [Vandy-Baylor]
if you want to keep Detriot vs B-10, VT should have been sent Detriot vs 6-6 Minn

(12-03-2018 02:32 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  The fact of the matter is the Belk Bowl chose the team they felt was going to sell the most tickets to their game . It's on GT to give them a reason to think different next time. Maybe show up in appreciable numbers in your road games outside Clemson. The Belk Bowl is in the business of making money, not screwing the nerds. Y'all earned the reputation you have, either embrace it or change it.

I thought the Belk Bowl was in a "tier" with a few other bowls in the ACC lineup, such that it wouldn't have had the outright choice to make but rather would have to negotiate with the other bowls in the same tier. Or am i wrong?

All the whining in the world about The ACC doesn’t change this fact:

In the CFP era The ACC and SEC are the only two conferences that have been represented in every playoff. Furthermore The ACC and SEC have accounted for 11 CFP births, all other conferences have combined for 9.

If you’re part of a conference that doesn’t get a bid, even if it’s champion goes undefeated, you need to hope this continues. The Big Ten with all its resources continues to under perform on the field. The Big 12 still hasn’t won a playoff game and The PAC is well The PAC, out of sight out of mind.

Bottom line is The ACC and SEC own college football right now. That might change but looking at the competition in other leagues it’s not likely.

(12-03-2018 09:46 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  All the whining in the world about The ACC doesn’t change this fact:

In the CFP era The ACC and SEC are the only two conferences that have been represented in every playoff. Furthermore The ACC and SEC have accounted for 11 CFP births, all other conferences have combined for 9.

If you’re part of a conference that doesn’t get a bid, even if it’s champion goes undefeated, you need to hope this continues. The Big Ten with all its resources continues to under perform on the field. The Big 12 still hasn’t won a playoff game and The PAC is well The PAC, out of sight out of mind.

Bottom line is The ACC and SEC own college football right now. That might change but looking at the competition in other leagues it’s not likely.

Don't agree with any of this.
There have been 4 playoffs and three teams have won those. Alabama, Clemson and Ohio State.

Pounding your chest and rooting for an entire conference is silly. So if Clemson doesn't win it all this year are you going to defend your conference for making all 5 playoffs and only having 1 title to show for it? Are you still bragging about Clemson beating Ohio States a** 31-0 even though Louisville was sitting at home? Are you defending that beating Florida State took from Oregon? You know, the Oregon team Ohio State demolished?

Let the conference pride go and simply cheer for your team!

^^ Conference "chest bumping" is for fans of middle to bottom tier football programs. For every Ohio State fans who say screw conference pride there is an Illinois fan sayin "Big 10 #1, baby! Toughest conference in America".

(12-03-2018 09:46 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  All the whining in the world about The ACC doesn’t change this fact:

In the CFP era The ACC and SEC are the only two conferences that have been represented in every playoff. Furthermore The ACC and SEC have accounted for 11 CFP births, all other conferences have combined for 9.

If you’re part of a conference that doesn’t get a bid, even if it’s champion goes undefeated, you need to hope this continues. The Big Ten with all its resources continues to under perform on the field. The Big 12 still hasn’t won a playoff game and The PAC is well The PAC, out of sight out of mind.

Bottom line is The ACC and SEC own college football right now. That might change but looking at the competition in other leagues it’s not likely.

I don't think that putting a team in the playoffs is indicative of conference strength. It tells us how good that team is. When UNLV won the 1990 basketball title, that didn't mean that the Big West was a major conference that year. It wasn't, UNLV was just really good.

By the CM computer rankings, the ACC was bad this year, way behind the Big 12 and B1G in conference strength, at the same level as the PAC, which was bad too. There's really no way to equate the SEC and ACC, the SEC has been far better.

Maybe bowl season will change that? We'll see.

(12-03-2018 09:46 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  All the whining in the world about The ACC doesn’t change this fact:

In the CFP era The ACC and SEC are the only two conferences that have been represented in every playoff. Furthermore The ACC and SEC have accounted for 11 CFP births, all other conferences have combined for 9.

If you’re part of a conference that doesn’t get a bid, even if it’s champion goes undefeated, you need to hope this continues. The Big Ten with all its resources continues to under perform on the field. The Big 12 still hasn’t won a playoff game and The PAC is well The PAC, out of sight out of mind.

Bottom line is The ACC and SEC own college football right now. That might change but looking at the competition in other leagues it’s not likely.

I'd be more inclined to say that Alabama and Clemson own college football or the SEC and Clemson own college football.

But all of these options are still better than going to the Potato Bowl like they used to.

(12-02-2018 10:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 08:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  The ACC's bowl situation is a function of several things. First, they were arguably the weakest P5 conference this year. They have five teams that are small private schools with small fan bases who have no history of traveling well. They had 11 eligible teams, the most in FBS, all of which went somewhere, including all five of those small privates. They only had one team in the NY6, and their contract bowl (Orange) hosted a semifinal this year.

All in all, they did pretty well bowl-wise when you look at the big picture.

Don't put all the small traveling fanbase blame on just the private schools. There's only four ACC schools that travel particularly well to begin with and two of them aren't bowl eligible.


The fact that the majority of our conference's schools don't travel well is the primary reason we have bowls in an open air baseball stadium in NYC, a third world country like Detroit, an interstate rest stop like Shreveport, and a conditional bid in the Birmingham ghetto.

(12-03-2018 02:00 PM)whittx Wrote:  But all of these options are still better than going to the Potato Bowl like they used to.

(12-02-2018 10:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 08:50 PM)ken d Wrote:  The ACC's bowl situation is a function of several things. First, they were arguably the weakest P5 conference this year. They have five teams that are small private schools with small fan bases who have no history of traveling well. They had 11 eligible teams, the most in FBS, all of which went somewhere, including all five of those small privates. They only had one team in the NY6, and their contract bowl (Orange) hosted a semifinal this year.

All in all, they did pretty well bowl-wise when you look at the big picture.

Don't put all the small traveling fanbase blame on just the private schools. There's only four ACC schools that travel particularly well to begin with and two of them aren't bowl eligible.


The fact that the majority of our conference's schools don't travel well is the primary reason we have bowls in an open air baseball stadium in NYC, a third world country like Detroit, an interstate rest stop like Shreveport, and a conditional bid in the Birmingham ghetto.

[YNOT hides in corner.]

(12-03-2018 01:41 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 06:57 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  The ACC has a grand and rich tradition of screwing over teams in the postseason. I only hope Paul Johnson is completely unfiltered when asked about the bowl given that he is retiring. His players already are highly unfiltered on Twitter right now.

TL;DR: **** the ACC, **** the Belk Bowl in particular

Perhaps GT's decision makers should express more of an opinion the next time bowl negotiations are going on.

Even better......GT fans should do what Clemson did years ago and make their traveling fanbase evident.

It's easy to blame the ACC, but the bowl selection process gives the bowls the power. Give the bowls a reason to pick GT.

I remember in the early 80's when Clemson was intentionally trying to prove to the bowls the benefit of inviting them. Their fans carried $2 bills to the game with orange tiger paws stamped on them and spent them everywhere. They wanted to show the Jacksonville Chamber of Commerce the profitability in inviting Clemson. It worked. But somehow I don't see Tech showing their presence in Detroit, and I'm not sure they would even want to. That game is going to be a very hard sell to their fan base.

(12-03-2018 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But somehow I don't see Tech showing their presence in Detroit, and I'm not sure they would even want to. That game is going to be a very hard sell to their fan base.

Yes, you're just not going to convince a southern fan base to travel up to the icy north for a bowl game. They want to be warm for Christmas, the one possible exception being to New York, as that city has an appeal all its own for various reasons.

Detroit may have a revitalized downtown but it ain't New York.

(12-03-2018 07:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But somehow I don't see Tech showing their presence in Detroit, and I'm not sure they would even want to. That game is going to be a very hard sell to their fan base.

Yes, you're just not going to convince a southern fan base to travel up to the icy north for a bowl game. They want to be warm for Christmas, the one possible exception being to New York, as that city has an appeal all its own for various reasons.

Detroit may have a revitalized downtown but it ain't New York.

Revitalized huh? Downtown Birmingham has been similarly revitalized. I remember those days of parking at Legion Field. Few spots meant you parked in peoples yards. The owners used to tell us we could park for $10 but nothing would be missing after the game if they got $20. I bet those rates have doubled. Is that what you meant by revitalized. If so then maybe Detroit has been revitalized.

(12-03-2018 07:56 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2018 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  But somehow I don't see Tech showing their presence in Detroit, and I'm not sure they would even want to. That game is going to be a very hard sell to their fan base.

Yes, you're just not going to convince a southern fan base to travel up to the icy north for a bowl game. They want to be warm for Christmas, the one possible exception being to New York, as that city has an appeal all its own for various reasons.

Detroit may have a revitalized downtown but it ain't New York.

Revitalized huh? Downtown Birmingham has been similarly revitalized. I remember those days of parking at Legion Field. Few spots meant you parked in peoples yards. The owners used to tell us we could park for $10 but nothing would be missing after the game if they got $20. I bet those rates have doubled. Is that what you meant by revitalized. If so then maybe Detroit has been revitalized.

frankly Detroit is an awful place for a bowl game unless you are the Big Ten or the MAC and the former has no desire to meet the later in a bowl game.

The ACC Has a bowl perception problem. The private schools and the academic minded state schools (GT, UNC, UVA) all have reputations for poor bowl attendance and when your bowl attendance is lousy you get stuck in Detroit.